The Rise and Fall of Castro

Searching for videos on video.google.com, I found these two.

Cuba's revolution in two times.

First: The arrival of Castro & Che in Havana (1959).

People on the streets celebrating the "revolucion".It makes me wonder how bad things always look good in the beginning (it remembers me Hitler in Germany).

Second: The fall of Castro.
A thing that most of Cuban people dream of today.

"Swimming.." reviews

More reviews of this humble blog.

This came from PBS page ( www.pbs.org).

"Swimming Against the Red Tide

This is a blog written by a Brazilian conservative who, in his words, has been "almost drowned by the giant socialist-totalitarian tsunami that's flooding Brazil." His criticism of the Latin American left, from Allende to Da Silva, has been convincing enough to get him noticed by the National Review."

Latin America´s "Fourhorsemen of the Apocalypse"

Gilberto Simões Pires is a very critic web-journalist. He is libertarian and conservative too. He has a webpage called "Ponto Crítico" (critical point). It is in http://www.pontocritico.com
He published a very good definition of the "fantastic 4" of Latin America (Lula, Chavez, Kirchner and now Evo). They are the "Fourhorsemen of the Apocalypse".

Read this:

--------------------------------------
The Fourhorsemen of the Apocalypse

"The presidents: Lula, Kirchner and Chávez, all of them belonging to the idelogical left, they are not just friends - as the media puts out. These three , added now by Evo Morales - since yesterday the new Bolivia´s president - are really brothers of blood. Communist blood flows through their dangerous, revolutionary veins. They form, nowadays, the "Fourhorsemen of the Apocalypse". I don´t intend to be a new Jules Vernes by saying that - antecipating the events that will follow shortly in Latin America. Even not attending to any future teller classes, I am convinced that the current status of the revolution is in an advanced stage".

Russia and China are enemies of America: proof

This article from Reuters is the proof of what Golitsyn, Nyquist, Olavo de Carvalho and bloggers like me and Perilous Times know a long time: China and Russia are still comrades in their struggle against America. Read on.

____________________________________________________

 

Russia, China want talks not sanctions on Iran

Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:14 AM GMT

By Oleg Shchedrov

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia and China made clear on Tuesday they did not favour U.N. sanctions to induce Iran to scale back its nuclear programme, advocating more negotiations.

Their comments revealed a continuing lack of consensus among world powers over whether the U.N. Security Council should take up Iran's case and what action it should consider.

Germany earlier said Council members remained at odds on the Iranian nuclear issue after talks in London on Monday among the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

Washington and its European Union allies say EU-led talks with Iran have failed to quell suspicion that Tehran is seeking a nuclear bomb, despite its denials, and it is time the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency sent the case to the Security Council.

The Council could eventually decide to impose diplomatic or trade sanctions on Iran, though this would depend on the consent of its five permanent members, including Russia and China.

"The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse. Sanctions are in no way the best, or the only, way to solve the problem," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

He said years of international sanctions against Iraq had failed to change the behaviour of ousted leader Saddam Hussein.

Moscow's $1 billion stake in building Iran's first atomic reactor gives it potential leverage over Tehran.

President Vladimir Putin hinted on Monday that Moscow was losing patience with Iran after it resumed nuclear fuel research last week, but he warned against any "abrupt, erroneous steps".

He also said after talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Moscow on Monday that Russia, European countries and the United States had "very close positions" on Iran.

Lavrov told a news briefing that Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Iran remained on the table. Tehran has sent mixed signals on the idea, which has tentative EU and U.S. support.

EU DIPLOMACY

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said his country favoured EU diplomacy to resolve the crisis.

"So we think the most urgent thing for all the parties now is still to keep patient and make utmost efforts to resume the negotiations between the EU3 and Iran," he said.

China said last week that resorting to the Security Council might "complicate the issue", citing Iran's threat to hit back by halting snap U.N. inspections of its atomic plants.

Britain, France and Germany ended more than two years of talks with Iran last week after Tehran removed U.N. seals on equipment for enriching uranium in a research programme that could further its quest for nuclear energy -- or for bombs.

"We hope the Iranian side can cooperate with the efforts by the international community to restart the diplomatic negotiations and resolve the nuclear issue properly," said Kong, whose country gets 12 percent of its oil imports from Iran.

German Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler confirmed that the London talks had produced agreement on convening a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on February 2.

But he said world powers that met in London on Monday were still divided on the purpose and content of a planned IAEA resolution referring Iran to the Security Council.

"We remain in talks about what should be decided there and what the role of the United Nations should be," Erler said, referring to the meeting of the IAEA.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had said he was confident China and Russia would back the EU in sending the issue to the Security Council. In their comments on Tuesday, neither country said it would block referral at the IAEA.

Erler said it remained important to seek a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear programme.

"Western states and the Europeans are ready at any time to restart talks, but only if Iran fulfils the pledges it has made," he said.

(Additional reporting by Noah Barkin in Berlin and Chris Buckley in Beijing)

Sao Paolo Forum: the backbone of communism & terrorism spread in Latin America

Vcrisis.com , a website created by Alexsander Boyd to expose to the world what's goin on in Venezuela, published a very good interview with Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho. It reveals the true nature of an entity named as "Sao Paulo Forum", (quoted by me many times here). It's a must to understand what is going on in Latin America.
Read on

Sao Paolo Forum: the backbone of communism & terrorism spread in Latin America | www.vcrisis.com: "Sao Paolo Forum: the backbone of communism & terrorism spread in Latin America
Aleksander Boyd interviews Olavo de Carvalho

21.11.05 | Recently I had the chance to spend some time with an extraordinary individual. Of Brazilian origin, this university professor, thinker, philosopher and self-made investigative journalist revealed a wholly unknown reality -for me at least- vis-a-vis the nature of the Sao Paolo Forum; its members and its carefully orchestrated political goals. Often one tends to incur in the mistake of judging situations isolatedly, which, according to Olavo de Carvalho, shows not only ignorance but naivete. Aghast with the wealth of knowledge that Olavo commands on Brazilian and regional politics, I intended to unravel through a series of questions the reasons behind the emergence of 'leftist' movements and leaders across Latin America. Olavo's take is factual, radical and very much detached from the usual nonsense that one encounters in the mainstream media. Hopefully readers of this site will find his opinions illuminating, as I did.

- Olavo, you contend that the neocommunist surge in Latin America is not a spontaneous phenomena but rather the result of the successful implementation of strategies devised by Antonio Gramsci. Could you please expand into the philosophical/political underpinnings of Gramsci's methodology?

Gramsci, side by side with the frankfurtians and the Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukacs, is one of the top masterminds of the so-called “cultural marxism”, which is not a school of thought but a bunch of heterogeneous proposals having in common the hate to Western civilization, and the belief that, the cultural war against it, should precede and guide the political fight for socialism. Somewhat cultural marxism is at the same time the apex of marxism and its nemesis. On the one hand, it delivers the marxist thought from the chains of soviet mediocre orthodoxy and provides it with a considerable amount of intellectual sophistication; on the other, it destroys from the inside the marxist doctrine of history, emphasizing the primacy of cultural factors over the economic ones. Economic arguments that occasionaly drop from the mouths of cultural marxists are but lip service they pay to communist tradition, but in the final practical account their inner belief is that “ideas have consequences”. They try to accomplish the practical goals of marxism by means that disavow its theory.

But while the aforementioned authors focused mainly in theoretical issues, Gramsci, who was the founder and leader of the Italian Communist Party, was interested above all in practical results. He created the strategy and the tactics of the “cultural revolution” that should pave the way for the seizure of State power by the communists. The cultural revolution should be a subtle and almost imperceptible transformation of the collective mind, intented to induce everybody to think, to feel and to act according to the tenets of socialism without being consciously socialists. Socialist symbols and values under some other name should be inocculated in the souls of people since early age. Disguised socialist influence should spread to every field of human social existence, including private life and the most intimate feelings. Child care, medicine, psychoterapy, religion and marriage counseling were preferential channels for the transmission of that influence. Christian churches, for instance, should not be criticized, but infiltrated in order to deprive them of their spiritual content and use them as megaphones for communist watchwords. At the same time, disguised communists should occupy all the posts in educational, cultural and media organizations, gradually and carefully expelling their opponents to the last man. Communist ideology should recast all the language of public conversations, in order to provide that every circulating opinion contributes unconsciously to communist-fabricated general results.

The perverted character of the whole scheme is clearly psychopatic, but so much dangerous at that. Gramsci was an admirer of Machiavelli and he believed that the Communist Party should be “The New Prince”, ruling over the whole of society “with the invisible and omnipresent authority of a categoric imperative, of a divine commandment” (sic). Only after acquiring such amount of psychological mastership over society should the Party try to conquer the State, at a time when the very possibility of finding some serious resistence was already eliminated.

- Can we assume that the weak footing upon which parties associated with pro-democracy, rule of law, decentralization and free markets values in the region is but the unconscious resultant of Gramsci's plan?

Of course. The cultural changes affect everyone far beyond the focus of its political beliefs. One may remain a conservative in politics while making so many little concessions in one's language, in one's morals, in one's general cultural outlook, that one's conservatism looses its emotional strenght and its capacity to fight. You may verify it yourself: while communists are free to preach today the same things they preached thirty years ago, with the only difference that they receive ever warmer welcomes in any elegant environment, conservatives that remain faithful to the ideals of Robert Taft or Barry Goldwater are blamed as extremists even by their fellow conservatives.

- To what extent Gramsci's theories resemble those of dictator Fidel Castro?

Fidel Castro comes from a different ideological background. He followed the old leninist strategy of the armed vanguard that seizes power by violence and creates a new society from the top. Only when he hit his head against the wall of limits opposed to the armed revolutionary spreading, in the 70’s, he had the joyful surprise to be informed that many of his fellows from other Communist parties in Latin America were already high in the practice of a new and smarter revolutionary technique. The defeat of the guerrillas was immediately followed by the general adoption of the Gramscian long term strategy, that obviously didn’t renounce to the use of violence but postponed it to a far better occasion. Castro welcomed the new strategy and adapted to it very efficiently. He managed to stop the guerrilla fighting and to make up Latin America communist parties to work along Gramscian guidelines. The reflux of the guerrilla movement was celebrated by almost every non-communist politician, journalist and businessman in Latin America as a sign of the “death of communism”. This mistake was due to the fact that these people cared only for the visible surface of political, military and economic facts, giving little or no attention to deep and large scale transformations in the social and cultural background that was precisely the chosen field for the expansion of communist activity at that time.

To be continued...

"Political Correctness": One of the threats to the Brazilian democracy

Published on www.votebrasil.com.br and midiasemmascara.org sites.*

Translated from portuguese by the author with the help from Pedro Mallmann

"New Year, New life", is one of the popular sayings this time of the year, but it could as well turn out to be true in this very year of 2006.

So many analyses have been made on the possible outcomes of the political events of the year - the implosion - "from the inside" – of what used to be known as the "historical struggles" of the Workers' Party (ethics, truthfulness, struggle against corruption and poverty) and the surprising result of the referendum on the ban on arms sales in Brazil. Some of the analyses pointed out the latter as some kind of a plebiscite on the government, unveiling the rejection of the speech of the winning party, the very speech with which they won the 2002 elections. But it only points out a rejection in political-partisan terms.

This is a partial view of the events. In reality, the defeat of the "Yes" in the referendum was a clue that a much bigger chain - bigger than political-partisan choices - was defeated. This chain is ' the politically correct ' thought.

The "politically correct" can be defined as a type of ' wishful-thinking' that is self-achieved through the mantric repetition of words of order. These words are carefully chosen to define the reality in a differentiated manner, thus having the power of modifying the way people think about it, and ending by modifying reality itself. The basic premise is that 'reality' is subjective in essence, therefore being an exclusively personal good. By modifying this personal vision of reality through the Pavlovian conditioning of repetition, reality will be finally modified. Therefore reality is just a set of personal realities.

Initially received as a pseudo-intellectualized extravagance, it went on – by the means of a very careful dissemination plan by the 'cultural elite' – contaminating all environments it got in touch with. Its emergence to political campaign speeches and to the country's largest newspaper leads was the sign of the victory of political correctness in the market of ideas 'that sell'. From this point on - defined temporally in the 90's – there were no political speeches or political news left without incorporating the flavor of political correctness; if not political correctness itself incorporating the speeches.

All political parties were misled by 'political correctness'. They all started to sound and to act as 'pc'. From right-wing to leftist parties, they all missed the point on the real nature of 'pc'. The result was that we came to a point that all parties lost their identity, as far as the public is concerned.

The lack of parties with electoral "persona" had its pinnacle in the presidential election of 2002, where all options seemed absolutely the same, and leaving it up to the electorate to choose between neckties, suits and hairdos. The apparent convergence of thought was so evident that all the 'adversaries' of 2002 ended up forming the support base of the new government in 2003. This lack of political identity caused by the overwhelming success of politically correct is a threat to the Brazilian democracy. The lack of a broad range of political-partisan options is a mistake that has to be corrected. When I mention political-partisan options, I do not refer to the number of parties - which I consider excessive in Brazil - but to their political colors.

The conclusion is that, by means of the politically correct speech, political parties in Brazil were transformed into uncolored, odorless jelly of slogans totally detached from the voters' real world. The result of the referendum on the ban of arms sales was a clear sign to the political class for them to avoid the excess of politically correct speech and pay more attention to the real world.

In spite of the apparent popular support to the political correctness, the formula seems worn out. The adorned speech, full of good intentions, disclosed its major victim after all: the political class. The witchcraft struck back against the wizard. The public perceived that, behind the good intentions, the real intention could be very diverse, in terms of a Brazilian new edition of Orwell's doublethink. The overwhelming victory of the 'NO' vote in the referendum was a good expression of the exhaustion of "PC". Never have emotional appeals had so little attention. And never have words like 'individual rights' and 'freedom of choice' been so much debated in this country.

I hope this is the symbol of a new stage of Brazilian democracy. I anxiously look forward to the next chapters.

Happy New Year!
*Translated from portuguese by the author with the help from Pedro Mallmann
--

Another terror video from North Korea: Public executions goes on

Blogger R..J. Rummel has a blog called "Democratic Peace" where there's a link to a terrifying video on public executions in North Korea.

While crowds still marching against the USA all around the world, the reds are silently (with the help from the biased media) doing what they know better: to kill people.

" Video Proof: Public Executions in North Korea ", secretly taped and smuggled out at great risk, capture two outdoor trials. Each of these public trials is followed immediately by executions. No time is wasted on appeals."See "One Free Korea for more videos and information."

China and Russia: red comrades don't forget who is the 'enemy'

A new - and extraordinary - blog called "Once Upon a Time in West" updates Golitsyn 'predictions' by an accurate news analysis and prove the old communist defector - that gave us outstanding books like "New Lies For Old" and "Perestroika Deception" - is still ahead of the news.
He predicted a new communist alliance between China and Russia, now free to do whatever they want without being labled as 'communist' anymore.
What is happening now? China and Russia are playing 'war'.

It stinks like a new world dominance plot...(depressed)

"Following the much-ballyhooed demise of communism in Russia, the "ex"-communist leaders of Russia saw fit to establish a strategic partnership with their former, openly communist "enemy" in China. Fast forward to "Peace Mission" 2005, the first-ever joint military exercise between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. "

The times are getting rough

Just minutes after the last post, I received an e-mail informing that one the most famous TV's anchor in Brazil - Boris Casoy, that starred a national news show that was very critical of Federal Government - was fired by the pressure from Lula da Silva's government.

2006 is an election year and is clear that Lula's administration is very doubtful on its probability to win. People are very suspicious of his real intentions, after the all the corruption cases were disclosed last year. Their only hope is try to shut-up the opposition voices and their critics.

Lula tried the "popular democratic" way to control the press, when he aired the intention to create a kind of 'press committee' ruled by the press unions . The initiative was withdraw after the bad repercussion on the media.

But now is a question of life and death to the Sao Paulo Forum project. Evo Morales took the power in Bolivia, thanks to the Venezuelan and Cuban money and its urgent to keep Lula in the government. He is one of the Forum's foundation stone, and forum is about to achieve its goal: "to recover in Latin America what was lost in East Europe".

Until now, Lula tried to hide his original intentions, but now there's no need to disguise it. The project is in danger. So Worker's Party is doing what they used to do before: control the press by denying advertise money - the money that's the core of all TV network's budget in Brazil.

Boris Casoy, was the only person that asked directly Lula about Sao Paulo Forum in 2002, during his campaign that year.

Now that's clear: Lula dropped the mask and reveal himself as new Chavez-wannabe.

Read the article (in Portuguese) below.
source: http://www.diegocasagrande.com.br/main.php?flavor=manchetes&id=9728

The times they are a changin´? Communist site is out of best site dispute in Brazil

Can it be a sign that the times are really changing in Brazil?
For the last five years, Communist Party of Brazil (a dissident branch old Communist Party that led the Chinese/Albanian revolution model) was listed as one the best websites about politics in Brazil.
Media Without Mask - the site a use to write - entered the pool last year and still there.

The poor communists lost their rank. This year they not even mentioned on the list of the ten best sites.

According to their site:
Red Diary .::: Obscured criteria keep "Vermelho" website out from the dispute for the best Brazilian website of the year :::.: "In the category named Citizenry/Politics this year were nominated the following sites: Política Para Políticos, Duplipensar, Revista Caros Amigos, Senado Federal, Franklin Martins, Mídia Sem Máscara, Blog do Noblat, VoteBrasil, Claudio Humberto e Câmara dos Deputados"

Is it a sign that Brazil youth is fed-up with this lefty-empty speech?

I hope so.

But there´s still left supremacy on the list, most of the sites are left or middle-of-the-road embedded with tons of political correctness views.