Thursday, September 21

Breaking News: Brazil is threatened by another military dictatorship like in 1964


This video has Michael Fox explaining what has happened in Brazil that ousted president elected Dilma Rousseff and shows how US is funding and backing astrotufer movements
to create chaos in Brazil and to put in power a military junta

For the moment we have a judiciary dictatorship but the military is threatening to take control.
Every day there are terrible news in Brazil.
It was in 1964 that the first military junta, USA backed, took power.
Unfortunately I feel very sad and tired to explain it all.

This was the last thing we, Brazilians, expected. It seems that it is true that history repeats itself as a farce.


Not again. 


Wednesday, September 20

Terry Eagleton: "The Death of Criticism?"


Lately I'm listening to a lot of lectures and it was a pleasure to find Terry Eagleton's videos.
As I have a degree in literature I have read two of his books that was translated into Brazilian Portuguese.
Terry, may I call you like this master?, has a great sense of humour and raises numerous important issuers this world is facing.
I feel like buying some of his books but now that I can listen to the sound of his voice I'll buy it in the original language.
I'm going to listen to another of his lectures. Have a great day!

Excerpts from this video: "What sort of society is it where the possible is always superior to the actual?"

34:04 "I mean, of course, the second 9/11, not the first (...) in 1971 where the US violently overthrew the democratic elected government of Salvador Allende of Chile and installed in his place a odious dictator who went on to kill far more people that ever were killed in the World Trade Centre."

The Brazilian Portuguese version of two of Terry Eagleton's books.

It was read and will be read again.


Monday, September 18

Power of words for good or evil: repairing you mental typewriter



Some people don't pay attention to the power of words until they are eating and someone says  "I saw a cockroach and some rats in the backyard. There is rat poop all over the garden." or "She vomited yesterday because she was too drunk." 
"Do you really have to say these words while I'm eating?" 

Funny. but some people even though than can't stand some words while eating they do not believe in talking therapy. Some say awful things to their children that disempower them.

Another way that shows how words are powerful is when they mislead. 
Someone says something with words but the body's language says the opposite. According to Bateson it is among the "double-bind" tactics that can be concious or not. 
It was R. D. Laing who explained that someone being constantly exposed to this behaviour could experience emotional problems.  

Being careful with the words and also creating a shield in order they don't hurt is quite an achievement. One of the things that can be done is detaching the meaning and the word by repeating it until the "significant"  - the "physicality" of the word - is the only thing that is left.

I believe that every person who is being submitted to verbal abuse of any kind must develop a strategy to create a shield against the power of words. The goal is indifference to the content making a shift to understand that after all it is only words. Repeat them! Laugh at them! Agree with the person: "-Yes, I'm completely crazy. You have no idea how crazy I am." 


Tools to repair typewriters. 

Sunday, September 17

Friday, September 15

Igloo colored like a stain-glass


Inspired by Canadians,
More than 135 milk cartons + food dye + water + (mostly) Finnish winter = an Ice Fort to be made.

All that adds up to ice bricks used to create an ice fort. It was a blast making this but a lot of work. At the end, the weather did not entirely co-operate.

Thanks to the Kiwi guy in Canada who inspired this. Not quite the igloo and not quite 500 cartons and certainly not the time needed but still thanks!
I forgot the source of this post. I love stain-glasses and also mosaics.
Byzantine art is on my list of the ten wonders of the world.
Next post will be about... guess who?

Thursday, September 14

Human robots: good or evil?


I still haven't reach a "verdict" about the human robots. I will wait to check more opinions, how
these creeters will interact with humans and gather more info.
But I have to confess I'm a little bit scared. These are not toys. I believe we are in desperate need of a new humanism.





Wednesday, September 13

Harold Pinter Nobel's lecture: Art,Truth & Politics


Hello! It's been a long time. I've been busy minding my own business, studying, working and having pleasure. 
I kept asking myself "to blog or not to blog?". Try a new one? 
But today I came across with this lecture by Harold Pinter and I felt like sharing it here. It is long but I'm tired of tiny texts lately. I'm reading and listening to long texts and lectures which is totally against the tide, I'm aware of that. But once the text captivates you it is a pleasure to keep reading. Art, truth and politics are vital for all of us, especially truth lately.
I hope you enjoy this text as I'm doing.

Art, Truth and Politics 

 In 1958 I wrote the following:
'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'
I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?
Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost.
I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what they did.
Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me.
The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is 'What have you done with the scissors?' The first line of Old Times is 'Dark.'
In each case I had no further information.
In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them. But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn't give a damn about the scissors or about the questioner either, for that matter.
'Dark' I took to be a description of someone's hair, the hair of a woman, and was the answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This happened visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light.
I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C.
In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to become Max), 'Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something. The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don't you buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.' So since B calls A 'Dad' it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard. Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn't know. But, as I told myself at the time, our beginnings never know our ends.
'Dark.' A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. 'Fat or thin?' the man asks. Who are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark.
It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author's position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man's buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort.
So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time.
But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot.
Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function.
In my play The Birthday Party I think I allow a whole range of options to operate in a dense forest of possibility before finally focussing on an act of subjugation.
Mountain Language pretends to no such range of operation. It remains brutal, short and ugly. But the soldiers in the play do get some fun out of it. One sometimes forgets that torturers become easily bored. They need a bit of a laugh to keep their spirits up. This has been confirmed of course by the events at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Mountain Language lasts only 20 minutes, but it could go on for hour after hour, on and on and on, the same pattern repeated over and over again, on and on, hour after hour.
Ashes to Ashes, on the other hand, seems to me to be taking place under water. A drowning woman, her hand reaching up through the waves, dropping down out of sight, reaching for others, but finding nobody there, either above or under the water, finding only shadows, reflections, floating; the woman a lost figure in a drowning landscape, a woman unable to escape the doom that seemed to belong only to others.
But as they died, she must die too.
Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.
As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.
The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.
But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.
Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.
But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.
Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.
The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.
I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.
The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'
Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.
Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.
Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'
Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.
As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply.
I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.'
The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.
The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.
The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.
I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.
Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.
But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.
It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'
It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.
The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.
What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days - conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally - a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.
Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.
The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.
Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things':
And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.
Jackals that the jackals would despise
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate.
Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives.
Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain:
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.
And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land.
Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets!*
Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians.
I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.
The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.
The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.
Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.
I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.
'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'
A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection - unless you lie - in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician.
I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'.
Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?
Who was the dead body?
Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?
Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?
Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?
What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?
Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body
When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror - for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.
I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the realtruth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.
If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.


Thursday, December 29

"The Guests" by Leonard Cohen: the refugees



"The Guests"

One by one, the guests arrive
The guests are coming through
The open-hearted many
The broken-hearted few
And no one knows where the night is going
And no one knows why the wine is flowing
Oh love I need you
I need you
I need you
I need you
Oh . . . I need you now

And those who dance, begin to dance
Those who weep begin
And "Welcome, welcome" cries a voice
"Let all my guests come in."

And no one knows where the night is going ...

And all go stumbling through that house
in lonely secrecy
Saying "Do reveal yourself"
or "Why has thou forsaken me?"

And no one knows where the night is going ...

All at once the torches flare
The inner door flies open
One by one they enter there
In every style of passion

And no one knows where the night is going ...

And here they take their sweet repast
While house and grounds dissolve
And one by one the guests are cast
Beyond the garden wall

And no one knows where the night is going ...

Those who dance, begin to dance
Those who weep begin
Those who earnestly are lost
Are lost and lost again

And no one knows where the night is going ...

One by the guests arrive
The guests are coming through
The broken-hearted many
The open-hearted few

And no one knows where the night is going ...

Unwanted guests= refugees 

Tuesday, December 27

Pope's Christmas celebration: kissing baby Jesus's and Vatican's ties with Rothchilds

Usually, I do not celebrate Christmas because since my grandma passed away this date disappeared from our family.
This year the Pope's speech lamented children in war and poverty but when it came the part of kissing baby Jesus he complimented pedophiles in such a way that the social networkings are full of infuriated comments about this "kissing".

It is hard to forget that the Vatican headquarter of the catholic church:

"“The Vatican has large investments with the Rothschilds of Britain, France and America, with the Hambros Bank, with the Credit Suisse in London and Zurich. In the United States it has large investments with the Morgan Bank, the Chase-Manhattan Bank, the First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, and others. 

“The Vatican has billions of shares in the most powerful international corporations such as Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, T.W.A., etc.” (...) "

I'm sorry but I can't join a festivity that is connected with crimes.
Happy New Year!
  

Tuesday, December 13

A Guide to Hasbara Troll






When the discussion starts not making sense those who discuss on social networks or make comments on blogs and sites have to know that sometimes it is better to stop the argument for s/he is being manipulated or gang stalked by a group of hasbara trolls.
This is a very good article to understand what is behind of some of the discussions.

A Guide To HASBARA TROLLS
by Jonathan Brakeley

INTRODUCTION BY GILAD ATZMON:
We are all aware of the Hasbara trolls, the Wikipedia Jews and the Israeli Neocon smear outlets. In the following important piece internet expert Jonathon Blakeley explores the vile and destructive impact of Sayanim and Hasbara agents  on the social networks. What we really see is a surge of Zio-centric anti- social behaviour in our midst. They are united against humanity, humanism, pluralism, freedom of expression and tolerance basically all those things that are precious to the rest of us.

By JONATHAN BLAKELEY

Hasbara is an Hebrew word defined as explanation. The purpose of Hasbara is to explain and educate western people about the Israeli mission. Hasbara can take many forms, adverts, websites, comments on blogs, letter writing, protests and so on. For a fuller idea of the depth of Hasbara check this tool-kit from the We Believe in Israel Website. (made by BICOM). The difference between propaganda and hasbara? I would say Hasbara is more of a soft sell at first, it seeks to inform, influence and educate the ignorant to the Israeli cause. The narrative of Hasbara has a victimized quality underpinning it, a very passive-aggressive approach, Israel is always defending not attacking. They play the mis-understood victim and invite their critics to attack them. The sub-current being that Israel’s message is not understood. Israel views that the reason for this is either lack of education or stupidity. So the Hasbara agents explain until they realise that they are getting nowhere and then respond with disdain and disgust.

Social Strategies

Key individuals are identified, some support Israel others oppose. These are the influencers, on Twitter they are people with over 1 000 followers and over 1 000 tweets. By seeking to influence and control these key individuals, Hasbara agents can influence many many more. Hasbara trolls on twitter try to act as shepherds for the tweeps, making them go this way or that.

A troll traditionally on the Internet is someone indulges in off-topic abuse.

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response
or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
I believe that calling someone – anti-semite or neo-nazi or racist is inflammatory, unless that is their actual beliefs.

Hasbara Tactics

By controlling information one can control people and the social networks. Hasbara volunteers help to police social networks for Israel. The big media are dealt with through BICOM and AIPAC, whilst the social media are policed unofficially by the Hasbara troll brigade. Priority is to stop influencers being compromised by anti-Israel sentiment.
Hasbara Troll brigade

Hasbara Trolls are generally quite polite at first. They pop up when someone is critical of Israel and it’s policies or interests. They target, write, engage, educate and insult. From my research it seems that there is some kind of hierarchy of trolls, they have leaders who tell them targets and guide them with their spin. Most work voluntarily but some are paid for by wealthy sponsors. They track topical keywords and persons using public websites such as topsy.com. Problems arise if one rejects the explanations being offered by the trolls, then their troll nature becomes apparent very quickly as they resort to smears and abuse.

Hasbara Troll attributes

Supreme point of view
The Hasbara troll knows best
Condescending & Patronising
Socialist (Smart and ‘caring’)
Do not have to be Jewish but Pro-Israel
Internet experts
Narcissistic
Provocative
Dis-ruptive
Like to ask the questions, not answer questions
Control freaks
Inflamed by anyone being critical of Israel
‘Moral’ Guardians
Classic insults: Anti-semite, Neo- Nazi, White Supremacist, Holocaust denier
Adept with social networks well trained on IT
Hasbara trolls use internet alerts to warn them when hot keywords are mentioned. Keywords such as Israel, Jewish, Judaism etc. When those words are mentioned they are alerted and they go to investigate who is talking about what. I have seen this happen many times with Gilad Atzmon, someone will post something from Gilad, shortly afterwards they are bombarded by hasbara trolls. Initially they explain where they had gone wrong and try to ‘educate’ people with their ideology. Usually they say something like

Do you know Gilad Atzmon is a notorious… anti-semite? neo-nazi, holocaust denier. etc.. etc.

The way to spot the troll is the inflammatory language. If Gilad was a anti-Semite it should be self evident but he says quite clearly in his book “the Wandering Who” .

“In this book i will try to untangle the knot. I will present a harsh criticism of Jewish politics and identity. Yet it is crucial to mention at this early stage that there will be not a single reference to Jews as ethnicity or race. In my writing, I differentiate between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewish-ness (the ideology). This book does not deal with Jews as a people or ethnicity. If anything, my studies of this issue suggest that Jews do not form any kind of racial continuum. In short, those who are searching for blood or race-related interpretation on Zionism will have to look for it in someone else’s work.” Gilad Atzmon P15 Chapter 1 -The Wandering Who.

Types of Jewishness

Jews (the people) – born a jew, being jewish.
Judaism (the religion) – Jewish beliefs.
Jewish-ness (the ideology) – Jewish ideas
Despite Gilad Atzmon making a clear and unequivocal point above, it has not stopped many zombie zionist hasbara trolls from accusing him time and time again and many others of anti-semitism or being a neo-nazi. What is wrong with these pathetic and misguided people? Can’t they read, or have their brains just curdled in their own cranium. The truth is they choose not to read or listen or debate.

I would actually say, those people who advocate every interventionalist war in the name of freedom of speech, democracy and pluralism, are operating in the west as gatekeepers, censors and resent any form of intellectual debate – Gilad Atzmon

These people are the new Book burners, those that oppose freedom in all its forms. These Hasbara trolls oppose free speech and try to suppress open and free debate and instead replace it with their own hasbara wash & spin.

It is astonishing the amount of times I have seen trolls warning people not to read this book or that book. Why do we have all these twitter trolls trying to influence what people choose to read?

Are they the people of the anti book?- Gilad Atzmon

We must unite to name and shame these despicable individuals as they try to suppress free and open debate. These people pose a great threat to our political systems and must be identified to stop them spreading their vile mis-information far and wide.

Zionists

Trolls

Troll techniques

Turn up randomly asking question about Israel, trying to engage/educate.
Guilt by association, they point to some source your are linked to as being anti-semitic or neo-nazi.
Opportunity to redeem – the offer chance to recant from your naive ways.
Smears and insults – if the top 3 fail then it’s just character assassination.
Name bombing – using seo in blackhat ways to denounce and smear people. ie website with 37 mentions of someones name will prob get a Page one on Google.
Hasbara trolls generally follow the rules of social networks, because they want to continue to influence people and subvert open and free debate.
Hasbara being guided by CST

Hasbara being guided by CST

After repeated attempts to indoctrinate you, I mean educate you, the Hasbara trolls then resort to name bombing. Mentioning a persons name as many times as possible on social network sites to create negative report with strong SEO. Basically using the internet to smear people to the maximum.

Hasbara Trolls are well organised and have links they point to to prove their flaky points. Although the links these trolls cite are often from their own hasbara chums and the blogs they reference do not have original source material just second hand re-cobbled quotes.
Gilad Atzmon is not an anti-semite or a Holocaust denierbut there are many who would like us to think so. The question is why? To dis-credit him and his ideas. But it is not just Gilad Atzmon who is the target of the Hasbara trolls the list is long and growing.

To the right are a series of tweets from #Joe86pw, I have observed him part-time trolling on many occasions. Here he spots that Tom Watson famous Labour MP is thinking of buying a new book by Mearsheimer. – “Why leaders Lie” . Joe spots this tweet and shortly after is tweeting a helpful warning to Tom Watson MP (Hackgate MP) about that dangerous book.

In these following tweets we see the “Emma Rosenthal” guiding a troll. @johne326 got upset when I placed him on my troll list. I asked him why he was trolling Gilad Atzmon and he responded to me that it was clear to him that Gilad Atzmon is an anti-semite. All I want to say is this John, ” look up the definition of trolling”. I have never been into politics but sure enough the lovely open-minded “Emma Rosenthal” wastes no time at all in denouncing me as a “White supremacist”.

emma_rosenthal 2:09pm via Web .@jonathonblakele @johne326 by trolling they mean disagreeing, adding to the discourse? oooh wow sensitive white supremacists aren’t they?

emma_rosenthal 2:11pm via Web .@johne326 you don’t get it. it’s ruder to actually oppose racism than to advocate it. don’t be so sensitive!

Just mentioning Gilad Atzmon on twitter is sufficient to attract the Hasbara vermin within a very short time. They all know each other as well and they enjoy bullying dissenters with their chums. Really it is just like being back at school being bullied by the school gang. Usually the lead bully goes into to attack whilst others stand by making encouraging noises. We are ‘told’ that we live in a free society, but we don’t! Free speech and debate are being squashed by the likes of BICOM, AIPAC and a small army of annoying Hasbara trolls. We must work together to stop them.


Sunday, December 11

Young, rich and famous came out of the closet




Back in the 80ies when rich people didn't make a fuss about their lives, I said to a sociologist that they should show their faces.
I saw poor people's lives being showed, exposed and used in numerous ways and I always thought that it was a little obscene the excess of curiosity about poor people's lives.
Another thing that amazed me was the fact that only their poverty was, and still is, showed and their subjectivity, aspirations, pardon, their "dreams" were never approached.

They are showed as simple minded and shallow. The sociologist didn't pay attention to my crazy idea of having rich people's lives exposed. I wonder what must be thinking about all the rich "celebrities" that are now gladly showing their way of life, and, their intimacy.

Young, middle-aged or older rich people are no longer afraid of showing their houses, their beds their labels and whatever it is necessary to do a sensationalist appearance in a series dedicated to them.

It took me a while to watch some of these shows. I confess: I was not prepared. I had an idea that there were not too much life on their quotidian. But I could not imagine that it reached the lowest level in numerous criteria at least it is what those who came out of the closet are showing.

Some examples: I learned that the capital of Africa is South Africa in one of these shows and that it is not possible to memorize the three last presidents of your nation in another. Naming the current president is quite an achievement.

Showing labels is a must and wearing a huge necklace with the logo of Channel is in as hanging an enormous logo of another brand  on the wall. I wonder what Coco is thinking about it.
 "Always remove one thing before you leave the house. Less is more." Coco Chanel
I could go on and talk about their subjectivity but, seriously, I don't find too much to talk about since I only have access to what is shown on these series.
Anyway, I wonder how can it be that therapy can be done publicly but I believe it is just part of the show and the psychologist is just playing.


Wednesday, November 30

Seung Mo when the material strikes

Beautiful sculpture, isn't it? It is made in bronze or any other metal?
Yes, another metal: it is aluminum! Aluminum wires.
I came across with the work of Seung Mo because today, yes today, I started my first attempt to do anything with aluminum wires. I bought the wire, two pliers and there I go! I decided to take a look at something simple to start and... the irony I came across with Korean artist Seung Mo.
It if was made in bronze that would not be that relevant to me.
It would be beautiful, period.
But it is made of wire on a fiberglass base form.
Visit this site to take a look at Seung Mo's work.
Me? I did bend three beautiful curves on a half meter wire. Perfect!

Thursday, November 10

Grace Jones's Libertango - I've seen that face before


Strange, I've seen that face before,
Seen him hanging 'round my door,
Like a hawk stealing for the prey,
Like the night waiting for the day,

Strange, he shadows me back home,
Footsteps echo on the stones,
Rainy nights, on Hausmann Boulevard,
Parisian music drifting from the bars,

Tu cherches quoi, rencontrer la mort?
Tu te prends pour qui
Toi aussi tu detestes la vie

Dance in bars and restaurants,
Home with anyone who wants,
Strange he's standing there alone,
Staring eyes chill me to the bone.

Dans sa chambre, Joel et sa valise,
Un regard sur ses fringues,
Sur les murs, des photos,
Sans regret, sans mélo,
La porte est claquée, Joel est barré.



Wednesday, November 9

Trump's victory equals American rejection of warmongering according to Joe Quinn and Oliver Stone


"Last time we checked, the term “failed state” was used by US government officials to describe countries that it had earmarked for ‘regime change’ by way of a US bombing campaign and/or military invasion. Perhaps then Americans should look on the bright side, the Trump victory may have effected ‘regime change’ in the USA without a shot being fired.

While many establishment media pundits like Krugman are attributing the Trump win to the level of “hate in the country”, the truth seems to be that a majority of American voters rejected the policy of warmongering and destruction of living standards (especially for the poor) pursued by the Bush and Obama administrations, and strongly resonated with Trump’s promise to root out rampant corruption in Washington.

Whether or not Trump was sincere about his campaign promises and will be allowed to ‘drain the swamp’ to any significant degree remains to be seen. Under a Trump administration, there is, however, reason to expect a reduction in the level of dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric that became the hallmark of the Obama administration in recent years. And that can only be a good thing for the USA and the world."
Extract from the article "Donald Trump Elected President, Democrats and Liberals Freak Out" by Joe Quinn* in Globalresearch.

We hope Joe Quinn is right. Oliver Stone claimed that "Trump can surprise." in a conference in São Paulo this Wednesday morning. He said that he feared Hillary more than Trump because of her warmongering. According to Oliver Stone Trump is more pragmatic to solve problems.
Oliver Stone is currently in Brazil to launch his movie "Snowden".

*Joe Quinn is the co-author of 9/11: The Ultimate Truth (with Laura Knight-Jadczyk, 2006) and Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False Flag Terror Attacks (with Niall Bradley, 2014), and the host of Sott.net’s The Sott Report Videos and co-host of the ‘Behind the Headlines’ radio show on the Sott Radio Network.

An established web-based essayist and print author, Quinn has been writing incisive editorials for Sott.net for over 10 years. His articles have appeared on many alternative news sites and he has been interviewed on several internet radio shows and has also appeared on Iranian Press TV. His articles can also be found on his personal blog JoeQuinn.net.


Hope: Donald Trump elected president of the United States of America

I wanna know what Americans are going to do. Seriously, this election is the most ridiculous ever.
Both candidates are criminals. What is happening to the world?
It is about time to remember:


Update: The idea of having Hillary Clinton as president scares me the hell. I did another post (above) with Joe Quinn and Oliver Stones' analysis and I changed my mind a little.