Páginas vistas

sábado, 7 de junio de 2014

Abdicación popular

¿Qué sucedería, pregunto, si todo quisqui, con serenidad y respeto a las leyes, nos dispusiéramos a  abdicar del desempleo,de la falta de respeto por las/os trabajadores, de la violencia de género, que campa en todas las capas de la sociedad, de los chanchullos, de los/as ciber imbéciles, de la publicidad sexista, machista ofensiva.
Ah, by the way: hoy Yahoo no despotricó en contra de Letizia Ortíz Rocasolano.

Do We Really Need to Re-Start the Cold War?

Global Research, June 06, 2014

Preface by Washington’s Blog: In the book To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon’s Secret War Plans, one of the world’s leading physicists – Michio Kaku – reveals declassified plans for the U.S. to launch a first-strike nuclear war against Russia. The forward was written by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarke.
In Towards a World War III Scenario, Michel Chossudovsky documents that the U.S. is so enamored with nuclear weapons that it has authorized low-level field commanders to use them in the heat of battle in their sole discretion ... without any approval from civilian leaders.
So – as crazy as this topic may sound at first glance – it deserves our attention.
recent CNN Poll found that 29% of Americans think that Russia is a “Very serious threat” to the United States, and that 40% consider it a “Moderately serious threat.” That’s 69% who consider it a “serious threat.”
In 2012, only 11% considered it a “Very serious threat,” and 33% considered it a “Moderately serious threat.” 44% then considered Russia a “serious threat.” The huge surge in fear of Russia — from 44% to 69% — seems to be due entirely to Ukraine. 81% of poll-respondents said that “Russia’s actions in Ukraine are … a violation of international law.” Only 12% said that it’s not. Asked whether “there was any justification for Russia’s actions in Ukraine,” 72% said “No,” and only 17% said “Yes.”
When asked “Do you think it is likely or not that there will be a new cold war,” 48% said “Likely,” and 49% said “Not likely.”
And when asked “Do you worry about the possibility of nuclear war with Russia,” 40% said “Yes,” and 59% said “No.”
The threat feared from Russia is mainly of their troops, who are manning bases for Russian Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), all of which are located inside Russia.
By contrast, the U.S. has troops in many countries, which include the following nations where our soldiers are stationed (and this includes ones with missile bases located near Russia): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan.
We also have some soldiers in other former parts of the U.S.S.R.: Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
We also have nearly 35,000 troops stationed in Japan, a nation near Russia and that claims ownership of four small Sakhalin Islands and two small Kuril Islands, from Russia.
The United States is, of course, not surrounded by any Russian soldiers at all — not in Mexico, nor in Canada, nor anywhere near this country, except Russia itself near Alaska.
Steven Starr has written about the decades-long view within the U.S. military-strategy establishment, that the Cold War is not, and actually never really was, about ideology, not about capitalism versus communism, but is instead simply about which nation will control the world: basically about national political and economic dominance of our planet. If what Starr says is true, then the end of communism in the U.S.S.R. didn’t terminate the U.S. military’s “Cold War” mission, which is instead actually about global dominance. Starr cites, among other sources, an article, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy,” from the highly influential journal of the organization of U.S. aristocrats and their agents, the Council on Foreign Relations, their authoritative Foreign Affairs, in March 2006. It discusses obliquely the Star Wars Missile-Defense program that was first proposed by President Ronald Reagan, and that has been developed during the decades since. The article says (and I shall italicize the admission since it otherwise rarely appears in print):
“For 50 years, the Pentagon’s war planners have structured the U.S. nuclear arsenal according to the goal of deterring a nuclear attack on the United States and, if necessary, winning a nuclear war by launching a preemptive strike that would destroy an enemy’s nuclear forces.
That article, which basically asserts that the publicly stated U.S. nuclear strategy, of maintaining on both sides the capacity for “Mutually Assured Destruction,” or “MAD,” is just a peaceful-sounding cover-story for the actual U.S. strategy of militarily dominating the entire world, then says: “The ability to destroy all of an adversary’s nuclear forces [via Anti-Ballistic Missiles or 'ABMs'], eliminating the possibility of a retaliatory strike, is known as a first-strike capability, or nuclear primacy.” It alleges that the actual objective of these supposedly defensive ABM weapons (which are still only in the development stage) is to knock out incoming retaliatory ICBMs from Russia, so that the U.S. will be able to launch a first strike that destroys almost all of Russia’s missiles on the ground, even before they can be launched. The ABMs will then take care of any straggling Russian ICBMs, which might have been missed in our first strike and been fired from Russia, by using our ABMs (which, since they haven’t yet been fully deployed, are still as yet only hypothetical) as a missile-shield to protect the U.S. from any retaliation by Russia for our having nuked Russia out of existence.
This article in Foreign Affairs says, pointedly:

viernes, 6 de junio de 2014

Ich liebe "El Jueves"

The Jueves for ever

Vision by Google

Google Glass … android chic.
El Gran Hermano Google chic. Matrix  es lo que vives. Google te vigila.

D-Day for Patri

Bueno guapísimo artista, te informo que el articulito sobre Usia publicado en codondesastre, aparece como el primero en la lista. Es decir que compites con otro reportaje dedicado a los/as Mossos de Cat & Unya, en Figueres.
La señora emperifollada (unos 13O collares y ese look africano progre) que aparece en la foto desconozco quién es. Y la foto original creo que la publicó "The  (global)Country".
Si tuviera más pasta te llamaría, pero total, mi propósito era, como todos  los fines de semana, incluir arte y buen gusto.
Coronel, su mejor agente en la frontera norte de Spain. 
Until the victory for ever. Today. D-Day  in Normandy.
Here the cosa is very revuelta, vamos.

Washington terrorist operation against Syria

Is Washington Planning a Terrorist Operation against Syria in the Wake of the Elections?

Global Research, June 03, 2014

Update (June 3, 14 hours UT)
With security heightened throughout the country, elections in Syria are proceeding normally.
The country has largely been pacified following the retreat of terrorist opposition forces from Homs in early May.
The elections have not been disrupted and no major terrorist event has been reported.
Reports confirm a high turn out.
The aftermath of this election including the response of US-NATO is of crucial significance.
Washington has already announced that it will not recognize the results of the June 3, elections.According to the New York Times, the elections are taking place “Amid Fear and Pressure” and are therefore categorized as “illegitimate”.
In a twisted logic the elections are portrayed by the Western media as an obstacle to achieving real democracy. The Western consensus is that the elections will contribute to a “continuation of the civil war” despite the defeat of the insurgency.
A “Continuation of the Civil War” is a US Foreign Policy option. It is a means to implement Regime Change.
Scenarios of civil war are on the US-NATO drawing board. Confirmed by US statements, the underlying military-intelligence agenda is to foster a continuation of the civil war, namely to rebuild the terrorist insurgency.
There are indications that Washington and its allies are planning a new wave of destabilization involving the influx of weapons and death squads to be carried out in the wake of the June 3 Elections.This “civil war destabilization scenario” is to be supported by a new package of US military aidannounced by President Obama on May 28th, less than a week before the June 3 elections. 
In mid May, two weeks before the elections, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that the US and its allies “would increase all aspects of support for the mainstream Syrian opposition fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad”.
Confirmed by John Kerry, these efforts consist in accelerating the flow of weapons to opposition fighters ahead of the elections:
“Every possible avenue will be pursued by one country or another,… I’m not going to discuss specific weapons and what country may or may not be providing [weapons], but out of today’s meeting [May 15, less than 3 weeks before the June 3 elections] every facet of what can be done will be ramped up, and that includes a political effort, aid to the opposition... economic efforts and sanctions.” (quoted in Guardian, May 15, 2014)
Kerry’s May 15 statement to speed up the flow of weapons to opposition rebels was followed two weeks later by a formal announcement by President Obama.
A week before the Syrian elections at his May 28 West Point Military College address, presidentObama formally confirmed a new military aid package to be channeled to Syria’s “freedom fighters”.
Was this new flow of US military aid initiated prior to the elections?
According to a statement (May 22, 2014), by Mr Ahmad Al-Jarba,Chairman of the “opposition” Syrian National Coalition (SNC), the weapons will arrive “within weeks”. A subsequent report coinciding with President Obama’s official confirmation on May 28, stated within a period of “three weeks”, which includes the week leading up to the June 3, elections:
“[Mr Al Jarba] …did not not specify the quality of the weapons or reveal whether they will include the highly effective “Man Pad” anti-aircraft missiles, which could effectively change the balance of power on the ground” (5pillarz.com, May 31, 2014)
President Obama “spoke of two-pronged support aimed at assisting the armed opposition” against both Bashar Al as well as against the jihadist terrorist organizations which are fighting government forces.
This contradictory statement by president Obama was largely intended to reaffirm America’s commitment to “fighting terrorism”, rather than “supporting terrorism” in Syria, something which by now has been amply documented. The evidence confirms that the opposition terrorist insurgents are supported by US-NATO and Israel, trained in Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. They are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance.
According to reports, President Obama … “wants to combat the burgeoning power of the Islamist armies – which the US identify as “terrorists”” while financing and training the so-called “moderate opposition”.
This is an obvious smokescreen: There is no such thing as a moderate armed opposition in Syria.
While the Western media, echoing Obama’s concern regarding the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the al-Nusra Front, fail to acknowledge that the bulk of US military aid is channeled covertly to these two terrorist organizations, which are supported by US intelligence.
The timely resolution of France at the United Nations Security Council directed against Syria was intended to create confusion in the weeks leading up the elections:
Syria’s Ambassador to the UN, Bashar Ja’afari, accused the UN of facilitating a plot against the regime. France, he said, was inciting public opinion against Syria within the UN and had launched a “futile” bid to have the Syrian file investigated at the International Criminal Court (ICC).(5pillarz.com, May 31, 2014)
According to Ja’afari, France’ resolution was aimed at
“piling up political pressure on the Syrian government and throwing into confusion the presidential elections so as to end up in a state of constitutional, political and security vacuum.” (Ibid, emphasis added)
The latest reports out of Damascus suggest that the security situation is under control. No incidents were reported on the day of the elections. The elections are proceeding normally.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research/codondesastre.blogspot.com

miércoles, 4 de junio de 2014

For President Raúl.

Felicidades Raúl, presidente de Cuba en sus 83 primaveras guerrilleras.  Desde la frontera norte de España, en la muga, le saluda su agente independiente, acatarrada y clandestina. Un beso para el coronel Palmer. Para Celia, Ramiro, Chomi Miyar, Nuno, Margarita. Bueno, hasta la victory for ever young.
Celebramos su cumple con un licor muy especial en el bar "Pais de Vent".

Bellas por dentro

Poirette 1949

Poirette, bra, nylon lace, 1949, USA, gift of Bestform Inc. Christian Dior, petticoat, nylon net, taffeta, and horsehair net, 1951, France, gift of Despina Messinesi. Photograph: /FIT

lounging pajamaslounging pajamas

Valerie Porr, lounging pajamas, printed silk, 1976, USA, gift of Valerie Porr, designer. Photograph: /FIT

martes, 3 de junio de 2014

Larga vida al Jefe del Estado español

El rey Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón ha abdicado: salud  y larga vida en su real retiro.

Imagen de la carta de abdicación del rey

Yahoo cutre vs Ortíz Rocasolano.

Comentario mini envenenado para Yahoo global y envidioso, sexista y apestoso. Supongo que el zafio Yahoo (millones de tonto/as adictos) se meterá la lengua sucia donde le quepa. ¿A ver , tíos/as pringaos, a que no os meteis con el (buen) real culo de Don Felipe VI  de Borbón?. Ah y que conste que no soy una serpiente, ni me dan sobres o regalitos eh.

  Artículo muy bueno. Mola False Flag Terrorism” to Sustain America’s “Humanitarian” Agenda By Joachim Hagopian Global Research, June 02, 2014 Url of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-terrorism-to-sustain-americas-humanitarian-agenda/5384883 In late May 2014, President Obama rolled out his foreign policy initiatives at West Point and said nothing new. Every lie he uttered is just a retread cover for the same old, same old disastrous foreign policy the US has engaged in since the cold war began shortly after World War II. The fact is Washington has been regularly practicing this same modus operandi for over sixty years. Through constant use of false flags deceptively blaming the designated enemy of the United States, starting with the dual threat of the Soviet Union and China’s spreading Communism in the early 1950’s, then in this century fabricating the al Qaeda enemy’s spreading terrorism and now back to a revitalized cold war stopping the expansionist spread of Russia and China again, the US has been busily justifying its aggressive interventionist policy throughout the world.