Enèssima derrota del liberalisme

El liberalisme continua fracassant a marxes forçades. Aquest cop ha sigut Hugo Chávez qui ha guanyat el referèndum contra l'oposició, que tenia el suport dels "liberals". Avui en dia, no hi ha res que garanteixi més una derrota que tenir el suport dels liberals.

El candidat republicà a la presidència dels Estats Units, John McCain, ja va ser víctima del suport dels liberals. Abans, el capitalisme de laisez-faire, ja s'havia enfonsat com un castell de cartes, provocant una crisi econòmica sense precedents. Per altra banda, el braç armat del liberalisme segueix empantanegat a l'Afganistan, sense gaires esperances de poder evitar una humiliació total i absoluta a mans d'una colla de pagesos analfabets.

La causa per deportar els negacionistes del canvi climàtic a l'Àfrica

Alex Birch explica en el seu blog el patró comú en el qual encaixen la majoria dels negacionistes del canvi climàtic: són idiotes que promouen la industrialització del tercer món, l'augment de la població mundial i alguna forma "única" de capitalisme occidental. En resum, conclou, són progressistes que no en tenen ni idea. Birch suggereix "exportar" tots aquests negacionistes a l'Àfrica, on tant hi fa calor, com hi ha superpoblació. Si realment és aquest el futur que els hi agrada, que el visquin ara, afirma.

La guerra contra el terrorisme és una gran mentida

Article de l'economista nord-americà Paul Craig Roberts, assessor de Ronald Reagan els anys 1980, a l'American Free Press:

According to US government propaganda, terrorist cells are spread throughout America, making it necessary for the government to spy on all Americans and violate most other constitutional protections. Among President Bush’s last words as he left office was the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists.

If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly.

The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated. I do not approve of assassinations, and am ashamed of my country’s government for engaging in political assassination. The US and Israel have set a very bad example for al Qaeda to follow.

The US deals with al Qaeda and Taliban by assassinating their leaders, and Israel deals with Hamas by assassinating its leaders. It is reasonable to assume that al Qaeda would deal with the instigators and leaders of America’s wars in the Middle East in the same way.

[...]

If, as neocons constantly allege, terrorists can smuggle nuclear weapons or dirty bombs into the US with which to wreak havoc upon our cities, terrorists can acquire weapons with which to assassinate any neocon or former government official.

Yet, the neocons, who are the Americans most hated by Muslims, remain unscathed.

The “war on terror” is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel’s territorial expansion.

There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until the Americans brought them there by invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who kept al Qaeda out of Iraq. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, but a movement attempting to unify Afghanistan under Muslim law. The only Americans threatened by the Taliban are the Americans Bush sent to Afghanistan to kill Taliban and to impose a puppet state on the Afghan people.

Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine, or what little remains of Palestine after Israel’s illegal annexations. Hamas is a terrorist organization in the same sense that the Israeli government and the US government are terrorist organizations. In an effort to bring Hamas under Israeli hegemony, Israel employs terror bombing and assassinations against Palestinians. Hamas replies to the Israeli terror with homemade and ineffectual rockets.

[...]

The US brands Hamas and Hezbollah “terrorist organizations” for no other reason than the US is on Israel’s side of the conflict. There is no objective basis for the US Department of State’s “finding” that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. It is merely a propagandistic declaration.

Americans and Israelis do not call their bombings of civilians terror. What Americans and Israelis call terror is the response of oppressed people who are stateless because their countries are ruled by puppets loyal to the oppressors. These people, dispossessed of their own countries, have no State Departments, Defense Departments, seats in the United Nations, or voices in the mainstream media. They can submit to foreign hegemony or resist by the limited means available to them.

[...]

The retired American generals who serve as war propagandists for Fox “News” are forever claiming that Iran arms the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents and Hamas. But where are the arms? To deal with American tanks, insurgents have to construct homemade explosive devices out of artillery shells. After six years of conflict the insurgents still have no weapon against the American helicopter gunships. Contrast this “arming” with the weaponry the US supplied to the Afghans three decades ago when they were fighting to drive out the Soviets.

The films of Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza show large numbers of Gazans fleeing from Israeli bombs or digging out the dead and maimed, and none of these people are armed. A person would think that by now every Palestinian would be armed, every man, woman, and child. Yet, all the films of the Israeli attack show an unarmed population. Hamas has to construct homemade rockets that are little more than a sign of defiance. If Hamas were armed by Iran, Israel’s assault on Gaza would have cost Israel its helicopter gunships, its tanks, and hundreds of lives of its soldiers.

Hamas is a small organization armed with small caliber rifles incapable of penetrating body armor. Hamas is unable to stop small bands of Israeli settlers from descending on West Bank Palestinian villages, driving out the Palestinians, and appropriating their land.

The great mystery is: why after 60 years of oppression are the Palestinians still an unarmed people?

El Papa de Roma fa apologia de la família

El Papa de Roma, Benedictus XVI, fa apologia de la família. Ho podem comprovar en aquest discurs d'obertura de l'assemblea eclesial de la diòcesis de Roma, pronunciat el juny del 2005. En el discurs (especialment soporífer) el Papa afirma que la "família de Nazaret" ha de ser el model de vida dels catòlics:

"Así pues, la Familia de Nazaret ha de ser para nuestras familias y para nuestras comunidades objeto de oración constante y confiada, además de modelo de vida."

D'entrada, hom es pregunta si, des d'un punt de vista purament higiènic, és gaire recomanable tenir un model de vida tal que et porta a parir un nen en un estable, una instal·lació que no reuneix cap mena de garantia sanitària, sense assistència tècnica de cap tipus. Deixant de banda els aspectes més pràctics, la qüestió és quina mena de "referent moral" és la dita "família de Nazaret". Terry Eagleton, l'eminent crític literari, respon aquesta qüestió en un article al New Statesman.

The New Testament is also largely silent about the family, though what little it has to say is unremittingly hostile. With commendable impudence, the boy Jesus refuses to apologise to his distraught parents for wandering off. He insists instead that what he calls his Father's business takes priority over domestic loyalties.

[...]

Jesus makes a point of his homelessness. He has no respectable suburb to which he can retire after a hard day's healing, and has harsh words for an intending follower who wants to say goodbye to his family before joining up. He tells his followers brutally that the choice is between their parents (whom they must "hate") and himself.

[...]

When a woman in the crowd loudly blesses the womb that bore him, he spurns this pious compliment, observing in his customarily acidic way that the blessed are, rather, those who keep God's word. When his mother and brothers ask to see him, he tells them abruptly to wait, commenting that his true mother and brothers are those who do God's will. In short, he goes out of his way to put the skids under the whole ideology of family values.

El Jesús de Nazaret és essencialment un fanàtic anti-família, i no pas el tontaina que l'Església ens ha estat fent creure que era.

El terrorisme "filantròpic" de Bill Gates

Bill Gates no es conforma amb ser l'antic cap i actual propietari d'una empresa que ha estat condemnada per pràctiques monopolístiques il·legals a tres continents diferents. A part d'això també es dedica al terrorisme filantròpic.


L'últim atemptat del suposat "filantrop" va tenir lloc a la conferència Technology Entertainment Design de Long Beach, Californa, en el transcurs de la qual Bill Gates va obrir un pot ple de mosquits en un auditori ple de persones, mentre assenyalava que "la malària la transmeten els mosquits" i que "no hi ha cap motiu pel qual només els pobres s'hagin d'infectar."

L'abast dels missils israelians

Mapa de Palestina que mostra l'abast dels missils israelians (en groc):

Què faran amb els presoners?

El president dels Estats Units diu que vol desmantellar la presó il·legal de Guantanamo, però al mateix temps no vol alliberar els presoners que hi ha retinguts il·legalment. La solució? Enviar els presoners il·legals a Europa. Empar Moliner escriu:

Llegeixo a l’AVUI de dimarts que Obama ha admès que, “un cop alliberats, els presoners de Guantánamo puguin atacar els EUA”. En una entrevista a la NBC li preguntaven si es pot garantir que “no intentaran participar en un altre atac” i la seva resposta va ser que no. Si diu que poden garantir que no intentaran “participar en un altre atac”, significa que “ja van participar en un atac”. Si no, no diria un altre atac”. Diria “un atac”. I aleshores, si ja van participar en un atac, vol dir que són culpables de terrorisme.

És clar que també pot passar que no en siguin, i que al locutor de la NBC i al president nord-americà els hagi traït el subconscient. Segons l’AVUI, la majoria de presoners estan detinguts sense càrrecs. I si estan detinguts sense càrrecs vol dir que no han participat –o no s’ha pogut provar que hagin participat– en un atac. I aleshores, el president nord-americà i el locutor de la NBC del que tenen por és que s’hagin tornat terroristes en els set anys a Guantánamo. Jo també en tindria, francament. Per molt pacífic que siguis, set anys en una gàbia et deuen alterar. Per tot plegat, m’emociona que Obama demani “als presidents europeus –entre ells l’espanyol– que acullin alguns dels presoners de Guantánamo als seus territoris”.

Fracassa la "democràcia" a l'Iraq

Els irquians cada cop veuen més clar que el sistema polític imposat pels americans no és res més que una aixecada de camisa monumental. La participació a les successives eleccions no ha fet més que davallar: a les eleccions del desembre de 2005 aproximadament un 80% del iraquians hi van participar, mentre que a les eleccions de la setmana passada la participació amb prou feines va passar del 50%. A les províncies dominades pels kurds ni tan sols s'hi han pogut fer eleccions, per falta d'acord sobre el sistema de "representació" (ie., el repartiment del poder).

El WSWS diu:

The Los Angeles Times wrote on Monday that the turnout had failed "to meet expectations". A British-based academic on Iraqi politics, Toby Dodge, told Reuters: "The lower turnout I think would reflect cynicism but also world-weariness with the vote. You had that huge tide of expectation in 2005... and that crashed against the reality of a fairly incompetent ruling elite."

Even a legislator of Maliki's Da'wa Party, Ali al-Adeeb, commented to McClatchy Newspapers: "There was a mood of apathy before the elections. Many asked themselves—what is the good, why should we vote and for what?"

The barely mentioned reality is that Iraq has been devastated and much of its population of 26 million reduced to utter misery. Over 1.2 million have been killed, a similar number are disabled with horrific injuries and some 4 million are refugees in neighbouring countries or classified as "internally displaced persons". A vast amount of personal property has been destroyed or damaged.

Even before the impact of the global recession, over 50 percent of the workforce was unemployed or underemployed. People in Iraq's cities cannot rely on the provision of basic services such as health care, electricity, trash collection, a functioning sewerage system and even clean water—services that are essential to civilised life.

Discontent and unrest is only restrained by exhaustion after years of death and destruction, and the repressive role of about 140,000 American troops and 500,000 soldiers, police and militiamen loyal to the various factions within the pro-US Iraqi government. Moreover, a political perspective is lacking as to how to end US domination. Millions of people are preoccupied with rebuilding their shattered lives and have no confidence in any of the 100 or so parties contesting the election.

Some of the lowest voter turnouts were recorded in the provinces where the Shiite movement led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr once had a broad following among the working class due to its populist denunciations of the occupation and professed concern for the plight of the poor. Over the past three years, support for the Sadrists has been largely shattered by a combination of US and Iraqi government repression and the incorporation of most of its leadership into the US-established state. Moqtada al-Sadr eventually left the country some time in 2007 to undertake religious studies in Iran.

The Sadrists did not stand any candidates in the elections under their own banner. From his self-imposed exile, Sadr called on Iraqis to vote for the candidates of two independent Shiite lists. Instead, voters stayed away in large numbers.

In Basra and Maysan provinces, where Maliki ordered major military operations in early 2008 against Sadrist-influenced Shiite militiamen, the turnout was 48 and 46 percent respectively. In Baghdad, where one third of the population lives in the densely populated and poverty-stricken former Sadrist stronghold of Sadr City that was besieged by US troops last year, just 40 percent voted—half as many as in the December 2005 election.

La màxima motivació per votar és "parar els kurds":

The highest turnouts occurred in provinces with large Sunni Arab populations: Salah Ad Din (65 percent), Nineveh (60 percent) and Diyala (57 percent). In part, Sunni voters appear to have responded to a communal campaign to curb the influence of Kurdish nationalist parties. These parties already control the Kurdish autonomous region (KRG) in Iraq's north and aim to annex other northern areas, such as districts of Nineveh and the entire oil-rich province of Tamim and its capital Kirkuk.

Both Sunni and ethnic Turkomen parties openly campaigned on a program of stopping "Kurdish expansion". Whatever electoral gains they made will be presented as evidence that non-Kurds do not want to be part of a de-facto Kurdish state.

The ethnic tensions over the status of Kirkuk are in essence a conflict over which faction of the Iraqi elite will control the northern oilfields. The danger of open violence was considered so great that no vote was held for the provincial government in Tamim. A resolution, however, cannot be delayed indefinitely and could trigger civil war between the central government in Baghdad and the Kurdish region.

Sala-i-Martin a favor de l'intervencionisme

Sala-i-Martin, el suposat economista liberal, defensa l'intervencionisme en el sector educatiu a l'últim article que ha publicat a la Vanguardia:

[D]eben empezar a introducirse aquellas reformas que no van a tener efectos a corto plazo [...] entre ellas, la transformación del sistema educativo para fomentar la creatividad y el espíritu emprendedor de los jóvenes.

El que ens està dient el professor Sala-i-Martin és que és un partidari d'inculcar un esperit arbitrari als joves. Si això no és intervencionisme que algú m'expliqui què és.

L'esperit emprenedor és un esperit anti-natural i la prova és que, si fos natural, no hi hauria cap necessitat d'inculcar-lo. A ningú se li acudiria, per exemple, inculcar l'esperit de supervivència. Els esperits naturals no cal inculcar-los perquè ja es donen de forma espontània i natural, com el seu nom indica. No només és l'esperit emprenedor un esperit anti-natural, sinó que és un esperit del qual actualment al món n'existeix un excedent alarmant. Precisament per aquest motiu tanquen tantes empreses: perquè l'economia no pot sostenir tants esperits emprenedors. Però això no atura el professor Sala-i-Martin. És igual que en el mercat hi hagi un excedent d'esperit emprenedor, ell vol que encara n'hi hagi més.

Quina lliçó en podem treure de tot això? És evident: que el liberalisme és una ideologia fraudulenta. El liberalisme es presenta a si mateix com una ideologia contra l'intervencionisme, però en realitat és una ideologia que està a favor de l'intervencionisme, sempre i quan el dit intervencionisme coincideixi amb els objectius sinistres que persegueixen els liberals.