RFNB (Real forcasting news blog)

On Irish occupation

2011-01-17T12:12:00.000-08:00

many who look into Ireland think that we were the victims of English imperialism - which is of course true. But there is a darkerside to this that the Irish government for decades has not shown....Our armed forces have been ilegally occupying countries and helping to perform so-called "peacekeeping" missions in them...

We have been involved in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) basically meaning we showed support for a corrupt dictator who was in power sense the 1960's and plundered the countries tresaruey...bankroupting it.
We've also been in Israel, basically implying that were "peacekepping" there meaning help the Israeli's against the so-called Islamic terroists...
Despite the fact Israel is guilty of state-terrorism
we have been in Lebanon for decades and are still there
and Syria aswell...
We have no bussiness in ANY of those countries.
We are turning no better than the US
we just use "peacekeeping" as a smokescreen to help occupy the lands..
We've also been involved in Boliva and Liberya.

I issue a demand to the next Irish government to break up the IDF
(Irish defence forces) and to withdraw from lands that we are occuypying
it is amoral and finaically misguided aswell espically during this economic time period.

Vietnam vows economic overhaul

2011-01-12T11:14:00.000-08:00

(Post taken from Al Jazeera's English website)

Vietnam vows economic overhaul

In its five-yearly convention, ruling communists admit serious instability in the economy as they map the way forward.
Last Modified: 12 Jan 2011 10:17 GMT
Email ArticlePrint ArticleShare ArticleSend Feedback

Vietnam is one of Asia's fastest growing economies, but inflation rose to a 22-month high in December [EPA]

Vietnam's ruling communist party met on Wednesday to choose its next key leaders and chart a way forward for the next few years as the country faces high inflation and economic uncertainty .

The chosen leaders will "steer the course of Vietnam for the next five years," Al Jazeera's Steve Chao reported from the Hanoi, the country's capital.

The 1400 delegates are also expected to focus discussions on the country's unstable economy during the eight-day meeting that is held every five years.

"Specifically, everyone is looking at who the prime minister will be," said Chao.

Inside sources said the current Prime Minister, Nguyen Tan Dung, will keep his post, despite the fact that he has been blamed for much of Vietnam's economic instability over the last few months.

The country's last National Congress was held during the economic boom in 2006, when Vietnam was experiencing an annual growth of seven percent.

But since 2009, Vietnam has had to devalue its currency, the dong, three times, while its neighbouring countries have strengthened their currencies.

Double-digit inflation has also caused food prices to soar since the last meeting, and Vietnam's reputation for bureaucracy and corruption has not faded.

'Lack of moral example'

Truong Tan Sang, who is expected to become the new president, told delegates they must address the mismanagement and widespread corruption.

Sang said some senior party members "lack example in morality and lifestyle, having allowed their wives, children or their staff to abuse power for personal profits."

Leaders have pledged that they recognise challenges ahead, but many people are sceptical this congress will get anything done.

"What is ultimately at stake here is whether Vietnam can achieve the long-term goals that it has set out," said Chao, including its aim to be an industrial and modern nation by 2020 with an economic development average of seven to eight percent.

"But the economic challenges are massive," he added, with financial analysts based in Vietnam insisting that total reform is necessary in order for the country to move forward.

Tight media control

One of those reforms, reported Chao, is transferring Vietnam's economic support from conglomerates to foreign investments.

The Vietnamese government does not tolerate any challenges to its one-party rule and has recently tightened its control of Internet websites, including Facebook.

Vietnam's practise of silencing criticism has prompted several complaints from the US and other western countries, but relations between the former enemies have recently improved.

The US is now one of Vietnam's biggest trading partners and the two countries have worked to strengthen military ties as neighbouring China becomes more assertive with its own military might.

Israel repeats calls for threat of force against Iran.

2011-01-11T15:22:00.000-08:00

Israel has once again called on the U.S. to threaten Iran with a "convincing" act of millitary aggression if they do not stop their nuclear enrichment program...
The Obama administration has never fully ruled out a threat of force against Iran for a (possible) nuclear missiole program, which could also lead to the development of an atomic bomb according to Wasghtion (Japan, 1945 ring a bell anyone?)

However like Iraq under Saddam it is questionable weather or not Iran is building such weapons, the IAEA has in the past year or so inspected Iranian plants and has come to no soild evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. There is no question that Iran is a corrupt religous police state but it does seem to be the victim of both U.S. and Israeli interests here...

It's a well established fact even in mainstream history that the U.S. has nuclear missioles and was the first country to use the atomic bomb, Israel herself sense it's foundation in 1948 has been in search of nuclear missioles (and has got them...)

According to US marine and medical sergen Warner D. Farr who has writen a histroy on Israel's nuclear program ( http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm)

" Israel's involvement with nuclear technology starts at the founding of the state in 1948. Many talented Jewish scientists immigrated to Palestine during the thirties and forties, in particular, Ernst David Bergmann. He would become the director of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission and the founder of Israel's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bergmann, a close friend and advisor of Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, counseled that nuclear energy could compensate for Israel's poor natural resources and small pool of military manpower. He pointed out that there was just one nuclear energy, not two, suggesting nuclear weapons were part of the plan.[4] As early as 1948, Israeli scientists actively explored the Negev Desert for uranium deposits on orders from the Israeli Ministry of Defense. By 1950, they found low-grade deposits near Beersheba and Sidon and worked on a low power method of heavy water production.[5]" (Warner D. Farr, The Counterproliferation Papers, Air War College, Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, September 1999, "The Third temple's holy of holies: Israel's nuclear weapons.")

So if both the U.S. and Israel can freely develop nuclear missioles and atomic bombs (Farr later goes on to point out that Israel developed it's own atomic bombs)
Is Iran really breaking any laws? Actually according to treaty's signed with the UN Iran is allowed develop peaceful nuclear power for national use only,
so far we have seen no REAL evidence that Iran for it's political faults (which are numerous) wants to do otherwise....
Bush lied about Iraq, we shouldn't trust Obama on Iran...

The forgotten holocaust: Cambodia (spell checked version)

2011-01-07T14:08:00.000-08:00

The forgotten holocaust: Cambodia

Today on the 7th of January 1979 the Vietnamese People's Army
(VPA) entered Cambodia's capital city of Phonon Phenh - there they found a city on the brink of collapse, and almost completely neglected...They progressed through Cambodia and saw peasants working in fields, they also found a school house with blood stained corpses all over the floor and 7 people who were amazingly still alive inside it (although recent research suggests that possibly 196 people surrived the prison)...Then they found documents about the school house which showed that sense 1975 it had been used as a torture and execution chamber by one of the worst regime’s in history - the Khmer Rouge.

The Khmer Rouge under the command of Pol Pot (1925-1998)
came to power in war torn Cambodia on the 17th of April 1975.
Before that Cambodia had been graced with a U.S. puppet regime - "The Khemer Republic" under the leadership of Lon Nol and his brother Lon Non.

The Lon Nol government needless to say was extremely corrupt
and relied and like the "Republic of China" under Chaing Kai Shek constantly demanded US aid to prop itself up. The US had their own imperial agenda though in Cambodia, - the Vietcong.
The Vietcong were attempting to capture S. Vietnam at the time and as part of this attempt had pushed into Cambodia, sponsoring Pol Pot's Khemer Rouge guerilla’s as they went- then the "People's Republic of China" joined in and the Khemer Rouge had enough motovation to defeat the inept Lon Nol regime in April of 1975.
In 1973 Richard Nixon ordered the bombing of Cambodia, over 600,000 Cambodian's died in this bombing although Noam Chomsky claimed it was only 200,000 ---- Chomsky's views on Cambodia are less then trust worthy...

This angered and greatly radicalized the 'red Khmer’s' who would bitterly remember what the west did to them, and later take it out on their own people after 1975.
The Khemer Rouge's first move when they captured Cambodia was to order a mass evacuation to the countryside - because Pol Pot was inspired by Mao's evacuations in China during the "Cultural revolution" which Pol Pot partly witnessed.
Any Cambodian's who refused to move to the country were shot by the Khmer Rouge..
Lon Non, Lon Nol's brother and the other members of the "Khmer republic" were executed, with the Khmer Rouge claiming they were beheaded.

Lon Nol himself fled Cambodia on the 1st of April 1975 when it became all to obvious that the "Khmer republic" was doomed. However Lon Brett and Lon Non among with other ministers decided to try and negotiate a truce with the approaching Khmer Rouge forces, however Pol Pot's teenagers (the Khmer Rouge was mainly made up of children and teenagers) were not interested in a cease fire...

The Khmer Rouge then established their constitution in 1976 which was extremely vague and simply stated that all Cambodian's were 'equal' and some other vague half Marxist half ultra-nationalist rhetoric. In-between the 11th and 13th of April 1976, the Khmer Rouge healed a national assembly meeting where, Pol Pot was 'elected' prime minister, however Pol Pot didn't reveal himself as head of the country to his fellow country men or the world until 1977.
They renamed the country "Democratic Kampuchea" (DK)
though this title would soon prove contradictory.
They also renamed the CPK (Communist party of Kampuchea) "The Angkar" - "the organization" and now the killing could begin in earnest.

All intellectuals were rounded up and shot, all Cambodians who spoke either English and/or French were shot, although as some have pointed out this was hypocrtical as Pol Pot himself could speak French....Teachers were shot and education apart from basic mathematics was banned, instead Cambodian's were thought to love Angker; who became their, masters and family. Vietnamese, Laotians and Chinese minorities were either deported and/or shot. Actually the only Cambodian's not to be shot by the Angkar were peasant farmer's who the Khmer Rouge believed to be 'the real working class' - based on Maoist philosophy.

Instead of death the peasants were made to work in labor camps for over 16 hours a day, were thousands more died of starvation and sickness. Music was banned under the Khmer Rouge and artists either fled the country or were shot.
Buddhist monks (Buddhism was the primary religion in Cambodia up to 1975)faced persecution, with their religion been virtually banned by the Angkar
at least half the Buddhist population were murdered by 1979 along with other religious groups.

Political prisoners were tortured under the watchful eye of "Comrade Duch" who ran the school turned torture camp menthioned at the start, named S-21, were over 15,000 Cambodian's were killed by 1979. Those unfortunate enough to survive were made to dig their own graves in the infamous 'killing fields' were they were then hacked to death by pick axes - the Khmer Rouge wanted to save bullets....the primary killing field lay 15kl away from S-21 named “Boeung Choeung Ek,” or “Crow’s Feet Pond” where ten teenage Khmer Rouge soldiers led by “Teng” a Khmer officer in his early 20’s….Teng and his men would dig the graves after hearing about prisoners coming from S-21 so that their victims were ready for the slaughter as soon as they arrived.
Prior to this (before S-21 became to full of bodies and the killing field's were used) Duch's prisoner's were often hit over the head by metal bars and then their necks were broken, in a small backyard outside S-21. In another prison camp ("Camp of Choung" 17,000 were killed by 1979)..

in 1977 Pol Pot eventually revealed "Democratic Kampuchea" to the world, announcing himself as prime minister and talking about his plans for his country, in an interview with a Yugoslavian film crew he said "I want to rid Cambodia of it's past." , in 1978 the Pol Pot administration allowed a few Western journalists inside the country, mainly Elizabeth Becker; who for years along with Noam Chomsky and other left wing intellectual's had denied the rumors that there was genocide happening in Cambodia.

Becker was shocked to find that Pol Pot spoke in a calm voice but that he was "always ranting and raving" he wore a grey clad Mao like suit and "looked like a king" stretched out in his office.
Becker soon found she changed her mind about the Angkar as she saw the fear in peasants eyes as she travelled around Cambodia "under virtual house arrest" along with her companion Professor Caldwell.

The night, she had interviewed Pol Pot a group of Khmer Rouge soldiers burst into her room and shot Professor Caldwell dead, threatening her, the next day she was rushed out of the country as the Vietnamese had started their invasion.

Why did Vietnam invade Cambodia?

The Vietnamese were growing increasingly weary of the Khmer Rouge by 1978.
In 1975, shortly after taking power Pol Pot made it clear that Cambodian communism was different from Vietnamese communism, and that he considered the Vietnamese racial enemies of Cambodia. in 1977-78 the Khmer Rouge conducted border raids into Vietnam and kidnapped and killed over 500 Vietnamese citizens, burning down their villages as they went. Vietnam had up to this stage barely tolerated the Pol Pot government but this was the last straw...on the 22nd of December 1978 radio Hanoi - the state owned radio of Vietnam announced it would be building a force made up of anti-communists, Viet communists and Cambodian exiles who would invade Cambodia.
One of these Cambodian exiles, Hun Sen who up till 1977 was an officer in the Khmer Rouge, is now prime minister of Cambodia.

It took the Vietnamese little more then two weeks to capture all of Cambodia, finally taking the capital city on the 7th of January 1979. Pol Pot and the other Khmer leaders fled deep into Cambodia's jungles, were they would continue to launch a bloodthirsty guerilla war against the new Vietnamese puppet state in Cambodia
"The People's Republic of Kampuchea" (PRK). Hun Sen was installed as prime minister in the 1980's by the Vietnamese, who also shut down Pol Pot's labor camps and for the first time made the full contence of the Pol Pot regime available to the outside world - who did nothing...

Why did the UN not give aid to Cambodia for at least a decade?

The UN was sidelined in it's approach to Cambodia for at least the next decade or two. the Khmer Rouge continued to try and overthrow the Hun Sen administration which was been backed by Vietnam, who in turn was been backed by the USSR. In 1985, the Regan administration gave over $5 million in aid to the Khmer Rouge, the Thatcher administration in England also financed the Maoist movement and in 1989, the US and Japan both put political pressure on the UN not to send international aid to Cambodia. In short both the capitalist powers US and UK supported the Khmer Rouge because of geopolitics (and they claim to care about freedom?) the USSR was financing Vietnam who in turn was propping up the PRK, so the US and UK took the opposite role.

in 1984 in an interview with the British TV programme "Blue Peter" Margret Thatcher said she supported the "moderate factors" within the Khmer Rouge.
When asked what this meant, she replied that she was told by Khmer Rouge diplomats that they were more "moderate" then Pol Pot's supporters within the movement.
When one of these so-called moderate diplomats was asked what he thought the Khmer Rouge's greatest mistake was he replied "we failed to move quickly enough against our enemies" - hence they failed to kill enough people...

On the 1st of September 1989, the Vietnamess pulled out of Cambodia
and in 1991 peace talks took place between the Khmer Rouge and other countries.
Australia a country who had prior to 1991 refered to the Khmer regeme as "genocide" agreed to take the wording out of it's offical reference's.
Whilst the US and UK diplomats laughed and joked with KR offical's in their hotel rooms...

The peace did not last and fighting continued in Cambodia,
in 1996, Pol Pot's brother in law switched sides and became part of the now "constitutional government" which was still led by Hun Sen, with Norodom Sihanouk; a figure who I have failed to mention in this history, but let's just say he had a complex relationship with the Khmer Rouge, as King (he was King of Cambodia in the 1950's won it independence from France, then became prime minister untill he was overthrown in 1970 by Lon Nol - he then fled into the jungle and lent his name to Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge...) so basically the so-called "democratic" government established in the Paris peace talks was made up of the same people, except now Hun Sen followed a free-market policy instead of a communist policy which he had done while in charge of the PRK. – It’s worth nothing that Hun Sen was only in charge at this time because he refused to give up power to one of Sihanouk’s sons, who on paper was the real prime minister of the new government, however Sen overthrew him in a military coup in 1997, clamming that he was saving Cambodia from ‘anarchy’.

Norodom Sihanouk; officially pardoned the Khmer Rouge in the 1990's
and in 1997 Pol Pot ordered the killing of Sen Senn (and his family) who was minister for defense in "Democratic Kampuchea" the KR staged a show trial for Pol Pot and put him under house arrest, where he died on the 15th of April 1998.

Today the west barely mentions the genocide
and compared to films, plays, musicals, books about the Nazi Holocoust there is really very little, apart from a few biography's of Pol Pot and some accademic boooks on the Khmer Rouge.
There is however an excellent 1984 film called "the killing fields" which tells the story of three real life journalists who found themselves trapped in Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

in 2004 Sihanouk claiming ill-health resigned as King
and moved to the DPRK and then to China, where he now lives in self-imposed exile.
Hun Sen was again elected prime minister of Cambodia in 2003 where he is now head of a coalition government with a royalist party.
in July of 2009 "Comrade Duch" was sentenced to 30 years in prison by a Cambodian-UN war crimes/crimes against humanity court. However he has already served 11 of those 30 years so he will now only have to serve 19 years -- something which rightfully outrages many Cambodian's.
Other top leaders of the KR are awaiting trial's that might begin in 2011.
However Hun Sen has said that persecuting the KR leaders would only lead to a civil-war...

And that is the story of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge
the U.S., UK and PRC still remain vague about their support for such monsters
and compared to Hitler's Holocaust the event is somewhat sidelined it seems,
rarely making it into school history books.
One can only hope that such monsters don't surface again
but then again that's what we hoped for after WWII.

I'm going to end this article
with a quote from Cambodian Photojournalist Dith Pran who was a surrivor of the 'killing fields' (and coined the name) and who is one of the central characters in the 1984 film of that name:

"Please help spread the word of the Cambodian genocide. I believe it needs to be told, the new generation needs to be educated and we want history not to repeat itself. We don't want to see the holocaust, the genocide, the killing fields keep returning to this planet".

P.S.

It is believed that 1.7 million (21% of the population) Cambodians were killed under the Khmer Rouge regime.....The Vietnamese conducted a survey after they captured Cambodia in which they came to the conclusion that 4 million died - the full population of Cambodia at the time was 8 million....However historian's say this figure is unlikely, Dith Pran himself said in a university lecture in the US some years later that 3 million were killed. Pol Pot said that 800,000 died however this figure is blatently propaganda, and other Khmer Rouge leaders said 1.4 million died.

Whatever the amount the genocide is clearly a degrading period in the history of humanity...I claim that's it's forgotten simply because, as far as I can see it is not as mainstream as other massacres - despite the fact that more people died in the Cambodian genocide than the Yugoslavian genocide in the 1990's.

the forgotten holocoust: Cambodia

2011-01-07T04:22:00.000-08:00

Today on the 7th of January 1979 the Vietnamess People's Army
(VPA) entered Cambodia's capital city of Phennon Phenh - there they found a city on the brink of collapse, and almost completely neglected...They progressed through Cambodia and saw peasants working in fields, they also found a school house with blood stained corpses all over the floor and 11 people who were amazingly still alive inside it...Then they found documents about the school house which showed that sense 1975 it had been used as a torture and execution chamber by one of the worst regeme's in history - the Khemer Rouge.

The Khemer Rouge under the command of Pol Pot (1925-1998)
came to power in war torn Cambodia on the 17th of April 1975.
Before that Cambodia had been graced with a U.S. puppet regeme - "The Khemer Republic" under the leadership of Lon Nol and his brother Lon Non.

The Lon Nol government needless to say was extremely corrupt
and relied and like the "Republic of China" under Chaing Kai Shek constantly demanded US aid to prop itself up. The US had their own imperial agenda though in Cambodia, - the Vietcong.
The Vietcong were attempting to capture S. Vietnam at the time and as part of this attempt had pushed into Cambodia, sponsering Pol Pot's Khemer Rouge gueriella's as they went- then the "People's Republic of China" joined in and the Khemer Rouge had enough motovation to defeat the inepth Lon Nol regeme in April of 1975.
In 1973 Richard Nixon ordered the bombing of Cambodia, over 600,000 Cambodian's died in this bombing although Noam Chomsky claimed it was only 200,000 ---- Chomsky's views on Cambodia are less then trust worthy...

This angered and greatly radicalized the 'red Khemer's' who would bitterly remember what the west did to them, and later take it out on their own people after 1975.
The Khemer Rouge's first move when they captured Cambodia was to order a mass evacuation to the countryside - because Pol Pot was insipired by Mao's evacuations in China during the "Cultural revolution" which Pol Pot partly withnessed.
Any Cambodian's who refused to move to the country were shot by the Khmer Rouge..
Lon Non, Lon Nol's brother and the other members of the "Khmer republic" were executed, with the Khmer Rouge claiming they were beheaded.

Lon Nol himself fled Cambodia on the 1st of April 1975 when it became all to obvious that the "Khmer republic" was doomed. However Lon Brett and Lon Non among with other ministers decided to try and negoieate a truce with the approaching Khmer Rouge forces, however Pol Pot's teenagers (the Khmer Rouge was mainly made up of children and teenagers) were not interested in a cease fire...

The Khmer Rouge then established their constituon in 1976 which was extremely vauge and simply stated that all Cambodian's were 'equal' and some other vauge half Marxist half ultra-nationalist rehtoric. Inbetween the 11th and 13th of April 1976, the Khmer Rouge healed a national assembely meeting where, Pol Pot was 'elected' prime minister, however Pol Pot didn't reveal himself as head of the country to his fellow country men or the world untill 1977.
They renamed the country "Democratic Kampouchea" (DK)
though this title would soon prove contadictory.
They also renamed the CPK (Communist party of Kampouchea) "The Angker" - "the organization" and now the killing could begin in earnest.

All intellectuals were rounded up and shot, all Cambodians who spoke either English and/or French were shot, although as some have pointed out this was hypocrtical as Pol Pot himself could speak French....Teachers were shot and education apart from basic mathamatics was banned, insted Cambodian's were thought to love Angker; who became their, masters and family. Vietnamess, Laosians and Chiness miniorites were either deported and/or shot. Actually the only Cambodian's not to be shot by the Angker were peseant farmer's who the Khmer Rouge believed to be 'the real working class' - based on Maoist phillosphy.

Insted of death the pesants were made to work in labour camps for over 16 hours a day, were thousands more died of starvation and sicknesss. Music was banned under the Khmer Rouge and artists either fled the country or were shot.
Budhist monks (Budhism was the primary religion in Cambodia up to 1975)faced persactuion, with their religion been virtually banned by the Ankger
at least half the budhist population were murdered by 1979 along with other religious groups.

Political prisoners were tortured under the watchful eye of "Comrade Duch" who ran the school turned torture camp menthioned at the start, named S-21, were over 15,000 Cambodian's were killed by 1979. Those unfourtunate enough to surrive were made to dig their own graves in the infamous 'killing fields' were they were then hacked to death by pick axes - the Khmer Rouge wanted to save bullets....
Duch's prisoner's were often hit over the head by metal bars and then their necks were broken, in a small backyard outside S-21. In another prison camp ("camp of Choung" 17,000 were killed by 1979)..

in 1977 Pol Pot eventually revealed "Democratic Kampuchea" to the world, announcing himself as prime minister and talking about his plans for his country, in an interview with a Yugoslavian film crew he said "I want to rid Cambodia of it's past." , in 1978 the Pol Pot administration allowed a few Westeren journalists inside the country, mainly Elizabeth Becker; who for years along with Noam Chomsky and other left wing intellectual's had denied the rumours that there was genocide happening in Cambodia.

Becker was shocked to find that Pol Pot spoke in a calm voice but that he was "always ranting and raving" he wore a grey clad Mao like suit and "looked like a king" strechted out in his office.
Becker soon found she changed her mind about the Ankger as she saw the fear in pesants eyes as she travelled around Cambodia "under virtual house arrest" along with her companion Professor Caldwell.

The night, she had interviewed Pol Pot a group of Khmer Rouge soldiers burst into her room and shot Professor Caldwell dead, threatining her, the next day she was rushed out of the country as the Vietnamess had started their invasion.

Why did Vietnam invade Cambodia?

The Vietnmaess were growing increasingly weary of the Khmer Rouge by 1978.
In 1975, shortly after taking power Pol Pot made it clear that Cambodian communism was different from Vietnamess communism, and that he considered the Vietnamess racesial enimes of Cambodia. in 1977-78 the Khmer Rouge conducted border rades into Vietnam and kiddnapped and killed over 500 Vietnmaess citizens, burning down their villages as they went. Vietnam had up to this stage barely tolerated the Pol Pot government but this was the last straw...on the 22nd of December 1978 radio Hanoi - the state owned radio of Vietnam announced it would be building a force made up of anti-communists, Viet communists and Cambodian exiles who would invade Cambodia.
One of these Cambodian exiles, Hun Sen who up till 1977 was an officer in the Khmer Rouge, is now prime minister of Cambodia.

It took the Vietnamess little more then two weeks to capture all of Cambodia, finally taking the capital city on the 7th of January 1979. Pol Pot and the other Khmer leaders fled deep into Cambodia's jungles, were they would continue to launch a bloodthristy gureilla war against the new Vietnamess puppet state in Cambodia
"The People's Republic of Kampuchea" (PRK). Hun Sen was installed as prime minister in the 1980's by the Vietnamess, who also shut down Pol Pot's labour camps and for the first time made the full contence of the Pol Pot regeme avaliable to the outside world - who did nothing...

Why did the UN not give aid to Cambodia for at least two decades?

The UN was sidelined in it's approch to Cambodia for at least the next decade or two. the Khmer Rouge continued to try and overthrow the Hun Sen administration which was been backed by Vietnam, who in turn was been backed by the USSR. In 1985, the Regan administration gave over $5 million in aid to the Khmer Rouge, the Thatcher administration in England also financed the Maoist movement and in 1989, the US and Japan both put political pressure on the UN not to send international aid to Cambodia. In short both the capitalist powers US and UK supported the Khmer Rouge beause of geopolitics (and they claim to care about freedom?) the USSR was financing Vietnam who in turn was proping up the PRK, so the US and UK took the opposite role.

in 1984 in an interview with the British TV programe "Blue Peter" Margret Thatcher said she supported the "moderate factors" within the Khmer Rouge.
When asked what this meant, she replied that she was told by Khmer Rouge diplomats that they were more "moderate" then Pol Pot's supporters within the movement.
When one of these so-called moderate diplomats was asked what he thought the Khmer Rouge's greatest mistake was he replied "we failed to move quickly enough against our enimes" - hence they failed to kill enough people...

On the 1st of September 1989, the Vietnamess pulled out of Cambodia
and in 1991 peace talks took place between the Khmer Rouge and other countries.
Austrillia a country who had prior to 1991 refered to the Khmer regeme as "genocide" agreed to take the wording out of it's offical reference's.
Whilst the US and UK diplomats laughed and joked with KR offical's in their hotel rooms...

The peace did not last and fighting continued in Cambodia,
in 1996, Pol Pot's brother in law switched sides and became part of the now "constituional government" which was sitll led by Hun Sen, with Norodom Sihanouk; a figure who I have failed to mention in this history, but let's just say he had a complex relationship with the Khmer Rouge, as King (he was King of Cambodia in the 1950's won it independence from France, then became prime minister untill he was overthrown in 1970 by Lon Nol - he then fled into the jungle and lent his name to Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge...) so basically the so-called "democratic" government established in the Paris peace talks was made up of the same people, except now Hun Sen follwed a free-market policy insted of a communist policy which he had done while in charge of the PRK.

Norodom Sihanouk; officaly pardoned the Khmer Rouge in the 1990's
and in 1997 Pol Pot ordered the killing of Sen Senn (and his family) who was minister for defense in "Democratic Kampuchea" the KR staged a show trial for Pol Pot and put him under house arrest, where he died on the 15th of April 1998.

Today the west barely mentions the genocide
and compared to films, plays, musicals, books about the Nazi Holocoust there is really very little, apart from a few biography's of Pol Pot and some accademic boooks on the Khmer Rouge.
There is however an excellent 1984 film called "the killing fields" which tells the story of three real life journalists who found themselves trapped in Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

in 2004 Sihanouk claiming ill-health resgined as King
and moved to the DPRK and then to China, where he now lives in self-imposed exile.
Hun Sen was again elected prime minister of Cambodia in 2003 where he is now head of a coalition government with a royalist party.
in July of 2009 "Comrade Duch" was sentenced to 30 years in prison by a Cambodian-UN war crimes/crimes against humanity court. However he has already served 11 of those 30 years so he will now only have to serve 19 years -- something which rightfully outrages many Cambodian's.
Other top leaders of the KR are awaiting trial's that might begin in 2011.
However Hun Sen has said that persacuting the KR leaders would only lead to a civil-war...

And that is the story of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge
the U.S., UK and PRC still remain vauge about their support for such monsters
and compared to Hitler's Holocoust the event is somewhat sidelined it seems,
rarely making it into school history books.
One can only hope that such monsters don't surface again
but then again that's what we hoped for after WWII.

I'm going to end this articale
with a quote from Cambodian Photojournalist Dith Pran who was a surrivor of the 'killing fields' (and coined the name) and who is one of the central characters in the 1984 film of that name:

"Please help spread the word of the Cambodian genocide. I believe it needs to be told, the new generation needs to be educated and we want history not to repeat itself. We don't want to see the holocaust, the genocide, the killing fields keep returning to this planet".

P.S.

It is believed that 1.7 million (21% of the population) Cambodians were killed under the Khmer Rouge regeme.....The Vietnamess conducted a survey after they captured Cambodia in which they came to the conculsuion that 4 million died - the full population of Cambodia at the time was 8 million....However historian's say this figure is unlikely, Dith Pran himself said in a universaty lecture in the US some years later that 3 million were killed. Pol Pot said that 800,000 died however this figure is blatently propaganda, and other Khmer Rouge leaders said 1.4 million died.

Whatever the amount the genocide is clearly a degrading period in the history of humanity...I claim that's it's forgotten simply because, as far as I can see it is not as mainstream as other masscures - despite the fact that more people died in the Cambodian genocide than the Yugoslavian genocide in the 1990's.

2010 from the view point of journalists.

2010-12-31T06:54:00.000-08:00

(Thies text is taken from "reporters without borders")

Journalists in 2010 targets and bargaining chips
Published on 30 December 2010. View this article in .Figures in 2010
57 journalists killed (25% fewer than in 2009)
51 journalists kidnapped
535 journalists arrested
1374 physically attacked or threatened
504 media censored
127 journalists fled their country
152 bloggers and netizens arrested
52 physically attacked
62 countries affected by Internet censorship

Fewer killed in war zones

Fifty-seven journalists were killed in connection with their work in 2010, 25% fewer than in 2009, when the total was 76. The number of journalists killed in war zo- nes has fallen in recent years. Significantly, it is becoming more and more difficult to identify those responsible in cases in which journalists were killed by criminal gangs, armed groups, religious organizations or state agents. “Fewer journalists were killed in war zones than in preceding years,” Reporters Without Borders secretary- general Jean-François Julliard said. “Media workers are above all being murdered by criminals and traffickers of various kinds. Organized crime groups and militias are their leading killers worldwide. The challenge now is to rein in this phenomenon. The authorities of the countries concerned have a direct duty to combat the impunity surrounding these murders. If governments do not make every effort to punish the murderers of journalists, they become their accomplices.”

Journalists as bargaining chips

Another distinguishing feature of 2010 was the major increase in kidnappings of journalists. There were 29 cases in 2008, 33 in 2009 and 51 in 2010. Journalists are seen less and less as outside observers. Their neutrality and the nature of their work are no longer respected. “Abductions of journalists are becoming more and more frequent and are taking place in more countries.” Reporters Without Borders said. “For the first time, no continent escaped this evil in 2010. Journalists are turning into bargaining chips. Kidnappers take hostages in order to finance their criminal activities, make governments comply with their demands, and send a message to the public. Abduction provides them with a form of publicity. Here again, governments must do more to identify them and bring them to justice. Otherwise reporters – national or foreign – will no longer venture into certain regions and will abandon the local population to their sad fate.” Journalists were particularly exposed to this kind of risk in Afghanistan and Nigeria in 2010. The case of French TV journalists Hervé Ghesquière and Stéphane Taponier and their three Afghan assistants, held hostage in Afghanistan since 29 December 2009, is the longest abduction in the history of the French media since the end of the 1980s.

No region of the world spared

Journalists were killed in 25 countries in 2010. This is the first time since Reporters Without Borders began keeping these tallies that journalists have been murdered in so many countries. Almost 30% of the countries (7 in total) were African countries: Angola, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia and Uganda. But the deadliest continent by far was Asia with 20 cases, and this was due above all to the heavy toll in Pakistan, where 11 journalists were killed in 2010. Of the 67 countries where there have been murders of journalists in the past 10 years, there are eight where they keep recurring: Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, and Somalia. These countries have not evolved; a culture of violence against the press has become deeply rooted there. Pakistan, Iraq and Mexico have been the three most violent countries for journalists during the past decade. The passing years have brought no changes to Pakistan, with journalists continuing to be targeted by Islamists groups or to be the collateral victims of suicide bombings. This total of 11 killed was the highest of the year. Iraq saw a return to earlier levels of violence with a total of seven journalists killed in 2010 as against four in 2009. Most of them were killed after the United States announced that all of its combat troops had been withdrawn in August. Journalists are caught in a trap between the different sectors – including local authorities, those involved in corruption and religious groups that refuse to accept media independence. In Mexico, the extreme violence of the drug traffickers affects the entire population including journalists, who are particularly exposed. This has a major impact on reporting, with journalists reducing their coverage of crime stories to the minimum in order to take as few risks as possible. In Central America, three were killed in Honduras in 2010 in connection with their work. Politically-motivated violence since the June 2008 coup d’état has com pounded the “traditional violence” of organized crime, a major phenomenon in this part of the world. In Thailand, where newspapers are able to enjoy relative independence despite recurring press freedom violations, 2010 was a very tough year. Two foreign journalists, Fabio Polenghi of Italy and Hiroyuki Muramoto of Japan, were killed in clashes between government forces and Red Shirts (supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra) in Bangkok in April and May. The shots that killed them were very probably fired by the members of the army.

Two journalists killed in Europe

Two journalists were murdered in European Union countries – Greece and Latvia. Neither murder has so far been solved. Social and political instability is having an impact on the work of the media in Greece, where Socratis Guiolias, the manager of Radio Thema 98.9, was gunned down with an automatic weapon outside his home in southeast Athens on 19 July. The police suspect a far- left group calling itself Sehta Epanastaton (Revolutionary Sect) that emerged in 2009. In Latvia, a country with a calmer environment for the press, Grigorijs Nemcovs, the publisher and editor of the regional newspaper Million and owner of a local TV station of the same name, was shot twice in the head in the southeastern city of Daugavpils while on his way to a meeting on 16 April.

Even the internet no longer a refuge

Reporters Without Borders is continuing to investigate the June 2010 death of the young netizen Khaled Mohammed Said, who was arrested by two plain-clothes police officers in an Internet café, taken outside and beaten to death in the street. There were reports that his death was prompted by a video posted online that incriminated the police in a drug deal. Autopsy reports attributed his death to a drug overdose, but this was belied by photos of his body. The number of arrests and physical attacks on netizens in 2010 was similar to previous years. Harassment of bloggers and censorship of the Internet have become commonplace. There are no longer any taboos about online filtering. Censorship is taking new forms: more aggres- sive online propaganda and increasingly frequent use of cyber-attacks as way to silence bothersome Internet users. Significantly, online censorship is no longer necessarily the work of repressive regimes. Democracies are now examining and adopting new laws that pose a threat to free speech on the Internet.

Journalists killed

(graph shown on reporters without borders page)

Exile – the last resort

Many journalists flee abroad to escape violence and oppression. A total of 127 journalists from 23 countries did this in 2010. The exodus from Iran continues. For the second year running, it was the biggest source of fugitive journalists – 30 cases registered by Reporters Without Borders in 2010. The Horn of Africa continues to shed journalists. Around 15 fled Eritrea and Somalia in 2010. The year also saw the forced exile of 18 Cuban journa- lists, who had been jailed since March 2003 and who were released on condition that they immediately leave for Spain.

Fintan O'Toole and his Ten 'radical' points for political change in Ireland.

2010-12-18T11:35:00.001-08:00

The Irish time's coloumnist Fintan O'Toole on November 26th published a list of "ten radical reforms" needed to jumpstart the Irish economy again.
And to give Ireland back some pride....
But how radical are these "reforms" and would they really help our sick green fields?

O'Toole's so-called reforms include:

1. SHARE THE PAIN
No one paid from the public purse should earn more than €100,000 during the period of the emergency. --Prettey good judgement here however I would have put this somewhere else on the list (another spot) perhaps Mr. O'Toole is limiting himself here by only having ten "radical reforms."

2. PUT THE PARISH PUMP BACK IN THE PARISH
Real local democracy, paid for by local taxes, and using direct democracy at every level, must be established. -- Well Mr. O'Toole we do have county councils but I would have to admmit they are pretty inaffective and redundent, local democracy could work but it shouldn't contradict the decsions made by those who are higher up.

3. END CLIENTILISM
Change the electoral system that turns TDs into constituency fixers. Replace it with a mix of direct election and a list system similar to that used for the Scottish parliament. -- I'm not sure what exact system the Scottish parliament uses so I can't really say a lot about this reform.

4. CUT THE FAT
Reduce the Dail to 100 members. Either transform the Senate within 12 months into a genuine forum for civic society or abolish it. -- This I agree with we need less Dail memebers but I disagree, we shouldn't even bother to reform the senate we should abolish it De Valera got rid of the senate during the 1930's because of the problem's it was causing politically we don't really need one it is anti-productive.

5. MAKE PARLIAMENT WORK.
Stop the use of the guillotine system to pass laws that have not been scrutinised. Give Dail committees the powers to examine proposals for spending before it happens and to hold those who spend public money accountable. Make senior public servants responsible for their decisions and actions. -- Mr. O'Toole's intentions are right here however this seems a bit fantastic to work, on paper you can "make" anything work....But parliament is always gonna be divided over things which is why I'm wondering should we even have one during this time period.

6. BRING WOMEN INTO POLITICS
Cut public subsidies to political parties unless at least 30 per cent of their candidates are female. -- I agree with this point but it is not needed here in these "radical" points, this has always been a problem that we don't have enough female political figures but having them or not having them won't help to save our nation, if this was the 1950's this comment may make a bit more sense and have more susbatnace to it.

7. END IMPUNITY
Conduct an urgent review of company law to ensure that white collar criminals are brought to justice. -- Again like point #6 this is a good suggestion for reform but during economic turmoil how will this help us? Mr. O'Toole should focous more on the subsequent difficuiltes the nation is facing with the IMF/EU takeover and points to reform us in that context, these reforms he is suggesting would have been perfect in the boom.

8. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS
Ban all significant private donations to political parties. Make parties publish annual accounts. Register and control lobbyists. Protect whistleblowers. - Same argument here again, it's a very vaild and excellent point but I don't see us escaping the IMF with it.

9. RESTORE THE RIGHT TO KNOW
Bring back the original Freedom of Information Act. -- Again this should just happen in general, at this stage I find it interesting that Mr. O'Toole never seemed to mention any of these 'radical' reform's when we were still an independent Republic, why now?

10. NO MORE CRONYISM
Make all appointments to State and public bodies open to public competition and Dail scrutiny. Ban any individual from being a director of more than three companies or public bodies. -- This I admit could have saved us a bit if we had implimentaed it during the boom and it is right but it not going to stop (like the majoirity of O'Toole's points) the IMF from taking us over.

in conclusion; these points are useful but the large bulk of them should be included in a working system in general, at the minute it is our system that is damaged and Mr. O'Toole doesn't seem to grasp this he suggests a few vauge reforms for the Dail and that's about it, we should take the good points out of his suggestions BUT come up with our own points and plan for action.
When I have studied the situation a bit more, I will try and put some of my own radical suggestons down on paper.
I respect Mr. O'Tooles views but I question how they would save our national identity.

On the treason in Ireland.

2010-12-18T07:59:00.001-08:00

according to an Irish time's poll 53% of the population support the IMF/EU bailout of Ireland while 37% were opposed to it.
56% of the population say that if Ireland accsepts the deal it will lead to a loss of independence, 33% say it won't. The poll was conuded between Monday and Tuesday of this week in all 43 constiuence's howver only 1,000 voters were asked their opion's overall.

69% of voters said it would be better to stay in the EU while 22% said it would be better to leave. And finally 42% said that an alternative Fine Gael/Labour government would not have managed public finances better then Fianna Fail and the Greens while 38% said they would have.

This poll with these figures only show's one thing,
that treason has been commited in the republic!
Fianna Fail and the Greens have managed to succsefully push their EU agenda and brainwash the majoirity of Irish people into thinking that the EU/IMF are somehow saving us and that it is a *good thing* to lose our independence (which we have fought for, for over 700 years). the government has scared us with the lisbon treaty and we have been caught up in a capitalist property bubble were we bought, bought and bought paying huge amounts to the banks and never caring how they spent our money.
Now we are told it will be judgement day - "end of the world" if we don't conforim to the EU norm of how to run our country.
If we don't bend down to the IMF (America) and the ECB (European central bank)
we are a lost republic, we are losing any national status we had in the world thanks to our own blind obedience, our own love for an outdated system (capitalism)
and our faith in an inffective coalition government.

For a second view on the topic here's a peace written by Professor John Crown:
A Second Republic could cure our ills
Radical change in our political system, including a new Constitution, could encourage real leadership, says John Crown
Share Digg del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Facebook Reddit Print Email Text Size
NormalLargeExtra LargeAlso in Analysis
Our foolish leaders approved a deal that will ruin this country
Only an immature society turns its back on vulnerable
Good riddance to our old ways, here's to the future
Waldorf exits stage left after old pal Statler
All is calm as stars just the tonic for ill children
Analysis Home

Ads by Google
Merge FG and FF
Merge Fine Gael and Fianna Fail Join the debate

www.jolitics.com
Dublin 1-Day Coupons
Up to 90% Off the Best Stuff to do! Restaurants, Spas, Events and More.

www.LivingSocial.com
Teeth Whitening-Dub2 €180
Incl Free Topup + Oral Healthcheck By Irish Reg'd Dentists/Nurses

www.myteeth.ie
The Top 10 Golf Mistakes?
Play the Best Golf of Your Life in Just 2 Weeks - 10 Free Videos

PeakPerformanceGolfSwing.com
Affordable Dublin Dentist
Going abroad for dental treatment? Check us out first!

www.eiredent.com

Sunday February 01 2009

"The fault dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

-- Shakespeare

THE words spoken by Cassius in Julius Caesar were a warning to his friend that the Roman Republic was falling under dictatorial rule, not because of bad fortune, but because its citizens had colluded in their own subjugation.

The Bard's words could equally apply to our citizenry and to our Republic, as we career chaotically, apparently rudderless, into a deepening recession, a crisis which our Government tells us is due to "our stars" -- ie, international economic forces.

Most authorities don't accept this, noting that an undoubtedly global phenomenon is hitting us disproportionately hard. Blame is being attached to our lenders who threw traditional banking caution to the four winds, and to the economic professionals in the State financial agencies, who either didn't see the danger signs, or who, as seems more likely, were too timid in bringing their concerns to the attention of their political masters.

The politicians themselves appear to have ignored dire and explicit warnings from independent economists that a housing bubble was inflating in front of their eyes. That those same politicians had an unusually, and perhaps unhealthily, close relationship with the very people who stood to gain the most from that bubble, the building and property development sectors, has not gone unnoticed.

Do we, the people, also deserve some blame? Did we, by behaving as Shakespearian underlings, allow complacency, cynicism and greed to blind us to our responsibilities as citizens of a democracy? Our Government must believe that we do. Why else would they insist that we are the ones who will pay the penalty? It seems likely that they will impose increased income taxes, reduced public sector pay, curtailed health and other public services. We may face a tax on houses which are already falling in value, while most homeowners are still paying the mortgage they took out to finance stamp duty.

Maybe we are guilty. Bubbles are fed by the psychology of those who pay. The heady feeling that we were wealthy because the little house down the street from our own had just been sold for a million, blinded us to the reality that we were taking part in a huge international pyramid scheme. While it is true that no-one forced us to borrow or to buy ludicrously over-priced houses, our collective "guilt" must be seen in the context that a growing population did need places to live, and that we are a nation of homeowners, not renters.

In addition, our banks, our Government, our planning process and the constructionocracy all effectively colluded to encourage us to keep buying beyond our means. The roles of the banks and the builders in this process are wholly explicable on the basis of short-term self-interest. Unfortunately, it would appear that the Government, which should take a statesman-like and long-term view of the common good, was similarly motivated. Their short-term interest was the next election.

Democracies get the governments they deserve. Collectively, we were like Carmella Soprano, the wife of Tony. As long as Tony (ie the Government) was bringing home wads of cash, we didn't ask too many questions about where it was coming from, nor did we fret, as we should have, about the family's long-term financial prospects.

I know I will be accused of wandering outside my sphere of competence when I say this, but my 15 years in Ireland, as a returned emigrant, as a doctor working in the health service, and as a concerned observer of our system of government, has forced me to conclude that we are a failed political entity.

At the core of our public governance is a dysfunctional interface between inexpert ministers and senior civil servants who have generally risen to the top of their departments on the strength of their adroitness at navigating its bureaucracy. The ministers are unfortunately drawn exclusively from a cohort of generally mediocre, frequently nepotistic TDs, whose entree to national politics was based not on a grasp of the big issues of state, but on their ability to manipulate a local constituency party machine. These observations explain the now-exposed incompetence of our Government, an incompetence which was obscured from our view by the Celtic Bubble.

Please contrast this with the Obama cabinet. Current energy policy will be one of the key determinants of the future of our society. Who did the President appoint as energy secretary? A Nobel Prize winning physicist! Given the pool of talent available in the Dail, that could never happen here.

Yet we have never needed national vision, intelligent statesmanship and good government more than we do now. To achieve this, we will need to reform the public service, both political and administrative. In short we need a new Constitution -- the "Second Republic", or "Dara Phoblacht" as it were.

Replacing the current multi-seat constituency with a national list system based on proportional representation, in which the entire State would form a single constituency, would minimise the impact of the local machines and would allow the parties to build a slate of candidates whose appeal would transcend local loyalty.

In this system, outstanding potential ministerial candidates could be offered high places on their party list, guaranteeing their availability for Cabinet appointment provided their party won the approvalof the electorate. Ideally, the Taoiseach would also have the power to make a number of ministerial appointments from outside parliament.A slimmed-down directly elected constituency-based Seanad with limited legislative oversight powers, could be retained as an interface between government and population.

What of our bloated civil service? My own belief is that it would be in the economic interests of the country, and in the personal interest of those involved, if all non-front line staff were offered the opportunity of early retirement at 50.

Beannacht De ar an Dara Phoblacht!!

Professor John Crown is a consultant oncologist.

Brazil and Argentina recgonize Palestian state, U.S. show's predictable bias.

2010-12-10T16:13:00.000-08:00

Argentina and Brazil over the last week have declared that they will recognize a Palestian state based on the border's drawn before the 1967, Israeli-Palistine conflict.
However US undersecretary of state William Burn has said that the descsion by the two Latian American countries who dared to excerise their own free thoughts was "premature." -- He said that talks between Israel and Palestine were the only ways to recognize the border soloution drawn up after the '67 conflict.
Argentina's forigen minister condemed Burn's statement saying, that once again the US complains when "the Argentine republic" has it's own indvidual views...

Israel has also condemed the declerations saying Brazil and Argenita aren't even invovled in the peace process...
And hence shouldn't hold a view on the matter.

But the point is that "Undersecreatry" Burn's statement clearly shows that the U.S. wants to stop the talks from shifting in a direction that might not please Israel or more importantly might not suit their own interests....
Hence they are showing a complete bias towards the Israeli's
I don't know what the pre-1967 border's were so I can't offer a full view of them however I think the US should just stop destroying the middle-east...
Israel is guility of war crimes and so is Hamas but the US is guility of much, much more by this stage in history....

Link to Live RTÉ broadcast on "budget day"

2010-12-07T07:30:00.000-08:00

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1207/live_budget_updates.html

Follow the link to see the Irish parliment debate the budget Fianna Fail and the Greens plan to introduces today to try and "rescue" Ireland from an economic collapse that it has not seen in decades.

Julian Assange: hero or sex offender?

2010-12-07T06:48:00.000-08:00

Julian Assange the 39 year old Australian who owns the small outlet
"Wikileaks" which he describes as a "whistle blowing website" on governments around the world is in London today, answering charges that he is responable for the leak of thousands of state documents. The London court pointed out to Mr. Assange that he could conscent to been deported to Sweeden where he faces charges on so-called "sex abuse crimes". Assange said he understood this and said he refused to be charged in Sweeden.

He is also wanted in the U.S. For the leaking of government documents,
and VISA have seezed his bank assets meaning that Mr. Assange is in quite a lot of trouble. But no one has seemed to ask the question, is he guility?
Is there not a law in the US that all documents have to be made public at some point in time nayway, so Assegne by US standards is not really breaking any laws by publishing these documents.

Assenge in an interview with the news outlet Al Jazeera's has said that WikiLeaks checks and re-checks to see if the documents (which are given to the company on a voulentary basis) are legal and offical before he even considers publishing them.

The rape charges in Sweeden are shady (to say the least....) Comming at a time when his organization is under surveillance for simply throwing light on government cover-ups and crimes. Whilest sex abuse charges are a serious question, and can never be fully put aside untill either proven right or wrong, one has to admit that the timeing for these accusations is very convienonant from a political viewpoint.

Mr. Assange should in my view go to Sweeden clear his name in front of the Sweedish authorites who are probably been backed by another hand with these charges...
And continue to publish his documents.
If a country like Iran started to shut down websites because they had damming evidence against the Iranian government on them, the west would call the act anti-democratic yet the US seneate is now shutting down websites that have WikiLeaks pages on them with the only vauge claim been that their harming Afghan civilzians (despite the fact that the WikiLeak articales show that the US is KILLING Afghan civilizans - although that should have been obvious from the start).

The west needs to stand up to it's own self-rightous, and hypocrtical standards that it lays down for others, freedom of information and freedom of speech should be allowed for all, if we want Iran to act like a free country then countries in the West should do the same insted of getting other's to follow the party line that we throw down, and not obeying it ourselves.

So is Mr. Assenge a hero or a sex abuser? Only time will fully tell
but I strongly believe that he is on the right track
but he should confirm first that he is not guility of sex abuse or rape in Sweeden,
and the West should learn to put it's money where it's Mouth is.

isn't it funny, and sad too?

2010-12-06T10:27:00.000-08:00

“Isn’t it funny and sad too?”

“Romantic Ireland is dead and gone. It’s with O’Leary in the grave” – W.B. Yeats, “September 1913.”

“The valiant effort and the martyrdoms that followed it finally awoke the sleeping spirit of Ireland” – Michael Collins, on the 1916 rising.

Lots of things are funny, and sad too if you think about it.
Like here’s a good one, isn’t it funny, and sad too? How a small nation fought for 800 years against British imperialism and then finally bankrupted itself and sold itself to the EU and IMF… Well when Patrick Pearse, Éamon De Valera, James Connolly and the other national hero’s of the failed 1916 “blood sacrifice” (revolt) attempted to end British rule in the 32 counties and declare a republic in Easter week of 1916, I’m sure that was the last thing they thought Ireland would end up doing if and when it liberated itself, sadly they were to be proven wrong.

Ireland for years before the British conquest and plantations and Cromwell and the famine of the 1840’s was actually moderately advanced for a state. It was an absolute monarch system; Ireland grew to be romantic with fairy tales and an interesting and complex mythological culture. Skip forward to the 6th of December 1921, Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins and other Irish republican nationalists sign the “Anglo-Irish treaty” which makes 26 counties out of the 32 in Ireland a free-state. Now fast-forward to 1937, Éamon De Valera, An Taoiseach of Ireland gives Ireland it’s own constitution renaming “The Irish Free-state” simply “Ireland.” Skip forward now to 2nd of December 1939, Éamon De Valera calls an emergency meeting of the Dail, to declare that Ireland will remain neutral in the impending war (WWII) virtually assuring that Ireland becomes a 26 county sovereign state free from outside standards. ast-forward again to 1949, the first interparty government headed by John Costello declares Ireland an “official” “Republic” under the “Republic of Ireland act.” And finally skip forward to November of 2010, Ireland (virtually) sells it’s economy to the EU, IMF and partly to our old friend Great Britain, speaking in the vernacular of our new Lords and Ladies from London “one must wonder why it all went so terribly wrong.”

Would W.B. Yeats, Michael Collins, Grace O’Malley or any other Irish persona recognize the land we call “Ireland” today? Or would they see a state who was so desperate to save a failed economic philosophy that it would make a Faustian like deal with the IMF and Co? The truth is how much of a Bourgarie class have we become who are only interested in saving just like Yeats warns off in “September 1913.”

The truth is, they would not recognize the Republic as it stands presently in time.
We have become ghosts of a nation. We have sold ourselves to foreign donors long before the “IMF crisis” No we killed our Republic when we granted the EU parliament full control over us or at least the opportunity to gain full control over us with the “Lisbon treaty.” After it was declared that Ireland was officially in a resection in late 2008, a wave of terror gripped the country, we forgot about Ireland, Cathleen Ni Holien herself, forgot that other countries in parts of Africa were much worse off then us, panicked and in despair turned to Fianna Fail’s shallow promises that all would get better if we granted the EU parliament greater powers. Which we did when we were tricked into voting “yes” to Lisbon after rejecting it the first time.

Sense then Fianna Fail has created “NAMA” which has been a complete disaster and the Irish taxpayer now owes at least 40 billion altogether to the failed banks of AIB and BOI who got us into this collapse. In the last week Finna Fail have tried to have both sides of the cake they’ve insisted we are still a sovereign nation and yet Brian Lenihan later said every time you go for a lone, you lose a little bit of your independence.” Isn’t that funny? And I guess if you want to stretch it a little sad too… Sad that Finna Fail feel they have to desperately lie about any basic policy they make.

Things came to ahead on Monday when John Gormelly’s “Green party” did something healthy for once and announced their withdrawal from government although it appears they also want the other side of the cake as they say they will support Finna Fail’s passing of the budget on 7th of December 2010. – A budget which deputies Éamon Gilmore and Enda Kenney have made perfectly clear they can’t accept because both their respective parties have not been permitted to discuss it or view any of its content, which raises the question how will Finna Fail gain enough support to pass it with at least two independents so far saying they will not support it and they’ll hardly find sullus in Sinn Féin as an ally. Today on the 25th of November, the ‘November criminal’s’ got it wrong again as Minister for Social Protection Éamon Ó Cuív (a descendent of Éamon De Valera) has admitted that his Department overpaid customers by at least €65 million last year. – In a time when Ireland apparently has “no money” we can at least play detectives now and find out where the money has gone, most of it to an elite of bankers and paying 65 million in social-protection is a farce which surely has made the country greener (and by that I mean sick).

But there is another problem which is eating Ireland, it’s not the politicians, nor the IMF nor the budget that British chancellor George Osborn knows more about then the average Irish citizen. The problem is the system itself, when the tiger was slinking around with plenty of milk to feed it people only wanted the milk, they simply craved more and more until inevitably the milk spilled. Capitalism was a drug for many Irish families during the “boom” but drugs usually have a very negative defect to them (e.g. they kill you!)
And the drug of free-market, (or at least relatively free here) capitalism is beginning to kill us. Yes that’s right; greed and the free-market system have driven Cathleen Ni Houllen from her four green fields or at least three which she won after 1921. I’m not advocating a Marxist revolution or a socialist burrocray (because that would be just as bad as the failed free-marketing we’ve been trying) but something ‘new’ has to come along before we forget that we are Irish, or more correctly speaking, fully forget that we are Irish.

Isn’t it funny, but sad too? How 53% of the population still want Ireland to be ruled by the politicians (that includes opposition leaders), or is this sad? The 53% who indicated according to Pat Kenney’s the “frontline” they’d still like to be ruled by Irish politicians instead of the IMF these 53% still it seems have some national sentiment left over, while the 47% who want the IMF to take us over obviously belong to those described above in the years of the eye of the tiger when they still felt like kings of the fight, the type who want the money and all the milk, and who don’t care who rules Ireland or yet alone what Ireland is as long as it goes back to having full nonstop free market glory times.
They’re the ones who are slowly forgetting the cultural revival attempts of Yeats and the sacrifice Pearse, Connolly and the other 1916 leaders had to valiantly make. They along with the government of this nation, despise the nation, they are seemingly indifferent or against the republic. I’m not trying to suggest that we should declare war on the 47% who want the IMF to rule us, but I do feel a ‘second republic’ should be declared based on Pearce’s declaration of Easter Monday, 1916…Except this time it should be brought about through perhaps peaceful legislation not terror campaign like we saw in the North, when Irish nationalists degraded themselves by hiding behind the pseudo-nationalist “provisional IRA.”

Should we not as a nation, focus more on the positive things about Irish literature, cinema, history etc, etc, we have had writers like Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw and Bram Stoker and yet today, it seems more about the people you know and the standard you are at financially in the constantly globalist economy. Our culture bends more towards America now and even to England, while I respect their cultures, the fact that a majority of programs on TV are American says a lot.
Isn’t it sad, and funny too that for a lot of Irish people the name J.F.K means more then Hugh O’Neill, Robert Emmet or Grace O’Malley?

To reiterate what was said earlier isn’t it funny and sad too? That after 800 years of poverty at the hands of a foreign government we are now subjecting ourselves to poverty, we’ve let globalism take the country for a ride, a very long ride in which it is essay to crash while riding. Isn’t it funny, and also sad? That after the good Friday agreement of 1998 there was a (small) possibility of a united Ireland, but now thanks to our apathy towards the North, that small window is gone forever, because we shunned the North after the agreement, we had become to rich ourselves to care for it and now we are back at the doorstep of the UK begging for a loan to help bailout two banks who represent the degraded capitalist system in Ireland.

Isn’t it funny, and sad too? That America the country with the least respect for other countries independence or pride encourages large bursts of nationalism (or almost racial-nationalism in some parts of the country) in it’s populace, and yet a small much more modest state like Ireland has shot it’s national identity and economy in the foot. It does not matter now if Brian Cowen goes and dissolves the Dail and a new Fine Gael/Labour government is swarm in. Even Sinn Féin at this stage would be forced, if they were in the front seat, to sell Ireland to the IMF, to abandon any identity we had and to make us a shell of a nation….My question is will we ever be in the words of Winston Churchill “ a nation once again” ?

And finally closing I want to point out, that we as a nation are not better, but we are no worse then any other nation on earth. When I attacked America above, I did not mean to insinuate that Irish people are superior to Americans but it was more an attack on their government – however that is a different story. Globalism has a positive side, that we are respecting eachother as human begins and understanding that other countries aren’t u unbelievably different, but is it not also important to keep a nations culture and pride to at least some extent? Surely the way forward is not a fully integrated world nor a fully divided world but, a world with sovereign governments and cultures who live in peaceful and respectful tolerance of eachother. We can appreciate and even participate in each other’s cultures and should not sink to the level of nationalism displayed by the Nazis, however let’s keep our own nation alive, let’s again to quote Churchill be “a nation once again.”

Brian Lenihan named Europe's "worst finance minister" amid Irish crisis.

2010-12-06T09:44:00.000-08:00

Fianna Fail member and current "minister for finance"
Brian Lenihan has been listed in 19th (lowest spot) in a poll of the best to worst finance ministers in Europe...
Wolfgang Schaeuble: of Germany is listed as Europe's best finance minister.
With Poland's Jacek Rostowski comming in second.

While I admit that Fianna Fail are a terrible government and have led to the loss of Irish economic independence over the last few weeks - talks between Lenihan and the American-owened IMF have summented a dubious future for the Republic....It is still worth pointing out that this poll is deliberatly singleing out Ireland.
Proof of this is that Greace's finance minister George Papaconstantinou was listed as 8th in the poll (despite the fact taht Greece fell into severe economic turmoil before the "IMF talks" In Ireland began)--- infact Greace has asked that the EU and IMF impose austiorty messaures that are based on Ireland's on their economy.

The fact is England has agreed to lend Ireland money to get out of the banking crisis (pay of AIB which will lend the next few generations of Irish taxpayer's - such as this writer in debt to the banks - and England)meaning we've once again lost our independence to England and the rest of Euroupe wants a country to blame for their own failures and Ireland is the horse picked, despite the fact Greece got their first.

*****

Backround:

At least three to four weeks ago John Gormmly leader of the "Irish Green party" the small minioirty party that is keeping Fianna Fail in power as a coalitoin parthner, announced that the Greens would leave government and an election should be healed by the end of January, the same afternoon Mr. Gormmley announced that the Greens would support an upcomming Fianna Fail budget that will be put to the Dail on December 7h (tomorrow) for aproval. The same day two Fianna Fail TD's called for prime minister Brian Cowen's rescognation as party leader and head of the state.
Ireland's raidcal party Sinn Féin then attempted a vote of no confidence in Fianna Fail but Fine Gael and Labour igonred it.

After that Brian Lenhian stated that Ireland was not in a national crisis and did not need IMF or EU funding to repair it's banks and markets.
Cowen later repeated this heavily scripted lie but by the end of the week it was revealed by British finance minister George Osborn (who came sixth in the list) that Ireland had been in "seceret talks" with England to agree on funds to help rescue Ireland's economy again (meaning in the long term Ireland would be in debt to the UK.) Then it was reavled we were in talks with the IMF and the EU who have agreed a package for our economy....
Fianna Fail then relasead a four year plan, which in the words of Enda Kenney (leader of Fine Gael- Ireland's main oppostion party) "God help us all."
As the plan is nothing but a rehash of what Fianna Fail have said for over 14 years, that the country needs to be "improved" without actually pointing out how.

So yes Fianna Fail have destroyed our country, yes Fianna Fail are incompetent, yes the Greens are on both sides of the bed wanting out of the government and yet going to support tomorrow's impending budget which is apperantly "the toughest in the history of the state." But also yes, the EU is not facing up to it's own responsabllites and short-commings and is pinning the blame on Ireland and yes this is unfair, welcome to the world of international politics folks.

proof that the fammine/genocide in the USSR *did happen.

2010-10-29T11:27:00.000-07:00

The Peasants in Russia
Exhausted Supplies

To the Editor of the Manchester Guardian,

Sir, - In a series of articles published in the “Manchester Guardian” on March 25, 27 and 28, your correspondent described his visit to the North Caucusus and the Ukraine and summed up his impressions as follows:- “To say that there is famine is to say much less than the truth…The fields are neglected and full of weeds; no cattle are to be seen anywhere; and few horses; only the military and the G.P.U. are well fed, the rest of the population obviously starving, obviously terrorised.”

Attempts have been made in your columns to discredit the views of your correspondent. The “Moscow Daily News” has written on him an article entitled “When is a Lie not a Lie?” May I as a liberal-minded man who has devoted four years of university life to the study of the Russian language and history, and who visited about 20 different villages in the Ukraine, the Black Earth district and the Moscow region, as recently as March of this year, fully confirm his conclusions, and congratulate him on having been the first journalist to have informed Britain of the true situation of Russian agriculture?

The villages which I visited alone on foot were by no means in the hardest-hit parts of Russia, but in almost every village, the bread supply had run out two months earlier, the potatoes were almost exhausted, and there was not enough coarse beet, which was formerly used as cattle fodder, but has now become a staple food of the population, to last until the next harvest. Many cottages had not even cattle fodder, and the peasants assured me that the occupants of those cottages were dying of hunger. In each village I received the same information – namely that many were dying of the famine and that about four-fifths of the cattle and the horses had perished. One phrase was repeated until it had a sad monotony in my mind, and that was: “Vse Pukhili” (all are swollen, i.e. from Hunger), and one word was drummed into my memory by every talk. That word was “golod” – i.e., “hunger” or “famine”. Nor shall I forget the swollen stomachs of the children in the cottages in which I slept.

Communists will reply that these conclusions are based on talks with malevolent “kulaks,” who are counter-revolutionary. If that is so, I can only say that almost every Russian peasant must be a kulak, for the unanimity of the peasants’ hatred of the Bolsheviks was one of the most striking features of this visit to the Soviet Union. On previous visits to Russia I have also been deeply impressed by the passionate opposition of the peasantry to the Communists.

Your correspondent’s views were fully confirmed by my visits to the villages but by the most reliable official foreign representatives in the Soviet Union. Moreover one has only to speak to hundreds of peasant-beggars, who have been driven by hunger from many parts of Russia into the towns, to find confirmation of your correspondent’s statements.

As a liberal and a pacifist, I wish that something could be done to relieve the suffering of the peasants in Russia, which, according to foreign observers and to the peasants themselves, is worse than in 1921. Already efforts are being made to succour many of the German colonists, whose letters to their fellow countrymen are tragic. These letters, some of which I have seen, contain such passages as the following:- “We have not had for one and a half weeks anything except salt and water in our stomachs, and our family consists of nine souls.” From the Volga district we read: “I went out to seek him and I went out to feed him, but I couldn’t find him. One cannot get lost on the road. It is marked by human bodies... There is nobody left among all our friends who has anything left… Your brother’s four children died of hunger.” The Evangelical Church in Germany is helping, and those who wish to assist are advised to write to the committee, “Bruder in Not” (Brothers in Need), Berlin N24, Monbijouplatz 2.

I hope that fellow liberals who boil at any injustices in Germany or Italy or Poland will express just one word of sympathy with the millions of peasants who are victims of persecution and famine in the Soviet Union.

Yours, &c.

Gareth Jones

Reform Club, Pall Mall, London.

May 3.

Kazari gets paid off by Iran and America!

2010-10-25T12:10:00.000-07:00

Afghan puppet ruler Hamid Kazari freely admitted on Monday that, Iran and the U.S.A. Pay him and various government offices within his puppet government, "bags of money" between them every few months --- the Iranian embessy has denied this, but their clearly lying.

It is believed that Iran pays the corrupt administration at least 75000 US dollars.
The UAE (United Arab Emirtes) is believed to pay Afghanistan around 1.5 million dollars...Nine years ago when the pupet administration was first set up....

"That was a big help and we submitted all the money to the central bank and we were paying for the daily expenses of the government," Karzai said. "After that, a number of other countries helped us in the same way."

When pressed on how the money was spent Kazari simply stated that it was used to "help the presidental office." The Pentagon have said they are not suprised that Kazari is getting cash from Iran, yet somehow they failed to mention the fact that they were providing his government with money aswell....

How is it that countries like the UAE, Iran and the US have the money to pay off a corrupt, ilegal regeme and yet their apperantly "bankroupt" or "in the worst economic crisis sense the 1930's" {The Great depression)?
The people of these countries, should demand answers from their governments, before they take all their money to help support corrupt president's like Kazari.

Norway: Chinesss activist Liu Xiaobo wins nobel peace prize.

2010-10-08T08:40:00.000-07:00

In 2009 the nobel peace prize comitte lost the defention of "peace" and awareded the nobelpeace prize to Barack Obama.
However this year they re-discovered what the prize was meant to be about and awareded it to a true hero.
Chiness activist Liu Xiaobo.

Xiaobo: who is in a Chiness jail for his part in the anti-communist protests of 1989, has been a fearse critic of the authocratic marxist rule which has plauged China for decades. Earlier on this year the Dalia Lama (who also won the peace prize in 1989...) Along with other's sighend a partition stating that
Xiaobo deserved the peace prize.

The chiness government has condemed the award saying that the 5 man panel in Norway re-warded it to a crinnimal.
Xiaobo's "crimes" include demanding basic civil-liberties and calling for free elections which the communists have constantly refused.

I would like to congratulate Liu Xiaobo for this great victory!
And for trying to bring freedom to an opressed people.
also it is nice to see the Nobel committe make up for laster's years disaterous choice...

Sinn Féin tables motion of no confidence in Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan

2010-09-30T16:32:00.000-07:00

(the following is taken from the Sinn Féin website)

Sinn Féin tables motion of no confidence in Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan September 30, 2010

Sinn Féin Dáil Leader Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin has tabled a motion of no confidence in Finance Minister Brian Lenihan after the Financial Regulator estimated that the cost of the bail out of Anglo Irish Bank will be up to €34 billion.

Speaking this morning Deputy Ó Caoláin said:

“It is our belief that Minister Lenihan withheld information from the Dáil when he asked for support for the original bank guarantee scheme.

“It has since been revealed that Anglo Irish Bank was insolvent at the time and the bill for the bailout is now set to be between €29 and €34 billion.

“Sinn Féin has no confidence in the Minister for Finance and we have tabled a motion to that effect this morning. I am calling on both Fine Gael and Labour to support this motion and facilitate a debate on the matter by allowing time for it to be debated.” ENDS

Chile more 'community based' (communist) then North Korea.

2010-08-28T15:32:00.001-07:00

In Chile after a devestating earthquake and a tsunami 33 miners have been stuck under the ground....The entire community (including the government) has come together to try and rescue them and provide for them as they are stuck.
Everyone is EQUALLY working together to try and get them out of the mine which they are stuck in.....

The rich and poor have forgotten (for the minute) their difference's and their soul motovation is to see these miniors safe and alive out of the mine they are trapped in. This is much more communist then a so-called communist nation like North Korea (see below posts "N. Korea red monarch"). DPRK claims to be equal but it is infact just a totolltarion police state and it is not democraticly for the people like it claims.....The people of Chile have temperareally created a communist (classless) society...Although sadly it will die when they free the miners.

A good argument against the EU's strenghtenting of power (the lisbon treaty)

2010-08-28T11:36:00.000-07:00

(I should have looked for something at the time of the elections, but it's still not to late for me to voice concerns about the authoration treaty or should I say treaty that permits authoratrianism called the lisbon treaty, anyway use the link below to read an articale against the treaty.)

http://euro-med.dk/?p=776

Glenn Beck's religous rally.

2010-08-28T10:57:00.000-07:00

In the same area that Dr. Martian Luther king gave his "I had a dream" speech rightwing, conservative FOX news anchor Glenn Beck addressed tens of thousands of American's who belonged to the infamous "tea party movement." Republican party vice-presdintal candiate Sarah Palin also addressed the crowd (proving that the tea party is nothing but an extended arm of the republicans).

Beck used heavey religous symbolism in his speech and talked about how America has 'wandered in darkness' for too long....Beck also announced that he would be running as the republican puppet for the elections in 2012 - well ok no he didn't but if he's going to do something like this then I'm slightly supsicous.

This proves something about American politics.
Both sides are awful, on the one hand you've communists, socialists and democrat's (the socialists and communist parties of America are mouth peaces of the democrats) and on the other you've the republicans, tea party movement and the KKK who are most likely all linked....America seems to be in a state of constant revoultionary feever except it's a very un-conventional revoultion....As both sides seem to be just as bad as eachother.

N. Korea's red monarch.

2010-08-28T08:01:00.000-07:00

Socialists claim to be anti-monarchy and yet they virtually have a monarch rulling the DPRK - Kimg Jong il, he is completely out of touch with his people
(most European monarchs - i.e. Louis XVI were) he is extremely wealthy (most monarchs were) he choses HIS SON'S to take his place as tryant after he dies (most monarchs chose members of their family as hire's to the thrones). He is starving his people (again Louis XVI).

Apperantly the 'great leader' thinks it's ok to go off to China with his son Kim il uhm who is rumeored to be taking over the korean worker's party soon - a clear indictaion that he will assume full power after Jong il's death (whenever that happens). Whike the il's are off in the PRC their people starve to death and consider themselves well-off if they get a small portion of rice in the day (whike Kim eats live lobsters that are flown into his personal train carrige for him).
(Poor animal's).

Like all good absoulte monarchs (note: I'm not NOT including enlightent despots in this as they at least achieved some things) Kim is willing to stay in power, censor the press, starve his people, and chose his own family members to take over devistated country, and rule his (fake) parliment after he dies....
The offical propganda story in the DPRK is that Kim was 'magically' born in a mountain with a rainbow over it....He can also control the weather depending on his moodswings and is destant to rule.
(All seems a bit like a despotic monarch doesn't it?)

The only thing that will stop this madness in the DPRK is if the korean people organize together and overthrow Kim and his millitary elite!
How many North Korean's get to go to China on private trains whenever they want?
Kim shouldn't be given the entire blame though as he is just following in the footstep's of his despotic father the 'eternal president' (who is apperantly away aka dead but will return one day, so he is still the offical ruler of the country) Kim Il Sung.....It's insanity...

America gives Russia it's 'blessing' to help destroy Afghanistan (some more).

2010-08-24T08:08:00.001-07:00

Over a decade has past sense the Soviet Union withdrew from it's impereailist expansion in Afghanistan.....Now that the socialists have gone the Russian capitalists return ----As the Obama administration gave Russia it's blessing to send troops into Afghanistan....To help create a puppet state --- fight terrorism.

America's alleged withdrawl plan is for 2011 along with other NATO troops.
After frauding an election and thus createing an anti-democratic government, I can see their reason for going, their conquest is done (until they find pretext to attack Iran). ---Russia have only to help subdue any resistance people mihgt have towards 'democray'. And possibly try to recover some of the land they tried to steal during the latter stages of the cold war.....This only proves the point that America and Russia might have preached different rethoric's BUT they are the same!

A universaty discussion on Robespierre and the French revoulition.

2010-08-23T17:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xprWm4fkLnY&feature=related

Oh and I'd like it if:

2010-08-22T09:18:00.000-07:00

People would stop leaving comments like this:

精彩的部落格要繼續加油 .............................On my page, if you have a fault with what I'm writing which your entitled to have, then you should objectively tell me...Or on the flip side (which is more unlikely) if you love what I'm writing you should also tell me....Don't spam my page with randomness thank you.
I also suspect that, this might be a robot or some random device that randomly singles out blogs to dump comments on....If this is the case well then I don't know what to do....But please stop.

Eva Peron: a biographical essay.....

2010-08-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

{I've returned to writing for my blog for the minute, anyone who vaugely followed my blog has probably stopped looking long ago, but I will continue to write politicaly related articales - I wish I could change the title from 'red neews' to somethine else as it implies that I'm still a Marxist....Which I'm not! Anyway I thought I'd share with you an essay I've writen on and off for over the last 2 and a half months. About a historical/political figure I admire, the first lady of Argentina from 1946-1952, Eva Maria Durate de Peron aka "Evita"....Enjoy}.

Source 1: Eva Peron. By Nicholas Fraser and Marysa Navarro
Source 2: Eva Peron: the myths of a woman by J. M. Taylor.
Source 3: Evita: in my own words. By Eva Peron (debatable) introduction by Professor Joseph A. Page.

Eva Peron the woman who had several myths built around her such as “the lady of hope” (2) and “the woman of the black myth.” (2). Who had many titles such as “spiritual leader of the nation” (1) and “the myth of Eva Peron.”(2) (the title for all these myths, according to Argentineans) was one of the leading figures in twenty centaury Argentina, along with her husband, she managed to shape Argentina’s modern day political future…This is her story.......

“On May 7, 1919, an Indian midwife helped an unwed mother give birth to a child on the Argentina pampas near the small town of Los Toldos, in the province of Buenos Aires. This child was to be Eva Peron, first lady of her country and at the height of her career perhaps the most powerful woman anywhere in the world.” (“Eva Peron: the myths of a woman” by J. M. Taylor, p. 34, the university of Chicago press, February 1981- paperback version/original 1979.) (2).

The Plaza were Eva was born was dirty and narrow with two rose of houses on each-side also decorated with statues of Argentinean war hero’s. To show what poverty Eva was born into none of the houses that were found on either side of the Plaza had porches. However the region where Eva was born itself (The Pampa) is one of the wealthiest provinces in Argentina just been a few miles away from Buenos Aires, Argentina’s very rich and very advanced capital. Eva was the daughter of Juan Duarte who by the time he conceived Evita already had another family in which he had three daughters. Eva’s mother was named Juana Ibarguren (although after she met Juan Duarte she adopted the name Duarte.) Eva was the fifth and youngest child of Juan and Juana Duarte…She was born as and referred to in her childhood, “Eva Maria.” Due to a legal argument between her parents it became confusing to what the five children’s full names would be either Ibarguren or Duarte…..Eva’s birth certificate says Ibarguren but she preferred to use the name Duarte along with her other siblings (1). Because Eva was born as an ilageitament child (which was a ‘crime’ akin to a curse in that time in Argentine society) she was forced to endure social ostraisatiozn espically among the upper-classes, because the events that led to her birth were totally out of her control, this could only have made her slightly bitter (3).

Because of the poverty Eva and her siblings lived in Eva’s mother had to take a job at washing clothes for the local villagers in Los Toldos…It was rumored that while she had this job she was also intimate with a lot of men who subsequently ‘protected’ her and her family. When Eva was only a year old her father Juan Duarte left Los Toldos never to return to Eva or the rest of her family.
His departure caused the impovishment of the Duarte’s and that is why Juana had to take the job of local cleaner in the village. Local gossip soon spread against the Duarte’s and Eva and her sibling’s recvied a lot of abuse from locals about her mother’s rumored love affairs. Juan, Eva’s brother and the only boy of the siblings became the protector of the family threatening anyone who dare insult his or his family’s reputation. (1). On the 8th of January 1926 news reached Juana Ibarguren and her children of the death of Juan Duarte who had been killed in a car accisident….Juana decided that she would attend the funeral along with his other family…. “Though legally she and her family did not exist for the dead man’s family and their presence according to the conventions of the time could only be interrupted as an affront.” (“Eva Peron.” By Nicholas Fraser and Marysa Navarro, Blackstone Audiobooks, January 1st 1996.) (1) They arrived for the funeral but Duarte’s wife refused to let them in and it was only after Juana Ibarguren had pleaded with her brother who was the mayor of the town were Duarte had been killed (Chivilcoy) and after her brother spoke with her that Duarte’s other wife permitted them to attend the funeral (1). The society of Chivilcoy also made an appearance at the wedding to pay respects to the Mayor of their town for losing his brother-in-law. (2) by this time Eva-Maria was six years old and her and her siblings were forced to watch a bitter confrontation between Juana Ibarguren and Duarte’s other wife at the funeral-wake (2).
This finally ended when the Mayor intervened and allowed Juana Ibarguren and her children to accompany the coffin to the cemetery (2).

Eva started school at eight years old according to her marks she was a good student although she did not attend school much…All her teacher can rember about her is her big large silent eyes. Eva was present when a member of the Argentinean radical-party gave a speech at her school in her second year about democracy and the national progress of Argentina as an entire country, this was Eva-Maria’s first encounter with politics. (1). At the age of twelve Eva Maria, her mother, her three sisters and her brother moved to the town of Junín a larger town then that of Los Toldos, inhabited by over 20,000 people which was still relatively close to Los Toldos (geographically.) It seemed that Eva wanted to leave Junín but not only Junín the entire pampas area itself…. “Here the towns, which in their formability and sobriety seem minute cities, also seem even more peculiarly lifeless than the slowest most rustic villages elsewhere.” (“Eva Peron: the myths of a woman” by J. M. Taylor, p. 35, the university of Chicago press, February 1981- paperback version/original 1979) (2) However not all was bad in this town as Eva’s mother was now able to host guests in her house….Eva and her sister’s sometimes attended the parties and talked with the men after they had eaten the meals that Juana Ibarguren cooked for them. (1)

Social life in Junín was routine with Eva and her friends from school (Eva went to a local school in the town) going to the centre of the town every Sunday afternoon and looking in shop window’s which they had looked in every single Sunday…They would then get candy and eat it in front of the boy’s from the town before heading home…This routine was only broken when a funfair came to the town and the girl’s “could forget that they were too big or too small, too skinny or too fat and that they lived in Junín a small lost town in the middle of the Pampas.” (“Eva Peron.” By Nicholas Fraser and Marysa Navarro, Blackstone Audiobooks, January 1st, 1996.) (1)

By the age of fifteen Eva Maria was ready to leave Junín and move to the wealthy capital of Argentina Buenos Aries. Eva’s goal at that stage of her life was to become an actress…Except she had no means of getting to Buenos Aires or did she? It is said by some that she made herself well equanted with a local tango singer named Agustín Magaldi who she either fell in love with or seduced…And that he took her to Buenos Aires. However there is no record of Magaldi visiting Junín in the year 1935 (the year Eva left for Buenos Aries.) Another more plausible theory according to one of Eva’s sisters is that Eva’s mother brought her to Buenos Aries by train and stayed with her until she found a small role at a radio station (1)….On a side note, Eva’s three sister’s would all marry into the middle classes (3) and Eva’s brother Juan would show up again later to help Eva in her political career. (1)

Buenos Aires as a city itself in the 1930’s was largely developed…It was the third largest city in the world only trailing behind those of New York and Tel Aviv with “a highly Italianized culture,” (2) according to J. M Taylor, and the home of many immigrants from Russia, France, Ireland and other places…These immigrants came by boat however eventually they would come from rural more agricultural or poorer parts of Argentina by train (like Evita did.) It had a parliamentary system and an able burrocray…It’s arcatecture and style was molded on that of Paris…This was the modern face of Buenos Aries at the time. However there was an older face which arguably had influence over the modern one…That was the face of the landowners or “oligarchy” they owned several plots of land in the cites sometimes working it themselves or else renting it out to tenants and sub-tenants. Buenos Aires had wonderful theatre’s and opera houses to entertain its people. The rich of Buenos Aries would retire to the country or go on a tour around Europe with their wives, children and maids when they had time for a holiday. Although the city had a constitutional system with two political houses and an elected president, elections were often flawed with either the votes been rigged or people been intimated at gunpoint when they came to vote. This is the backround of the city that Eva Maria Duarte would grow to become famous in…. (1).

By the time Eva Maria was twenty she hand managed to get a few contracts at radio shows in the city. Radio show’s healed promising positions for those who got them as they could lead to long term contracts or even a role in the cinema which is where Eva wanted to go (2)… other actors would mock Eva for her lack of acting talent, lack of vocabulary and lack of diction (3).She finally managed to get two small parts in films in 1940 and beforehand she managed to get some cameo roles in theatre plays (1). Her first big break came when she signed on to play a role in the radio series “famous women.” (2). this was in the year 1943 one year before she moved closer towards the political circle of Argentine society (2). She was at this stage twenty-four years old and played many roles including those of Elizabeth the 1st, Catharine the great and Alexandria of Russia (2). At the sametime that Eva was rising through the ranks of Argentinean acting society….A new military government was rising in the Argentine capital Buenos Aires….(1).

On Friday the 4th of June of that year the rumors were spread that a revolution was taking place to overthrow the conservative government which had been elected (by voting fraud) in 1939…The military was opposed to the hand picked presidential successor Robustiano Patrón Costas who was likely to take over the government and was notorious for been an extremely rich but corrupt businessman…Over 6,000 military officers marched into the capital and by 2:30pm had captured the Casa Rosado (presidential palace.) by Saturday, Argentina had a new president the leader of the coup Arturo Rawson who straight away promised an end to corruption and voting fraud which had plagued Argentina “democracy” throughout the 1930’s (1). The next day Rawson resigned as president and was replaced by General Pedro Pablo Ramírez, that same day the banks and business (which had closed on the day of the coup) re-opened. Eva was not interested in politics at this stage, trying to shy away from it but even she would eventually have an opion on the military government….The government aimed to modernize Argentina and advance in places the old government had failed to do so in…….They heavily encouraged radio-regulation, foreign musicians were not allowed speak on the radio in their own lanagues and any theatrical expressions that appeared to be damaging moral were banned (1).

Scripts for soap-operas which the government did not approve off were no longer to be run on a day to day basis and all scripts had to be submitted for approval, at least ten days before they were broadcast. Like the previous government the military junta was divided over the question of neutrality during WWII and despite increasing pressure to enter the war on the side of the allies from the United States, they remained neutral. The government made no commitment to hold a free, democratic election and this made some people feel that they were living in a totalitarian state... (1).

On the 16th of January 1944 the city of San Juan was hit by a devastating earthquake, the junta eventually launched a major charity collection for the victims of the quake and for the families of the 6,000 people who had died in the disaster. The San Juan fund was raised by the minister of Labor in the new military junta, Colonel Juan Domingo Peron, he deiced upon an artistic festival to collect funds for the victims, actors and actress would go through the streets collecting funds and at the end of the week there would be a great gala performance night, Peron himself attended and personally collected money from passersby (1).
It was on this night that “the dashing Peron at frothy-nine met and formed a liaison with an actress of half his age.” (“Eva Peron: the myths of a woman.” By J. M. Taylor, p. 36, the University of Chicago press, February 1981- paperback version/original 1979 ) (2). – This actress was non-other then Eva Duarte……In Peron’s memoirs which “are not a reliable source” according to Nicolas Fraser and Marysa Navarro; (1) Peron mentions that Eva met him at the gala and suggested a fund raising campaign in the upper-class area of Buenos Aries as that is where all the rich lived…Peron was impressed with this suggestion and told her to organize it, and according to him that is what she did……However in reality she did not organize anything, she did attend the event and did walk down the street collecting money. Then Peron and other politicians made several speeches and Eva and a group of actress went to talk with him and meet him…At two in the morning Eva and Peron left the event together (1). …Near the end of her life, Eva would later say the following, which she claimed attracted her to Peron:

“From the first moment I saw his heart…..and on the top of the pedestal of his heart the mast of his ideals holding the flag of his nation and his people close to the sky….I saw his immense solitude, like the solitude of the condor, like that of the highest peaks, like the solitude of stars in the in the immenseness of infinity. And despite my smallness I decided to accompany him.” (“In my own words.” By Eva Peron, p, 52. The New press, July 14th 2005.) (3).

Peron healed two positions in the military junta…In the morning he was secretary of war, which was only answerable to the minister of war directly above him…And in the afternoon he was secretary of labor and social security a position he himself created. He rose at six and took a brief break at noon, after this break he haled informal meetings with civilian politicians, to some of these meetings he would bring a girl he referred to as his “daughter” however she was not his daughter but his mistress. A few days before he met Eva he brought his mistress to the radio station where Eva Maria worked, but now that he had acquainted Eva he did not exactly know what to do with his mistress. One morning after Peron had risen to go to work, Eva arrived at his house via truck with all her positions and told Peron’s mistress to leave, and then subsequently settled into Peron’s house – Peron returned for his afternoon siesta and found Eva had moved in which he didn’t question at all (1). The secretariat of labor and social security soon confirmed Eva in her first union activates, giving her the place as head of the “Asocacion Radial Argentina.” This tried to gain rights for radio employees, she also kept up her radio career. Eva also took at Peron’s request a place in the secretariat of labor, without salary or conditions of any kind (2).

By February of 1944, Peron’s popularity had grown greatly in the military Junta, he now had influence over the president of the government and had the support of several other leading military generals. Peron was influenced by Mussolini’s fascist state and had visited Italy….Where he claimed to have met the Italian dictator in person (however he later claimed that he only saw him once when he was in a crowd watching him make a speech.) Peron and other Argentinean nationalists wanted to see the Axis powers win the war…As his influence grew in the Junta, he tried to impose fascist ideals on his colleagues, however several of them did not like this and demanded he resign his posts, however at this stage it was too late, Peron had powerful support on his side and he sent guards to protect his house incase of arrest.
On the 24th of February 1944 President Pedro Pablo Ramírez resigned, with a farewell speech that was drafted by Peron, in his place stepped in General Edelmiro Julián Farrell, who Peron had quite a bit of influence over (despite the fact he was Peron’s boss.) Peron now returned to his normal posts as secretary for war and secretary for labor and social security, “he was now in name, as well as in fact the strongest man in the government.” (“Eva Peron.” By Nicolas Fraser and Marysa Navarro, Blackstone Audiobooks, January 1st 1996.) (1). As secretary for labor Peron had the task of reforming the unions….He first of all came to the conclusion that unions were either to weak with no rights or power whatsoever or to extreme and controlled by socialists and communists, to combat this he encouraged the creation of “new unions” in which workers had greater rights and influence but were still answerable to the Argentinean state (1).

Eva meanwhile had landed in a new staring film role and dyed her hair blonde for the film…
She would keep this blonde hair for the rest of her life. On the set of the film, Eva tried to convert the cast and director into Peron’s belief system and made her relationship with Peron clear to the cast and crew.
A rival actress of Evita’s apparently slapped her across the face after a trivial argument broke out between the two, then the actress stormed out of the room slamming the door behind her (1). According to Professor Joseph A. Page; Eva was pregnant on the set of one of her films called “la prodiga.” (The Prodigal.) Unnamed worker’s on the film set have been quoted says Page, as saying that Eva would tap her stomach and say “I have a little Peron here.” Eva left the production of “la prodiga” in September and Page says that the film’s ending does seem incomplete…This coincides says Page with when she was supposedly hospitalized and then had a miscarriage…However Page admits that a lot more evidence is needed before this claim can become a fact (3).

Peron at this time was busied with meetings between doctors and politicians and lawyers and the like, he often brought Eva to these meetings although this was a huge breach of social-conventions…And could essaly damage his political career because actress and politicians were seen as two completely different classes in that day and age….It seems that not only this action could have damaged his reputation but it did, especially with other members of the army who disliked the fact Peron was giving Eva slightly larger roles in political life all the time (1).
Eva also began to write and broadcast a series of pro-Peron propaganda radio shows which were laid out in soap-opera like form and mainly talked about Peron and all his current achievements, whilst doing these broadcasts Eva was referred to as “the woman” soon the military coup of 1943 had been re-written as a pro-Peron propaganda rally….Eva’s broadcasts made it sound like Peron alone had orchestrated the military coup and that he was the only man who knew how to lead the country, soon her shows started to speak of what Peron’s election policy’s would be…Despite the fact that the military junta had never mentioned elections….At the sametime, Eva’s presence in the Argentine press went up, she was now doing three radio shows a week and healed frequent interviews, she attended trade union meetings sometimes even without Peron. It was around this time period that the rumor that Eva was a prostitute started, with satirical drawings and cartoons appearing in magazines, like one were a maid turns a wealthy gentleman away from the door telling him that Eva “doesn’t need” him anymore as she has found another, more powerful man. Of course these numerous are not very well backed up and are mainly drawn out of uncertainty over Eva’s past, and were often branded about by the nobility in Argentina who considered girls from Eva’s class to be prostitutes (1).

By 1945 things were looking up for both Eva and Peron; the latter had now added the political title of vice-president to his posts in the military junta, along with minister for labor and security and minister for war (2). However there was still growing opposition to Peron, a military coup was attempted and the military junta launched a state of emergency, closing down all papers and arresting all opposition leaders, students occupied universities and were only removed after a brutal crackdown by the police which killed saw the arrest of 16,000 people and the death of one student. On the 19th of September 1945 a large anti-Peron protest took place, around 250,000 or possibly even 500,000 as different newspapers of the time vary on the exact figures, the Argentinean police say it was 65,000…..People took part in the protest speeches were made and the crowd left peacefully at the end, all the opposition parties (Conservatives, communists, socialists and liberals) took part in the protests…If this wasn’t enough for Peron, the international community was also against his rising power in the military Junta (which it didn’t like in the first place), it was convinced that Peron and Eva were trying to establish a “fourth rich” in Argentina and false documents were drafted up to try and prove this fact, it was a genuine belief at the time…And even later in Peron’s third term as president (1973-1974) this theory would still be around (1).

On the 9th of October 1945 all seemed to apparently go wrong, growing opposition to the military junta and to Peron himself as mentioned before from within the army forced Peron to give up all of these three positions, it wasn’t only Peron’s growing power which caused the soldiers to act like this, they were also equally afraid of Eva’s power they did not like the fact that she was president of a union and felt that a woman with any political presents whatsoever (even though Eva still knew little about politics apart from what Peron told her) was dangerous, so as soon as Peron was stripped of his positions, Eva was fired from her small post in the government and with no Peron to protect her, she could not do anything about this. The couple then fled Buenos Aires in fear of their lives but they were caught on the 12th of October 1945, Peron was immediately arrested and was forced upon a gunship which took him towards the remote “Martian Garcia Island.” This was to all intensive purposes a prison. Meanwhile abandoned in the middle of Buenos Aires, Eva took refuge in the house of a fellow actress….Peron sent her several love letters while he was incarcerated and promised that if all turned out well he would give up political life for good….
Meanwhile the head’s of the Pro-Peron unions decided they would hold a protest to demand the release of Peron on the 18th of October 1945…..However the worker’s themselves inside the unions decided to ignore the command and protest on the 17th of October….(2).A popular myth is that Eva herself led the protest that took place on the 17th of October however there is no evidence behind this claim….as Nicolas Frasier, Marysa Navarro & J. M. Taylor all seem to agree that, as stated above, Eva was abandoned and deselect in Buenos Aires (1 & 2). There was a small incident were a woman from a well off family spat on Eva’s doorstep (1) and another incident when a local gang spotted her in a taxi, dragged her out of it and started to beat her (2). She could have chosen this minute to walk out on Peron, this would fit the general view of anti-Peronist’s that Evita was selfish but instead she stayed because she loved him (1).

On the 17th of October worker’s started to march from their various factories marching towards the capital of Buenos Aires…The Argentina upper-classes stood horrified on their balconies as workers started to get on boats, cross cannels or walk down pavements to get to the city with pro-Peron banners in their hands and some even with the slogan “Peron for president!” on them ( 1 & 2). Eva was not involved in this protest as she had previously met with Peron (who had been flown into Buenos Aires under the false pretext that he was ill, but he was then put into a special military sell in a hospital so he was still virtually imprisoned.) Who told her to stay calm and stay out of danger, so on the day of this large protest she was at home (1). The worker’s appeared in work uniforms not the suits that were usually deemed nessacery by Buenos Aires society (2).
They marched towards the Plaza de Mayo’s formal fountains and lawns and towards the Pink house of government (2). Worker’s got on trams and disconnected tram wires and then re-connected them forcing the driver’s of the trams to move towards Buenos Aires…Some went to the military hospital shouting Peron’s name and others sang songs about Peron. …..Peron spent the day in his military cell at the military hospital and was visited by messengers from his former friend President Farwell, who freely admitted that they did not know what was going, and that the government had no control over the worker’s in the capital.
Peron told the labor minister who succeed him and who came to see him in his sell “ it has happened because your all idiots, the people are going to the streets because you wanted to get rid of me…What did that achieve? An upheaval of the entire country!” (“Eva Peron.” By Nicolas Frasier and Marysa Navarro, Blackstone Audiobooks, January 1st 1996.) That night Peron went to the Casa Rosado and spoke with President Farwell and shortly after 11pm he walked out onto the balcony of the Casa Rosado a free man.
He stood there in front of thousands of Argentina’s who shouted his name and one asked “where were you?”
Peron did not answer this question directly but instead announced that he had retired from the military and instead wanted to the serve the people of Argentina (1).

After his speech on the balcony of the Casa Rosado, Peron returned to where Eva was staying and had dinner with her (1). Five days later Juan Domingo Peron and Eva Maria Duarte were married (2) with only Eva’s brother Juan (who had helped to try and get Peron and Eva out of the city before Peron’s arrest) and one of Peron’s military friends Colonel Domingo Mercante in attendance (1). – Mercante had been the one who instructed Peron to fane sickness while he was imprisoned so that he could be flown back to Buenos Aires, and from there on be freed as a result of the worker’s protest (1). Five weeks later Peron and Eva were married again in what they thought was a private church ceremony with only Eva’s mother and a few of Peron’s military comrades in attendants…However they were amazed to see a large crowd of supporter’s outside the church. A marriage document was drawn up in haste and Eva claimed to be 23 years of age instead of 26 years of age, this way she would have a legal claim to the name Duarte under which Peron knew her as well as attaining the name Peron for her last name. In the next few days Eva began to leave her acting career, she asked for a copy of her last film which was shown to her and Peron in private and then given to her as a present and then she took back the stills and other photo’s of her on various sets (1).

Contrary to his promise to give up political life Juan Peron, found himself now at the head of a coalition government that was mainly supported by the CGT (pro-Peron) unions, labor party and a few members of the Argentina radical party and conservative party who had lent their support to him from an early stage.
Peron went into the general election with very little funding while the opposition had large amounts of funding and also had the banner “for freedom against Nazism.” To increase his support among the middle classes, Peron said that he was for democracy and believed in capitalism. Both groups took trains around the country with the oppositions train called the “train of liberty.” Been subject to violent attacks from pro-Peron supporters, and three people dying as a result of these attacks.
Because of this Peron and his supporters had to be put under heavy guard upon their train, and were obliged to leave the train before it stopped at stations. Eva’s role in Peron’s election campaign is conflicting, Frasier and Navarro suggest that she did not make any speeches herself but instead stood beside her husband as Peron made the exact same speech about taking land of the oligarchy through land-reform (1).
While J. M. Taylor asserts that Eva made speeches on Peron’s behalf before he was elected and then on her own behalf weather this is a reference to simply speeches or general election speeches is unclear (2).
Eva would soon take up the name “Evita” according to Joseph A. Page, she used the name “Eva Peron” as wife of the president and “Evita” to draw a line between her and the desire’s of the masses who she had pledged to serve, this name would become a popular title for her when she fully became first lady (3).
Peron wrote his own speeches during the campaign and therefore Eva had to tie up some of the campaign details herself which Peron did not object to (1).

On the 24th of February 1946 the voting began in what was to be one of Argentina’s fairest elections in years. The opposition was confident of victory but when things started to turn against them they accused Peron and his side of election fraud, despite the fact that it was confirmed and agreed that the votes were clean and fair. Peron won 52% of the vote and had obtained victories in all but one of the provinces in Argentina. He also claimed victory over 28 out of 30 seats in the Argentina senate and also a 2/3rd majority in the house of deputies…..Thus Juan Domingo Peron was elected president of Argentina with Eva Maria Duarte de Peron as first lady. Straight away Peron chose a cabinet, it mainly reflected all the views left and right within the Peronist movement but he also chose some minister’s who were loyal to him such as Domingo Mercante and Eva’s brother Juan despite the fact that the latter had no experience in politics whatsoever and had spent the last decade as a soap salesman, he was chosen simply because he had helped Peron and Eva during October. This increased Eva’s position within the government as Juan effectively decided who could see or who could not see Peron on a day to day basis…..Thus Eva clearly had influence over him (1).

At Peron’s ingurgitation, a photo was taken of Eva seated beside a Cardinal with one of the shoulders of her dress been pulled down to reveal her shoulder….A few days later a popular stage actress wore the same dress Evita had worn, and was photographed with a bird called “the cardinal” on her shoulder for a magazine (1). At age 27 Evita set out to do a year of labor and welfare to try and prove that the title of First lady which had until then been mainly a ceremonial title actually meant something (2). She was soon named “Queen of labor” in Argentina and by 1947 she was meeting with twenty-six labor delegations in one day (2). Anti-Peronist opposition accused her of having to much power within the government and of effecting the Argentina economy and education system with her idea’s (2) .Although some of these claims could be excharagted as they were against Peron in the first place so a snub at his wife who was conveniently lower class aswell would never go amiss. Eva also visited factories and gave union leaders and other politicians instructions on how to run things (2). Peron meanwhile was busy with his scheme of “the new Argentina.” (1). He promised to give unions more rights, improve welfare and nationalize British railways in Argentina along with other industries effectively creating the first welfare state in Argentina.
Meanwhile Eva had met a new friend called Lillian Guardo; who Eva would require to sit in her office while she talked with union leaders, Lillian liked Evita but eventually got tired of having to be in her office every day that Evita worked (three days a week) and also having to have phone conversations with her each morning. Eventually she complained to Peron about this explaing that she had four children at home who she needed to take care of, and Peron asked Evita to do less work at the office so that Lillian could work at home, but Eva got board of this and once again would send for Lillian to entertain her. …Soon Lillian would work with Eva all but weekends which she would spend with her family (1). At the sametime, Eva was put in charge of a pro-Peronist newspaper called “Democracia” which relied on funding from the recently nationalized (by Peron) central-bank. However Eva did not have a lot of say over the contents of this newspaper, and by the time it had hired it’s editor’s and writers her role was mainly figurative.
Some of her speeches appeared in it along with those of her husbands and one or two of her suggestions were taken up by the paper but overall she had very little to do with the paper (1 & 2).
This was one of the few Pro-Peron media outlooks at that time with the majority of the press been set against Peron prior to, during and after the election (1). It was through this outlook that Evita acquired the title “the lady of hope” or in Spanish “La Dama de la Esperanza” (2). The opposition were so opposed to Evita’s increasing role in Peron’s government that they suggested the legalization of a bill which prohibited women from getting involved with their husband’s prerogatives and duties this could only bee seen as a reference to Eva’s apparent power (1) . Eva meanwhile was hoping that she would get an invitation from the aristocratic charity society the “sociedad de Benfcienca.” However this invitation never came, the society telling her that she was to young to become it’s president (most first lady’s became the president of the charity) Eva sarcastically replied to this that perhaps her mother would do instead. This society would later be closed in September of 1946……Eva’s detractor’s say she had it closed down out of bitterness for not been given an invitation to be it’s president…This would be a fair argument except the other reason is that Eva wanted a headquarters for what would eventually be her own charity plans, which will be referred to later (2).

Nicholas Frasier and Marysa Navarro suggest that, it was more out of political then personal reasons why Peron let Evita have all this power within his government in the first place….Peron did not have full control of his main supporters the labor movement who continued to strike and protest right through 1946 even after he was elected, in Evita, Peron had a constant source of propaganda that could be used to benefit him.
As a woman who was not expected to have much power, Eva could say what she liked and often act how she liked, while Peron while he was generally allowed a lot of freedom to say what he would, could not go past certain conventions and thus Eva was a useful tool for him (1).

In February of 1947 a rumor circulated in Evita’s newspaper that she would be going on a visit to Europe.
The next month Peron’s government excepted an invitation from General Franscio Franco, dictator of Spain for Evita to visit, the next month it was decided that she would go to Italy as well and after that France.
This tour originated when Franco sent an invitation to Peron to visit him in Spain, as Franco and Spain were politically isolated by the rest of the world after WWII and only had good relations with Argentina.
However Peron did not find it prudent to go as that year he had started to improve relations with the USSR and the US and get Argentina involved in the UN, so a visit to Fascist controlled Spain would put his government under a lot of pressure. When she realized her husband would not accept the invitation Eva decided that she would. To make the trip appear more innocent and not just related to Spain other countries as previously mentioned like Italy and France were added to the list of places for the tour. It was decided that Lillian Guardo would accompany Evita on the trip to Europe (1).
Lillian would later state that Evita telephoned Buenos Aires twice daily while in Europe.
One call to Peron and the other to the Argentina national congress “there she mobilized all the ministers and officials, who were waiting for her call, from whom she demanded details of the government and to whom she gave specific orders.” (“Eva Peron: the myths of a woman.” By J. M. Taylor, p. 43, the university of Chicago press, February 1981- paperback version/original 1979.) (2). The tour would be referred to as the “rainbow tour.” (3).

On the 6th of June 1947, Eva left Buenos Aires for Spain along with Lillian Guardo, her brother Juan, a script writer named Franscio Munoz Azpiri (who had written the radio series “famous women” which Eva had stared in.) Some maids and two Spanish diplomats sent by Franco to Argentina to accompany Eva and her group to Madrid….(1) with 500,000 Argentines saying goodbye to Evita as she left for Europe (2). They took a plain to Madrid because the Argentine navy refused Eva one of their ships (2). That night on the plain to Spain, Eva wrote a letter to Peron confessing her truest love for him and warning him against those in government who might try and corrupt him, she also mentioned for the first time to Peron (in the letter) that she left Junín at the age of thirteen (although it was fifteen) and told him that encase of something happening to her abroad he must give 1,000 Paso’s (Argentine currency) to her mother. General Franco, his wife and his entire cabinet met Evita as she landed at the airport, he kissed her hand and brought her into Madrid with him in a limacine. The next day Eva made a speech in front of thousands of Spanish worker’s who had been given the day off as a public holiday by Franco, during the speech, Eva (rather carelessly) chose to wave one of her hands above her head which the mainstream press of the world described as a “fascist salute” however it was simply her waving her hand over her head.
Eva spent 15 days in Spain and during that time handed out notes of money to impovished children.
According to Joseph A. Page, in the notes section of his introduction to “in my own words” the people of Spain were also expressing gratitude to Peron who had sent shipments of food to Spain to help it through it’s post-WWII period as the rest of the world viewed it as having ties to the Axis power’s.
He does not mention if this “gratitude” was directly said to Evita or not while she was in Spain (3).
However it appears the Spanish people were pleased to see her after having to put up with Franco for years, to see the first lady of Argentina interning their country was welcomed. Even the American ambassador to Spain begrudging said of Eva’s visit that it was “something of a triumph.” He then added that “she carried out a difficult task with poise and intelligence.” (3) (“Evita: in my own words” by Eva Peron and Professor Joseph A. Page, p, 13, the new press, July 14th, 2005).
The best Franco got from the visit was a boat load of Argentina wheat, while he was hoping Eva would give him a financial lone for the Spanish economy….When he suggested to her that he had enough wheat already so much he didn’t know what to do with it, she apparently replied that he should use it to make bread (1).

Eva then left Spain and proceeded on her next leg of the European tour
Eva was already by this stage a controversial figure in Europe,
Socialist and communist groups in Italy and France protested her presents in their countries.
And the Labour government in charge in England was split down the middle, the moderates felt that she should be welcomed to England as a guest but the leftwing of the party, who remembered the Spanish civil-war felt that she shouldn’t be welcomed. In the end no descions was made about Eva going to England,
Because Eva had wanted to go to Buchannan palace to have tea with the Queen, which the British assured the Argentine government would happen. However Eva and her company intended to arrive two weeks later then expected and by this time the Queen was holidaying in Scotland, thus Eva got the view that she was not welcome and a trip to England fell off the cards, so she went to Italy (1).

One night while Eva was in Italy a group of Italian communists stood outside her window shouting “fascist!” And trying to discredit her presents in Italy, at the other side of the window a group of workers who called themselves socialists started to shout (in support of her) “Eva Peron!” 27 people were arrested, and the next day when Eva was asked by a reporter what she made of the demonstrations outside her window, she simply pointed to the window where a crowd had gathered and had started cheering her name.
She then insisted that she was still not interested in politics, but said that red was her favourite colour.
When a reporter suggested that this might show a small bit of a political slant, she appeared embarrassed and said it didn’t. She also met with Pope Pius XVI and was granted 20 minutes with him which is usually the time allocated to Queens (1). Eva’s next stop was in Lisbon despite the fact that she was warned it might look offensive to Franco, but she simply replied “I go where I like…And if Fatty doesn’t like it that’s too bad.” (“Eva Peron.” By Nicolas Frasier and Marysa Navarro, Blackstone Audiobooks, January 1st 1996.) She next went to Paris and her arrival coincided with that of the Tour de France, she was shown around the city and took a ride in a car used by General De Gaul and Churchill when the latter came on trips to Paris. Her last stop in Europe was to Switzerland, the anti-Peronist opposition assumed that the entire point of the trip to Europe was to put money for her and her brother into a bank account in Switzerland (1) however as Professor Joseph A. Page; points out “no such funds have ever surfaced.” (“Evita: in my own words.” by Eva Peron and Professor Joseph A. Page p, 46, The New press, July 14th 2005.) (3). Besides if Eva intended to open these mythic bank accounts in Switzerland she probably wouldn’t have wanted that much attention over there, but got it, she was photographed with the Swiss minister for foreign affairs, so it’s probably safe to assume that there never was a bank account in the name of Eva Peron…..(1).

She then went to Brazil where she attended several banquets, was praised by the Brazilian crowd,
And healed a press conference that was much more successful then the one she healed in Rome.
She then met 200 Peronist official’s and Labor leaders who had come to Brazil to help welcome her home.
Then she boarded a ship to Buenos Aires, thus ending her tour. The trip to Europe failed to gain much sympathy from the Europeans (espically the leftwing) for Peronist Argentina, and many Europeans felt that Peron and Eva were merely trying to resurrect an ideology that had burnt it’s course in Europe (fascism), but in a farcical and theatrical manner. Whenever something positive was said it was usually a journalist or two trying to draw a distinct line between Eva and Peron’s “fascist” government, many journalists been attracted by the glimmer of Evita but been horrified of her husband’s operant belief system. At home the opposition to Peron criticized the cost of the trip and in response the government threatened to close their newspapers and indeed carried out these threats in two cases…..This probably did not help Peron shake off the image that he was another Mussolini or worse Hitler (1).

Eva is often accused of having so much political power (which started at around 1947-1948 when she returned from Europe) through her own selfish motivations and vindictiveness….However this is not the case according to Frasier and Navarro; who claim that she only worked within the margins that her husband had achieved in his “new Argentina.” She never went outside Peron’s rules and regulations so her power was not simply a personal and spiteful vendetta (1). Frasier and Navarro go on to say that to fully understand Eva’s political and social role in Argentina we must first understand that of her husbands and the new Argentina he had apparently created.

Peron’s Argentina was complex to say the least….
On the one hand Peron had managed to bring to Argentina a working democracy, as most of the governments from 1927 onwards were elected through voting fraud and could not be called democratic in the strictest sense of the word…There were no concentration camps in Peron’s Argentina, and leaders of the opposition could freely speak with foreign visitor’s to Argentina….However the opposition felt unessay.
They were constantly afraid that Peron was behind closed doors setting up a fascist dictatorship.
Congress was still allowed sit but it didn’t have any real power, with the real power of the regime lying elsewhere. Those members of congress who complained about this, would find themselves attacked in the streets. In early 1946, Peron broke up the Argentina Labor party and then created a party which he referred to as “the only legal party of the revolution” tecqnueilly rendering all other parties obsolete and creating a one party state. Peron next moved to control the CGT (Pro-Peron union), he told the head of this union named Gay, that his work would now have to be examined by a special government team, Gay refused this, and turned to a group of American union leaders from the IVO union who had come to visit Argentina, he attempted to win them over on his side, and visited them in their hotel room to discuss things, except Peron had the hotel room bugged…And the next morning was able to say to Gay “look you resign or else I’ll break your neck.” Gay resigned and after a series of threats on his life, he left Argentina. By 1948 most of the CGT staff were replaced, anarchists and socialists were no longer strong within the unions like they were in 1943 and the new heads of the CGT were all pro-Peron in nature……Newspapers that disagreed with the regime often found themselves been visited by “safety inspectors” who would complain about a lack of safety standards for the worker’s (this happened to a highly conservative newspaper which criticized Peron) and then would find their weekly columns disappearing. In 1948 the socialist party’s newspaper was shut down after it wrote an article accusing Peron’s social-reforms of just been “window dressing.” The pretext for its closure was that, it was keeping people awake at night by the noises of its printing presses and trucks. Interestingly enough the socialist party itself was never closed down. But in 1950 Peron could still claim to a group of foreign journalists that the Argentine media was free and that it had no censorship
This was partly true, there were no censors for the newspapers like there were before Peron took office, however he did not have the same defention of free journalism as western journalists did (1).

At the sametime that these limitations on freedom were been made, more democratic laws were been passed at the sametime. This gave people the view that Peron was at once a dictator and a democratic reformer.
In 1947 the Argentina congress passed a bill granting women for the first time in Argentine history the right to vote, Evita is often credited with been the mastermind behind this bill, but her role was minimum at the most, she made speeches in her paper about how women should have the right to vote, but she did not have a say on weather the bill was passed or not (1). There was then a celebration outside the Casa Rosado, and then Peron signed the bill in public, and then handed it to Evita making “hers” and she also gained a substantial amount of female supporters now. Peron’s next step at increasing his power was to try and amend the Argentine constitution; espically article 77, which prohibited a president from serving another six years in office after his first term, in protest of this the radical party (one of the opposition parties) stormed out of congress and left for an entire month, when they returned, Peron had won a 2/3rd congress majority to amend the constitution. Peron insisted in congress that he did not change the constitution espically for article 77 but no-one believed this as Evita started to speak against the article and what it meant in her speeches (1).

On the 20th of July 1949, 6,000 Peronist’s met in the Lunar Park stadium. After listing to a speech by Peron, the women of the Peronist movement went next door to the Cervantes theatre where they listened to a long speech by Eva who told them that she intended to make a female Peronist political party that would be headed by her. She spoke of the hardship of working of women, and then said that they must all show complete loyalty to Peron at all times. So it is that the first female political party in Argentine history was born, which was in the shadow of Peron but also separate from him, which Evita made perfectly clear (1).
There was very little room in the party for anyone who was not a complete loyalist to Peron, and some of the more intelligent people who realized this left (1). She also controlled several government organs which she gained influence over from mid 1948-1949 (2). Evita did not care much for women’s rights, and her views on feminism were those of her husbands, which were the standard views of an Argentine male. However, Evita did accomplish something with this female party, she for the first time in Argentine history, got women who had never had a chance in the political field before, into politics (1). Hardly any event went by that year without Evita been involved in it somehow, weather it be the opening of a new monument or a Swmming pool, she would be there. If a company tried to produce a new product it would require sponshership from Evita (thus government approval) Argentine sportsmen had to be photographed with her when they retuned to the country after sporting events. Evita was also written into the events of the 17th of October (1945) becoming a strong protagonist and loyalist who helped reunite Peron and the people of Argentina…..from 1946, onwards Argentina would celebrate the events of the 17th of October and there would be songs played about Peron and Evita, then the workers would reenact the taking of Buenos Aires.
While these events were to un-organized to be a fascist march, they were in part used to threaten and scare the enemies of the Peronist regime…..By 1948, Evita had acquired a good skill for emotional speech making, beforehand she had spoke in a dull matonatmus tone, but now her speeches were full of emotion, even her detractors would walk away from them feeling some of the emotion she had used during the speech (1). She often praised Peron in these speeches and spoke of him as the ‘only source of light’ in their political movement “we all feed from his light” she would go on to say (1). (“Eva Peron”. By Nicholas Fraser and Marysa Navarro, Blackstone Audiobooks, January 1st 1996.) Her opponents stated that her words were empty and she simply made these speeches for political gain, or because she was un-educated and could not think of anything articulate to say….But the truth is she worshiped Peron, and thus wanted to serve him, and thought that by saying these things, she was portraying a positive image of him….in return Peron was quoted of saying of Evita that she was “a product of mine.” (3) (“Evita: in my own words.” By Eva Peron and Professor Joseph A. Page, p, 15, the new press, July 14th, 2005.)
Within four days of the creation of the female Peronist party, the female members voted Eva as their president by popular demand (2). In the 1952 election, the female wing of the Peronist party would win Peron 63% of their vote (1) and for the first time in the world there was a female congressional president (2).

Evita then started to work on her charity work; she started to ship goods abroad to post-WWII Europe (2).
A process which started in November of 1947 (2). The “Eva Peron foundation.” Was not in the strictest sense a charity, and it was not a method of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, nor was it a covert method of despoting money in a “swiss bank account.” Though all of these theories/accusations have been suggested (1). What it was instead was a blueprint for the Peronist state, although this was not it’s original intention (1). The best way to think of it is, to consider it to be part of Evita’s personality and a response to the poverty she encountered everyday in her office, as it grew it’s needs changed and it grew into a welfare organization (1). Charity in Argentina up to Peron’s election in 1946 was mainly carried out by 87 ageing women who would inspect orphanages and look after the sick, Fraser and Navarro; say that the society was no doubt effective but by 1939 problems had started to emerge within it, workers were only granted one day off a week and had to work 12 to 14 hours a day (1). These 87 women were the leaders of the “sociedad de Benfcienca.” Which was previously mentioned (1 & 2). Another huge problem was that, children were forced to have their heads shaved and were blue frocks by the society, young women would earn their keep by knitting clothes for the oligarchy, at Christmas time each year, the children of the society would have their heads shaved and would be sent out into the streets to try and collect money from the public (out of pity – for they would also be wearing dark and worn clothing) for the society. Possibly the worst and most humiliating thing the society did to it’s children was, once every year it would bring them to the Argentine opera house and make them sit on the stage facing outwards in front of their “social betters” and benefactors
Then they would all individually be handed sheets of paper with encouraging and sometimes patronizing remarks on them and would be told to accept the consequences of fate (in other words, accept that they would remain poor.), in 1945 Peron attended one of these events and it is unlikely that he attained much pleasure from it, Evita did not go with him (it was not an event you could bring your mistress to – the two weren’t married at that stage.) and she most definitely would not get any pleasure from the event.
Thus it was decided in 1946, that there was no place for the society in “the new Argentina” and that it should be closed down, and then a new charity would be needed, this is where Evita stepped in (1). The anti-Peronist’s objected strongly to the suppression of the society, but the Peronist government said that it was closing it on the grounds, that it was nothing but an excuse for the upper-classes to ease their consincounes and that it was a good excuse to hold expensive ‘charity’ balls (2).
Evita’s work started with distributing gifts alongside her husband to the poor, then she realized the significant of this and started to do it more, she would use Peron’s personal chauffeur to help deliver food and other products and would also get him to help package material, according to him, in her enthusiasm to help she would often spill the sugar they intended in distributing (1).

By 1948, she was receiving 12,000 letters a day asking for help,
She had the means to assist some of these 12,000 people because the minister for finance in Peron’s government had now given her some funds for her work, but her only means of disturbing goods was Peron’s chauffer. On the 8th of July 1948 the Eva Peron foundation was created and signed into legality by Peron and another of his ministers (it was originally called the Maria, Eva Duarte Peron foundation, then changed) (1).
It started off with a substantial amount of money to work on (10,000 pesos) which came via a check made out by Eva herself to the foundation. Among it’s goals were to achieve houses for those who needed (and deserved) them, better hospitals and to provide people with tools for improving their own life’s should they request them (1). The unions eventually voted to give the foundation, two days worth of worker’s pay every year to help fund it, also a government decree gave it 20% of the national lottery as funding (3). The former Minister for finance and General agent and administrator of the foundation Ramon Cereijo later said of those who donated to the foundation “ the majority of those who personally brought an important donation came only to be photographed with the Senora (Evita) they did it purely to polish apples or to exploit their pretended connections with the government” (2). (“Eva Peron: the myths of a woman”, by J. M. Taylor, p, 48, the university of Chicago press, February 1981- paperback version/original 1979).
It employed 14,000 workers, of which 6,000 of these were construction workers and 26 priests (1). Eva would insist that the foundations over all goal was not to achieve philanthropy status but was to achieve social justice which was one of the main goals of Peronism (3). In 1955 after Peron had been ousted from power, a commission was set up which offered to hear complains of corruption attributed to Evita’s foundation, during this time only one case was brought forward that of a carpenter, and the case was dismissed against him (1). However as Fraser and Navarro point out, this might not mean a lot in itself as there were other alleged cases, were the foundation forced business and factories to hand over goods to it (1) any organization that did not comply with this (like the sweet factory moomooo) was shut down (1), Fraser and Navarro; also point out that some of the people who may have had to by force give products to the foundation may have chose to forget that they had to do so, (as they received gifts in return for giving products away) this might explain why only one case was brought to the commission in 1955 (1). Evita never kept track of the accounts herself and said that money belonged to the cold world of capitalism and had no place in her organization, a co-worker of Evita’s in the foundation said that she had no experience with money whatsoever (1). However this is not to say that the foundation was badly organized or managed, as the minister for fiancé counter signed every check that passed through the foundation and monitored them, as he was required to do by law (1). Despite the above suggestion that some were forced into giving to the foundation, a lot of people (e.g. the unions) gave willingly to it (1). By now in Argentina the cult of personality had taken hold and Peron was referred to as the “great conductor” (3). Through the foundation Evita gained the title of “lady bountiful” (3).

One observer who saw Eva at work in her foundation said that she looked “too tin” and was working herself to death (1). Rich, poor, middle class, working class and refuges would visit the foundation to ask favors of Eva or to donate to her cause (1). She would listen to all sorts of requests, requests to make films, requests to become teachers, complaints against the abuse of power, requests for large homes, etc, etc. She would listen attentively for hours and often work till long after nightfall (1). According to some of those who asked for help from Evita, she would treat them as individuals and equals, not treat them in the cold burrocratic way of a burrocrat (1). The visit to Evita was actually unesscary as anything the poor wanted they could have requested from social-workers, this infact happened after they went to Evita. What Evita did was to make the experience a little more human then burrocratic (1). In her speeches Eva now spoke of her outrage against poverty and eventually became a fanatic who had no regard for herself and only lived to combat poverty (1). Evita’s foundation also created soccer tournaments for poor Argentine children, thanks to the foundation hundreds of thousands of children were able to participate in a tournament (that Evita’s foundation also created) called the “Juvenile championship tournament” (2). Eva also made a generous donation to the poor of Washington D.C. which infuriated Americans (2). A part of Eva’s charity work (which she decided to do voluntarily) was to kiss lepers and people with cephalous (1) once, a poet who was with her during her working hours saw her bend towards a woman with cephalous and he attempted to throw himself in the way, but Eva brushed him aside and later told him to never do that again, because this was the price she had to pay (3). Evita also oversaw the construction of 12 new hospitals the 2 main ones been named after Peron and herself and located in Buenos Aires (1), Argentine healthcare up till then was twofold with private healthcare been good for those who could afford it and public healthcare been less efficient for those who couldn’t afford it (1), Evita decided to improve the healthcare system and even go so far as to make it competitive with international healthcare (1). The best doctor’s worked at these hospitals and were highly paid (1), by 1951 the hospital that was named after Peron, was able to send a train around Argentina delivering free X-rays and free medical drugs (1). The foundation also helped out after a series of earthquakes in Colombia, Peru and even as far as Turkey (1). The foundation also built and operated 4 nursing homes and created over 1,000 schools in the poorest areas of Argentina (which it then handed over to the state) (1). It also built a city for children and one for university students which had a complete replica of the Casa Rosado (1).

In 1950 during the opening of a pro-Peronist taxi-drivers union, Evita fainted and had to be rushed to hospital wherein her appendix was removed (1). During her stay in the hospital a doctor (Oscar Evannisavich – who was also minister of education) performed a series of tests on her and discovered that she was suffering from cancer of the uranium (1). Evita had agreed to the tests, but when he suggested treatment for the cancer she snapped at him, and accused him of wanting her out of politics (1). Despite this revelation, Evita continued to work and took up a leading role in Argentinean foreign affairs (2).
However by now everyone knew Evita was sick (1) and Peron himself said that her sudden death in 1952 came after a desire to destroy herself due to overwork (1) – strange statements coming from a man who had married another woman in the 1930’s who died in 1938 of the same cancer that Eva would die of (1).
Peron; wrote of the years 1950-1951 “in every real sense I had lost my wife….We saw eachother only occasionally and then only very briefly as if we lived in different cites…..Eva would work all night for many nights and then come back at dawn, I used to leave the residence at 6;00 in the morning to go to the Casa Rosado, I met her at the front door, exhausted but satisfied with her work…One day I said to her ‘Eva get some rest! Remember you are my wife’ and she replied to me ‘doing this makes me feel that I am your wife.’ (“Eva Peron.” By Nicolas Fraser and Marysa Navarro, Blackstone Audiobooks, January 1st, 1996.)
Peron insisted at the behest of Evita’s doctor’s that Eva spend long weekends at their country villa, she did this and would spend time there cooking and riding horses with Peron, however she was reluctant to go there and would spend most of the time on the telephone (1). Peron tried to counter this by having the wires cut, but Eva had them reconnected and hid the phone under a cousin so he could not hear it ring (1).
Eva would also take union leaders back to her and Peron’s house in Buenos Aires, early in the morning for breakfast then she would go up and sleep but only for 2 hours according to a union leader….Before she again rose for work (1).

At some stage in 1950 work began on an autobiography of Evita, which would be ghost-written by Penella de Silva (3) however the first draft was gotten rid of because Peron disliked it (1). The second draft had very little to do with Evita (1) and was more a presentation of a few of Peron’s speeches presented by her (Evita) (1) and written into the book by one of Peron’s speech writers (1). The book was entitled “My mission in life” (1 & 3) despite the fact that Evita approved of the second draft’s publication (1) she would later write about it “ recently in the hours of my illness I have thought often of this message in my heart. Perhaps because I didn’t manage to say all that I feel and think in My mission in life I have to write again.” (“Evita: in my own words.” By Eva Peron and Professor Joseph A. Page, p, 49, the new press, July 2005.) (3).

In 1951 the railway workers went on strike, demanding higher wages (1), Evita herself went in person to plead with the workers to quit the strike, which was encouraged by Peron’s political opposition (mainly socialists) (1), but they did not listen to her, when this failed, Peron cracked-down on the union, arrested hundreds of workers and suspended over 2,000 worker’s from their jobs (1). The oligarchy red newspaper “La Pernsa” which was internationally known wrote about the strike in great detail, in response for the paper’s criticism of Peron’s actions….Peron shut the paper down (1). This would be a huge mistake for him in 1951 as it would give his opposition an excuse to highlight the apparent lack of press freedom in “the new Argentina” (1). For the 1951 election Eva intended to run as Peron’s running mate for the post of vice-president, however the army who still had a somewhat conservative outlook were vermentaly opposed to this (1). Also Eva was getting sicker by the day, she would often get fevers and was looking increasingly frail (1). On the day that Peron went to accept the nomination to run again for president, the crowd shouted him down instead calling for Evita, and demanding that she accept the position of vice-president (1). Evita begged for four days to consider this demand but the crowd threatened to go on strike if she didn’t accept the nomination (1). She then asked for one day to decide but they refused (1).
Then she asked for one night but they refused (1), and then finally asked for simply 2 hours (1).
The CGT leadership then told the crowd they would wait outside all night for her answer, when she finally returned she did not give an answer but simply said that, in accordance with “General Peron” she would do what the people asked (1). However on the 31st of August 1951 at eight o’clock in the evening Eva renounced her vice-presidency offer (2) saying:

“I realize that I must not change my battle position in the Peronist movement for any other place…..This decision comes from the most intimate part of my conscience and for that reason is totally free and has all the force of my definite will.” (“Eva Peron: the myths of a woman.” By J. M. Taylor, p, 61, the University of Chicago press, February 1981- paperback version/original 1979.) (2). Later she said:

“I do not have in these moments more then one ambition, a single and great personal ambition: that of me it shall be said…..That there was at the side of Peron a woman, who dedicated herself to carrying the hopes of the people to the President and that the people affectingly called this woman ‘Evita.’ That is what I want to be.” (“Eva Peron: the myths of a woman.” By J. M. Taylor, p, 61, the University of Chicago press, February 1981- paperback version/original 1979.) (2). and finally as a reason for not taking up the vice-presidency nomination she said:

“On October 17th {1945} I formulated my own permanent vow, before my own conscience: to place myself entirely at the service of the descamisado’s {rough English translation = “The shirtless ones”} who are the humble and the workers. I had an almost infinite debt to pay to them {the worker’s protest to free Peron from jail}. I believe that I have done all that was in my power, to fulfil that vow and to pay that debt.”
(“Eva Peron: the myths of a woman.” By J. M. Taylor, p, 61, the University of Chicago press, February 1981- paperback version/original 1979.) (2). However this has not satisfied many observes (2) and probably the real reason why Evita did not accept the vice-presidency was because the military was completely opposed to the idea of a woman – espically ‘that woman’ been their commander and chief (3).

That evening after her speech renouncing the vice-president nomination, Evita fainted out of pain and exhaustion (1). In the fallowing weeks she suffered acute pains in her admen and was unable to resume her work (1), Peron and her doctor’s pleaded with her to allow a series of tests to be made on her (1). In mid September she eventually agreed to this and on September the 24th Peron was taken aside by a doctor and told that Evita was suffering from advanced cancer of the uterus, which could have dangerous side effects (1).
Peron was affected by this greatly, and new that Eva would most likely die in a lot of pain (1).
Eva was never told what her illness exactly was but to get her permission for tests she was told that she either had the choice of medical drugs or an operation (1). She chose the first option.
On the 28th of September while Evita was undergoing a blood transfusion (1), a (small) section of the military and navy attempted to overthrow Peron (1). However it was soon apparent that most of the army still supported the president and the CGT union still supported him, the workers of the CGT gathered in front of the Casa Rosado and Peron rallied them with a violent speech (1). It was intended that a plain would bomb the Casa Rosado while Peron was making his speech (1), but the pilot decided against the act as it would probably cause a large massacre of CGT workers aswell, so instead he flew his plain into Uruguay (1). The crowd noticed that Evita was not on the balcony of the Casa Rosado during Peron’s speech and demanded that she appear (1). Thus the Argentine information office was forced for the first time to disclose news about Evita’s sickness which it called “intense anima.” (1). Later that night Evita transmitted a speech on the radio thanking the people for defending Peron against the uprising (1). And the next day she told three members of the executive commute of the CGT, to organize machine-pistols and other weapons encase another uprising would occur against Peron and his follower’s in the future (1).
Evita was able to get out of bed on the 8th of October to celebrate Peron’s birthday (1) but she could not attend the release of her autobiography on the same night (1).
The book was very popular and one bookstore alone sold 15,000 copies in one day (1).
On the 17th of October, she was again able to leave her bed to attend the celebration of the day, where Peron had been freed; however she was so weak that Peron had to hold her by the waist when she attempted to stand (2). She recvied two medal’s one from the CGT union for her annunciation of the vice-presidency and one from Peron for her role in the Peronist movement (1).
At the end of the event the day was changed from “San Peron day” to “Santa Evita day” (2).
Peron also gave a speech praising Evita for her loyalty and intelligence that she showed towards him in her work (1) Evita had never received such praise from Peron and at the end of his speech she fell towards him, hugging him and kissing him as the crowd watched in silence “with a lump in it’s throat” according to Fraser and Navarro (1). Evita took to her bed again after this speech, but shortly before Peron’s second term presidential election she made two speeches on the radio one in support of unions and the other’s urging female Peronist’s to vote in the election (1).

In the next two weeks, Eva underwent two operations one performed by the North-American cancer expert George Pack who’s intervention was secret and the other was supervised by Ricardo Finochietto world-famous Argentine surgeon (2). On the 9th of November the Argentine election council with support from the opposition parties, passed a decree permitting Evita to vote from her hospital bed (November 9th was the last day in the campaign for re-election) (1). On the 11th of November she voted from her hospital bed (1). On the day that Evita had entered the hospital (3rd of November) a bomb was thrown at some glass that surrounded a publishing house, the intended target of the bomb was a copy of “My mission in life” Eva’s autobiography (3). Eva had a well furnished room in the hospital (1) and a balcony which looked out into the grounds (1) where her supporters stood outside offering prayers to her (1). On day’s when she felt better she would go out and speak with them (1). Peron ate dinner in the hospital and sometimes watched films with Evita when she was physically able to (1). Peron was re-elected president and most of the votes for him came from the female section of the Peronist movement that Evita had created (1). By January Eva was able to get out of bed and even took a trip with Peron on the Peronist yott (1) but by February of 1952 she was complaing of pains again (1). This time there was little that could be done (1). Her speeches also became more violent in her last months and made references to the afterlife (1). She also picked up a strong hatred for the world of capitalism and imperialism (3). “Imperialism…! Peron and our people have happened upon the shame of capitalist imperialism. I have seen it’s miseries and it’s crimes up close. It calls itself a defender of justice as it extends its hawklike talons over the goods of all the people subjected to it’s omnipotence.
It proclaims itself the defender of freedom as it shackles the people who in good faith or bad must accept its unappeasable demands.” (“Evita: in my own words.” By Eva Peron and Professor Joseph A. Page, p, 62, the new press, July 14th 2005) (3). In May she managed to get out of bed and made two speeches, one addressed to her people from the balcony of Casa Rosado, attacking Peron’s enemies (1) and the other to a meeting of Peronist governors where she also attacked Peron’s enemies (1). On the 4th of June 1952 she attended Peron’s inauguration ceremony but she could only stand with the support of a wireframe that was attached to her, underneath her clothes, and also a triple dose of pain-killers (1).
Among anti-Peronist’s and the foreign press, Evita’s illness was seen as a physiological reaction to the fact that she had failed to become vice-president (1). However when this theory was proven wrong, (when they realized that she was not recovering) a new theory sprang up that said, that Peron was using Evita’s illness as a desperate attempt to cling onto political power and that if Evita died the Peronist dictatorship would crumble away (1). Meanwhile the pro-Peronist’s rallied around Evita like a saint and healed masses in her name (1). The Argentine congress in a special sitting gave Evita the title of “spiritual leader of the nation” as her health diminished even more (1). By now she knew that she had very little time to live, although those around her such as senators and union leaders tried to convince her otherwise, despite this she told them that she knew they were lying to her (1). During her last weeks (when she was conscious) she began to write a book called “My message” which was never completed (1 & 2), this book was thought lost but it would show up in 1987 (1 & 3) Fraser and Navarro speculate that the book is mainly a few of Evita’s speeches that attack the army and Peron’s enemies (1). Their partly right in this as Eva does attack the military or the “high circles” which is what she refers to them as but she also insists that she wants to “save” them and put them on the road of humanity which is the future of mankind (3). The book also attacks capitalism, and religion (3). Although Eva insists that she does not believe “like Lenin” that religion is the opium of the masses but instead should be used as a force for good (3) however it is constantly mixed with politics and becomes bad (3). She also wrote a will (1) which began in an aposiopetic tone talking about how Eva wanted to live forever with Peron and with her people (1) and then going on to discuss the donation of her possessions (1).

Her Jewelry was to be given back to the people, who Eva said gave it to her in the first place, and a fund was to be set up to help the poor in the case of emergency’s, where poor families would receive 1 year’s worth of income from the fund (1). She also asked the people to keep writing to her like they did in her lifetime (1), and wished that the monument that the Argentine congress was trying to build {a monument that was originally to highlight the worker’s role in the 17th of October, but when it was learent that Evita was dying, was going to be dedicated to her instead and possibly used as her tomb} to combine the hopes of all Argentine’s and convert them into a reality through her foundation (1). The foundation she requested was to become part of the CGT which would administer it’s assets among the people (1). If this wish had ever been obeyed after Evita’s death, it would have fulfilled her overall wish to continue to help the poor (1).
She also asked Peron to give 3,000 Paso’s to her mother and to look after her when she (Evita) was dead (1).
On the 18th of July at 3pm Evita went into a coma but at midnight she woke again and saw her family and doctor’s around her and said “what has happened to me? I have to get out of bed…If I don’t I will die!” (“Eva Peron”. By Nicolas Fraser and Marysa Navarro, Blackstone Audiobooks, January 1st, 1996.)
And she managed to get out of bed and walk a few steps, with support from Peron (1).
On the 25th of July two cancer specialists were flown in from Germany to Buenos Aires, but they simply told Peron that nothing could be done to help Evita (1). On the 26th of July at 11am she fell into another coma and at 3pm a priest gave her the last sacraments (1). Throughout the day, radio report’s updated on the first lady’s health, stating that it was slowly getting worse, and at 8pm that it was critical (1).
At her bedside were Peron, her family and members of Peron’s government (1). Eva Peron, spiritual leader of the nation passed into immortality at 8:25pm (1) at the age of 33 (1). One minute later the secretariat of information told the people of Argentina that Evita was dead (1), cinema’s, business and factories shut (although this was un-planned) and the nation fell into morning (1). Two hours later Dr. Pedro Ara a well known Spanish embalmer began work on the task of embalming Evita’s corpse (2). Something that had been decided upon by Peron and other CGT members before her death (1). The body was to be put on display the next day (1 & 2) and Peron had made arrangements for her body to be buried in the convent of San Franscio (2) however he was eventually persuaded by a CGT partition to let her body be put on display in the CGT headquarters until the monument that would be dedicated to her was completed (2). The government suspended all official activity for two days and the CGT called a two day general strike except in the most essential areas of work (1), Eva’s body was embalmed and placed in a coffin with an Argentine flag draped over it (1). When her body was moved from the residence to the ministry 8 people were killed in the crush (1). When the 3 day’s had passed, that the government had set aside for people to see the corpse of Evita, it became apparent that not everyone had wished to see the body had seen it (1) so the government extended the period indefinitely (1). Even the strongest critics of Peronism, admitted that, the intense morning after Evita’s death was not cohesion from Juan Peron but real grief for the death of the first lady (1).
On the 9th of August, Evita’s coffin was carried by union members to the house of congress where the blessing that were accustomed for heads of state were given to her (1). As the days went on Eva’s foundation and other healthcare services provided food, blankets and stretchers as people lined up to see Eva’s body (2) seeing the number of files Peron turned to Raúl Apold {a member of Peron’s government, who announced Eva’s death on July 26th } (1) and said “I never knew they loved her so much. I never knew they loved her so.” (“Eva Peron: the myths of a woman.” By J. M. Taylor, p, 65, the University of Chicago press, February 1981- paperback version/original 1979.) (2). While these public processions and tributes were going on Dr. Ara continued to work on the permanent preservation of Evita’s body (1).
His memoirs suggest according to Fraser and Navarro, that he was a man who was obsessed with his work and considered the preservation of Evita’s body to be his greatest achievement (1). He would often stay in his office in Buenos Aires, and make notes and consult books, and then go and check on his project (Eva’s corpse) (1). The entire process of preservation took a year (1). While this was going on, debates were been raised about the suggested monument, a committee was set up to try and organize it’s building, but they couldn’t decide weather a statue of a worker or a statue of Evita should be on top of it (1). Hence for the present Eva had no ‘final resting place’ so her body remained property of Dr. Ara and the CGT union (1).
A chapel like antechamber was created opposite Ara’s office (1) where Evita’s family and some of her closes associates could come and see the body and pray, Peron was given personal access to the chamber but he only saw the body three times (1). On his first visit to her body, he wished to touch her face but was afraid that doing so would ruin the embalmment (1) however Ara told him that it was perfectly safe to do so (1).

A month after Evita’s death a newspaper put forward the suggestion that she should be canonized (1) however this was not taken seriously by the Vatican (1). Someone then suggested that they saw Evita’s face in the moon (1) and after this several mysterious sightings were apparently seen of the first lady (1).
Or “the lady” as her supporters and opponents sometimes called her (3). Peron was effected by Evita’s death, he would often seem sad or grotesquely depressed (1) and once even took to riding through the Argentine streets on a motorbike wearing a baseball cap followed by a large procession of bikes (1).
His enemies also said {although this might be exaggerated or made up} that he converted his weekend villa into a children’s playground and spent his weekends stuffing his pockets with Argentine Paso’s and getting little girls to pull them out (1). In the 1940’s Argentina had not been a police state despite what the opposition claimed but by the mid 1950’s it was (1), Peron jailed his enemies without reason and his secret police practiced torture on descanters (1). Torture had been used in Argentine politics prior to Peron and would be used a lot more after him, his contribution to it was to make it a normal part of police proseeger (1). This only added to a rapid decrees in his popularity (inflation and corruption been two other key reasons) (1). In 1953 Eva’s brother, Juan Duarte was found dead in his office (3) he had apparently committed suicide (1 & 3) after it was rumored that was dealing beef on the Argentine black-market, and Peron had ordered an investigation into this (1).

Peron’s government was overthrown in 1955 in a military coup, after he had started to persecute the Catholic Church (the one institution which until then had escaped his clutches) (1), Peron went aboard a gunboat and escaped to Uruguay (1) Peron could have crushed the uprising if he wanted to with the remainder of the army who were loyal to him but he did not want to plunge Argentina into a civil-war (1).
Remarkably during the bombs that were dropped in the up-rising Evita’s body was not damaged (1), as the CGT healed onto it (1). Ara continued to supervise the body in the days following the anti-Peron revolt (1).
The new military junta that replaced Peron, soon jailed almost all of his followers (1) and placed the CGT and it’s leadership under the control of an army officer (1). The new government tried to insist that Evita’s body was a fake despite the documentary evidence produced by Ara (1) however he eventually convinced them it was real (1). Soon the Peronist party was outlawed and anyone seen with photo’s of Juan or Eva Peron was liable to be jailed (1), now that the Junta knew the body was real they had the problem of deciding what to do with it (1) they asked Ara about possibly destroying it but he insisted that he would not help them with this (1). Eventually they decided to get rid of the body, and instructed Ara to help them, they arrived at the CGT headquarters one midnight and put the body in a coffin with the help of four workers who happened to be in the building and then loaded the coffin onto a waiting truck (2). Then it was moved to the information service and stored secretly in a box saying “radio equipment.” (2). It was not discovered until June 8th 1956 by Colonel Mario Cabanillas the new director of the information service who was looking through the contents of the boxes in the edifice (2). In 1957 it was decided that the body should leave the country (1) and a bearded Italian priest showed up mysteriously in Argentina to take it away with him, (1) to disguise this plot several coffins were created and shipped off to Argentine embassy’s in Germany, Italy and Belgium (1) anyone who was obsessively curious about Evita’s body would then naturally assumes that one of these coffins contained it when infact it didn’t (1). The priest took poison of the body and six weeks later came back to Buenos Aires with instructions in a note giving details about the body’s actual whereabouts (1), this note was not to be opened until the current president had died (which would not be until 1970) and then the next president would receive the note and do whatever he wanted with it (1). On the 4th of July 1956, the military junta passed a decree which transferred all of Evita’s foundation’s assets into the government treasury effectively ending the foundation (1). This was done on the pretext that the foundation had been used for political corruption, despite the fact that a government commission was set up to find political corruption within the organization and it found none (1). Evita’s jewel’s were sold by the government and ended up in the hands of the oligarchy (1). The press now ‘liberated’ celebrated it’s freedom by writing several damming peaces about Peron but espically about Evita (1) they inverted all the ridicules virtues that had been attributed to her with just as ridicules vices (1). Anything Evita achieved was either not mentioned or it was thought that a robot did it instead (1) (first put forward by a socialist writer). In other accounts she was seen as a one dimensional third rate actress, who hated the rich because she was poor and sexually humiliated men to get revenge on them (for been illagiement) the only reason she had tolerated Peron was because he was ‘soft’ and had pandered to her every wish as she manipulated him to gain power (1).
Each year at the anniversary of her birthday, flowers would be left on the monument dedicated to Evita by Peronist’s (1), there was also a series act of violent sabotage against the military junta carried out by militant Peronist’s and civilian Peronist’s, which led to a series of executions and Jialing’s by the junta (1). The Junta intended to be democratic, however this proved hard when Peronist’s (at the instruction from Peron in exile) refused to vote in elections or else voted for candidates he suggested (1). Thus the military found themselves supporting a number of military and civilian governments that were far from democratic (1).
Leaders were constantly removed in military coups (1) and any civilian governed that tried to reinstate Peronism was toppled (1). At the sametime Argentine’s wanted a national identity something which only Peron (if only very briefly) had understood while he was in office (1). In 1970 Juan Peron recvied Eva’s corpse while he was in exile in Madrid (2) it had been up until then in Malian, Italy (2). For two years the body stayed in Peron’s mansion house in Spain, along with Peron and his third wife Isabel Martinez (2).
In 1972 Juan Peron returned to Argentina with Isabel and was elected President again (2). Evita played a large role in this return of Peronism, as Peronist’s used her violent last few month speeches to show that Peronism was a militant leftwing almost socialist like ideology, Peron didn’t discourage this belief and at one point in his political exile it seemed likely he would move to Castro’s Cuba (1). A popular saying about Evita at this stage was “If Evita was alive today, she would be a guerilla!” (2) Created by the Peronist guerilla movement (1 & 2). Isabel Peron; said in interviews that she hoped to follow in Evita’s footsteps and often led masses in Evita’s honor (1). Isabel lacked many of Evita’s qualities but the irony was, she would be granted the title Evita never had that of vice-president (1) as she ran in the election of 1973 as Peron’s running mate (1). Peron was elected with the largest majority he ever recvied however his presidency was short lived as he died in office on the 1st of July 1974 (1) this gave Isabel the title of president (1), the first female president (and vice-president) in Argentine History (1).
The bodies of Eva and Peron lay together in the presidential palace (1) a memorial was planned but Isabel’s government was overthrown in a military coup before this could happen (1).
The new president refused to occupy his office while the body’s of Evita and Peron where there so on the 22nd of November 1976 Evita’s remains returned to her family (1). It is now rumored that Evita resides in the cemetery “La Recoleta” --- Argentina’s aristocratic ceremony, Fraser and Navarro seem to suggest she does lie here in the middle of a marble tomb with a trapdoor in it which leads to a compartment that contains two coffins, under the first compartment is a second trapdoor and a second compartment that is where her coffin supposedly resides (1) Fraser and Navarro write: “It reflects a fear, a fear that the body will disappear from the tomb and that the woman, or rather the myth of the woman, will reappear.” (“Eva Peron.” By Nicolas Fraser and Marysa Navarro, Blackstone Audiobooks, January 1st, 1996.) Or does she lie in an iron volt in Buenos Aires? (2) Or in a humble cemetery in Junín? (2) Any of the coffins with Evita’s name on it could be one of the forged duplicates created by the military junta that preceded Peron (2). One thing is known though a corpse that seemed to be that of Eva’s re-appeared in Argentina shortly after Peron’s death, apparently flown in from Madrid (where Peron had kept it) at the request of Isabel Peron (1 & 2)…..However there is also the theory put forward by some Argentine’s that this corpse was simply a wax doll all along…… (2).

Despite her untimely death in July of 1952, Eva Peron continues to live on today
In means of a short lived Broadway play “The Diamond Orchid”, (3) a soft-porn movie called “little mother” (3), a farcical/satirical TV series called “Eva Peron”, another TV series that stared Faye Dunaway (3) and a brilliant but historically inaccurate musical called “Evita.” (3). “the global popularity of the latter and the widespread interest in the motion picture based on it attest to the enduring mystique of Eva Peron.” (“Evita: in my own words.” By Eva Peron and Professor Joseph A. Page, p, 4, the new press, 14th of July, 2005.) (3).

Dracula: a major anti-imperealist novel.

2010-05-27T14:46:00.000-07:00

the famous vampire novel "Dracula" by the Anglo-Irish author Bram Stoker is on the surface 'a good vampire novel.' Yet if you acutally read into it you'll find it has a strong criticsm of imperailism within it's 500 pages or so.

Count Dracula a Translavanyian Noble Man (monarchist - for the puroposes of politics here) purchases property in London from a young law clerk named Jonathan Harker
"carfax abbey." It is slowly revaled that the Count is actually a vampire...and he goes to London for one reason and one reason alone to create a vampric race with him at it's head...He wants to take over London and create a vampric-empire.

His first (implied - we are never eaxctly told but we presume he killed her) victim is a namless girl he sees outside a flower shop. Dracula ruthlessly feeded upon the Romanian people while he was back at home (e.g. kidnapping and feeding a baby to his brides) this show's that he is a total-monarchist (tyrant) and imperailist.

Dracula brainwashes the weak memembers of society (e.g. the lunathic R.M. Renfield) this is similar to how monarchs brainwashed people to their sides.

Of course Dracula's imperailist view's don't only apply to monarchism...
Dracula can also bee seen as a capitalist...At one point in the novel Harker and Arthur Holmwood (another one of the protagnoists) cut at Dracula with a knife and golden coins fall out of his pocket - he is evidently very rich.

Although marxists are guilty of imperailism along with nazis Dracula does not seem to reperseant these groups...However he is a rascist (thus some nazism) as he wants to create a vamprice master race.His actions aren't that different from modren day impearilists (e.g. America) who want an empire and want to force the world under Americanism just like Dracula does with vamprieism.

Thus the novel "Dracula" is a recommended read for anti-imperailists.
Of course it's a great work of fiction in general.
and the strong theme of friendship in it between the main characters (Marxists be-warned the main hero's are all so-called "bourgrasies") is touching.
And it's just a genuinely scary novel (in some places.)

death to empires!

Murder of the Romanov's.

2010-05-15T12:19:00.000-07:00

Communist's claim that they had to systamically and brutally kill the Romanov royal family of Russia in 1918 because the white guard's were approaching their town and might have freed them and rallied around a political banner.

However this is a lie! Even if the white's had freed the Romanov's they would not have all rallied around them. The white army was heavily split...Full of monarchists who hated anyone who didn't support the Tsar and socialist-revoultarione's (political party that Kerensky was part of) who Lenin bullied out of power.
and there were some fascist/anti-communists who tagged along.

So if they had freed the Tsar and his family the socailist-revoulationries probably would have wanted to put him on trial anyway....
Only the monarchists would have wanted him as a political banner.

Face it the Tsar was a dictator a lot of people disliked him not just the Boulshavik's....So their only excuse for brutailliy murdering him is bullshit.

The Tsar's children could have been esaliy deported from the country into forced exile they did not need to be slaughtered (shot and stabbed to death with bayonette's) The Tsar and his wife I agree needed some punishment (they had blood on their hadns) but that punishment should have been a lenghty spell in prison and then be deported to live with their children.

But the communist tyrant's brutially murdered them.
I'ts less horrofic that they killed the Tsar I have to say; because as I mentioned he was a murderer and a previous dictator but his children were innocent.
They might have been a little spoilt (understandable considering the family they grew up in) but they didn't kill 2,000 workers in 1905 or another 600 in 1912.

How can communists talk about love and shit when they do thing's like that?

VE-day

2010-05-08T09:17:00.000-07:00

Victory in Europe day reperseants the time peirod when the capitalist and marxists powers along with some smaller nationalists teamed up to defeat the fascist dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussilini...Sadly all these ideolagies couldn't stay together after the war(because they were all power hungry hypocrties.)

On this day Churchill gave a self-rightous speech about how Ireland refused to help in the war...(Ireland WAS AND IS a netural country we do not get invovled in wars that are started for profit or power - we don't want to invade other lands...)
which Éamon De Valera would later respond to on the 16th of May (see my channel on youtube were I favourited that respone.) NOTE: Éamon De Valera was an Iriish republican revoultaionary and at that time was prime minister of Ireland.

I mentioned all that to show a darker side to Chruchill who is considered a national hero today...Chruchill is far from that if you go back to the 1920's you'll see he's sort of indirectly reponsable (along with other's) for the Irish civil-war.

Stalin meanwhile -another "hero" today used the defeat of nazism to take over Eastren Europe and set up dictatorships there.
And America well they took the credit for everything despite the fact they did very little in the war...

But on this day an evil ideolagy (Nazism) died and the world COULD have and SHOULD have been a better place but it wasn't..
Because of the Cold war!

US and French diplomats walk out during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN summit.

2010-05-04T09:54:00.000-07:00

While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was making his 35 minute speech at the UN summit in NY (New York.) the free thinkers and democratic modereates from America & France walked out halfway through his speech.....Refusing to hear th rest of what he had to say. (Which is posted down below in another articale via video link.)

This show's a complete lack of distrust for diplomacy!
America & France should have waited to hear the entire speech....The Iranian diplomats waited to hear Hillary Clinton speak after they had finished...So it would have been polite if the US and France returned the favour.

This show's that the US does not want peace and it wants to start an imperailist war as soon as possible with Iran as the new target..France wants to be a US pupet in this war. If they had stayed they would have heared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; say that Iran had "no need" for a nuclear bomb and that Iran was willing to sign up to a programe to end ALL nuclear weapons worldwide.

The capitalist powers are once again going to use a false pretex to cause bloodshed in Iran...But not before puting sanctions on the country that will only harm the Iranian people.

Iranian president's speech at the UN.

2010-05-04T08:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4__ZZy-3IQs&NR=1

A poem for the 4th of July.

2010-05-02T06:46:00.000-07:00

(I won't be here on the 4th of July when America won it's independence from English impreailism....So I thought I'd write my 'tribute' to America now and you can find it again to read on the 4th of July through my blog index thing at the side...Anyway enjoy my little peace on the most influenical country in the world...NOTE: influenical doesn't have to mean good.)

A poem for the 4th of July.
(A tribute to America.)

This land that upon this day has declared,
Through revolution and blood, independence,
Is now the leading country on our stage,
Known as America. On this day of grace the 4th of July,
It was decided that British rule would die in America.

They became an independent and to their own point a views a great state.
Why is it then that they feel the need to wallow in bloodshed and greed?
They suffered under colonies hence why make colonise out of other countries?
Tell me oh ‘land of the free’ when will Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and more,
Get full freedom from you? Tell me when you invaded Vietnam, did you really,
Give a dam for their freedom and their health, or were you after your own wealth?

When you invaded Grease or dropped a bomb on Japan,
Did your noble thoughts of sovereignty cease to exist then?
The bombing of Cambodia led to a dictatorship!
Did your moral stance on democracy slip for that country?
When the Vietnamese took out Pol Pot did your CIA men,
Not attempt to put him back in? Thankfully you failed to win with this.
So when you celebrate on the 4th of July your impendence…
Can you seriously look the people of Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and more in the eye,
And say ‘we did not mean to bleed your countries dry’? Or will you still put your money were your morals were and take their oil….? And while your at it why not spoil their ruling elected governments?
Why not let governments that obey you into their countries? Is this your stance on freedom today?
Or did it go array sometime ago? I fear that the answer is not no.

The mutilated children in Vietnam thanks to your chemical weapons ‘uncle Sam’
Should they stand and fight on your side for western capitalist pride?
Tell me do the people of Cuba love you after ’63 when you tried to string their government from a three?
Maybe the native American’s love you and celebrate independence day…For when you chose to slay them,
I’m sure they thought of your love….Love through the barrel of a gun.

Should we not on this day sing for true American’s such as Martian Luther King?
Who stood up for the supposed freedom in your land? I still fail to understand,
How you can sing songs of national liberty and yet not allow this virtue to other countries.
Please tell me if you are true to the belief of freedom then where is the relief for the poor?
You say all that is good and stage all that is bad to be honest it’s rather sad.

So I come to this conclusion on the 4th of July,
We the people of the world should celebrate the old America,
Which now it seems has to die. The America found on morals not money,
The closest thing to a land of milk and hunny. For you once chose to be free,
But now can you still tell me that you are? How far can you go with your corporations spreading woe?
So I pay my respect to the America which looked after all it’s citizens, who did not invade other lands,
Under a tirade of self-righteousness….The America that is there today however,
Seems doomed to stay, Obama, Bush, Regan, Clinton; their all the same…Old America’s,
Dreams now burn in a flame of shame.

The Kerensky regeme July 1917 - November 1917.

2010-04-30T14:17:00.000-07:00

in July of 1917 the moderate capitalist liberal (see how negative I made that sound?)
Prince Levorv (or something) stepped down from power in the provsional revoultionary goverment in Russia (the one that over threw the monarchy). He was replaced by the socialist-revoultionary Alexander Kerensky.

Kerensky introduced several (badly needed)reforms into the system which included giving women more rights....Allowing women to work, fixing more equal land rates for the pesantry and increasing worker's pay. He also opened up other parties and promised new elections in the country...Sadly he continued Russia's involvment in the inmperailist war (WWI) and this lost him a lot of popularity...

In November of 1917 Kerensky delcared Russia a socialist republic....But then Vladimir Lenin overthrew him and declared Russia socialist republic (?).

If Lenin cared that much about socialism shouldn't he have just accsepted Kerensky a more moderate socialist in power instead of overthrowing him and setting up a one party state? Yes Kerensky was far from perfect but I think if he had more time he would h ave created a good social-democratic country that benifted the middle class pesantry and the working class equaly....Sadly we'll never know for sure thanks to Lenin, his awful April thesease and his hypocrtical stance on socialism.

On Mao again.

2010-04-21T15:32:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nTD6rK9nfM&playnext_from=TL&videos=KLcHwtP7GDQ&feature=sub

Maoists claim that the GLF (Great leap forward) wasn't Mao's fault...That most of the blaim for the failure of the project lies with Mao's "middle men."
However if Mao was the ruler of China shouldn't he have kept an eye on these middle men? He was officaly the chairman of the CCP and the central commiitte. If he's in that postion he has the responsabilty to check and cross check the reports and findings and claimed succses of his advisors and middle men.
If he did not do t his it simply means he was a bad leader.

Maoists claim that Mao's invasion of Tibet wasn't an impereailist invansion.
that "sertian area's of Tibet were already part of China."

Oh ok....So if these "sertian" areas where already part of China what were the other areas that weren't...? (Sertian implies that only SOME of Tibet was part of China) so Mao still is guilty then of an imperailist invansion over at least part of Tibet. They say that Tibet might be allowed have independence today from Imperailist China.
So hold on China is imperialist now towards Tibet....Yet when Mao invaded it, it was not imperailism it was saving the country? So modren day China is an imperailist dictatorship and yet Mao's China was a libertating benavolent (imperailist) dictatorship? Right...yea that's not hypocrasy!

Apperantly the Dalia Lama had slaves and Mao respected the Dailia Lama....(Maosit claim) so did Mao respect his slaves? Or did that little hypocrasy slip the Maoists minds...?

Maoists say that Mao didn't order anything to be destroyed during the CR (Cultural revoultion) and that Red Guard franctions took it upon themselves to create damage.
Once again Mao should have kept a lookout for what they were doing...He shouldn't have just assumed that the entire army was vritues and wouldn't have questioned his rules (he would have got a shock if he had been in Peronist Argentina). Any deaths, ruins of failures during the CR even if they wren't deliberatly done by Mao are still his responsabilty simply because he was the head of the communist goverment. I'm not saying other party memember's weren't responsable but if Mao didn't trust the "reformists" inside his party then shouldn't he have done something quicker about them...? I guess not he was to busy.....You know been a watchful intellegent leader for all of that crap.

China's economy grew in the 80's not the 60's...Mao's goverment bankrupted China during the CR.

Finally it is suggested that we read "The battle for China's past: Mao and the cultural revoultion". But how biast is this book? Is it writen by a Maoist? If so then all of the claims and so called facts should be questioned in it straight away.
In short Maoists have a somewaht misguided view of history (thogh so do capitalists and I don't believe Mao was a two timing adulterer like some capitalists say he was). However to defend imperailism and then talk about it's evils and other such things is just hypocrtical! Maoists get real....

NOTE: Sorry for the bed spelling mistakes...The spellcheck on the blog won't let me change them for some reason...I've tried to but they still show up as the same mistakes when I publish what I've wrriten.

The truth about Anarchism.

2010-04-18T07:10:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about the capitalist, socailist and fascist propaganda against the system of anarchism and here's my conclusion it's bullshit.
Anarchists are always accused of violence and so called terrorism...However this isn't true lot's of anarchists reject violence (Noam Chomsky).

Here's an articale wrriten by an anarchist on anarchism...I'm not fully sure if I'm an anarchist but really if I had to chose between an anarchist society and a capitalist or socialist or fasicst society I think I'd chose the former instead of the latter ones. The only problem with anarchism is how to achive it...It would take centuries and it probably can't be done thanks to the main-stream left & right propaganda about it anyway here's what Chaz Bufe has to say on the subject:

Anarchism: What It Is & What It Isn't
by Chaz Bufe

There are many popular misconceptions about anarchism, and because of them a great many people dismiss anarchists and anarchism out of hand.
Misconceptions abound in the mass media, where the term "anarchy" is commonly used as a synonym for "chaos," and where terrorists, no matter what their political beliefs or affiliations, are often referred to as "anarchists." As well, when anarchism is mentioned, it's invariably presented as merely a particularly mindless form of youthful rebellion. These misconceptions are, of course, also widespread in the general public, which by and large allows the mass media to do what passes for its thinking.

Worse, some who call themselves "anarchists" don't even know the meaning of the term. These people fall, in general, into two classes. The first, as the great Italian anarchist Luigi Fabbri pointed out nearly a century ago in Influencias burguesas sobre el anarquismo, consists of those who are attracted to the lies in the mass media. By and large, these people are simply looking for a glamorous label for selfish, antisocial behavior. The good news is that most of them eventually mature and abandon what they consider "anarchism." The bad news is that while they're around they tend to give anarchism a very bad name. As Fabbri put it:

[These are] persons who are not repelled by the absurd, but who, on the contrary, engage in it. They are attracted to projects and ideas precisely because they are absurd; and so anarchism comes to be known precisely for the illogical character and ridiculousness which ignorance and bourgeois calumny have attributed to anarchist doctrines.1
The second class consists of those who equate anarchism with some pet ideology having essentially nothing to do with anarchism. In modern times, the most prominent of these mislabeled beliefs have been primitivism and amoral egotism. Again, the identification of such beliefs with anarchism tends to give anarchism a bad name, because of, on the one hand, the absurdity of primitivism and, on the other, the obvious antisocial nature of amoral egotism. To put this another way, the identification of anarchism with chaos, mindless rebellion, absurdities (such as primitivism), and antisocial attitudes and behaviors (such as amoral egotism) has three primary undesirable effects: 1) it allows people to easily dismiss anarchism and anarchists; 2) it makes it much more difficult to explain anarchism to them, because they already think that they know what it is and have rejected it; and 3) it attracts a fair number of what Fabbri calls "empty headed and frivolous types," and occasionally outright sociopaths, whose words and actions tend to further discredit anarchism.
So, if we're ever to get anywhere, we need to make plain what anarchism is and what it isn't. First, let's deal with the misconceptions.

What Anarchism Isn't

Anarchism is not terrorism. An overwhelming majority of anarchists have always rejected terrorism, because they've been intelligent enough to realize that means determine ends, that terrorism is inherently vanguardist, and that even when "successful" it almost always leads to bad results. The anonymous authors of You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship: The Anarchist Case Against Terrorism put it like this:
You can't blow up a social relationship. The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for the creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities.
Proponents of terrorism and guerrillaism are to be opposed because their actions are vanguardist and authoritarian, because their ideas, to the extent that they are substantial, are wrong or unrelated to the results of their actions (especially when they call themselves libertarians or anarchists), because their killing cannot be justified, and finally because their actions produce either repression with nothing in return, or an authoritarian regime.2

Decades of government and corporate slander cannot alter this reality: the overwhelming majority of anarchists reject terrorism for both practical and ethical reasons. In the late 1990s, Time magazine called Ted Kaczynski "the king of the anarchists"; but that doesn't make it so. Time's words are just another typical, perhaps deliberately dishonest, attempt to tar all anarchists with the terrorist brush.
This is not to say that armed resistance is never appropriate. Clearly there are situations in which one has little choice, as when facing a dictatorship that suppresses civil liberties and prevents one from acting openly, which has happened repeatedly in many countries. Even then, armed resistance should be undertaken reluctantly and as a last resort, because violence is inherently undesirable due to the suffering it causes; because it provides repressive regimes excuses for further repression; because it provides them with the opportunity to commit atrocities against civilians and to blame those atrocities on their "terrorist" opponents; and because, as history has shown, the chances of success are very low.

Even though armed resistance may sometimes be called for in repressive situations, it's a far different matter to succumb to the romance of the gun and to engage in urban guerrilla warfare in relatively open societies in which civil liberties are largely intact and in which one does not have mass popular support at the start of one's violent campaign. Violence in such situations does little but drive the public into the "protective" arms of the government; narrow political dialogue (tending to polarize the populace into pro- and anti-guerrilla factions); turn politics into a spectator sport for the vast majority of people3; provide the government with the excuse to suppress civil liberties; and induce the onset of repressive regimes "better" able to handle the "terrorist" problem than their more tolerant predecessors. It's also worth mentioning that the chances of success of such violent, vanguardist campaigns are microscopic. They are simply arrogant, ill-thought-out roads to disaster.4

Anarchism is not primitivism. In recent decades, groups of quasi-religious mystics have begun equating the primitivism they advocate (rejection of science, rationality, and technology—often lumped together under the blanket term, "technology") with anarchism.5 In reality, the two have nothing to do with each other, as we'll see when we consider what anarchism actually is—a set of philosophical/ethical precepts and organizational principles designed to maximize human freedom. For now, suffice it to say that the elimination of technology advocated by primitivist groups would inevitably entail the deaths of literally billions of human beings in a world utterly dependent upon interlocking technologies for everything from food production/delivery to communications to medical treatment. This fervently desired outcome, the elimination of technology, could only come about through means which are the absolute antithesis of anarchism: the use of coercion and violence on a mass scale, as it's inconceivable that a majority of human beings would voluntarily give up such things as running water, sewer systems, modern medicine, electric lights, and warm houses in the winter.6

Anarchism is not chaos; Anarchism is not rejection of organization. This is another popular misconception, repeated ad nauseam by the mass media and by anarchism's political foes, especially marxists (who sometimes know better). Even a brief look at the works of anarchism's leading theoreticians and writers confirms that this belief is in error. Over and over in the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, Ward, Bookchin, et al., one finds not a rejection of organization, but rather a preoccupation with it—a preoccupation with how society should be organized in accord with the anarchist principles of individual freedom and social justice. For a century and a half now, anarchists have been arguing that coercive, hierarchical organization (as embodied in government and corporations) is not equivalent to organization per se (which they regard as necessary), and that coercive organization should be replaced by decentralized, nonhierarchical organization based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. This is hardly a rejection of organization.

Anarchism is not amoral egotism. As does any avant garde social movement, anarchism attracts more than its share of flakes, parasites, and outright sociopaths, persons simply looking for a glamorous label to cover their often-pathological selfishness, their disregard for the rights and dignity of others, and their pathetic desire to be the center of attention. These individuals tend to give anarchism a bad name, because even though they have very little in common with actual anarchists—that is, persons concerned with ethical behavior, social justice, and the rights of both themselves and others—they're often quite exhibitionistic, and their disreputable actions sometimes come into the public eye. To make matters worse, these exhibitionists sometimes publish their self-glorifying views and deliberately misidentify those views as "anarchist." To cite an example, the publisher of a pretentiously (sub)titled American "anarchist" journal recently published a book by a fellow egotist consisting primarily of ad hominem attacks on actual anarchists, knowing full well that the "anarchist" author of the book is a notorious police narcotics informant who has on a number of occasions ratted out those he’s had disputes with to government agencies. This police informer’s actions—which, revealingly, he's attempted to hide—are completely in line with his ideology of amoral egotism ("post-left anarchism"), but they have nothing to do with actual anarchism. Such amoral egotists may (mis)use the label, but they're no more anarchists than the now-defunct German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was democratic or a republic.

The full absurdity of identifying amoral egotism—essentially "I'll do what I damn well please and fuck everybody else"—with anarchism will become apparent in short order when we'll consider what anarchism actually is.

Anarchism is not "Libertarianism." Until relatively recently, the very useful term "libertarian" was used worldwide as a synonym for "anarchist." Indeed, it was used exclusively in this sense until the 1970s when, in the United States, it was appropriated by the grossly misnamed Libertarian Party.

This party has almost nothing to do with anarchist concepts of liberty, especially the concepts of equal freedom and positive freedom—that is, access to the resources necessary to the freedom to act. (Equal freedom and positive freedom are discussed in the following section of this pamphlet.) Instead, this "Libertarian" party concerns itself exclusively with the negative freedoms, pretending that liberty exists only in the negative sense, while it simultaneously revels in the denial of equal positive freedom to the vast majority of the world's people.

These "Libertarians" not only glorify capitalism, the mechanism that denies both equal freedom and positive freedom to the vast majority, but they also wish to retain the coercive apparatus of the state while eliminating its social welfare functions—hence widening the rift between rich and poor, and increasing the freedom of the rich by diminishing that of the poor (while keeping the boot of the state firmly on their necks). Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term "libertarian" has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word, and who have very little in common with anarchists.

This is what anarchism isn't.

What Anarchism Is

In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state, the rejection of coercive government. Under this extremely narrow definition, even such apparent absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism" and religious anarchism are possible.7
But most anarchists use the term "anarchism" in a much broader sense, defining it as the rejection of coercion and domination in all forms. So, most anarchists reject not only coercive government, but also religion and capitalism, which they see as other forms of the twin evils, domination and coercion. They reject religion because they see it as the ultimate form of domination, in which a supposedly all-powerful god hands down "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" to its "flock." They likewise reject capitalism because it's designed to produce rich and poor and because it's designed to produce a system of domination in which some give orders and others have little choice but to take them. For similar reasons, on a personal level almost all anarchists reject sexism, racism, and homophobia—all of which produce artificial inequality, and thus domination.

To put this another way, anarchists believe in freedom in both its negative and positive senses. In this country, freedom is routinely presented only in its negative sense, that of being free from restraint. Hence most people equate freedom only with such things as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of (or from) religion. But there's also a positive aspect of freedom, an aspect which anarchists almost alone insist on.8

That positive aspect is what Emma Goldman called "the freedom to." And that freedom, the freedom of action, the freedom to enjoy or use, is highly dependent upon access to the world's resources. Because of this the rich are in a very real sense free to a much greater degree than the rest of us. To cite an example in the area of free speech, Donald Trump could easily buy dozens of daily newspapers or television stations to propagate his views and influence public opinion. How many working people could do the same? How many working people could afford to buy a single daily newspaper or a single television station? The answer is obvious. Working people cannot do such things; instead, we're reduced to producing ‘zines with a readership of a few hundred persons or putting up pages on the Internet in our relatively few hours of free time.

Examples of the greater freedom of the rich abound in daily life. To put this in general terms, because they do not have to work, the rich not only have far more money (that is, access to resources) but also far more time to pursue their interests, pleasures, and desires than do the rest of us. To cite a concrete example, the rich are free to send their children to the best colleges employing the best instructors, which the rest of us simply can't afford to do; if we can afford college at all, we make do with community and state colleges employing slave-labor "adjunct faculty" and overworked, underpaid graduate students. Once in college, the children of the rich are entirely free to pursue their studies, while most other students must work at least part time to support themselves, which deprives them of many hours which could be devoted to study. If you think about it, you can easily find additional examples of the greater freedom of the rich in the areas of medical care, housing, nutrition, travel, etc., etc.—in fact, in virtually every area of life.

This greater freedom of action for the rich comes at the expense of everyone else, through the diminishment of everyone else's freedom of action. There is no way around this, given that freedom of action is to a great extent determined by access to finite resources. Anatole France well illustrated the differences between the restrictions placed upon the rich and the poor when he wrote, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Because the primary goal of anarchism is the greatest possible amount of freedom for all, anarchists insist on equal freedom in both its negative and positive aspects—that, in the negative sense, individuals be free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm or directly intrude upon others; and, in the positive sense, that all individuals have equal freedom to act, that they have equal access to the world's resources.

Anarchists recognize that absolute freedom is an impossibility, that amoral egotism ignoring the rights of others would quickly devolve into a war of all against all. What we argue for is that everyone have equal freedom from restraint (limited only by respect for the rights of others) and that everyone have as nearly as possible equal access to resources, thus ensuring equal (or near-equal) freedom to act. This is anarchism in its theoretical sense.

In Spain, Cuba, and a few other countries there have been serious attempts to make this theory reality through the movement known as anarcho-syndicalism. The primary purpose of anarcho-syndicalism is the replacement of coercive government by voluntary cooperation in the form of worker-controlled unions coordinating the entire economy. This would not only eliminate the primary restraint on the negative freedoms (government), but would also be a huge step toward achieving positive freedom. The nearest this vision came to fruition was in the Spanish Revolution, 1936–1939, when huge areas of Spain, including its most heavily industrialized region, came under the control of the anarcho-syndicalist Confederación Nacional del Trabajo. George Orwell describes this achievement in Homage to Catalonia:

The anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was in full swing. . . . the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the anarchists; . . . Every shop and café had an inscription saying it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-workers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. . . . The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. . . . All this was queer and moving. There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for.
This is anarchism. And Orwell was right—it is worth fighting for.9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism, by Luigi Fabbri. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 2001, p. 16.
2. You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 1998, p. 20.

3. It may be that now due to apathy, but in violent/repressive situations other op-tions are cut off for almost everyone not directly involved in armed resistance.

4. For further discussion of this matter, see You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship: The Anarchist Case Against Terrorism and Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism.

5. Ted Kaczynski is in some ways quite typical of this breed of romantic. He differs from most of them in that he acted on his beliefs (albeit in a cowardly, violent manner) and that he actually lived a relatively primitive existence in the backwoods of Montana—unlike most of his co-religionists, who live comfortably in urban areas and employ the technologies they profess to loathe.

6. For further discussion of this topic, see Anarchism vs. Primitivism, by Brian Oliver Sheppard. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 2003. See also the "Primitive Thought" appendix to Listen Anarchist!, by Chaz Bufe. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 1998.

7. Indeed, there have been a fairly large number of admirable religious anarchists, individuals such as Leo Tolstoy and Dorothy Day (and the members of her Catholic Worker groups, such as Ammon Hennacy), though to most anarchists the advocacy of freedom on Earth while bowing to a heavenly tyrant (no matter how imaginary) seems an insupportable contradiction.
To the best of my knowledge there have been no such shining examples of anarcho-capitalists.

8. To be fair, marxists also tend to emphasize positive freedom, but for the most part they’realso curiously insensitive, and often downright hostile, to "negative" freedom—the freedom from restraint (especially when they have the guns and goons to do the restraining).

9. Of course, this discussion of anarchism is necessarily schematic, given that this pamphlet is intended as an introductory 10-minute read. For elaboration upon these themes, see Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism, by Rudolf Rocker; What Is Communist Anarchism?, by Alexander Berkman (a portion of which is now published by Freedom Press as the ABC of Anarchism); Fields, Factories and Workshops, by Peter Kropotkin; and Anarchy in Action, by Colin Ward.

Chossudovsky: Obama, not Osama, is threat No.1 to global security

2010-04-17T13:29:00.000-07:00

BRIC.

2010-04-16T13:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-nslfWp9pU&playnext_from=TL&videos=zYWU_S3fiU8&feature=sub

Brazil, Russia, India & China got together for an in-formal meeting today in their speical group caleld "BRIC" (their names).
The group talked about making the international community more democratic.
and reforming the world back and the IMF (International money foundation).

It is believed that all the countries combinded together have a collective economic gain of over 3 billion dolars. Some say the countries are trying to take over economicly and could pass America out..... It is believed that Russia is the strong-man inside the BRIC group. The group has never been taken seriously in the past but 50 years ago when Brazil started to grow as a nation it wasn't taken seriously....Now it's a wealthy nation.

While it is good that a splinter group exists that isn't America and it's imperial friends...However the countries in this group are all corrupt.
China has awful human rights, Russia holds rigged elections, Brazil is to friendly to America and India is guilty of using child labour. So I'm pretty skeptical about the morality of this so called BRIC group....Let's see how things turn out.

Gao Zhisheng: Chiness right's activist gives up fighting against Communist China.

2010-04-07T17:55:00.000-07:00

On March 18th long-term human right's activist Gao Zhisheng came out of hiding after he disapperd long over a year ago.
For the last decade Gao Zhisheng has been fighting for huamn right's reforms inside the PRC (People's Republic of China). He is by profession a lawyer and often used his law skills to try and improve human right's in the country.

the 'capitalist tratior's.' insdie the communist party of China (who still worship Maso which is odd for a country that is capitalist isn't it - MAOISTS!).
have threatend Gao Zhisheng, in the past and he was arrested at one point and beaten in jail.

This is showing that China is just as brutal as it was when Mao was in charge over 60years ago. Gao Zhisheng; has said that if the Chiness authoraties let him go back to his family and friends he will give up fighting against their lack of huamn rights.

He has kept quite to his current wearaboutes but it's reported taht over the pone he told family and friends to leave him alone which they said was out of character for him. This has lead other lawyers and rights activists to suspect taht he is under preasure from the authoraties.

This is sad....It really does make me want to turn to anarchism and denounce ALL states as evil and corrupt. This man strongly believed in his quest to bring reforms to China and he got toruted and beaten in a jail for his efforts.

"Money is the root of all evil" an intresting articale.

2010-04-06T17:29:00.000-07:00

This is an articale I found while browsing google.
I agree with the overall points in it but I think crime is a narrow way of saying money is evil (read articale) politicans commit horrible acts with the motivation of money in mind it's not just crinnimals.

"First off I'd like to say. What I talk about here in this writing is for everyone. It doesn't matter where you come from. From the hood to the suburbs. I don't care how you were brought up. It may even tell you why certain people act the way they do. So lets get on to it.

Money is said to be the root of all evil. Some people agree and some don't. What do you think? Do you beleive the hype? Me personally I believe it is some what true. Look at your surroundings. The evil acts are happening everyday. People are actually letting money destroy everything around them. What is it all for? I couldn't tell you. Maybe its desperation. Are maybe the person which caring out the evil deed feel it is caused for. There are many unknown reasons.

Lets get into the evil acts. Instead of me naming them all I'll sum it up in one word crime. Why do most crimes go on? Thats right money. Millions of people everyday do wrong looking for a quick buck or two. We have lost thousands if not many more of lives behind money. Its crazy cause I never thought about it. Intill it was brought to my attention. People don't always die because of the crime. Many lives are changed after it though. It causes many cycles of events. All of this behind money. Evil has a fix which gets to everyone. It doesn't matter if you are old are young.

Now lets talk about how people behaviors are cause of money. You may are may not know someone who acts a certain way because of money. I'll admit I"ve had my ways when my money was some what right. Soon as I noticed it I canged my ways. There are actually people who think they are some type of god because they possess a little money.Which maybe more than others but who cares. We were all created equally. There are also people who are always in a bad mood because they possess no money. I know most of us have been there. I guess what I'm saying now is don't let money shape you. All these actions over something that will be here even when we're gone. Is it really worth it.

Who knew when man decided to creat a type of currency. That it would go on to shape the whole world. Now you can't do to much of anything without havng money. The movement of everything is based on this one thing. It doesn't descriminate either. You have it or you don't have it. No matter the government that you live by. Money is the dictator of them all. The evil I see it doing is just that its controling us all. We are all slaves to money. I hate to say it but its true.

If you have anything you want to say post a comment. These are all my opinions. I'm just exercising my freedom of speech. So please don't get made at hubpages or any other affliate which I use for any of my comments. Thanks once again for taking the time to read my hub."

Pope Benidict could face charges if he visits London in Septemeber of 2010.

2010-04-04T09:23:00.000-07:00

Lawyers in Britian are considering if Pope Benidict is rightfully "immune" to been prosicuted for the sex abuse scandels that are comming out against the Catholic church. There is no evidence that Pope Benidict commited any sex crime but he was a high ranking bishop at the time some of the crime's took place....So it is believed that he might have covered them up.

These Lawyer's point out that just because the Vatican is an independent state doesn't mean it has the right to put itself above the law...Other's go as far as to say the Vatican isn't an independent state.
With one newspaper saying it was created by Mussolini ("Rome-Berlin axis") and doesn't really count.

Other's say there are no real charge's against him and he should be allowed go to England. Over 10,000 British citizens have signed a pertition on the downing street website demanding charges against him if he comes on a visit that would cause the British tax payer over £25 thousand altogether.

This writer feels that the Pope deserves to be sacked or even jailed for his help in covering up outrageous sex abuse scandels in Britian, Ireland and other countries.
The Pope obviously along with the higherarchy in the catholic church doesn't care for victims of sex abuse....He is to busy palying God's cheif propaganda minister on earth.

New Israeli terrorist attacks on the Gaza strip?

2010-04-02T12:34:00.000-07:00

Israel have attacked "targets" in Gaza to try and "draw out islamic (Hamas) fundementalists" Three Palistian children were wounded as Israel bombed what they claimed to Hamas strong points.

However Israel say they want to keep a cap on the violence to let the jews who live in the settlements in Gaza live in peace (the ilegal settlements). Hamas and Israel had a gun battle last week where three Palistians and one Israeli was killed.
Israel want to brush of accustations that their war crinnimals and terrorists..Of course naturally this means they should injure Palistian children.

Now for something funny.

2010-04-02T10:27:00.000-07:00

a youtube video set to the song "I can't watch this" a pardoy of the song "Can't touch this" pardoy by Weird Al Yankovich.
It's a tribute to an English media commentator and journalist Charlie Brooker.
Who laughs at the mainstream media of England (and sometimes America.
He's a genius.

Chechen "terrorists". (who of course are callled "muslims").

2010-04-02T08:03:00.000-07:00

After the horrofic moscow station bombing..Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and others have said that the bombers came from Chechyna and that they were muslim..
Or at least the westren news called them muslim...(so it must be right).

One of them was 17 and was the wife of a dead islamic revoultarionay..(Look at those dangerous muslims their like the only organized religous group that's ever done harm...Catolics and others are saints).

There's an esay way for Russia to stop this terrorismm if the Russian goverment GAVE CHCHYNIA INDEPENDENCE IT MIGHT HELP!

But that's not going to happen....Ever... Stupid impreailist bastards.

Irish news (16): over 16,000 people vote for a "national goverment" in the space of 10 minutes.

2010-03-31T11:50:00.000-07:00

In a radio poll that this bitter blogger was listing to today on the "Joe Duffey" radio show ("a man of the people" in Ireland).
over 16,000 people (91% of the voters for the poll) voted in favour of a national-goverment.

What is a national goverment?
A national goverment is when all the political parties combine and form "the goverment" it's only in a state of real emergency (which Ireland is in now because of the economic melt-down).

I must say I agree with this a national-goverment would be better then a parlimeantry system right now...More would be achived.
But I don't picture the socialists (marxists) lead by Joe Higgin's agreeing to work with capitalist parties so the thing won't work (unless I'm wrong).

Either a national goverment or an election...Though most of the parties are the same so that might not be a good idea....If we don't do something soon we'll end up like Grease!

Irish news (15): Loans and NAMA - Goverment plan to re-capitalize Ireland.

2010-03-30T13:55:00.000-07:00

•Average discount of 47% on initial loans transferred to NAMA
•Purchasing €81 billion of loans in total
•AIB to get €1.88bn for loans worth €3.3bn - 43% discount
•Anglo Irish to get €5bn for €10bn of loans - 50% discount
•BoI to get €1.2bn for €1.9bn of loans - 35% discount
•Irish Nationwide to get €280m for €670m of loans - 58% discount
•EBS to get €90m for €140m of loans - 37% discount
•Transfer of all loans to be complete by February 2011

Communists cry "fascist!"

2010-03-28T15:23:00.001-07:00

Communists are always going on about how their enemy's are "fascists" or "bourgarises"/"petit-bourgarises" (but mainly they brand them as fascists).

They complain that there is no freedom in a fascist society (which is true)
but then when a communist/socialist society is set up they restrict freedom and create a one party dictatorship as well....Which is hypocrtical.

Communists say Mussolini was a tyrant.
Yet only TEN political prisoners were killed by Mussolini's state from c. 1927-1940.
(Mussolini was an impreailist so this is not in defense of him this is just pointing out some hypocrasy).
Stalin killed thousands of political prisoners.
Lenin didn't like political oppostion either.

For all fascisms faults at least the fascists were honnest about their dictatorships.
Mussolini made it VERY clear he was going to set up a one party state and he was voted in....(Italians were fed up with parlimeantray democray).
Lenin promised the sailoers and under-paid Tsarist soliders he would make things democtratic and yet they had to fight for their rights at Kramsted in 1921 (and most of them were shot).

Communists say fascist countries don't really care about the poor this is funny because socialist-states....Historically are draped with elite (rich) intellectuals as leaders (Lenin) who did nothing for the poor of those countries. (Lenin was a petit-bourgarsie by birth - actually so was Marx).
(not that I believe in class-hatred but I'm breaking it down to a communists line of thought).

In qusi-fascist Argentina 1946-1954/1973-1974.
The President Juan Peron used huge social foundantions and charties and lifted a lot of the country out of poverty....He also gave women the right to vote and become part of political parties.

Again I'm NOT glorafying fascism but communists can't complain about human rights abuses or economic faults of a fascist state - EVER.
Without looking at their own history first.

Of course Lenin was a better leader then Hitler...
But Peron was a better leader then Stalin (and Lenin).
(And Peron's goverment was far from saint-like).
With a lot of political suppression comming during the early 1950's.

Of course all this could be said for capitalists as well....
Capitalist countries have no right to complain about fascists either...Because their human rights/economic rights...Are not up to scratch.

And fascists (mainly Nazis).
Are idiots.....But the point is...It's the pot calling the kettle black for an ideolagy that opress people (communism) to give out about oppression.

Of course Fascists are more rascist then communists and capitalists that has to be admited....But the two other ideolagies...Had their moments of rascism as well.
Stalin killed 10,000 Polish communists who came to the USSR in 1938..
And a full list of race-crimes commited by capitalists would be to long for here.

Communism......

2010-03-26T17:12:00.000-07:00

WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY?!

WHAT?
WHAT?
WHAT?
WHAT?

Is there to like about communism?
Let's see how much sense Marx's theory makes when we take it apart (and compare it with it's brother/sister anarchism).

Marx's path towards communism was:

1 - fedualism would come first (monarchs and all that backwards crap)
2 - capitalism would replace fuadlism and greatly advance society and the world (and all that crap)
3 - Next the workers would rise up and create a socialist one party centrolised-democratic state......
4 - the workers would somehow "agree" to give up their power and form a classless society were everyone does musical numbers and dances in the son all day.

(as nice as part 4 sounds it won't happen).

So the workers kill every other class set up a dictatorship after a needless discremanting revoultion and then their going to what willingly give up their power to create a classless stateless society?

Why didn't Marx do what other's in his time (Anarchists) suggested at the first international (which Marx got them kicked out of).
He could have skiped the socialist phase and gone from capitalism to communism.
If the workers (or any class) set up a dictatorship their not going to want to give it up they'd only give it up if you make them.
And the only way you could make them is by forcing a dictatorship on them.

Hence Marx's path to communism (or communism in general) makes no real sense.
Class reconcilization is the way not class warfare.
Now I'm going to be labelled a fascist.

(I'd rather that then a marxist/capitalist).

Osama bin Laden: threatens to kill American captives

2010-03-25T08:43:00.000-07:00

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in a newly released 74 second audio tape today threatend to kill American captives if the 9/11 plotters are put on trial or punished. The Pentigon has said it will seak the death penalthy for the 9/11 plotters.

....Why don't you just go after Bin Laden? I mean surely is one man that hard to bring down....You hypocrtical bastards managed to locate and bring down Salvador Allande in 1973 yet you can't bring down this lunatic who's suposidly hiding in a mountain...So much for the Centreal INTELLEGENCE Agency (CIA).

Bin Laden went on to say that Obama was continuging the same policy's as Bush when it came to Israel and the middle east..(no shit)...

Guantanamo: Now in Afghanistan?

2010-03-25T06:09:00.000-07:00

the Obama (Bush the 3rd) administration has now re-promised to close down
Guantanamo bay and this time re-open another concentration camp in Afghanistan.
Human right's groups say that this will have the same human right's abuses as Guantanamo bay were most of the inmates haven't recived trials and have been jailed for 8-9 years.

See how America rules?
See the freedom and human rights it uphold's?

Anti-war protests in Wasghinton DC...Will they do anything?

2010-03-21T18:17:00.000-07:00

at least 10,000 Americans gathered in the capital today on anti-war protests..(against America & Israel) "but mainly against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Marxists, socialists, conservatives (Ron Pual-Libretarions), 9/11 truthers and others gathered to voice their outrage at the US's inhumain forigen policy abroad.

The question is will it do anything? Let's just say I'm a congressman on capital hill...Why should I listen to a group of marxists and Ron Paul conspiracy people added with 9/11-NWO truth seekers?

Note: I'm not sympatzing with the American congress I'm simply stating that, that is the probably the reaction to the protests or something like that from the point a view of the pro-war lobbiests and Obama lick-ups in congress.

So this protest was probably for nothing but at the sametime at least it brought marxists and libretarions together for once fighting ALONGSIDE each other insted of against each other (now if they could learn to do that more we might have avoided the cold war ooh sorry I'm a bit to late saying that now: *-*).

Love the world!

Response to "Is God a dictator?"

2010-03-17T18:39:00.000-07:00

http://partisan-news.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-god-dictator.html

Ok I'm going to make this quick. I agree with most of what this clearly marxist slanted articale says about God. However there are one or two points that the articale fails to mention that should be addressed.

1 - Christians/Conservatives [could] argue that God has the right to act in the way he did/does because he is not human thus his actions are ABOVE human laws. However don't fear my fellow atheists/agnostics there's a counter-argument for this that the Partisan should have me noted (it also didn't note the possible right wing argument that God shouldn't have to obey human laws).
Anyway my argument to this argument is that God created man in his image..To be 'perfect' (God's meant to be perfect according to the bible isn't he?)
So if Man shouldn't kill or commit sexual amoralism and other acts (10 commandments) God should not do this either because God is thus breaking his own laws - thus been a toatl hypocrite.

2 - No reference is made in the articale to the slaughtering of the first Egyptian child in every family in Egypt...(by God). This is one of the most amoral things the God of the OT (Old testament) does. Pharoh threatend to kill the Hebrew's children BUT he did not...Insted God DID kill Pharoh's children and other's...God kills children. Yet in the new testament Jesus tells a group of children that God "loves" children. This is not noted in the article as a complete hypocrasy and white wash of the past.

3 - God also had a thing against homosexuals and lesbians he burnt down an entire village because of their "imoral sexual acts." That would in today's world equate to mass murder I believe.

4 - flooding the world is fun these days....Just ask God he did it and only spared one human (Noah) because Noah believed in him..So basicly if you don't believe in God you deserve to be burnt in a flood. This I thought would have been a perfect reference in the articale but is not mentioned.

The articale still touches upon some intresting points such as the complete sadism of hell (why would anyone deserve to burn in a lake of fire forever). I think saying HItler is better then God is...Maybe a bit overdone..Hitler was by far the worst dictator of the 20th centuary/worst leader of the 20th centuary. The funny thing is I'm probably going to hell for writing this articale but I don't really give a shit. God is a tyrant.

Also the articale does not point out that "other" God's are guilty of tyrany as well. What makes Allah and the Jewish God any better then the Christian God?
(Or worse). Their all fundmeantally the same concept.
God is just an excuse to get people ton conform (and we are already brainwashed into that).

Maybe an articale on organized religion would be profitable as it is a twisted thing.

Thailand: protesters stage protest with their own blood.

2010-03-16T15:31:00.000-07:00

in 2006 a millitary coup took place in Thiland and a new prime minister was 'chosen'. Today people used some of their own blood which they left on the steps of the prime minister's office to demand a new election as they say the other one was controlled heavily by the army...The Prime minister has ignored them thus far.

US congressman Patrick Kennedy blasts US policy in Afghanistan and the press.

2010-03-14T08:18:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucv94MMMXbI

US congressman Patrick Kennedy from road island gave a 2 minute rant today in the US contgress about America's failed forigen policy in Afghanistan and how the press were brainwashing the American people into supporting the war.
By not covering it and talking about minior stories instead..Keeping the people ignorant about what was really happening.

He said the forgien policy of the US had failed to honour dead soliders and that the US was puting it's troops in danger. He demanded a withdrawl from the coountry straight away. He spoke for over 2 minutes and his passionate speech sparked 3 hours of debate before the US impreailist congress voted not to end the war in Afghanistan.

Well what can I say?
At least some congressmen seem to be trying.

Michael Collins (October 16th 1890 - 22nd August 1922)

2010-03-12T16:48:00.000-08:00

Michael Collins has gone down in history as one of Ireland's greatest hero's.
And yet apart from a 1996 semi-accurate biographical film this man is not really known outside of Ireland..Despite the fact that him and a few others almost singel handidly brought The British empire to it's knees inside of Ireland.

Collins was born in 1890 in the Irish county of Cork.
From a young age he took an intrest in physical athletics mainly the Irish sports of hurling and galic football.

For a career he travelled to London and worked for some time in a British post office. He returned to Ireland in 1916 to take part in a revlution that was been prepared by the Irish vouleenters (a nationalist group) and the Irish Republican brotherhood (IRB) another Irish nationalist group...And the socialist army 'the Irish citizen army'. Collins did not play a major role in this rising but non-the less took up a postion in the Irish general post office (GPO) and fought from there.

After the rising (which lasted a week) the main leaders (e.g. Patrick Pearse and James Connonlly were shot), Collins and others were arrested without trail and sent to prision camps (e.g. in Wales).

Around that time British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wanted to get America's help in WWI but America was less then impressed with how Lloyd George was handaling things in Ireland (see the partition dispitue and "Home rule"). In an attempt to win the American's on side, Lloyd George relaseed all Irish nationalists from the prision camps...

Collins returned home and straight away began to reform the IRB which had collapsed after the failed 1916 revoultion...Soon he was elected as president of the organaization. At the same time Arthur Grifith a more moderate Irish nationalist (who sadly seems to be shunted in remeberence today) was re-bulding his political party Sinn Féin. Irish radical republican Éamon De Valera was elected as presdient of the party with Grifith as vice-president.
Collins and other IRB memembers had postions on the executive council of Sinn Féin.

In the 1918 general election Collins was elected to reperseant South Cork as a MP.
However insted of traviling to Westminsiter which Irish MP's had been required to do up till then (because Ireland was a pupet state of England), Collins along with all the other Sinn Féin MP's took their places in Dail na hÉiren (Irish parlimeant).

Collins was appointed minister for finance in the new dail and also he was still the president of the IRB. Plus he set up a secret asssination squad called the 'squad'.
This 'squad' assisnated British dectecives inside Dublin Castle because the British had files on the memembers of the dail.
Next Collins organized 'flying colliums' who acted as guireailla figthers who carried out attacks through the vast rural countryside on British policce officers and soliders.

In 1921 Lloyd George responded by sending the infamous "black and tans" and "auxularies" to Ireland these groups of ex-British soliders (from WWI)
were often drunk and often commited atrocites against Irish landowners and civilizans.
Collins in response told his 'squad' to murder 11 English decetives inside their houses this was done but a few hours later the 'black and tans' entered the Irish football stadium and started opening fire on random bystanders.

I don't want to give the impresion that Collins was the only hero during all of this..But he played a major part in the "Anglo-Irish war".
But also Arthur Grifth, Éamon De Valera (granted he spent an entire year in America during the war) and others played major roles.
In the summer of 1921 the British called a truce, after having exhausted their firepower in Ireland and still having failed to capture Collins or any other dail hÉiren memembers.

De Valera in a move that suprised everyone (because he was president of the country - well ilgeagl president). Sent Arthur Grifith and Michael Collins to head the peace talks in London insted of going himself. Lloyd George, Chruchill and the other's refused to allow Ireland a 32 county Republic (which Grifith, Collins, De Valera and others were pressing for sense 1916). Insted they gave Ireland a 'free state' (for 26 of the 32 county's).

Ireland could now form it's own parlimeant, decide it's own education system, taxes, army, healthcare, lanauge...But they still had to swear loyality to the Crown.
While England got to keep 6 of the 32 county's.

Note: it would not be till 1948 that Ireland was declared a Republic and loyality to the Crown would be abolished.

This treaty brought uproar to Ireland and a vote was called to see if the Dail would recgonize the new Irish free state.
The state was recgonized by a small majority and 'pro-treaty' and 'anti-treaty' sides were born out of the vote. Collins, Grifith and others were on the 'pro' side and De Valera (who objected to Collins and Grifith sighning the treaty, which begs the question why he told them to go to London in the first place) was on the 'anti' side. A civil-war broke out, Grifith was once again re-elected as President but this time of the free state (tecniquelly prime minister).
Collins became commander and cheif of the army and was responsabile for a counter-attack on the Irish four courts (when anti-treaty soliders took over the court house, Collins shelled it).

In 1922 Grifith died suddenly (R.I.P.) and Collins took over as prime minister (president) of the free-state.
This worried several ministers of Collin's cabinet who realized he was commander and cheief of the army and prime minister of an extremely unstable state.
Infact if Collins had wanted to he could have esally set up a dictatorship.

In August of 1922, Collins went to Cork to negoticate terms of peace (it's suspected) on his way his convoy met a roadblock, his men went to remove it but an anti-treaty ambush took place as soliders shot at each other from each sides of the road. Only one man was killed and that man was Collins who was shot in the head as he took cover from behind his armoured car..
He was given a state funeral and in 1936 De Valera praised him.

Today he is still a contoversial but VERY influencional.
He had his flaws but he also helped to tackle an impreailaist empire.

On the Iraq elections.

2010-03-06T15:33:00.001-08:00

Iraq is preparing for 'democratic' elections.
Which America *hopes will see new civilized democray come to the barbaric backwards country full of barbaric backwards islamic-somethings.

America says if the elections are 'democratic' (the candiate that sucks up to America the most is elected) they will pull out of Iraq in August.

What's the point in the Iraqi people voting?
America will only accsept a result that sees someone they want in office.
Their hardly going to let someone who wants to protect Iraqi intrests and create a national-economy or stand up to American bussines into power.
Their going to put their money on so-called 'moderates' and if those modearates fail to get in then they simply don't have to recgonize the election.

So basicly it's democratic if it goes the way America wants it to.
We've already seen Obama's love for democray with his attitude towards the Hondoura's coup which overthrew the (democraticly-elected) leftwing president relpacing him with a milltary goverment.
Then that goverment healed an election (which it controlled) and a conservative was 'elected' thus democray! (In the eye's of the US).

Why would it be any different with these elections?
I guarantee you it won't.
America know's the score it want's the Iraqi people to play their game or no game..

"the oppressive classes litreature" - another reason to dislike Chairman Mao.

2010-03-03T14:54:00.000-08:00

during the cultural revoultion (started in 1966) beloeved chairman Mao Tse-tung proclaimed that there bust ben an end to the litreature of the 'oppressive classes' and that socialist-litreature must rule supreme and that the workers *must conforim to this view....(So he forced his style of litreature down their necks and they couldn'r read ANY other type of books).

Mao....That's stupid! Not to mention something that a dictator would do but it's also stupid...I'm not defending capitalism here
but what if the workers wanted to read other books that didn't have a socialist message? I thought socialism was 'for' the workers but no I guess socialist leaders do what they want when they want to. Under a mask of actually giving a shit (when they don't).

Not all books have to have 'capitalist' or 'socialist' messages.
Also Mao got rid of fictional litreature books from the west...Yes Mao the west is fucked up politicaly but you can't just ban westren litreatue..
Again what if the workers WANTED to read it..But no the 'proletariot' read what their told to read...

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: US behind the IAEA's claim of Iran's nuclear bomb

2010-02-28T08:39:00.000-08:00

Iranian supreme leadear (dictator) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Sunday over Iranian state radio/televsion that the US and it's westren allies were bhind the cliams by the IAEA (see post below for meaning) that Iran was devloping a nuclear bomb.

Khamenei: said that there is no real proof that Iran is bulding a bomb and that it is made up byt the west to try and demonize Iran who have inisted that their enriching uraninum for peaceful puroposes..The IAEA has said it is fearful that Iran might have a bomb.

While Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a dictator and a religous nut-job (don't get me started on the relgion plus politics thing), I have to admit I think he's right here...I mean the last time America said a country (Iraq) was devloping missioles/bombs it wasn't and that cuased a war...

We are hearing the same rhetoric from the Obama adminstration just focused against different countries...They are ling again!

Mohamed ElBaradei: "Change will come to Egypt".

2010-02-27T15:47:00.000-08:00

ex-president of the IAEA (International atomic energy agency)
Mohamed ElBaradei, now an independent politican and in Egypt said that political and social change is guaranteed to come to come to the country.

Mohamed ElBaradei who has spent almost three decades away from his homeland in Egypt, who has almost been removed from his office in the UN (by America) because he dared to question if Saddam had nuclear missioles in Iraq or not has now said that, Egypt will achieve political change after a 27 year tyranic rule by President Mubarak will be changed.

Mubarak has used the army to crack-down on his oppostion parties and has arrested other groups mainly memembers of the "Muslim Brotherhood" Egypt's most popular oppostion party.

Mubarak has been safe-guarded from condemnation world wide because the US opnely supports Egypt and when people disapper or are arrested before elections the US has a closed tounge policy on those events (because it's much worse when that stuff happens in Iran or Cuba and yet it's ok for it to happen in Egypt).

ElBaradei: has returned to Egypt this week and has been talking to students, reformists and actavists from various groups about reforming the goverment.

The Mubarak regeme has not openly stated any policy towards ElBaradei's actavism but pro-goverment wirters ahve called him a hack and someone who has spent so long out of Egypt that he has become lost with it's 'democratic' system.

(One man ruling for 27 years there you go democray! - Supported by the US).

I don't know about you but I like this man.
(Mohamed ElBaradei) he questioned America (2003)nearly got removed from office by them and is now stnading up to an American backed pusdo-democratic goverment.

I hope his reforms work
down with Mubarak and his regeme!

is Georgia clamping down on freedom of the press?

2010-02-23T11:58:00.000-08:00

Recently independent journalists from inside Georgia have said that the Gerogian goverment is clamping down on press freedom.
The two largest media outlooks in Georgia happen to be goverment owned TV stations.
Other TV, radio or other media sources find it hard to get their views published espically if their views question the 'democratic' Gerogian goverment.

As you can see children if the west says that a country like Georgia is free it most likely is doing something like banning freedom of the press behind closed doors.
Last time I checked that's a violation of free-speech if the two largest media sources are stated owned then the word for that is propaganda.

America 'change's ' mission in Iraq and the war's title.

2010-02-23T11:54:00.000-08:00

The Obama adminstration has changed the name of the war in Iraq from "Iraqi freedom"
to "operation new dawn". This is set to be introduced in a month or so..
The Obama adminstration says this will change the entire point of view of the war.

and I for once agree it is a new dawn for Iraq the dawn of a puppet goverment that is largely controlled by America!
So they got their ware title right....

Israel has become a dictatorship.

2010-02-18T12:06:00.000-08:00

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
President, Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, Jerusalem

Below are various statements issued by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his cabinet ministers, as well as certain actions taken by his government, which indicate that Israel, far from being a democracy, is a democratically elected dictatorship. Let the following facts be submitted to a candid world.

(1) The central issue of the January 2003 national election in Israel was "unilateral disengagement," which involves the evacuation of some 10,000 Jews from their homes and farms in Gaza and northern Samaria and rewarding Arab terrorists with this Jewish and now flourishing land. The Labor Party campaigned for disengagement. The Likud Party, led by Mr. Sharon, campaigned against disengagement.

(2) An overwhelming majority of the public voted for parties that opposed disengagement. Indeed, the Likud won twice as many Knesset seats as Labor -- something unprecedented in Israel's history.

(3) Nevertheless, before the year ended, Prime Minister Sharon adopted Labor's pro-disengagement position!

(4) To gain cabinet approval of disengagement, Mr. Sharon fired two cabinet ministers who opposed his virtual nullification of the January 2003 national election.

(5) When the parties represented by those ministers resigned from his government, Mr. Sharon formed a new government with the Labor Party, a government that was approved by less than a majority of the Knesset.

(6) These unethical acts on the part of Mr. Sharon -- and I have mentioned only a few -- have raised the specter of civil war in Israel. It is widely feared -- and Likud Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stoked this fear -- that disengagement will be extended to the "West Bank," hence that 200,000 more Jews will be expelled to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state.

(7) No less than Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, IDF Chief of Staff as well as Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, head of IDF Intelligence, and Avi Dichter, director of the Shin Bet (General Security Service), have warned that disengagement will increase Arab terrorism.

(8) Ex-Deputy IDF Intelligence Chief, Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror has publicly declared: "The Israeli government has not succeeded in producing a single serious argument that can refute objections [to "disengagement"] and justify the grave steps that it is taking."

(9) Nevertheless, on February 13, Prime Minister Sharon told his cabinet, "Anyone who speaks or writes against the Disengagement Plan is guilty of incitement."

(10) The next day, Likud Minister of Internal Security, Gideon Ezra, in a live interview on Israel Radio, said that people who shout at ministers should be placed under administrative detention -- which means incarceration up to six months without trial.

(11) Likud Transportation Minister Meir Shitreet told Israel Radio that Likud party members are guilty of incitement when they write letters to Likud MKs informing them that future political support for these politicians is dependent on their voting against the withdrawal/expulsion plan.

(12) MK Effi Eitam said in the Knesset: "I must tell you, Mr. Prime Minister -- and though you are not honoring us with your presence, the words will certainly reach you -- that I have served the country for many years on the battlefield, and during difficult and tense moments, but I have never heard from government elements in the State of Israel such unrestrained incitement as that which was heard from your confidantes and coalition partners... 'Break their bones!' your confidantes whispered, and the headlines blared it. Whose bones precisely do you intend to break, Mr. Prime Minister? Those of little children? Pregnant women? Civilian protestors?"

(13) Undeterred, the cabinet, on February 27, approved Likud Justice Minister Tsipi Livni's proposal to establish a new ministry unit, with 15 full-time lawyers, devoted solely to combating "incitement" and "violence" by disengagement opponents, even though such a unit would add nothing to the ministry's existing law-enforcement capabilities. All it does is discourage legitimate dissent.

(14) Henceforth anti-disengagement protests will be scrutinized far more carefully than other protests, and "borderline cases," which the ministry usually ignores, are liable to be prosecuted where disengagement is involved. This will stifle freedom of expression.

(15) Moreover, the Prison Service Commission has been allocated 19 million shekels to prepare 900 prison spaces for people who disrupt the disengagement. Such otherwise law-abiding citizens will be incarcerated as outright criminals.

(16) The Sharon government has portrayed opponents of disengagement as lunatics and fanatics with whom no normal person would want to be associated -- even though many of the opponents are lawyers, former military officers, professors, rabbis, and former cabinet ministers.

writen in 2003.

Hillary Clintion say's Iran is becoming a dictatorship (while she's in Saudi Arabia!)

2010-02-15T16:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_17qwvJpdI

On a state visit to the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
Hillary Clintion said that Iran was heading in the wrong direction....And becoming a dictatorship (it's been a dictatorship for years but never mind Miss Clintion's 'international ignorance' to barrow a term from Noam Chomsky).

This announcement came as the US and it's loving democratic ally's like the People's Republic of China and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (two countries that both love democray which is why they don't have it) move to put sanctions on the Iranian Republic for daring to devlop missioles that it's legally entitled to devlop...The international community aka (America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Republic of Korea, China, Russia, Japan, France, Romania, England and some others) once again is showing it's love of true freedom by supporting dictatorships in the middle east (like Egypt) and yet condeming Iran.

I admit that Iran is a dictatorship but it's been like that for ages that's what you get when you mix organized-religion with politics....But what the US is preaching (as usual) is hypocritical to the max!

Now here's some un-apologetic facts (I say un-apologetic because they might be extreme/considered extreme/I don't care).

Iran:

1. Iran although a religous-dictatorship has a fully functional parlimeant.
2. The Iranian goverment although corrupt and dangerous does allow political oppoistion.
3. Over 70% of Iranians supported the recent so-called 'rigged' elections (making it a majoirity which you need in an election).
4. Iran by UN law is allowed to build a nuclear program or at least push for nuclear power.
5. Iran is a very economicly devloped country yet the US media always seems to portray it as backwards.

Alies of America:

1. Romania has an appaling human right's record when it comes to it's children starting back in 1965 contininuing up to this day.
2. China is a one party state and has been sense 1949.
3. Saudi Arabia does not allow political opposition and political party's are closeded/under ground movements in the country the royal family rules by law.
4. Israel is starving Palistians in the gaza strip and is guilty of war crimes/crimes against humanity.
5. Israel has nuclear missioles, Romania is getting (US made) nuclear missioles, China has nuclear mssioles and the Republic of Korea has nuclear missoles.

Conclusion:

Hillary Clintion and the Bush the II/Obama adminstration should maybe look closer to home if it want's countries that are bordering on dictatorships or nuclear states insted of pointing fingers at Iran.

Iran will not be bullied by the west.

2010-02-11T09:43:00.000-08:00

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech yesterday that Iran 'would not be bullied' by the westren powers over it's enrichmeant of uranium for it's peaceful nuclear policy.

the Iraian Preisdent made this bold statement a day after the US forced (more) sanctions on the lone islamic-republic. He called the wests dmeands 'ilogical'.
And said that Iran was simply after a peaceful nuclear program and if they wanted to create a obmb they would tell the west that they were going to.

The so-called 'international community' (America, Israel, England, France, China (to an extent) Japan, South korea, Romania/America's lakies) do not believe them though.
the UN secuirty council is in the midst fo puting new sanctions on Iran (on top of the recent American ones). Meanwhile the other bad guy's like Cuba and African states don't get a say in this probably because they want Iran to be treated with fairness or something reasonable like that.

America to censeor Arab news media.

2010-02-06T10:43:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK4_F9KSeqo

The Obama adminstration is in the middle of establishing a new bill that will censor the news in the middle east (Arab news media).
The bill is called "terror TV". The bill has gone largely un-noticed in America but it has caused an outcry in the middle east (understandubly).

The reason behind this bill is to stop 'anti-American opionins' in the middle east and to try and stop 'terrorism'.

This is a bill comming from the country that loves freedom and protects it at the highest cost....?

They want to put pro-American sentament on Arab TV and to ignore real democratic freedom of speech!

They want to get rid of interviews with memembers of Hamas and Hezzubala in the mdidle east and to stop crticism of America in general.....

Obama decdeing Europe's defense system without Europe!

2010-02-04T11:51:00.000-08:00

The Obama adminstration has said that it intends to put ballastic missioles inside Romania (I'll get back to Romania in a minute) to help protect against the 'bad guy's' (Iran).

Romania has welcomed this move gladly but an Italian politican has said that Obama is making the same mistake Geroge Bush made he is decideing the forigen policy of the EU without the EU. Obama has not told the other EU states about his intentions and epexcts them to go along for the ride simply...

No suprise that he chose Romania as a parthner in this ( a country with little concern for the welfare of it's youth - see my very first blog entry!).
And one that is fully corrupt.

......This doesn't make America look good ladies and gentelmen not at all, not at all!

Me: Saudi Arabiaian goverment in denial over Bin Laden!

2010-02-02T09:28:00.000-08:00

The Saudi Arabian goverment have demanded that the Tallibhan cut all ties with Al-Queaida and their ring leader Osama Bin Laden who is (said) to be hiding in the mountains of Afganistan.

They say they will not talk with the Tallibhan unless they give up Bin Laden....
This is interesting because the Saudi goverment was one of the only goverments to back the Tallibhan until their regeme fell in 2001 when America ilegaly occupid Afghanistan for the first time.

It is most likely that Osama Bin Laden IS DEAD!
Think about it..the last known sightings of him where prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks after that there was nothing....except random videos that seemed to be about nothing what so ever (except sometimes empty random threats that were never carried out).

One of these magic videos that Bin Laden appears on is questionable at best (the November the 12 2002 one). Where only a voice is heared and it is not really certian if it is Bin Laden's voice or another's.

Another one of these videos (July 14th 2007) is un-dated and can't be traced to weather it's shot in the prseant or the past....

I admit that there have been some recent tapes but some of these are not verafied (e.g. 29th January 2010) and it's possible that it's a hired voice-actor with a still image of Bin Laden (some of the videos only have stills of Bin Laden).

This all get's back to the point that the Saudi goverment is most likely chaising a dead man who probably lived till at least after 9/11 but is either deep in hiding, DEAD or just vanished....I mean no one has found him...the so-called 'great' CIA have not located this one man so why do the Saudi goverment think the Tallabhan are still hiding him?

Protestents threaten to walk-out on negotations...

2010-02-02T08:39:00.000-08:00

Protestent DUP memembers threatened Tuesday to walk out of talks with Sinn Féin catholics in the North of Ireland over the issue of the police and parades (the orange order a protestent group likes to parade down catholic streets in the summer usually which angers catholic-nationalists).

DUP leader Peter Robinson healed a "closed-door" ballot yesterday to see would his other comrades except the proposed deal that the Irish and English goverment's had drawn up. 14 of around 36 lawmakers within the DUP rejected the offer.

Diplomats from Ireland and England have been trying to push these talks forward for the last 9 day's or so..Their attempts have often gone into past 3am in the morning often leaving a lot of them tired.

Peter Robionson head of the DUP said that unless a large bulk of his party went for the deal he would not go for the deal and threatend to let the whole thing collapse.

Sinn Féin on the other hand said they are willing to except the proposed deal for the policing and other such matters and if the DUP wished it they would 'clarefy' a few matters for them but would not go back on the deal...A DUP memember who voted against the deal in the secret ballot said it was to biased and on the side of Sinn Féin for him and some of his other party memembers to go along with.

A few DUP memebers have said that if Robionson backs the deal they will resgin.
When asked if Sinn Féin would keep making allouances for the DUP a party memember (Gerry Kelly) said "you can not talk forever".

While the DUP have not said what their main concerns with the proposed deal are they have stated that they want greater rights for hard-line unionists to march in pro-unionist/union parades without catholic interferance.

This is unlikely to happen because the hard-line Republicans don't like the parades.
It seems that things are far from dandy up in the North of Ireland....But one has to wonder why both parties can't just put oraganized religion down for a minute and try to look more reasonably upon this deal.

America to set up anti-Iranian missoiles in 'alied' countries.

2010-02-01T11:41:00.000-08:00

note: I'll bee writing this articale as if I'm a right-wing conservative from the united-states or at least how I view them to be...I'm doing this for fun.

We (the good guy's - America) have decideded to protect other freedom loving good guys (Israel, Souidi Arabhia - their a free country right?) from islamic-socialist-nationalist-socialist-communist-liberals who are in power in Iran. Because Iran is going to blow up Israel because they (the bad guys) have nuclear arms...While we the goodies have nuclear arms only to blow up Iran because their bad!

Of course Iran are getting away with all of this because our president who is an islmaic-marxist-fascist-socialist-liberal-anarchist-black person. Supports Tehran in it's socialist quest for world domniation...But that raises the question to who's puting the missolies in the other good countries if our marxist-president sure as hell isn't?

Well children the answer is Jesus!
Jesus hates Iran as well and wants to protect Ametrica's friends against it.
The bible clearly says that Iran is a threat to world freedom.
It's there in one of those books, I'd quote it except I'm to busy pretending I've read the bible and making up vague biblical stuff to actually bother reading it.

Our socialist-marxist-muslim-communist-anarchist-liberal president has said that he doesn't want Iran to invade Israel and that is part of the reason why he's setting up these missoles but he also doesn't want Israel to attack Iran so he's against jews now is he?

God bless America!

Irish news (14): Northern Ireland on the brink of a crisis?

2010-01-30T08:52:00.000-08:00

Over the last few weeks the dispuited terrortoiry of Northern Ireland has made it's way slowly into the headlines.
(Both in the Republic and in England).

First Gerry Adams the president of the radical nationalist party Sinn Féin was in the news headlines for failing to do enough to protect children who where sexually abused by his brother Liam Adams. (Gerry) Adams has of coursed denied the accusation that he did not do enough to protect the young against his brother. (What can I say? He's a good politican.....)

This headline threatend to upset the sinn féin cabinet next however the equally extreme unionists (Democratic unionist party/DUP) Sinn Féin's arch-nemess in the Nothren Irish assmebly where in for a scare.

When it was revaled that Iris Robinson wife of DUP leader and first minister (prime minister) of Nothren Ireland Peter Robinson was having an affair with a young man in his late teens and helped to give him finanical support for his bussiness career...

Peter Robinson steped down (temperarely) from office to try and deal with this scandel and hits short-term omtion from political/public-life has raised some questions with Sinn Féin and the other parties in the storment pariliment.

Now the Democratic unionist party and Sinn Féin have fallen out over who should control the police...and justice services which have until this point been controlled from London.

Sinn Féin fear that if the DUP take control of the police then catholics (a majority of Sinn Féin memembers/suppoters are catholics) will be discrimenated against (which did happen prior to and during the troubles) while the DUP fear that protestents (which make up a majoirity of their memebers/supporters) will be discrmenated against if Sinn Féin take control of the police.

(Note how the problem seems to come down to ORGANIZED RELIGIO: *-*).

Irish prime minister Brian Cowen and English Prime minister Gordon Brown arrrived in the north on Monday to try and draw up a deal for how to tackle the justice problem but left empty handed two days later.

Hillary Clition has been said to have an involvement in this over telephone and a US diplomat has warned that there will be serious economic losses if a deal is not breached on the issue of the police.

(Even though I don't know why Hillary Clition is involved with this at all!).

The two sides where meant to draw up an agreement today but failed to do so...If one is not reached then the (weak) coalition goverment might brake up and an election would be called straight-away.

Some outside spectators point out that if this was the case Sinn Féin might gain a majoirity in the election because the rise of Irish nationalists in numbers have grown up in the North.

Some think that Brown's goverment from London and Cowen's from Dublin will force the police on the assmbely in a power-sharing move but with some drawbacks to benifit eachside.....Peter Robionson has said that the DUP is in no hurry to except any deal about the police.

Either way things might get intresting in the next few months in the North of Ireland.

China: still Maoist? Or have they moved on?

2010-01-29T08:33:00.000-08:00

the PRC (People's Republic of China) proclaimed by Chairman Mao in 1949 who went on to become a tyranical dictator of the country till his death in 1976 (even though some would claim he lost power in the 1960's and never fully recoverd it untill the 'cultural revolution'). Has gone through a vast economoic and political change sense 1976 or has it?

After Mao's death in 1976 China tried to move from hardcore "Marxist socialism"
to "Market socialism". A serise of reforms where made (on the surface) and China apperaed to be 'opening up' (at least in the westren view of the word which means becoming a hardcore capitalist state).

But is it really different? China still won't allow more then one political party (just like in Mao's time) they still oppress muslims in the westren part of their country just like under Mao..though the oppression has gone up now thanks to the anti-islamic propaganda after 9/11.

They've also kept an iron grip on Tibet which they refuse to let go of...(Mao invaded Tibet in the early 1950's under the pretence of 'liberating' it).

China still have many state labour camps which Mao lay the design for.
and anyone who suggests political reform is jailed....However China now have a sysetm of party members electing other party memebers which is slightly better then what happend in Mao's day (wher Mao just kept power) but it's not much better.

The cult of personaillity Mao set up for himself remains in China and there is a poster of the 'honorable' chairman in every classroom. And on every public building.

China still sentences people to death (like in Mao's day).
and it has an extremely burrocratic frame-work of a goverment.

Has China changed?

I'll leave it up to you.

the UN (threatens) to do something for once.

2010-01-26T08:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17ZXp9elFTo

The UN secuirty council has said that it will bring Israeli leaders and Hamas officals to the hauge on charges of war-crimes/crimes against humanity....If nesscary over last year's war in the Gaza strip.

The UN in a report sometime ago said that Israel commited war-crimes in the gaza strip and could possibly have commited crimes against humanity. They also say that Hamas the rulers of the gaza-strip have commited war-crimes.

The UN demands an invenstogation into BOTH Israeli and Hamas actions in the gaza strip. But it is speculated by political commentatiors and political actvists that if the case is brought before the Hauge that America will veto it.

the US has constantly given into Israel and in the past and they will not stand to see their ally beeen accused of war crimes in front of an international court in the Hauge.

This however is a step in the right direction for the UN who have come to realize that they can act without the US and that Israel is a dangerous state.

On a closing note to quote a youtube user in relation to this news....

"and now the UN is anti-semnetic".

(I'll leave that open to your interrupratation).

is England becoming less democratic?

2010-01-23T06:03:00.000-08:00

Minister for homeland secuirty Alan Jonson said that a 'terror attack' was likely to be on it's way very soon. Jonson siad that he will be uping secuirty with the assitance of a few domestic branches within MI5.

He refused to say weather this was a reaction to the detroit bombing attempt a few weeks ago...But a US diplomat has said "that is the implecation".

England has already banned a muslim group "Islam4theUK"
so I wonder what tide of repression their going to bring on people's heads now because of this (suspected) upcoming terrorist attack.

England seems to be using any excuse to excerise goverment powers over it's people and that's not a good thing....

America is trying to cause 'regeme change' in Iran.

2010-01-20T15:17:00.001-08:00

According to an episode of "CrossTalk" (a show hoasted by Peter Lavelle) on the news program RT (Russia today) America is attempting to maniuplate regeme change in Iran.
An Iranian on the show pointed out during the debate that America has blacklisted some groups as 'terrorists' and yet they are stil at liberty, and yet they supress Iran trying to oust it's democraticly-elected goverment despite the fact the people obviously voted for them.

The Obama adminstration is using the pretence of Iran having an atomb bomb (comming from the country that bombed Japan with one) to use political maniuplation and interferance in Islamic-Republic.

Irish news (13): a little history on the Murphy Report (what the Catholic church got up to in Ireland).

2010-01-17T07:14:00.000-08:00

from around 1928 to the late 1980's Ireland was not a democray...
Very few people know this and think that |I|rleand was a full democratic "republic".
(It became a Republic in 1948).

Who was the dictator of Ireland? You may ask...Well it wasn't one dictator it was a few...The goverment was still democraticly elected but the goverment did not have that much power in that time period. The real power was healed by the Bishops and the Priests...(in short the church).

The church took control because the Irish prime ministers where all very religous and decided that it was best that Ireland become a theasist state.

The church quickly took control of the press and any books that questioned the catholic etois or showed some of the churche's phillosphy in a negative light where quickly banned. (I'm not overstating things here the church censeord or banned books and films that showed them in a negative light).

If you where gay or bi or a lesbian or a transexual you could (on paper) go to jail.
This law was never really inforced but the fact that it existed is worrying enough and of course it was a strong social-taboo to be attracted to someone of the same sex....

The Priests had great influence and often suggested political and economic policy's to the goverment one example of this is when the church got rid of minister Noel Brown who wanted to implmeant a "mother and child scheme" in the 60s.
The church considered this outrageous and quickly got him removed from power.

in public the priests and bishops would always appear as moral and upright men but behind doors child-abuse was the main game played by the men of the clouth.
Parents brought their children (who told them of the sexual-abuse) to priests to complain...The ironic thing is these priests wher the same ones (often) who raped or abused the child in the first place so as you can iamagine nothing was done about the complaint.

The bishops meanwhile who knew about these abuses kept them silent and nothing was heard about them in the MSM (main stream media) at the time.

in the 1980's people began to wake up and the church lost a considerable amount of influence over the masses.

In the last few years reports started to come out from everywhere about the sex scandedls that where happening all over the country when the church dictated it.
In the last few months a new report was complied called the "Murphy report" the report mentioned directly the names of the bishops who ignored the sex abuses and some of the priests who where suspected of commiting them.

So far only three bishops have quit their posts after the report has been published (they are mentioned in it, in a negative light).

I think this highlights the dangers of religion ruling a country and shows that state and church should ALWAYS be seperated..It also shows that the catholic church is completely hypocrtical and that they are nothing but pedophiles (ok not all preists are but a lot where back then).

English Goverment bans an islamic group (the death of democray in the UK?)

2010-01-14T08:57:00.000-08:00

The Brown adminstration in England has banned the group "Islam4theUK" they say that it's a 'terror' group that has links to extremeists (the usual rascist excuse used when dealing with Muslims). The group is not allowed unite or gather anymore after trying to march through a town where deadh English soldiers from the impreailist wars (Afgahnsitan/Iraq) where sent through in coffins.

The group has expressed outraged at been banned saying it's anti-democratic (which it is).

This act of complete fascism has shown the extent of democray in the so-called civilized west.

The 'evil' muslims who are suposidly all terrorists should be locked up, tortured, jailed and banned from speaking out and we the civilized west should do whatever the hell we want, when we want! LONG LIVE DEMOCRAY!

Even if this group is extremeists they have the right to say what they want (I believe) it's a free country (well on paper it is)
Islam4theUK might be a terroirst rightist dangerous group but surely they should be able to say what they want no?

goodluck Haiti!

2010-01-13T17:51:00.000-08:00

The people of Haiti have been devistated by a horrofic earthquake that mesuares at a seven (out of ten) on the ricketerscale...Thousands are feared to be dead and thousands more missing, and hundreds trapped under the rubble.

The UN general secretary said the UN will distribute over 10 million (so far) to the region to help clear things up and that a UN envoy will land in the country tomorrow to look at the damage and try to move the recovery procese along. (Personally I think they should go now insted of wasiting a day and I think this is unfair to the civizlians who are trapped and starving).

Mr. Change (Obama) has promised to give all to Haiti in terms of aid (hmm Obama and promises....Intresting).

Comseraisons with the people who have lost friends and others in this earthquake and may they be on the road to recovery soon.

Guntanimobay's birthday: American actvists threaten Obama with hunger strikes if Guitamo is not closed.

2010-01-12T09:22:00.000-08:00

A group of American political activists dressed in prison clothes and some wearing black bags over their heads to symbolize how people are treated in the US concentration camp Guntaniombay (2003-presant) marched on was Washignton demanding that Barack Obama keep his promise and close the prison (camp) or else they will go on a hunger strike.

The actvists say that muslims are been denied their basic human rights in the prison and some lawyers of various clients have said that their clients aren't terrorists.

One lawyer said his client "simply wanted to return home and watch the grass grow, he's of no threat to us".
this lawyer went on to say that his client hasn't been given a trial yet. Yet alone a fair one and that there's no proof he will be given one in the near futhure.

Another woman said that if Muslisms are jailed in Guntanimobay they will be more likely to become terrorists and hate the US and that they should be allowed to return home to their familes.

DOWN WITH GITAMO!

Obama close it!

Bill Ayres: Bill O'Reilly should stop shouting and should start listing!

2010-01-11T08:01:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1DZuMauUTQ

American Professor Bill Ayres who has been called a 'domestic terrorist' for his anti-war views during the 1960s-1970s has spoken out against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, for this the MSM (mainstream media) has crticized him.
Espcially the rightist FOX news presenter Bill O'Reilly (possibly one of the most retarded news casters I've ever listend to).

"don't you just want to punch him?" said Bill O'Reilly after watching Russia today's interview with Bill Ayres "I mean they got a russian who didn't even speak English to interview him!" (Mr. O'Reilly is wrong here sense if you actually watch the RT interivew the interviewr who talks to Ayres does speak English actually she's good at English it seems).

In a new interview wtih RT Ayres has said that O'Reilly should stop bad mouting people like him (Ayres) and start listing.
(see link at the top of the page).

Bill (Ayres) went on to say that America should stop their "Neo-impreailist forigen policy".

And that throwing money at an extremly corrupt goverment in Yemen to try and suposidly fight Al Queida wasn't a good move on the part of the Obama adminstration.

He makes the point that Obama has lied to the American people and that he has not closed Guntanimobay, has not pulled out of Iraq/Afghanistan and is now funding state-violence in Yemen, despite the fact that the Yemen president has asked the US not to get invovled in his country.

He also makes an intresting point about the new (so-called) 'secuirty messures' in airports after the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas day.
and I agree with him that "all goverments lie".

People should wake up and listen to people like Noam Chomsky and Bill Ayres insted of rightist (rascist) idiiot's like Bill O'Reilly (who clearly doesn't know when someone is speaking English).

Monsters from classic horrors = capitalists and communists

2010-01-10T15:02:00.000-08:00

dear reader it has come to my attention that a lot of people don't see the evil's in either a): capitalism or b): communism.
I thought I would help to open up your eyes by demonstrating to you what capitalism and communism are in their true forms....
Capitalism is the vampyre/vampire and communism is the wolfman.
They are both viscious murdering monsters...

below is capitalism:

the young man on the bed reperseants the avrage person who's blood is been sucked by the vampire (capitalism)

Sources: Noresfearatu (1922/1979)
Google Images.

Next fallows a picture of what communists are:

Communists often try to appear 'human' and kind but when the full moon is out just like the wolfman they are hardcore and often only want political power and will attack anyone they consider an enemey (like the wolfman).

Sources: The Wolfman 1941 film
Google Images.

Josip Broz Tito - another articale.

2010-01-08T08:42:00.000-08:00

Stalinists claim that Tito was a servant and mindslave of Trotskyist dogma, ignoring the fact that Tito heavily criticzed Trotskyism saying that it 'ceases to exist as an ideolagy'. ("Trotskyists and their helpers").

Stalinists though they don't admit it, really dislike Tito simply because he refused to fall into the hands of Soviet-burrocray after 1948. Tito drew away from the USSR and this lead to a rift in the Eastren bloc.

Stalin attempted to assionate Tito...But all his assassins where caught by the SFRY-police. Yet Stalinists seem to ignore this cowardly action on behalf of Stalin.

During the 50's Tito declared that Yugoslavia was going to sit on the fence durin the cold war between the capitalist and communist powers. (A wise move).
Tito opened up his country to both the communist and capitalist media.

During the early 1960's Yugoslavia's economy went through a huge growth burst, it became the richest country in Eastren Europe. Tito allowed some small bussiness and medium bussines but got rid of large scale bussiness because he realized they where still evil by nature.

Stalinists claim that Tito created a capitalist society this is however a complete lie...Tito created a market-socialist society, these society's combine parts of capitalism and socialism together they generally seem to work. (Look at China one of the fastest growing countries today).

During the 1970's some indviduals attempted to create large scale capitalist bussiness in Yugoslavia, Tito closed these bussiness down showing that he did not support total cpaitalism.

Stalinists and other hardcore Marxists make the SFRY sound like a terrible country yet ignore the facts that it was the most free of the eastren bloc countries, it was the richest of the eastren bloc countries, it protected it's citiziens from USSR and USA state-terrorism during the cold war.

Tito's SFRY legalized religion in schools and allowed free-pracite of it, it did not terrorize muslisms (like the US) or send religous believers to concentration camps (like the USSR).

However from 1945-1956 Tito's regeme was reactionary and nearly as oppressive as the Soviet union under Stalin and his red-burrocrats.
Tito however realized he went to far with the oppression and in 1956 he cut it down greatly and nearly stoped it by the 1960s.

When Tito died Yugoslavia fell into an era of civil-war(s).
That eventually lead to the death of the country...Stalinists chose to ignore the peace that market-socialism and Tito's reforms brought to the country such as the 'Yugo-car' and other such items.

Mao Tse Tung (a stalinist of sorts) was inspired to stand up to the USSR only after Tito had done it....So Maoists have no reason to cry over the 'capitalism' that Tito caused - he just protected his country from the USSR and the USA (though the latter did try to buy him off during the cold war but he refused).

Of course Tito had faults mainly his open reperession of freedom for 11 years and his desire to be extremely rich ("When I take power I will be very rich and will have lot's of pretty girls" - Tito during WWII). Also the question must be put to Stalinists would they rather Tito took Yugoslavia or the fascist Ustasa to remain in charge despite the fact they killed 700,000 people and burent people alive (1941-1945) during the horrible NDH ('free state of Croaita') regeme.

in short Tito was a politican so he was not exactly trust wordy but for a politican he did many goodthings...

Gaza economy failing thanks to Israeli blockade.

2010-01-05T10:19:00.000-08:00

The Israeli blockade of Gaza has stripped it's economic growth bare.
It has caused starvation and hundreds if not thousands of deaths.
the UN has said that the blockade is a warcrime and possibly even a crime against humanity.

Israel has argued that you can't have it both way's....And that by brutally starving the people of Gaza they'll make Hamas more unpopular.
No you rightist idiots you won't make Hamas more unpopular you'll just give the Palastians in Gaza more reason to join Hamas in hating your spineless terrorist goverment.

here's a picture of what life is like for Palastians living in gaza which is again part of the "war on Muslim's" Which is taking place around the world...

The Israeli blockade of Gaza has stripped it's economic growth bare.
It has caused starvation and hundreds if not thousands of deaths.
the UN has said that the blockade is a warcrime and possibly even a crime against humanity.

UN cuts off food donations to S. Someila

2010-01-05T02:49:00.000-08:00

The UN (United Nations) said it would cut off food supplise to over 1 million Someilains because (so-called) Islamist groups run Southren Someila.
The UN said the islmasist groups where making "un-accseptable demands" and that they fear for the safety of their staff...
Also these groups (might) be linked to Al-Queada.

So because of that it's okay to starve one million people?
I thought the UN was meant to look out for all countries...Yet Somailians don't matter now? Well I hope the death of 1 million people or so is on the UN's hands then we'll all see what American pupets they really are!

America and England to support state-terrorism in Yemen.

2010-01-03T16:20:00.000-08:00

After the attempted bombing of the American airliner by a young 23 Nigerian, The American goverment in coportation with English goverment is to spend over $60 million in aid to the Yemen goverment for 'counterterrorist' operations.

When impreailistic, capitalist countries mean 'counterterrorist' operations that means their going to support the terrorzing of the civizialn population in some country or region. After 9/11 this means their going to try and kill as much muslims as possible.

The American's and the English have both shut down their embessy's in Yemen and have warned their embessy staff to be on the alert for 'terrorists'.

The goverment of Yemen is extremely weak outside the capital city and it is believed that a sub-section of Al Queada exists (so where told) in the mountains out of the city. The goverment with it's financial backing from the westren terorrists is expected to target that area (and possibly others).

It seems the new year is going to open to more 'so-called' terrorists (who are probably innocent of any crimes/or at least political ones) been killed by the US and UK goverments....Death to the impreailist ideals!

"and now for something completely different" (Muslim/Hindu punk-rock band in America) steryotype bashing

2010-01-02T17:28:00.000-08:00

"For this son of Indian immigrants, trained in classical violin and raised on traditional Punjab music, getting his three Pakistani-American bandmates in sync is the goal on this cold New England evening. Their band, The Kominas, is trying to record a punk rock version of the classic Bollywood song, "Choli Ke Peeche" (Behind the Blouse).

"Yeah," said Shahjehan Khan, 26, one of the band's guitarists, "there are a lot of contradictions going on here."

Deep in the woods of this colonial town boils a kind of revolutionary movement. From the basement of this middle-class home tucked in the woods west of Boston, The Kominas have helped launched a small, but growing, South Asian and Middle Eastern punk rock movement that is attracting children of Muslim and Hindu immigrants and drawing scorn from some traditional Muslims who say their political, hard-edged music is "haraam," or forbidden.

The movement, an anti-establishment subculture borne of religiously conservative communities, is the subject of two new films and a hot topic on social-networking sites.

The artists say they are just trying to reconcile issues such as life in America, women's rights and homosexuality with Islam and old East vs. West cultural clashes.

"This is one way to deal with my identity as an Arab-American," said Marwan Kamel, the 24-year-old lead guitarist in Chicago-based Al-Thawra. "With this music, I can express this confusion."

The movement's birth is often credited to the novel "The Taqwacore," by Michael Muhammad Knight, a Rochester, N.Y.-raised writer who converted to Islam.

Knight coined the book's title from the Arabic word "Taqwa," which means piety or God-fearing, and the word hardcore. The 2003 book portrayed an imagined world of living-on-the-edge Muslim punk rockers and influenced real-life South Asians to form their own bands.

South Asian and Middle Eastern punk bands soon were popping up across America and communicating with each other via MySpace.

At the time of book's release, Basim Usmani and Khan already were experimenting with punk and building the foundation for The Kominas, which loosely means "scoundrels" in various South Asian languages. When Usmani, now 26, came across the book, he was writing songs and sporting a mohawk — just like the punk rocker on the novel's cover.

Usmani contacted Knight, who agreed to buy a bus on eBay for $2,000 to help launch the nation's first "Muslim punk rock tour" in 2007. Kamel, the son of a Syrian father and Polish mother, bought a one-way ticket to Boston to join the tour, and Canadian drag-queen singer Sena Hussain met up with them along the way.

The musicians performed at various venues but were notably kicked off stage during an open mic performance at the Islamic Society of North America convention in Chicago. Traditional Muslims at the convention decried the electric guitar-based music as un-Islamic while others were upset a woman dared sing on stage. The episode was documented by Pakistani-Canadian filmmaker Omar Majeed in his new documentary "Taqwacore: The Birth of Punk Islam."

"These guys are not prophetizing or preaching anything specific about Islam," said Majeed, whose film is set for release in the United States in 2010. "They just happen to be young and Muslim, and they write songs and do art that expresses that idea."

Imam Talal Eid, executive director of the Islamic Institute of Boston, said some traditional Muslims may object to such music because they focus on its sexual attraction rather than its use for spiritual enjoyment. "But I think we can come up with a moderate opinion that distinguished what is forbidden from what is not," said Eid. "It's a new issue among Muslims."

The musical style of each group varies. Some songs on The Kominas' album "Wild Nights in Guantanamo Bay" lean toward the humorous and ironic, including "Suicide Bomb the Gap." In their song "Sharia Law in the USA," the lyrics mock the portrayal of Islamists: "I am an Islamist/I am the anti-Christ/most squares can't make a most-wanted list/but my-my how I stay in style." Their sound mixes hard-edged punk, ska and funk.

Meanwhile, Al-Thawra sings about political events in the Middle East with songs like "Gaza: Choking on the Smoke of Dreams." Their music is closer to heavy metal.

Other bands include the Washington, D.C.-based Sarmust and the Texas group Vote Hezbollah.

Like most punk groups, bands produce their own albums and sell them at shows and online.

Most band members hold full-time jobs, so tours are sporadic. Usmani works full-time at a call center and writes occasionally for the Guardian newspaper in England. Ray is a medical researcher at Harvard.

The groups have toured since that first Taqwacore trip, playing in small clubs, in basements at parties and in Hispanic cultural centers. Typically, The Kominas and Al-Thawra say they play in front of 50 to 80 people.

The bands have noticed Latino punks getting into their music. Al-Thawra recently picked up a guitarist from Mexico City named Mario Salazar. The cover of Al-Thawra's next album will feature the image of the U.S.-Mexico border fused with Israel's West Bank separation barrier.

Alan Waters, an anthropology professor at University of Massachusetts-Boston, said it should come as no surprise that young Muslim and Hindu immigrants are expressing themselves through rock or that their music would strike a chord with other "disenfranchised" populations in the U.S., such as Latinos and other children of recent immigrants.

"If they're touching or singing about identity, it's going to make a connection," said Waters. "Punk rock is very American, and this is assimilation through a back door."

He called the bands "a good opportunity for stereotype-smashing."

The Kominas, who sing mostly in English, now are trying to break the image they are just a "Muslim punk band," especially since one of their founders, Ray, is Hindu. On their next album, Ray said the band will have songs in Hindi.

Ray's father, Rahul, said he supports his son's artistic efforts, even if he doesn't fully understand the music. "It's just very hard to make a living through music," said Ray, who is a cancer researcher at Boston University. "But they are getting attention for some reason."

Usmani said he grew up as a "nonreligious" Muslim-American so his journey into punk caused few problems, although he admits his family doesn't like the drinking and smoking that pervade the music scene. Khan and Kominas drummer Imran Malik, 25, also said they aren't as observant as their families might like.

"I mean, if you put a sword to us," said Usmani, "one of us might pray."

During a recent performance by The Kominas in a Cambridge club, Usmani played guitar while wearing a round-topped hat known as a pakul along with the traditional lungi, a cloth that South Asian men wrap around their waists. An Iraqi woman in a hijab bobbed her head to the music while others slammed-danced in front of the stage. At one point, audience members yelled jokingly that their music was forbidden and playfully threw shoes at the band — an act usually identified as an insult among Muslims.

The bands represent just another example of creative youngsters doing what American kids have done for generations: forming bands and making loud music. The fact they are Muslim doesn't mean there's some hidden message; Vote Hezbollah goes so far as to denounce violence on its MySpace page.

Usmani said despite their obvious ironic messages, he fears that his band and others like it will keep getting "stupid questions" about subjects like Sept. 11.

For example, Usami said a reporter once questioned him on how he felt about some Muslims being terrorists. He responded by asking her how she, as a white person, felt about the African slave trade.

"We have people asking us about (stuff) that has nothing to do with chords we want to play," Usmani said while smoking a cigarette. "Or how loud we want to be." "

ARTICALE TAKEN FROM: Yahoo. news.

While I personally don't like punk music or punk rock music I think this band is progressive and a good thing. Their showing (weather they intend to or not) that NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS AND THAT THEY CAN GET ALONG WITH OTHER RELIGIONS/RACES (e.g. Hindu's) there's something beautiful about Eastren Europeans and Muslims from America coming together to express themselves through music.
No matter what type it is and it completely shatters the 'evil muslim' myth that the George (Adolf) Bush adminstration created (but was rising for years before that).

Happy belated new year

2009-12-31T16:38:00.000-08:00

well I'm just about 38 minutes or so late to say happy new year to all....
I can't bring myself to say anything political....Except America stop your bloodtursty wars and China God damm you for exceuting a mentally ill English man.

Happy new year all. May 2010 see the end of the American empire and the Chiness dictatorship and other goverment cruelty's.

Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up US plain.

2009-12-26T13:48:00.000-08:00

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a 23 year old Nigerian man was arrested today (St. Steven's day/boxing day) after apperantly trying to blow up a US airliner on Christmas day. Abdulmutallab's father a banker in Nigeria said he feared his son who had left to go to London and then travel the world was the one responsalbe for the unsuccseful attempt.

Abdulmutallab insists that he was contracted by Al'Queada to try and blow up the plain over US soil but this has not been confirmed as of yet.
According to withness's on the plain, the suspect claimed to have an upset stomach while throwing a blanket over his face and then smoke could be smelt and a crackaling noise like fireworks could be clearly heard, a few passengers went and taclked him puting out the fire (which was a failed explosive).

The explosive material used is supsected to be that of
PETN. The Universaty of London said that a student named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
stuided with them from 2005 till 2008 or so.
But they have not said if this is the same man as on the plain.

I hate to say it but if the US weren't so aggressive and brutal towards other countries then indivuals like Abdulmutallab; would have less motivation to commit/attempt acts of terorr.

Abdulmutallab's bomb attempt was bad and could have resorted in hundred's of deaths but at the sametime it is MUCH WORSE what the US goverment is doing. Their actually giving people motivation to hate them because of their impreaialist expansion.

Happy Christmas to all.

2009-12-24T16:02:00.000-08:00

the title says it all happy Christmas to all and a happy 2010 (hopefully).
I'd say peace on earth except there isn't (thanks to America/'the good guy's').
I feel we should all try and get along, all classes and all races.

Capitalists might call this a utpoian idea and nothning more.

Communists might call this a threat to the working class and nothing more.

Socialists might side with communists.

and Fascists might bash all ideas

while Anarchists might disagree with the fascists.

but in the end of the day...All these groups are (if we like it or not that includes myself) human. if we can't get on with each other politicaly then what about with other things then politics all my friends have different views then me one's a Thatcherite the other 'gunibable' (pro-capitalist) and the other a national-socialist (NOT a nazi but a nationail socialist/which nazism corrupted she and I both believe). And yet I love all of them.

Now I still hate capitalism and communism (and I'm not going to stop my American bashing anytime soon) but we should all at least try to be slightly less antagonistic to each other (maybe now and again I'll say a postive thing about America) like Stephen Sondhein is American and he revolutionaized musical theatre.....

Anyway Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

PRO. (Please read on).

In this articale I'm not trying to be preachy as I said by the end of next year I'll probably have wrriten several more anti-impreialist/american articales.....
But I will try to say more positive things when I can.

CIA jails (camps) found in Lithuania.

2009-12-22T09:20:00.000-08:00

The Centrel intellegence agencey (CIA)
have from 2003-2006 been opperating jails (concentration camps)
in the European country of Lithuania - it is believed that some 'dangerous terrorists' have been healed in these jails some possibly been tortured and none given fair trials.

in 2004 the prime minister of Lithuania was ousted when the CIA claimed that he had 'ties' with the Russian Mafia but sense that ex-prime minister has come out and said the real reason he was sacked was because he 'refused' to go along with the CIA prisons.

The next prime minister and his parlimeant where not informed about the camps (so they say) until a parlimeantry probe found out about them today. Insted the CIA worked hand in hand with the intellegence agencey of Lithuania going behind the back of the Lithuanian parlimeant.

.......I'm sick of repeating my same radical rant so I'll simply pose this question
now do you believe that America doesn't care about freedom?

Speech by a US Veteran of the Iraq war - James Madison.

2009-12-20T16:03:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8

this is an anti-war speech given by a US solider James Madison about the terrorist war in Iraq. And how the American soldiers are brainwashed into rascism by the capitalists in power who are using the wars for profit and explotation.

Response to Gregory A. Butler's comment#2.

2009-12-20T15:54:00.000-08:00

....Funny that's the exact same line your mainstream media (FOX, CNN ABC etc, etc) take.

As I said before I didn't mean to call all 300 million American's rapists...but it's quiet un-civilized (not to mention imoral) that the country that is suposedly the very defention of freedom and kindess has soliders that are raping their own female friends/parthners in the war zones. Wouldn't you agree?

As I said before when Muslism and other 'slow learners' stop been rascialy abused by your country then I might tone down my radicalism..but until things improve in the world I'm afarid I'm not responsable for what I preach (what I preach is no WORSE then what they preach)

German SPD to oppose 'troop serge' in Afhganistan.

2009-12-20T09:00:00.000-08:00

The German SPD (Social-democratic party) said on Sunday in a statement to the press that it would split all ties with the leading conservative goverment which it has been in a coalition with for 4 years, if the goverment increases the number of troops in Afhganistan (which it is likely to do).

For the last four years the SPD has supported the war in the middle east but now it says Germany (which is the third larges provider of troops in the middle eastren country trailing behind England and America only) has to concentrate on it's own economic sitiuation and people.

The SPD alone would not be able to force any radical change to the ceasing of the war effort but if it managed to unite with other oppostion parties then the German conservative goverment might be forced to reconsider a tropp incrase in the middle east.

At this stage Germany has around 4,4000 troops in Afhganistan.
The limit is around 4,5000 which parlimeant has to finalize.

Response to Gregory A. Butler's comment.

2009-12-20T08:35:00.000-08:00

I'll town down the 'American bashing' when the American bashers stop attacking ALL muslims in the middle east for so-called 'terrorism'.

Okay I didn't mean it that ALL American's are rapists soicopaths but...I was using that news headline that I found as an example of the mess that the Bush/Obama adminstrations have caused in Afgahnistan.

America rasicastly attacks whole pouplaces all over the world the 'Native American's' where/are 'savages' (according to gov propaganda) and then there's the muslims.

To wrap it up I'll stop bashing America when it stops bashing other countries.

Thank you for your comment.
I respect your veiw but I disagree with it.

Yankee bastards use rape on their own female comrades in the Afghan war!

2009-12-19T13:10:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFXQ0lOcLVw

the united sociopaths of America (USA) in the middle of their impreailist war...have ben raping female soliders. According to the pentagon (even blood-thursty impreailists in the pentagon can be shocked at crimes like this) the amount of female soldiers been raped in the Afghan war has gone up by 26% (and that's only the percentage of women who've spoken out against the abuse) one female solider said:

"and I was simply healed down and well raped".

Is this democray? Is this the country that we the rest of the 'slow-learning' world have to fallow and obey? The Yankee impreailists offspring of Brritish impreailists are runing the middle east killing thousands of civilians and now they rape their own women?

Down with the American idle

Michael Collins: an Irish legend (insperation for anti-imprealisim)

2009-12-14T10:09:00.000-08:00

I'm going to show you the link for part 1 of a BRILLIANT dramatized biographaical Irish film called "Micahel Collins" it tells the story of the great revolutionary and statesman Michael Collins who fought to free Ireland from English imprealistic rule. (1916-1922).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq7bcY9tuao

Collins used violent methods (sadly) to get rid of the English but they where needed at the time and it did work to an extent, he was one of the main men responsalbe for bringing an emprie to it's knees.

Now if only people could bring the American empire to the ground!

anti-capitalist and communist ALWAYS anti-impreailism.

Iran devloping atom bomb sense 2007?

2009-12-14T09:49:00.000-08:00

according to a British newspaper (which automactily throws the claim into doubt - I'll explain later) Iran has been devloping and testing key parts of an atom bomb sense early 2007 at the earliset.

This goes against the Iraian claim that their nuclear plants are purely for the benifit of the Iraian population.
the IAEA (International atomic energecy agencey) in the past few months has sent inspectors into Iran based on American (are you suprised?) claims that Iran has been devloping nuclear missioles, the Irianian goverment have insisted this is not true.

Israel (America's friend) has said that (if) Iran is bulding an atomic bomb it might take millitary action against the islamic-republic as it would see the devlopment of such a weapon as a threat to their jewish state. No doubt the westren powers have it in their best intrests to invade Iran bent on the determatnion to bring "freedom" to the Irianian people and set up "democray's".

This newspaper source might be taken seriously if it wasn't for the fact that recently Great Britian has been getting into diplomatic difficulites with Iran and therefor would have a bias against the islamic-state.
So anything an English newspaper publishes is automaticly suspect. Once again it's probably worth mentioning that the IAEA found no evidence of atomic bomb development in the country but did find some nuclear power plants.

It appears that the terror states (America, England and Israel) will do anything to bring democray to Iran (impreailist expansion) and it seems as long as they can call the Iraian goverment a "dictatorship" and say it's devloping bombs it can get away with it's democratic-invasion....Don't you just love the UN?

Anti-American president (Morales) likely to be re-elected in Boliva

2009-12-06T11:07:00.000-08:00

Leftist leaning President Morales is likely to be re-elected today in his country of Boliva, Morales sense his first election vicotry in 2005 has showed an open anti-American attitude towards the rouge impreailistic state (America).

According to early polls Morales is expected to gain 50% of the vote.
With his main oppostion in the election only recveing 20% of the vote.
Morale has nationalized parts of Boliva's economy and has attempted to re-distribute wealth amongts the Bolivan people.

As part of his anti-American stance he has kicked the American Ambassedor out of Boliva banning him from it claming he was trying to de-stabalize his goverment.

While Morales shows a worrying stance of leaning towards 'the dictatorship of the prolatariot'. And harming all other classes, it is good that he is anti-American.
Any anti-American goverment is a friend of mine (sadly that's not a lot of goverments).

Irish news (12)

2009-12-03T15:25:00.000-08:00

Minsiter for justice Noel Aerhan today defended and gave his backing to a bill drafted in July of 2009 that would allow same-sex coupeles to register for civic-parthnerships and recive full property and tax rights.

The minister said that he hoped the bill would be in effect by the start of the new year. While the bill has been praised by many some LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) groups have said that the bill "show's the goverment's stance on same-sex marraiges". (The bill does not allow for same-sex couples to be married only civil parthnership). This is despite the fact that 84% of the Irish population believe same-sex couples should be alloud to marry.

Current minister for finance (Brian Lenhian) said that the bill was one of the most important bits of Irish social legislation passed in the last few years.

This is I have to say a large movement forward espically for a capitalist and largely conservative led goverment (Finna fail).

Until 1993 samesex relationships where banned completely and jail setences where handed out to those who came out....

However at the sametime the goverment is reluctant to recgonize rights for same-sex couples to MARRY which is completely unfair. It is good that they have civic-parthnership but what about marrige?

Anti-capitalists smash bank windows - in Geneva;

2009-11-28T07:10:00.000-08:00

a group of anti WTO (World trade organization) protests took place during these protests a small group of protesters started to smash windows of banks and other bussiness in anti-capitalist anger.

The activists say that WTO polices cause mass poverty in the third world and unaccseptable labour conditons in the 'devloped' world. And that it's capitalism's fault

Red News sympatizes with the motivations of the protesters and fully believes that capitalists are to blame for this long over due attack (in the long term).

However the violence must be condemed here and the protesters should have stook to a peaceful protest because now the capitalists have propaganda against their noble motivations.

Shoeboxes and labour.

2009-11-24T05:10:00.000-08:00

Shoeboxes and labour.
(A Poem)
By Peadar O’Dea.

*Introduction*

just encase you think that I'm been a classest snob in this poem, I'm not, this poem is meant to be sarcastic (that is my view of it anyway) poems are open to different meanings and views so you can think what you want of it, but I wrote it because recenltly my school "Skerries community college" sent 280 shoeboxes to poor children in different parts of the world....My view is what good is a shoebox when those children have been enslaved to work for us?

Keep working. Don’t look up or around or at the boy or girl beside you just-
Keep working. You will (we in the west hope) be grateful that while you toil strenuously while making our shoes that we will be sending you shoeboxes.

We know that if we had to choose between our two different types of labour we would stay where we are –
This is faraway from your troubles (which we have enlarged to a great magnitude). In the beginning, your labour consisted of making our homes and our roads while you fell in misery in the heat. Now you make our market products while trying to ignore the sweat of your own tired feet.

But for your labour we will send a bunch of half full, half empty, depending on how you look at it, shoeboxes so we in the ‘civilized’ world can pretend that we have done a good deed for those in need.
It should be noted that these shoeboxes will not relive you from slavery, and will at the most distract you for a while from the thought of selling your own produce to our markets. We on the other hand can now forget the years where we made you build, roads, houses, roofs and monuments for no pay. We on the other hand don’t have to look back with regret at the thought of the mass amount of you who died, we can assure you now not a lot of people in the west cried while their minds briefly reflected on that thought.

The slave ships are now saling away, contrary to the view that they sailed towards us in the west carrying you, bringing you to your unpaid, unasked for work which saw many of you bleed to death. No I tell you that the ships are saling away now, sailing away from the guilty seas in our minds. For to redeem ourselves we spent ten minutes or more putting together shoeboxes, while you spent fourteen hours or more working for our ‘free’ markets. Those ten minutes of labour we put in for you banished the ships that once dropped you off from the very corners of our minds. While you still work, and sweat and plead to fuel the fire that is called our greed, we sit down without a frown, while you wait to hand over your next seed.

Keep working. For the shoeboxes are coming, shoeboxes that will not deliver you from poverty, that will not stop your labour, that will not send your children to school but instead will (we in the west hope) please you. for it shows the 10 minutes we spent, bent on giving you a box, while in return we get from you enough to do for a month or so in products which by virtue go to our shelves or to the free market, so when you think of us in the west, try your best to think of the 10 minutes before Christmas (the so-called season of peace) we spent on you, while we here will we think of the lifetime you’ve given us?

communist Hypocrisy - masked by an attack on America

2009-11-18T17:49:00.000-08:00

Paranoia & Hypocrisy in the Age of Imperialism

this speech was wrriten and preformed by the Marxist
Josh Decker in 2004. In it Decker (rightfuly) attacks America and condems it's impreailistic-capitalist terror around the globe so it seems like my type of articale right?

Well wrong because Mr. Decker proves to be a hpyocrite...While he goes into greath legnth about capitalist terror (which he is right about)
he actually defends Soviet impreailism/terror:

" Marxists had a side in Afghanistan. We called for the military victory of the Soviet Army and the PDPA over the mujahedin, and would have welcomed the extension of the Soviet collectivized property system to Afghanistan. But in 1989, in a prelude to the August 1991 destruction of the Soviet degenerated workers’ state, the Kremlin bureaucracy gave up and pulled out of Afghanistan."

So it's okay for the USSR to advance it's ideoalgy of property collectivization into other countries and set up pupet states and yet capitalist countries should not do this?

DON'T GET ME WRONG:

I'm not defending imperalistic-America which has killed thousands if not milliosn of people for the sake of a failed economic plan (capitalism) but you can't like Mr. Decker try's to do here attack oen side of imprealism and then jump on the band waggen of another.

I told you communists/capitalist where both ilogical