Saltar para: Posts [1], Pesquisa e Arquivos [2]


Este livro é que devia ser (e muito) vendido na "Festa do Avante!"

20.09.18

jekyll_island.jpg

[Em vez do tão publicitado livro de um activista luso-angolano, que é obviamente uma tentativa da parte da editora - de fachada do Bloco de Esquerda? - "Tinta da China" de ajudar a derrubar o governo angolano, por estar este agora aliado com o chinês.]

 

Foi escrito há já 24 anos. Sendo que, se havia pouca gente que, na altura, dominasse bem a língua inglesa no nosso país, hoje em dia já todos os elementos das novas gerações têm a obrigação de o fazer. Mas, como foi escrito por um cristão e capitalista - e, como se de um culto se tratasse, devem os militantes do PCP, só por isso, recusar- -se a ler tal livro - hão-de ficar eternamente os adeptos da ideologia comunista no nosso país ignorantes sobre o que realmente se passou...

As seguintes citações são tiradas deste livro de G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island - e foram "copiadas-coladas" desta página (da qual também aproveito para copiar título e imagens).

 

 

Who financed Lenin and Trotsky?



Page 123:

The top Communist leaders have never been as hostile to their counterparts in the West, as the rhetoric suggests. They are quite friendly to the world's leading financiers and have worked closely with them, when it suits their purposes. As we shall see in the following section, the Bolshevik revolution actually was financed by wealthy financiers in London and New York. Lenin and Trotsky were on the closest of terms with these moneyed interests both before and after the Revolution. Those hidden liaisons have continued to this day and occasionally pop to the surface, when we discover a David Rockefeller holding confidential meetings with a Mikhail Gorbachev in the absence of government sponsorship or diplomatic purpose.

Pages 263-267:

Chapter 13 - MASQUERADE IN MOSCOW

One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars. As we shall see, however, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United States. Furthermore we shall see, that the Rothschild Formula played a major role in shaping these events.

This amazing story begins with the war between Russia and Japan in 1904. Jacob Schiff, who was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had raised the capital for large war loans to Japan. It was due to this funding that the Japanese were able to launch a stunning attack against the Russians at Port Arthur and the following year to virtually decimate the Russian fleet. In 1905 the Mikado awarded Jacob Schiff a medal, the Second Order of the Treasure of Japan, in recognition of his important role in that campaign.

 

jacobschiff.jpg

 

Jacob Schiff was head of the New York
investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He
was one of the principal backers of the
Bolshevik revolution and personally
financed Trotsky's trip from New York
to Russia. He was a major contributor
to Woodrow Wilson's presidential
campaign and an advocate for passage
of the Federal Reserve Act. (p. 210)

 

 

During the two years of hostilities thousands of Russian soldiers and sailors were taken as prisoners. Sources outside of Russia, which were hostile to the Tsarist regime, paid for the printing of Marxist propaganda and had it delivered to the prison camps. Russian-speaking revolutionaries were trained in New York and sent to distribute the pamphlets among the prisoners and to indoctrinate them into rebellion against their own government. When the war was ended, these officers and enlisted men returned home to become virtual seeds of treason against the Tsar. They were to play a major role a few years later in creating mutiny among the military during the Communist takeover of Russia.

TROTSKY WAS A MULTIPLE AGENT

One of the best known Russian revolutionaries at that time was Leon Trotsky. In January of 1916 Trotsky was expelled from France and came to the United States. It has been claimed that his expenses were paid by Jacob Schiff. There is no documentation to substantiate that claim, but the circumstantial evidence does point to a wealthy donor in New York. He remained for several months, while writing for a Russian socialist paper, the Novy Mir (New World) and giving revolutionary speeches at mass meetings in New York City. According to Trotsky himself, on many occasions a chauffeured limousine was placed at his service by a wealthy friend, identified as Dr. M. In his book, My Life, Trotsky wrote:

 

The doctor's wife took my wife and the boys out driving and was very kind to them. But she was a mere mortal, whereas the chauffeur was a magician, a titan, a superman! With the wave of his hand he made the machine obey his slightest command. To sit beside him was the supreme delight. When they went into a tea room, the boys would anxiously demand of their mother, "Why doesn't the chauffeur come in?" (Leon Trotsky: My Life, New York publisher: Scribner's, 1930, p. 277)

 

It must have been a curious sight to see the family of the great socialist radical, defender of the working class, enemy of capitalism, enjoying the pleasures of tea rooms and chauffeurs, the very symbols of capitalist luxury.

On March 23, 1917 a mass meeting was held at Carnegie Hall to celebrate the abdication of Nicolas II, which meant the overthrow of Tsarist rule in Russia. Thousands of socialists, Marxists, nihilists and anarchists attended to cheer the event. The following day there was published on page two of the New York Times a telegram from Jacob Schiff, which had been read to this audience. He expressed regrets, that he could not attend and then described the successful Russian revolution as "...what we had hoped and striven for these long years". ('Mayor Calls Pacifists Traitors', The New York Times, March 24, 1917, p. 2)

In the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal-American Schiff's grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia. (To appraise Schiff's motives for supporting the Bolsheviks, we must remember, that he was a Jew and that Russian Jews had been persecuted under the Tsarist regime. Consequently the Jewish community in America was inclined to support any movement, which sought to topple the Russian government and the Bolsheviks were excellent candidates for the task. As we shall see further along, however, there were also strong financial incentives for Wall Street firms, such as Kuhn, Loeb and Company, of which Schiff was a senior partner, to see the old regime fall into the hands of revolutionaries, who would agree to grant lucrative business concessions in the future in return for financial support today.)

When Trotsky returned to Petrograd in May of 1917 to organize the Bolshevik phase of the Russian Revolution, he carried $10,000 for travel expenses, a generously ample fund considering the value of the dollar at that time. Trotsky was arrested by Canadian and British naval personnel, when the ship, on which he was traveling, the S.S. Kristianiafjord, put in at Halifax. The money in his possession is now a matter of official record. The source of that money has been the focus of much speculation, but the evidence strongly suggests, that its origin was the German government. It was a sound investment.

Trotsky was not arrested on a whim. He was recognized as a threat to the best interests of England, Canada's mother country in the British Commonwealth. Russia was an ally of England in the First World War, which then was raging in Europe. Anything, that would weaken Russia - and that certainly included internal revolution - would be, in effect, to strengthen Germany and weaken England. In New York on the night before his departure Trotsky had given a speech, in which he said: "I am going back to Russia to overthrow the provisional government and stop the war with Germany." (A full report on this meeting had been submitted to the U.S. Military Intelligence. See Senate Document No. 62, 66th Congress, Report and Hearings of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 1919, Vol. II, p. 2680.) Trotsky therefore represented a real threat to England's war effort. He was arrested as a German agent and taken as a prisoner of war.

With this in mind we can appreciate the great strength of those mysterious forces both in England and the United States, that intervened on Trotsky's behalf. Immediately telegrams began to come into Halifax from such divergent sources, as an obscure attorney in New York City, from the Canadian Deputy Postmaster-General and even from a high-ranking British military officer, all inquiring into Trotsky's situation and urging his immediate release. The head of the British Secret Service in America at the time was Sir William Wiseman, who, as fate would have it, occupied the apartment directly above the apartment of Edward Mandell House and who had become fast friends with him. House advised Wiseman, that President Wilson wished to have Trotsky released. Wiseman advised his government and the British Admiralty issued orders on April 21st, that Trotsky was to be sent on his way. ('Why Did We Let Trotsky Go? How Canada Lost an Opportunity to Shorten the War', MacLean's magazine, Canada, June 1919. Also see Martin, pp. 163-164.) It was a fateful decision, that would affect not only the outcome of the war, but the future of the entire world.

It would be a mistake to conclude, that Jacob Schiff and Germany were the only players in this drama. Trotsky could not have gone even as far as Halifax without having been granted an American passport and this was accomplished by the personal intervention of President Wilson. Professor Antony Sutton says:

 

President Woodrow Wilson was the fairy godmother, who provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to "carry forward" the revolution... At the same time careful State Department bureaucrats, concerned about such revolutionaries entering Russia, were unilaterally attempting to tighten up passport procedures. (Antony C. Sutton, Ph. D.: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, published by Arlington House in New Rochelle, NY, 1974, p. 25)

 

And there were others, as well. In 1911 the St. Louis Dispatch published a cartoon by a Bolshevik named Robert Minor. Minor was later to be arrested in Tsarist Russia for revolutionary activities and in fact was himself bankrolled by famous Wall Street financiers. Since we may safely assume, that he knew his topic well, his cartoon is of great historical importance. It portrays Karl Marx with a book entitled Socialism under his arm, standing amid a cheering crowd on Wall Street. Gathered around and greeting him with enthusiastic handshakes are characters in silk hats identified as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, Morgan partner George W. Perkins and Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

 

dee-lighted.jpg

This cartoon by Robert Minor appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1911. It shows Karl Marx surrounded by enthusiastic Wall Street financiers: Morgan partner George Perkins, J.P. Morgan, John Ryan of National City Bank, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Immediately behind Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party. (p. 211)

 

 

What emerges from this sampling of events is a clear pattern of strong support for Bolshevism coming from the highest financial and political power centers in the United States; from men, who supposedly were "capitalists" and who according to conventional wisdom should have been the mortal enemies of socialism and communism.

Nor was this phenomenon confined to the United States. Trotsky in his book My Life tells of a British financier, who in 1907 gave him a "large loan" to be repaid after the overthrow of the Tsar. Arsene de Goulevitch, who witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution firsthand, has identified both the name of the financier and the amount of the loan. "In private interviews", he said, "I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord [Alfred] Milner in financing the Russian Revolution... The financier just mentioned was by no means alone among the British to support the Russian revolution with large financial donations." Another name specifically mentioned by de Goulevitch was that of Sir George Buchanan, the British Ambassador to Russia at the time. (See Arsene de Goulevitch: Czarism and Revolution, published by Omni Publications in Hawthorne, California, no date; rpt. from 1962 French edition, pp. 224, 230)

It was one thing for Americans to undermine Tsarist Russia and thus indirectly help Germany in the war, because American were not then into it, but for British citizens to do so was tantamount to treason. To understand, what higher loyalty compelled these men to betray their battlefield ally and to sacrifice the blood of their own countrymen, we must take a look at the unique organization, to which they belonged.

Pages 274-277:

ROUND TABLE AGENTS IN RUSSIA

In Russia prior to and during the revolution there were many local observers, tourists and newsmen, who reported, that British and American agents were everywhere, particularly in Petrograd, providing money for insurrection. One report said, for example, that British agents were seen handing out 25-rouble notes to the men at the Pavlovski regiment just a few hours, before it mutinied against its officers and sided with the revolution. The subsequent publication of various memoirs and documents made it clear, that this funding was provided by Milner and channeled through Sir George Buchanan, who was the British Ambassador to Russia at the time. (See de Goulevitch, p. 230) It was a repeat of the ploy, that had worked so well for the cabal many times in the past. Round Table members were once again working both sides of the conflict to weaken and topple a target government. Tsar Nicholas had every reason to believe, that since the British were Russia's allies in the war against Germany, British officials would be the last persons on Earth to conspire against him. Yet the British Ambassador himself represented the hidden group, which was financing the regime's downfall.

The Round Table Agents from America did not have the advantage of using the diplomatic service as cover and therefore had to be considerably more ingenious. They came not as diplomats or even as interested businessmen, but disguised as Red Cross officials on a humanitarian mission. The group consisted almost entirely of financiers, lawyers and accountants from New York banks and investment houses. They simply had overpowered the American Red Cross organization with large contributions and in effect purchased a franchise to operate in its name. Professor Sutton tells us:

 

The 1910 [Red Cross] fund-raising campaign for $2 million, for example, was successful only, because it was supported by these wealthy residents of New York City. J.P. Morgan himself contributed $100,000... Henry P. Davison [a Morgan partner] was chairman of the 1910 New York Fund-Raising Committee and later became chairman of the War Council of the American Red Cross... The Red Cross was unable to cope with the demands of World War I, and in effect was taken over by these New York bankers. (Sutton: Revolution, p. 72)

 

For the duration of the war the Red Cross had been made nominally a part of the armed forces and subject to orders from the proper military authorities. It was not clear, who these authorities were and in fact there were never any orders, but the arrangement made it possible for the participants to receive military commissions and wear the uniform of American army officers. The entire expense of the Red Cross Mission in Russia, including the purchase of uniforms, was paid for by the man, who was appointed by President Wilson to become its head, "Colonel" William Boyce Thompson.

Thompson was a classical specimen of the Round Table network. Having begun his career as a speculator in copper mines, he soon moved into the world of high finance. He:

 

  • refinanced the American Woolen Company and the Tobacco Products Company;
  • launched the Cuban Cane Sugar Company;
  • purchased controlling interest in the Pierce Arrow Motor Car Company;
  • organized the Submarine Boat Corporation and the Wright-Martin Aeroplane Company;
  • became a director of the Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railway, the Magma Arizona Railroad and the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company;
  • was one of the heaviest stockholders in the Chase National Bank;
  • was the agent for J.P. Morgan's British securities operation;
  • became the first full-time director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most important bank in the Federal Reserve System;
  • and of course contributed a quarter-million dollars to the Red Cross.

 

When Thompson arrived in Russia, he made it clear, that he was not your typical Red Cross representative. According to Hermann Hagedorn, Thompson's biographer:

 

He deliberately created the kind of setting, which would be expected of an American magnate: established himself in a suite in the Hotel de l'Europe, bought a French limousine, went dutifully to receptions and teas and evinced an interest in objects of art. Society and the diplomats, noting that here was a man of parts and power, began to flock about him. He was entertained at the embassies, at the houses of Kerensky's ministers. It was discovered, that he was a collector and those with antiques to sell fluttered around him offering him miniatures, Dresden china, tapestries, even a palace or two. (Hermann Hagedorn: The Magnate: William Boyce Thompson and His Time, published by Reynal & Hitchcock, New York, 1935, pp. 192-93)

 

When Thompson attended the opera, he was given the imperial box. People on the street called him the American Tsar. And it is not surprising, that according to George Kennan, "He was viewed by the Kerensky authorities as the 'real' ambassador of the United States." (George F. Kennan: Russia Leaves the War: Soviet-American Relations, 1917-1920 published by Princeton University Press in Princeton, NJ, 1956, p. 60)

It is now a matter of record, that Thompson syndicated the purchase on Wall Street of Russian bonds in the amount of ten million roubles. (Hagedorn, p. 192) In addition, he gave over two million roubles to Aleksandr Kerensky for propaganda purposes inside Russia and with J.P. Morgan gave the rouble equivalent of one million dollars to the Bolsheviks for the spreading of revolutionary propaganda outside of Russia, particularly in Germany and Austria. (Sutton: Revolution, pp. 83, 91.) It was the agitation made possible by this funding, that led to the abortive German Spartacus Revolt of 1918. (See article 'W.B. Thompson, Red Cross Donor, Believes Party Misrepresented' in the Washington Post of Feb. 2, 1918) A photograph of the cablegram from Morgan to Thompson advising, that the money had been transferred to the National City Bank branch in Petrograd, is included in this book.

AN OBJECT LESSON IN SOUTH AFRICA

At first it may seem incongruous, that the Morgan group would provide funding for both Kerensky and Lenin. These men may have both been socialist revolutionaries, but they were miles apart in their plans for the future and in fact were bitter competitors for control of the new government. But the tactic of funding both sides in a political contest by then had been refined by members of the Round Table into a fine art. A stunning example of this occurred in South Africa during the outset of the Boer War in 1899.

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

colocado por Fernando Negro às 00:47

Como o ditador Estaline descarrilou os planos da NOM para a Rússia

24.08.18

estaline.jpg

[Um comentário que fiz ontem e hoje, em várias partes, no blogue da historiadora Raquel Varela, à sua última colocação "Trotsky poderia ter sido Stalin?". Quem se quiser informar sobre o que foi a "Nova Política Económica" de Lenine, pode começar pela boa página na Wikipedia sobre o assunto.]

 

Já muita gente bem informada sabe, hoje em dia, que Trotsky era um agente dos interesses capitalistas ocidentais, de Wall Street e afins – que, ao contrário do Estaline, não estavam interessados na implementação de um verdadeiro regime socialista (seja ele nacionalista ou internacionalista) na Rússia.

(Eu, que digo isto, não sou estalinista, ou sequer comunista… Sou apenas um “socialista libertário” que está bem informado, através de fontes fidedignas, sobre o que se passa nos bastidores políticos – e que não aprova as acções de nenhum dos intervenientes em causa.)

Todas as seguintes citações, em inglês, são tiradas de um livro – http://www .reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-ch2.html – escrito por um conhecido historiador e economista britânico – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_ C._Sutton – cujas obras são até recomendadas (como uma forma de se gabarem tais interesses do que fizeram) por um ex-Conselheiro de Segurança Nacional dos EUA chamado Zbigniew Brzezinski.

1) Quem é que suportava os inexplicáveis altos custos de vida de Trotsky, quando este vivia em Nova Iorque?

«How did Trotsky, who knew only German and Russian, survive in capitalist America? According to his autobiography, My Life, “My only profession in New York was that of a revolutionary socialist.” In other words, Trotsky wrote occasional articles for Novy Mir, the New York Russian socialist journal. Yet we know that the Trotsky family apartment in New York had a refrigerator and a telephone, and, according to Trotsky, that the family occasionally traveled in a chauffeured limousine. This mode of living puzzled the two young Trotsky boys. When they went into a tearoom, the boys would anxiously demand of their mother, “Why doesn’t the chauffeur come in?”1 The stylish living standard is also at odds with Trotsky’s reported income. The only funds that Trotsky admits receiving in 1916 and 1917 are $310, and, said Trotsky, “I distributed the $310 among five emigrants who were returning to Russia.” Yet Trotsky had paid for a first-class cell in Spain, the Trotsky family had traveled across Europe to the United States, they had acquired an excellent apartment in New York — paying rent three months in advance — and they had use of a chauffeured limousine. All this on the earnings of an impoverished revolutionary for a few articles for the low-circulation Russian-language newspaper Nashe Slovo in Paris and Novy Mir in New York! Joseph Nedava estimates Trotsky’s 1917 income at $12.00 per week, “supplemented by some lecture fees.”2 Trotsky was in New York in 1917 for three months, from January to March, so that makes $144.00 in income from Novy Mir and, say, another $100.00 in lecture fees, for a total of $244.00. Of this $244.00 Trotsky was able to give away $310.00 to his friends, pay for the New York apartment, provide for his family — and find the $10,000 that was taken from him in April 1917 by Canadian authorities in Halifax. Trotsky claims that those who said he had other sources of income are “slanderers” spreading “stupid calumnies” and “lies,” but unless Trotsky was playing the horses at the Jamaica racetrack, it can’t be done. Obviously Trotsky had an unreported source of income.»

2) Sabe como é que o Trotsky conseguiu entrar na Rússia para fazer a Revolução Bolchevique? Com um passaporte americano! Que lhe foi dado por intervenção do presidente estadunidense Woodrow Wilson.

«This American passport was accompanied by a Russian entry permit and a British transit visa. Jennings C. Wise, in ‘Woodrow Wilson: Disciple of Revolution,’ makes the pertinent comment, “Historians must never forget that Woodrow Wilson, despite the efforts of the British police, made it possible for Leon Trotsky to enter Russia with an American passport.”»

3) Sabe quem é que interveio para que Trotsky fosse libertado, quando este foi detido pelas autoridades canadianas a caminho de fazer a Revolução na Rússia? O governo britânico.

«However, the next day, April 21, Gwatkin wrote Coulter: “Our friends the Russian socialists are to be released; and arrangements are being made for their passage to Europe.” The order to Makins for Trotsky’s release originated in the Admiralty, London. Coulter acknowledged the information, “which will please our New York correspondents immensely.”»

E, não é só relativamente ao Trotsky que há provas da existência de (muito importantes) ajudas dos capitalistas ocidentais. É a mesma história de que com o Lenine (leia o livro em causa: http://www.reformation.org/wall-st- bolshevik-rev.html). E, até o próprio Marx já foi denunciado numa televisão estatal russa, há poucos anos, como um agente da coroa britânica (https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VbI-t-HUuA).

Existem muito boas explicações para tudo isto. E, isso é outra história, que demora muito tempo a explicar…

Mas, sobre o Estaline,

Obviamente que este e outros membros das cúpulas dirigentes terão, a dada altura, ficado a saber de como é que o Trotsky tinha conseguido entrar na Rússia. E, como tal, terão achado tal coisa suspeita e mandado elementos da polícia secreta investigar. E, tendo a polícia secreta certamente feito o seu trabalho, terão conseguido esta e o Estaline perceber de que realmente se tinha tratado então a Revolução Bolchevique.

O Estaline não matou “camaradas” dirigentes e revolucionários, um atrás de outro, porque queria o poder para ele. Estaline fê-lo certamente porque, a partir de dada altura, percebeu que uma grande parte destes eram na verdade agentes de interesses capitalistas estrangeiros (i.e. traidores) que não queriam nenhum real Socialismo na Rússia (certamente membros da Maçonaria e afins).

Leia o que tem a dizer sobre isto o actual coronel dos serviços secretos militares russos, Daniel Estulin: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=trotsky %20from%3AEstulinDaniel

O que o Trotsky realmente queria, é o que querem os seus verdadeiros discípulos de hoje em dia, como o falso esquerdista Bloco de Esquerda. Usar o Socialismo como mera “cenoura” metafórica que se pendura em frente a um burro para o fazer andar, mas que nunca irá tal burro conseguir alcançar.

O Trotsky, como todos sabem, era suposto ser o sucessor do Lenine.

E, o que é que andou o Lenine a fazer até aos seus últimos dias de vida?

A implementar a “Nova Política Económica”, que adoptava princípios capitalistas – e que, de acordo com o próprio, era uma política “importante” e para ser implementada a “longo prazo”.

Com a interferência de Estaline, acabou-se com tal política e iniciou-se então uma sociedade verdadeiramente socialista – que viria a fazer da URSS a união socialista que conhecemos – tendo Estaline, com isto, provado que Lenine estava errado (ou estava a mentir) e que não havia necessidade alguma da NPE para fazer a Rússia atingir (rapidamente) o Socialismo.

É por isto é que é Estaline, ainda hoje, tão odiado e demonizado pelo Ocidente – com tudo o que são publicações ocidentais a exagerar imenso o número de pessoas que foram por ele mortas (https://twitter.com/search?q= solzhenitsyn%20from%3AEstulinDaniel + https://twitter.com/search?q= stalin%20from%3AEstulinDaniel).

(Repito, eu não sou estalinista, nem sequer comunista. Apenas conto as coisas como sei que elas verdadeiramente se passaram.)

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

É disto que eu falo, quando por vezes digo que temos de reparar na chamada "linguagem corporal" dos vários personagens políticos

22.08.18

Reparem na cara da entrevistada, que parece, mais do que uma vez, estar prestes a partir a rir-se, como quem está a gozar com (ou, neste caso, literalmente a contar uma grande mentira a) quem fala, ou a quem a sua mensagem se dirige. (A expressão facial em causa é ligeira, mas está lá...)

(Como em muitíssimas outras ocasiões, a imprensa controlada apenas mostra um lado da história. A mesma imprensa controlada que até instiga outros "artistas" a apoiarem esta banda. E, para quem não saiba de tal por não ler imprensa alternativa, esta banda usa até um símbolo que denuncia a sua verdadeira natureza.)

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Isolada, mas não alienada (ao contrário de muitos na civilização)

05.08.18

O seguinte trecho que seleccionei no seguinte documentário - sobre a última sobrevivente da família Lykov - vem a propósito de um aviso recente que fiz, num blogue cristão que descobri, sobre o facto do "número da besta" ser já usado, presentemente, para "comprar ou vender" (Apocalipse 13:16-18) - tal como denunciava eu, há uns anos, <aqui>.

(Têm a confirmação da razão de ser de tal rejeição, a partir da marca dos 33m e 31s do documentário.)

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

colocado por Fernando Negro às 16:30

Não houve qualquer ataque químico na Síria (x3)

30.04.18

"No Attacks, No Victims": Syria Chemical Attack Video Participants Speak At OPCW Briefing

by Tyler Durden [Zero Hedge]
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 22:23

Russian officials brought fifteen people to The Hague from the city of Douma, Syria, said to have been present during the alleged April 7 chemical attack - including 11-year-old Hassan Diab, who was seen in a widely-distributed video taken by the controversian NGO organization known as the "White Helmets," who filmed themselves giving Diab "emergency treatment" after the alleged incident.

We were at the basement and we heard people shouting that we needed to go to a hospital. We went through a tunnel. At the hospital they started pouring cold water on me,” said Diab, who was featured in the video which Russia's ambassador to the Netherlands says was staged.

The boy and his family have spoken to various media outlets, who say there was no attack.



Others present during the filming of Diab's hospital "cleanup" by the White Helmets include hospital administrator Ahmad Kashoi, who runs the emergency ward.

 

There were people unknown to us who were filming the emergency care, they were filming the chaos taking place inside, and were filming people being doused with water. The instruments they used to douse them with water were originally used to clean the floors actually,” Ahmad Kashoi, an administrator of the emergency ward, recalled. “That happened for about an hour, we provided help to them and sent them home. No one has died. No one suffered from chemical exposure.” -RT

 

Also speaking at The Hague was Halil al-Jaish, an emergency worker who treated people at the Douma hospital the day of the attack - who said that while some patients did come in for respiratory problems, they were attributed to heavy dust, present in the air after recent airstrikes, but that nobody showed signs of chemical warfare poisoning.

 

The hospital received people who suffered from smoke and dust asphyxiation on the day of the alleged attack, Muwaffak Nasrim, a paramedic who was working in emergency care, said. The panic seen in footage provided by the White Helmets was caused mainly by people shouting about the alleged use of chemical weapons, Nasrim, who witnessed the chaotic scenes, added. No patients, however, displayed symptoms of chemical weapons exposure, he said. -RT

 

Emergency paramedic Ahmad Saur who is with the Syrian Red Crescent, said that his hospital ward did not receive any patients exposed to chemical weapons the day of the alleged incident, and that all the patients either needed general medical care or help with injuries.



That said, none of these people's testimony will make it into the "official record" as it currently stands. Russia's permanent representative to the OPCW, Aleksandr Shulgin, said that the OPCW has already interviewed six alleged Douma witnesses brought to The Hague , and they won't interview any more.

 

The others were ready too, but the experts are sticking to their own guidelines. They’ve picked six people, talked to them, and said they were 'completely satisfied' with their account and did not have any further questions" -Aleksandr Shulgin

 

Shulgin also said that "certain Western countries" accusing Russia and Syria of trying to "hide" witnesses to the attack is not true.

Meanwhile, the West - unhappy with this unexpected diversion to its narrative - has called the Russian press conference a "stunt" - with Britain and France both denouncing it as an "obscene masquerade."

This obscene masquerade does not come as a surprise from the Syrian government, which has massacred and gassed its own people for the last seven years,” said France’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Philippe Lalliot.

"The OPCW is not a theatre," Britain's envoy to the agency, Peter Wilson, said in a statement. "Russia's decision to misuse it is yet another Russian attempt to undermine the OPCW's work, and in particular the work of its fact-finding mission investigating chemical weapons use in Syria."

In other words, the West is happy to bomb a sovereign nation based on nothing more than non-public "evidence" suspected to have been staged and provided by the White Helmets, but when actual residents of Douma show up to tell their side of it, they are condemned as an "obscene masquerade" and denied an opportunity to submit their testimony on the record. Sounds about right for the military industrial complex which if nothing else scored a few extra billion in procurement contracts thanks to the latest farcical attack on Syria.

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Isto é o que acontecerá ao Mundo em caso de uma Guerra Nuclear

14.04.18

nuclear_tweet.png

O seguinte é um trecho de promoção da melhor versão (a de 2000 e não a de 1959) do melhor filme que já vi, sobre a possibilidade de uma guerra nuclear neste mundo, que possui o mesmo título do livro em que se baseia, On the Beach.

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Não houve qualquer ataque químico na Síria

14.04.18

[E, se tivesse ocorrido um destes horríveis incidentes - que, sabem Bashar al-Assad e toda a gente bem informada, não são mais do que a desculpa perfeita para que o Ocidente possa intervir a favor da sua al-Qaeda - teriam, obviamente, sido os próprios rebeldes os autores do mesmo... É a mesma história do que se passou há 5 anos - e não só. Reparem bem na altura em que isto acontece: uns meros dias depois de Trump ter declarado que queria retirar as tropas estadunidenses da Síria...]

 

"There Wasn't A Single Corpse": Russia Claims 'White Helmets' Staged Syria Chemical Attack

by Tyler Durden [Zero Hedge]
Thu, 04/12/2018 - 04:44

Russia claims that the reported chemical attack in Syria last Sunday was staged by the "white helmets," a US-funded NGO lauded by mainstream media for their humanitarian work, while long-suspected of performing less-than humanitarian deeds behind the curtain.

Speaking with EuroNews, Russia's ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizov, said "Russian military specialists have visited this region, walked on those streets, entered those houses, talked to local doctors and visited the only functioning hospital in Douma, including its basement where reportedly the mountains of corpses pile up. There was not a single corpse and even not a single person who came in for treatment after the attack."

"But we've seen them on the video!" responds EuroNews correspondent Andrei Beketov.

"There was no chemical attack in Douma, pure and simple," responds Chizov. "We've seen another staged event. There are personnel, specifically trained - and you can guess by whom - amongst the so-called White Helmets, who were already caught in the act with staged videos."



Russia said it sent experts in radiological, chemical and biological warfare - along with medics, in order to inspect the Eastern Ghouta city of Douma where the attack is said to have taken place.

Russia's Defense Ministry said in a statement that the experts "found no traces of the use of chemical agents," following a search of the sites, adding "All these facts show... that no chemical weapons were used in the town of Douma, as it was claimed by the White Helmets."

All the accusations brought by the White Helmets, as well as their photos... allegedly showing the victims of the chemical attack, are nothing more than a yet another piece of fake news and an attempt to disrupt the ceasefire,” said the Russian Reconciliation Center.

In a statement to the UN Security Council on April 9, Russia's UN Ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia outlined Russia's position on the timeline of the attack in Douma, as well as the Western response after the White Helmets reported that chemical agents were used:


On April 6, the new head of Jaysh al-Islam, following instructions of sponsors, derailed the evacuation of a party of fighters from Douma and resumed the rocket and mortar fire against residential areas in Damascus. The firing targeted [indistinct name of four areas]. According to official information, eight people died. 37 civilians were wounded. Unfortunately, we failed to see statements from Western capitals condemning the shelling of a historical district of Damascus. The following day, April 7, fighters accused the Syrian authorities of dropping barrel bombs with toxic substances. At the same time, diversions were being mixed up. It was either called sarin, chlorine, or a mix of toxic gases. Based on a well-known scheme, these rumors were immediately taken out by those who are financed by western capitalists; I am referring to NGOs and the White Helmets who are mendaciously acting under the cloak of health professionals. And these reports were also taken up and transferred to media outlets.

It behooves us once again to state that many of these dubious structures have a clear list of the email addresses of representatives of Security Council members, which shows that some of our colleagues, with a reckless approach towards their status, are leaking sensitive information to their protégés. Incidentally, all should recall the way that accidentally, the White Helmets put on the internet a video which showed preparations for staging a so-called victim of an alleged attack perpetrated by the Syrian army.

Indeed, over the last several years, reports out of Syria have been criticized as being primarily of anti-Assad origin and unverified.

In a speech at the UN, pro-Assad Canadian journalist and RT contributor Eva Bartlett gave her account of what's going on with reports out of Syria - calling western sources "compromised" and "not credible."



Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister Theresa May told President Trump on Tuesday that Britain would require more evidence in last weekend's suspected chemical attack before committing to a military strike against Syria, reports The Times.


The prime minister rejected a swift retaliation as inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) prepared to visit the Damascus suburb where at least 40 people were reported to have been killed by chlorine gas on Saturday. -The Times

May chaired a meeting of the national security council in London this week, where she spoke with Presidents Trump and Macron for the first time since the Douma chemical attack. It is reported that Trump, who's had a remarkable change of heart on U.S. involvement in Syria since the election, did not ask the UK to join military strikes.


A No 10 read-out of her call with the US president stated that they agreed the international community “needed to respond” but stopped short of blaming the Syrian regime. “They agreed that reports of a chemical weapons attack in Syria were utterly reprehensible and if confirmed, represented further evidence of the Assad regime’s appalling cruelty against its own people and total disregard for its legal obligations not to use these weapons,” it said. -The Times

President Trump also appears to have backed off an imminent strike after promising Syria would "pay a big price," and that the U.S. response would be decided by Wednesday. Trump reportedly canceled travel plans after reports emerged that Russian and Iranian involvement in Syria would complicate matters in the region.

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense James Mattis has said that the U.S. is still assessing intelligence on the alleged chemical attack, saying in a statement "we're still working on this." In the same breath, Mattis said the United States is "ready" to provide military options for Syria.

 

***

 


(Está disponível uma transcrição desta muito importante declaração, há poucos dias feita na ONU pelo Embaixador russo, Vassily Nebenzia, <aqui>.)

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Dunquerque e Segunda Guerra Mundial explicadas em 5 "tweets"

13.03.18



(Por ser este um filme que ainda não passou nos canais de cinema da TV por cabo, ainda não o vi. Mas, tendo sido realizado por Christopher Nolan, arrisco-me já a "pré-recomendá-lo" - por pensar que será, certamente, mais um bom filme deste realizador, que estou muito curioso em ver.)

Deixo então aqui, a propósito desta obra e da temática de uma colocação que fiz há poucos dias, uma pequena série de 5 tweets que fiz, em resposta a um outro da conta "Crimes of Britain" que se referia à famosa retirada de Dunquerque como um episódio cobarde, por parte dos britânicos.

(Já agora, o que é dito por vários historiadores, que Hitler "deixou" que os britânicos fugissem, é um mito. Pois, tal como melhor explica o historiador David Irving, o que aconteceu foi que, vendo os britânicos encurralados e não como um obstáculo, estavam os alemães mais preocupados em prosseguir com a Blitzkrieg na restante França e deixaram a luta com os britânicos para mais tarde. Pois, não esperavam os alemães que os britânicos fossem retirar, por pensarem que os britânicos estavam realmente interessados em combater os alemães naquela altura. Mas, o que já muita gente sabe, actualmente, é que não era essa a intenção, a médio prazo, dos britânicos... E, quem duvidar do que eu digo nos seguintes tweets, que espreite então o que é dito neste vídeo.)

https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861314311372902400
https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861314994067177473
https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861315833129312258
https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861327915375636485
https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861329486406615041

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

colocado por Fernando Negro às 16:21

Resposta que já não pude dar a um militante do Bloco de Esquerda

11.03.18

capa_podemos.png

Por, na altura (final do ano passado) andar eu concentrado noutras coisas mais importantes - e tal blogueiro demorar também muito tempo a responder aos comentários que deixavam as pessoas no seu blogue (por andar também ele ocupado com outros assuntos mais importantes) - não tive eu pressa em responder a um comentário que tinha sido por ele deixado em resposta a um meu (último este, que tinha eu deixado a uma colocação final, de despedida, no blogue de tal autor) após ter sido eu automaticamente notificado, por correio electrónico, da ocorrência do mesmo.
E, lembrado eu - pela natureza da última colocação no meu blogue - de que não tinha ainda escrito tal resposta... Quando fui, anteontem, tentar deixar uma em tal blogue alheio, também alojado aqui no SAPO, já não consegui mais aceder ao blogue de tal autor, por ter sido o mesmo "suspenso".
E, assim sendo, na vaga esperança de que esta minha resposta possa um dia ser lida pelo destinatário em causa - e, já agora, porque (sendo de comentários públicos que se tratam) também poderá ser do interesse de outros ler tal pequena troca de mensagens - aproveito então para publicar aqui, no meu próprio blogue, a resposta que já não fui a tempo de dar (e também para republicar o comentário ao qual se dirigia tal resposta, da autoria do blogueiro Francisco Freima, para o qual já uma vez aqui tinha chamado a atenção para).

 

Francisco Freima respondeu ao seu comentário no post Adeus, pessoal (um adeus pessoal) às 02:31, 30/11/2017:

[...]

Por acaso nunca pensei muito na América Latina como região para viver, embora não me importasse de ir para a zona dos Andes. Se me dessem a escolher um país em todo o mundo, penso que iria para a Rússia. Adoro a cultura deles, sendo também um adepto do frio (e, lendo a teoria de Mackinder acerca do Heartland, percebemos que a Rússia será sempre importante).

Rússia que entronca no outro tema abordado pelo Fernando: os apoios dados a Trotsky por parte de Wall Street. Já tinha lido sobre isso, mas tendo sempre a relativizar. Não me choca que Trotsky tenha tido esse t ipo de ajudas, até porque existe o tal ponto de confluência que é o internacionalismo. Infelizmente, a política tem algumas zonas cinzentas onde um Ribbentrop e um Molotov podem negociar um pacto de não-agressão ou, voltando aos tempos da I Guerra Mundial, Lenine ser ajudado pelos alemães no seu regresso do exílio. Quando forças opostas convergem é sempre na esperança de enganarem o parceiro de ocasião. Escusado dizer, os povos ficam à porta de tais considerações.

Para mim, a importância de Trotsky está mais nas suas teorias da revolução permanente ou do desenvolvimento desigual e combinado do que propriamente nas suas acções enquanto indivíduo/actor político. Talvez, pela época em que viveu, ele não pudesse ter agido de outra forma; talvez, tendo sido um homem ambicioso, aquilo que resulta numa falha ética grave fosse apenas um meio para atingir um fim; na pior das hipóteses, mesmo que ele não acreditasse em nada, ou acreditasse apenas no intern acionalismo (capitalista ou socialista), a verdade é que as suas obras são lidas por muitas pessoas que defendem o internacionalismo socialista sem quaisquer concessões aos interesses capitalistas. É o que eu chamo de triunfo dos ingénuos: vivendo o marxismo um momento de refluxo a nível mundial, hoje em dia quem é marxista pode aprofundar as suas ideias sem grande rebuliço, um pouco à semelhança do período em que Marx viveu. Existem pequenas guerras, independentismos, mas nada que se assemelhe à proximidade de uma revolução como a de 1917.

O capital tem a situação controlada. Dentro do marxismo, os adeptos da revolução permanente podem polemizar com os adeptos do comunismo num só país sem que venha grande mal ao mundo. As figuras tutelares morreram e a própria questão coloca-se hoje sob outros prismas que não os da URSS. A Catalunha, por exemplo, tem suscitado um amplo debate: como podem os internacionalistas apoiar a independência catalã? Não é o Estado-nação uma construção burguesa destinada a desviar o foco da luta de classes? Estando no Bloco, foi um debate que acompanhei com gosto, até por ser militante de base. Na base dos partidos temos sempre aqueles camaradas mais puros, que não afinam as suas opiniões pelas dos notáveis. Claro que chega o dia em que a festa acaba e a vitória cai para um dos lados. Enquanto a festa durou, vi pessoas frontalmente contra a independência catalã e outras que, sendo também elas internacionalistas, colocavam o direito dos povos à auto-determinação num patamar superior. Da minha parte, defendo a independência. Nem tanto pela auto-determinação, para mim a questão premente reside na força imprimida pelo capitalismo à sua globalização. Ainda assim, torna-se um exercício vagamente cómico, o de defender a independência de um povo que pretende ir logo a correr para os braços da União Europeia...

Um abraço, Fernando, e viva a Margem Sul :D

 

[Segue-se então a minha resposta, que já não fui a tempo de publicar...]

 

Olá outra vez, Francisco.

(Com a crescente escassez de recursos naturais e o sério impacto que tal irá ter na agricultura: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=63630.msg900364#msg900364)

Os melhores sítios para se viver, no futuro próximo (e para os quais eu iria, se pudesse) serão os locais do Mundo ainda pouco populados, que têm solos férteis em grande quantidade e que são também ricos em água - como o Brasil (e restante América Latina) e, sim, também a Rússia. (Tanto o Brasil como a Rússia exportam muita comida. Por isso, são estes dois países onde as pessoas nunca deverão morrer de fome.)

Quanto à criação do Estado-Nação,

Ela não tem (nada) a ver com "desviar o foco da luta de classes" (pois, surgiu até muito antes que tal luta tivesse início, devido à publicação do "Manifesto Comunista" escrito pelo capitalista Friedrich Engels). Mas, é antes algo que surge como uma consequência da vontade de Desenvolvimento económico, motivada pelo ideal de Progresso, a todos os níveis (http://www.schillerinstitute.org/newspanish/InstitutoSchiller/Arte/GoyaLucesCarlosIII.html) - algo que as elites (i.e. os verdadeiros ricos e membros da dita nobreza) não querem (nem nunca quiseram) por gerar tal progresso económico também progresso cultural e tornar as pessoas mais difíceis de controlar e continuar a explorar.

E, o tentar colar algo de positivo a algo mau, através de falácias, é um truque muito usado pelos propagandistas do poder estabelecido (como me lembro de ler, da parte de um Professor seu, que me disse você ser um maçon, que usava num texto pró-UE o ridículo termo "o totalitarismo das nações" - como se ter um governo central europeu, que repetidamente proíbe os vários países de fazerem isto ou aquilo é que não fosse, antes isso mesmo, uma forma de totalitarismo). Sendo o melhor exemplo que conheço, de constantemente dar falsas explicações alternativas (sem argumentos que realmente as sustentem) para certos acontecimentos históricos (do que posso ler da descrição, pois recuso-me a ler tais obras) o livro "A People's History of the United States" do propagandista Howard Zinn.

Quanto ao Trotsky,

Não se tratava de um convergência de apenas alguns interesses comuns que tinha ele com alguns ultra-ricos. O jogo por ambos jogado é um que, certamente, não deve ser ensinado no tipo de cursos universitários sobre História e Política que você tirou - e que se chama "Dialética Hegeliana" (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=43336.0). Sendo que, o Trotsky estava tão interessado numa verdadeira Revolução Social quanto estão os seus discípulos, de hoje em dia, como são os dirigentes do Bloco de Esquerda (muito contentes em colaborar com o falso Partido Socialista português e ficar-se por aí).

Se alguma vez decidir você pesquisar seriamente sobre o que eu aqui denuncio, da verdadeira natureza deste tipo de líderes comunistas (deixo-lhe mais uma dica aqui: http://blackfernando.blogs.sapo.pt/primeira-e-talvez-unica-tentativa-seria-52674) depois interrogue-se sobre porque razão andam os movimentos por eles criados a usar a mesma simbologia que é usada por outros movimentos, que toda a gente bem informada sabe serem controlados por conhecidos capitalistas: http://blackfernando.blogs.sapo.pt/alguem-ainda-duvida-de-que-o-podemos-e-127764

Um abraço e Boa Sorte para o futuro próximo.

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

colocado por Fernando Negro às 12:20