quinta-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2011


Again, the United States concludes a war without winning it, while failing to impose its will on those who were attacked. U.S. troops are not leaving Iraq as they left Saigon on April 30, 1975, driven out by troops of Hanoi and the Vietcong. This time, they first destroyed and devastated Iraq, during a decade of constant bombings.

The despotism of Saddam didn't bother the United States before, when it coincided with the interests of Washington. So much so, that the Americans pushed for a war against Iran, and offered military and diplomatic support. However, their goal was to weaken the two countries.

At the time - making a basic political mistake - Saddam intended to restore the historical borders of Iraq, to ​​invade Kuwait. Washington, with the first Bush, found this to be a pretext for the aggression and air attack on Baghdad, creating the so-called exclusion zone, in which aerial bombardment was indiscriminate. An economic blockade was imposed.

There were tens of thousands of deaths during the ten years of air strikes leading up to the invasion. Among the survivors of the attack, there were thousands of children afflicted with leukemia due to radiation from depleted uranium ammunition.

Thus, while invading the country on the ground, the Americans found a weak army, devastated territory and a government on the defensive diplomatically. The pretext, the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was exposed and destroyed by the facts.

Yesterday, President Obama said that Iraq is today "independent, free and sovereign, much better than it was with Saddam." Saddam, as international observers know, was much less obscurantist than the princes of Saudi Arabia.

His people lived relatively well, their women were not treated with disrespect and were able to attend the university. Some occupied important positions in government, academia and research laboratories. There was religious tolerance, despite the divergence between the Sunnis and secular Shiites, he was able to manage to secure internal peace.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, was a Chaldean Catholic in a country of Islamic culture, yes, but perhaps the most open of all of them to other cultures and customs. The country was in full economic development, with major infrastructure works, and maintained excellent relations with Brazil, through the oil-for technology and engineering services, when the bombing began.

After that, in the last nine years, the U.S. occupation killed more than 100,000 civilians, 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and 4,800 invaders, of which 4,500 were Yankees. Thousands and thousands of Iraqi citizens were injured, as well as invading soldiers, most of them mutilated. The cities were devastated - but the oil wells were divided between the companies of the countries that participated in the invading military coalition.

Today no one knows the real reasons for the war, both against Iraq, Afghanistan and the need for that supply of oil and gas of the Middle East and Caspian Valley to the United States and Western Europe. Hence, the preemptive war without limits as the second Bush stated. He said he was called by God in order to go to Iraq to kill Saddam Hussein.

Not only are there dead from aggression against Iraq. The Americans leave the country without sufficient electric energy, no drinking water, with 15% unemployment and 85% of those who work are working in government service.

The whole history of the United States - along with the great merits of its people - was built on the desire for conquest and death. Since the occupation of New England, not only the Indians knew this expansionist fury: in the war against Mexico, the country lost half of its native territory, which corresponds to almost one-third of the current North American space in the continent.

One of the disgraces of the American victory was the breaking of the Missouri Compromise, with the expansion of slavery to new territories. It would be - a little over ten years later - one of the major causes of internal conflict between North and South, the war of secession. Lincoln, who fought it, had been in 1847, one of the few to oppose the conflict with Mexico.

Since then, U.S. imperialist lust has known no bounds. Their ruling elites and their governments, except for a few lucid men, moved convinced that it was up to Washington to dominate the world. They still move in this fanatical determination.

Now, they are leaving Iraq and also announce that they will leave Afghanistan next year. But at the same time, within the Bush doctrine of war without end, they are prepared for a new genocidal aggression against Iran

The United States never experienced the presence of foreign invaders. Their war of independence was against British troops, who were not invading, but yes occupants of the metropolis in the colony.

The few incursions on the Mexican border, so fragile, do not count. But there is a growing force, that they cannot defeat: that of the very American people, tired of supporting the internal imperialism of their bankers and of their few billionaire families who feed on inequality.

The people, more than anything, feel exhausted from the blood tribute that each generation is obligated to offer. There is no glory in wars against defenseless people, and almost always peaceful, in the name of this or that, but always caused by the interests of the looters and plunderers of the wealth of others.

The situation took new direction, from the year 1980, as noted in an article published yesterday by El Pais, the Catalan philosopher and biologist Federico Mayor Zaragoza, former education minister in his country. For 12 years, he was the Director-General of UNESCO. The alliance of interests between Reagan and Margaret Thatcher meant the capitulation of the state in the market, and began the era of real terror, with 4 billion dollars spent each day for armaments and other military expenditures, while every day 60,000 people died of hunger in the world.

Mayor recalls the leading elites of the new creed, which Furtado called "market fundamentalism": the sad erosion of the UN and its replacement by plutocratic groups, such as the Group of 7, then 8 and now under the pressure of the emerging ones, of the 20. And in the homeland of the new faith in "market reasons," the United States, there are now 20 million unemployed, 40 million new poor and 50 million people without any health insurance.

Europe, besieged and bewildered with the failure of its political institutions, is trapped in the euro, which has no way to compete with the dollar or the yuan, the yuan and the dollar because they are issued in accordance with the needs of the United States and China. It managed to escape to England, which maintains its own currency.

The people of the United States do not expect a reaction and are prepared to maintain their terror in the world through the worldwide reach of their electronic weapons, including unmanned aircraft. Their destiny, if it occurs, will be that of the lone gunman, who delights in murdering the innocent from a distance, until someone manages, with the same method, to bring them down. And there is no shortage of those who are preparing for it.

Translated from the portuguese version by:

Lisa Karpova



terça-feira, 22 de novembro de 2011


Capitalism, say some advocates, was a great human invention. According to this theory, the system was born from the ambition of men and the striving for wealth, personal power and public recognition for individuals who stood out in the community, and could live longer and better at the expense of others.

All these objectives required the commitment of time, strength and mind. It was a way for what was called "civilization," although there were others, more generous, and in pursuit of justice. Like all processes of life, capitalism has its limits. When you get past the looting and plundering, and this has occurred several times in history, there are major crises that almost always lead to bloody conflicts, internal and external.

Foreign Affairs magazine reflects the concerns of the American intelligentsia (both the left and right). Published in its latest issue is an excellent essay by George Packer - "The broken contract, Inequality and American Decline." Packer is a man of the establishment. His parents are professors at Stanford University. His maternal grandfather, George Huddleston, of Alabama, was the Democratic representative in Congress for twenty years.

The journalist shows that social inequality in the United States has worsened over the past roughly 33 years - from 1978. That year, with high rates of inflation, the increase in gasoline prices, higher unemployment and widespread pessimism, there was a major change in American life. The great interests acted in order to charge the crisis to the state of social welfare and regulation of economic life that came from the New Deal.

Public opinion was intoxicated by this idea and gave confidence in the established social commitment in the years during the 30s and 40s. According to Packer, this commitment was that of a middle-class democracy. It was an unwritten social contract between labor, business and government, which ensured wider distribution of the benefits of the economy and prosperity after the war - as in no other time in history.

A significant factor: in 70 years, is that the highest-paid executives in the United States received 40 times the salary of the lowest paid workers of their companies. In 2007, they started to receive 400 times more. In those 70 years, Packer records, the American elites were even responsible for the fate of the country, and with the natural exceptions, watched over by their institutions and interests.

There is, the author ponders, a lot of injustice, especially against blacks from the South. Like all seasons, the post-war until 1970 had its costs, but the situation in 2011 had seemed bearable.

In 70 years, there was stagflation, which combined economic stagnation with inflation and high interest rates. Wages were eroded by inflation, unemployment rose, and the confidence of Americans in government fell, also because of the Watergate scandal and the disaster that was the adventure of Vietnam.

Capitalism seemed in danger and this alarmed the wealthy, who sought to respond immediately. They worked - especially since 1978 - to secure their position, making it even stronger. They tried to strengthen their influence by enhancing lobbyng, which has always existed, but, except for some cases, was limited to whiskey and cigars.

Since then, bribery has become common practice. In 1971, there were 141 companies represented by lobbyists in Washington. In 1982, there were 2,445.

Reagan's long and massive transfer of income in the country in favor the wealthiest Americans became more serious. It was constant, both in the best periods of the economy as the worst, under Democratic presidents or Republican, or Democrat to Republican majorities in Congress.

Representatives and Senators - always with exceptions - started to normally receive bribes from Wall Street. Packer cites the statement of Republican Robert Dole in 1982, "The poor do not contribute to election campaigns."

Packer goes deeper: inequality is like an odorless gas that reaches all corners of the country - but it seems impossible to find its source and close the tap. Between 1974 and 2006, the income of the middle class grew 21%, while that of poor Americans grew by only 11%.

The incomes of one percent of the richest grew by 256%, over ten times those of the middle class, and almost tripled its share in total income of the country, 23%, the highest level since 1928 - the eve of the Great Depression.

This registered growth came from before. From Kennedy to Bush the second, slower before Reagan, and then faster, the American rich have become richer.

Inequality, Packer concludes, favors the division of classes, and imprisons people in the circumstances of their birth, which constitutes a historical denial of the idea of ​​the "American dream."

He concludes: "Inequality divides us in the schools, between neighbors, at work, on airplanes, in hospitals, what we eat, our physical condition, what we think, the future of our children and even about our death." Finally, inequality is exacerbated by the boundless ambitions of capitalism, not only with violence against ethics, but also against logic. It's crazy, it's madness.

To the whole world - the commentary is ours - there was imposed due to the absence of statesmen ready to react, the same pattern of inequality seen with Reaganism and Thatcherism. The most recent economic crisis, caused by the greed of Wall Street, served as a lesson to those servile to the rulers of money, who were handed to the salaried technocrats of the international financial system.

Yesterday, Mario Monti, a Goldman Sachs man, placed in power by the creditors of Italy, was still demanding of the Parliament the security of remaining at the leadership of government until 2013. This means violating the constitution of the country, which gives the people's representatives the power of denying confidence to the government and, depending on the situation, calling elections.

The right path is the more equitable distribution of national income, expanding the domestic market and thus combat inequality and submit the technocracy to political reason. It is necessary, among other measures, to keep a close watch on the private banks, mostly foreign, who are covering the shenanigans of its central institutions with high profits in our country and other Latin American countries.

Translated from the portuguese version by:

Lisa Karpova.



this text was also published in the following sites:







sábado, 8 de outubro de 2011


It is almost certain that last week was decisive for the history of this century that began ten years ago, with the mysterious facts of New York. The UN, which has been more than an audience, kind of the agora world, but without the political power they had the squares of Athens, heard four keynote addresses. Two of them in the name of peace, the future, the clarity and two others who echoed as late. Dilma and Abbas, on behalf of those who no longer accept the geopolitical division of the world, Obama and Netanyahu, constrained spokesmen for a while morally dead. The general assembly was separated into two sides defined, although asymmetrical.
The president of Brazil spoke on behalf of the new realities, such as women's empowerment - the first time in the chronicle of the United Nations, a female voice opened the annual debates - and the impetuous emergence of oppressed peoples as active agents in millennia of history. Mahmoud Abbas, but on behalf of a small nation, accounted for all oppressed people throughout the ages. For more you deny this right, Palestine is so old that its historical borders between born a man known as Christ.
The Jewish Holocaust, committed by the Nazis, and that horrifies us today, lasted a few years, that of the Palestinian people, deprived of rights to the gradual occupation of their lands, which began with Zionism in the late 19th century, lasted for at least 63 years from creation, former abrupt, the State of Israel in 1948. Remember that creating a "national home" for Jews was conditional on the survival, security, the Palestinian people in an independent state. Dilma's voice, more measured, since representing a nation of almost 200 million people in exercising its political sovereignty, had the same historical importance of the dramatic appeal of Abbas. The staggered the international community was called to the political wisdom and conscience. It is doubtful that it corresponds to that responsibility. On the other hand, concealed in the speech and threatening Netanyahu and Obama spiel embarrassed, they heard the roar of missiles and remote tomawaks blast that destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. While Netanyahu muttered, without any consistency, the expressions of peace, soldiers killed a Palestinian protester in the occupied West Bank.
The two gentlemen did not arrogant spoke on behalf of the men cried out on behalf of the guns and big bankers without a country that, since the Rotschild, maintain force against the reason that region of the world. As many historians have pointed out, the rich Jews, under the leadership of the powerful family of financiers, decided to follow the former Pan-German Theodor Herzl, the idea of ​​creating a Jewish state in order to get rid of the embarrassing presence of poor Jews in England and Western Europe.
At the origin of its independence, the United States heard the wise observation of Tom Payne, of which contradicted common sense reliance on a continent such as North America, to an island like Great Britain. The U.S. government is now hostage to a tiny state like Israel, represented by powerful lobbyists in Washington capable of influencing the Capitol and the White House, against the historical reasons of the great nation.

Translated from portuguese version by

Armando Rozario


domingo, 24 de julho de 2011


Imagine that in February 1848 there already was a worldwide network of computers. Suppose that instead of printing the first few copies of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels had used the Internet, so that all workers, Europeans and North Americans, could read the text. What would the development process have been? As we know, 1848 was the year of workers' uprisings in Europe, with all the repression and violence.

Capitalism was savage then, one of the bastard children of the French Revolution that became excited by the defeat of the workers. In France, the bourgeoisie took power and defeated the monarchy, took it without disguise and without intermediaries, in a period that historians call "The Republic of businessmen." Workers and intellectuals tried later in 1871, soon after France's defeat to the Germans, to create an autonomous and egalitarian government in Paris. With the help of the invaders, the Army of Thiers executed 20,000 Parisians on the streets.

The popular demonstrations in Arab countries, which the governments and media of the United States and Europe greeted as the end of the tyrants and the beginning of the democratization of the Islamic world, enter a new stage, reaching the rich countries. Hurried analysts are made to revise their conclusions. The ailment that took people to the streets is not limited to North Africa, it is a worldwide phenomenon.

One of the contradictions of capitalism, especially in this new stage of rampant imperialism, in which national governments are merely servants of the owners of money, is its inability to set limits. Today, the United States - which was, at one time, a space for the realization of millions of people through work - the difference between rich and poor is greater than during its entire history, including the time of slavery. One percent of the U.S. population owns 40% of the national wealth. The same situation is true in almost all Nordic countries.

When this text was written, thousands of people were camped out in central Madrid, in continuity with Real Democracy, Already, they began on May 15, with protests in all major Spanish cities. Spain today is dominated by multinational companies and big bankers, who not only exploit the national work, they also live from exploiting Latin American countries.

Banks like Santander - whose most dramatic results are achieved in Brazil - to divide the two parties that take turns in power (the socialists and conservatives), the result is the robbery of the country's economy. It is against this hateful system that the Spaniards took to the streets and in the streets they continue.

It isn't only the young unemployed who are indignant. It is mainly the women and older men who stimulate the movement. They feel that their children and grandchildren will be condemned to a future increasingly dark and more violent if citizens do not react immediately.

The Spaniards are promoting the international networking of similar movements that occur in other countries, like Iceland, France, England and even the United States. If the financial system has been linked with the Washington Consensus and the regular meetings between the world's richest men of the planet, in order to dominate and exploit people globally, it is necessary that the citizens of the whole world react.

Marx wanted all workers of the world united. The movement today is broader and its motto might be: human beings around the world, unite.

Translated from the Portuguese version by:




this text was also published in the following sites:







At the opening of the Synod of Bishops, in Rome, the Pope Benedict XVI Said that the men of nowadays want to live without God, which makes the society more confused and unhappy. The Pope looked scared with the diminished influence of the Catholic Church in our world.

In an article published in Jornal do Brasil, Mauro Santayana wrote: “The 20th century was the hardest of History, because the hierarchy didn’t know how to listen to the apostle who Christ sent to Vatican, in the admirable figure of Angelo Roncalli. The Council, gathered in 1962 by the peasant of Bergamo, was the greatest opportunity for the Church to come back to the footsteps left by Christ on the paths of Palestine, but his successors lost them. Though the memorable encyclicals (mainly the Pacem in Terris), which returned to the preoccupations of the Gospel, and brought the Good News to the world, the Vatican was abandoned, little by little the doctrine of John XXIII, and combating, with no complacence, in the body of the Church. The aggiornamento he intended took another way. Roncalli, who talked to the both sides of the world – Kennedy and Khrushchev –, had his eyes on the poor. As the successor of the fisherman Peter, the mission he was assigned to was, little by little, to remind the Catholics that Christianity was not only the Lord’s Prayer, but required to come to Christ who multiplied bread and fish and forgave the adulterer”.

The article goes on: “One of the greatest secrets of the extraordinary conductor of Church was his real affect towards others. For days, the great public Brazilian man Waldir Pires has been telling this columnist the visit he had done, as a congressman, to the Vatican, accompanied by his wife, Yolanda, pregnant back then. The protocol determined that the women kneeled down before the Pope, and when he was approaching the group, Yolanda started bending down to perform the rite. John XXIII ran up to her and, grabbing her arms, stopped the gesture. After some caring sentences, he blessed her. Christ would have done it, we can imagine”.

The conclusion of the renowned journalist is that, if God and men are apart today, much of this responsibility is upon the Vatican. “The Catholic hierarchy didn’t want to find – except Albino Luciani – who was willing to continue the efforts of John XXIII to give the Church back to Christ. With Karol Wojtyla, the Church took the poor, and gave them to the Pentecostal sects.”

Finishing up the articles, Santayana observed: “The Church is claiming a new and great Pope, who can save it and, as he saves it, helps the Western man reestablish his covenant to Creation. Up to now, it won’t be Pope Ratzinger the predestinate to promote this necessary revolution”.

The analysis contained in this article explains, at least partially, what was said here last week. There are many reasons for the reduction of vocations and empty Catholic temples.

It is needed, thus, a great effort to strengthen the faith in our Father, a vital necessity for the world to be transformed and we can keep the covenants He expects us to keep. After all, we are not here on vacation and we have two clear goals to achieve. One is about our personal development; the other is about the general progress and our bit in the work of Creation.

Published by Tiago V in:


extracted from:



The United States did not learn from the vicissitudes that the utmost care with the war plans must be dedicated to the withdrawal. This is so important at the tactical level, fighting in battles and isolated, as in war strategy as a whole. The same goes for the acts of everyday politics, as it should be also the conduct of ordinary life. When we have a project, we can predict their difficulties, and establish what to do if it fails.

The great nation of the North is geographically impregnable, situated between two major oceans, with a strong ally to the north, Canada, and a weak and awkward neighbor, Mexico, south, but that does not make it invincible in international conflicts. The myth of its military is based on technological superiority, but the weapons, however powerful they are, are a complement to the warfighter. More powerful than the artifacts is the human will. It was this desire, transformed into bravery, who defeated the Americans in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan. In the war started in 1979, the Taliban and its ally, Osama bin Laden, told with all the resources Americans - but that aid was not decisive for the defeat of Moscow. What decided it was the willingness of Afghans to fight in defense of their arid land, made for the most part, deserts and valleys, high rocky mountains, with few fertile areas, some of them cultivated poppy, the raw material for opium and its derivative, heroin.

The United States know they can not stay in Afghanistan. If not for the internal political difficulties, before the de facto power that dominates the country - the famous military-industrial complex, Eisenhower denounced 50 years ago - in blatant consolidated alliance between the Pentagon and Wall Street, and Obama would determine the immediate return of troops home.

Again, the Pentagon and State Department have not been able to plan the withdrawal at the right time, through a combination of military actions to diplomatic understandings. The gap between the two institutions is old in the United States, and corresponds to a usurpation of duties: the diplomats want to wage war and the military seek to impose the policy guidelines. This conflict has always been arbitrated by the president, when heads of state had real authority over the nation. At that time, trapped by unemployment, the criminal shenanigans of the bankers and the re-articulation of the far right, Obama begins to lose all their political uppers. Is every day more like Nixon, in his melancholy decline when forced out of Vietnam, and in the longing for re-election, had to appeal to the operation failed - and denounced by the press - of Watergate.

In examining the problems of withdrawal after a losing battle, von Clausewitz in his classic study of the war - Vom Kriege - says that defeat in battle (and the idea can be extended to the overall war) destroys the moral energy of armies than their physical energy. He concludes the thought by saying that, unless the circumstances are reversed, a second battle will end with the complete defeat, if not end up in the final destruction of the vanquished.

The Secretary of Defense, nominal head of the Pentagon, Robert Gates, confirmed that he had begun preliminary talks with the Taliban, and justified, saying that wars always end in political understandings. There are two fixes that can make the Gates. The first is that wars would be avoided with the political talks - and the Bush administration refused to talk not only with the Taleban government, and refused the peace efforts of Saddam Hussein, obstinate in invading Iraq after ten years of wear on the bombing of the territory. For many military spending, so much blood spilled, so many young Americans dead, if, after all, the political solution will be - repeating what happened in Southeast Asia? The other is to repair that, however rhetorical meanderings do when looking for an understanding with the Taliban, the United States admit that they lost the war. A war is only won when forcing the enemy to accept our will. This has not happened in Iraq, where resistance remains strong, even in Afghanistan where the Taliban, every day more, get support greater population and greater military results.

The United States lost another war, and it will continue losing until his people to expel the bankers and generals of power by exercising their political representatives.

Translated from the Portuguese version by:

Armando Rozário



Barack Obama’s speech in London, with all its political pronouncements, should not be interpreted literally. We know that the words were just words to hide something else and almost always reveal something else, which is also to be hidden. When one tries to hide the true meaning of his or her pronouncements it never works. This speech was out of time, and it is reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt’s speech at the turn of the 20th century.

Obama went to London in order to tell the British that the two world powers — who both come from the same presumptuous island — will continue to rule the world. Even in the late 16th century, the English started sending their people over to America before the New England colonies existed — after the Spanish fleet, which had been considered invincible, was badly defeated. The British naval action, coupled with strong winds and the high waves of the English Channel, were too much. England’s supremacy was confirmed in the 19th century at Waterloo. The fact that the U.S. president considered it important to reaffirm this domination shows that he finds himself sinking.

The president committed a serious political mistake, perhaps because he became a ghostwriter and ignored many of the European countries. He did not directly mention countries such as Germany and France but only referred to them as “our allies.” Ultimately, England and the U.S. are the owners of the world. The other countries — no matter how powerful they are — are merely allies. Brazil and the other emerging large country members of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are mentioned as being incapable of threatening the global supremacy of the Washington-London axis. We don’t believe Brazil has come to challenge the world “leadership.” Rather, a more appropriate approach for a strong country would be to not compromise the potential of developing countries through acts of conquest. Strong armies, a solid economy and permanent institutions are necessary conditions to ensure domestic freedom and to guarantee national interests throughout the world. But if this advantage was only used in foolish endeavors, the consequences would be disastrous in the short and long term. In the lives of each one of us, and in the lives of nations, the best choice is to not lead, but neither is it a good option to follow the leadership of others. We should let other countries rule themselves and be fierce defenders of our own freedom.

Along the same line of reasoning, we are witnessing another example of soppy arrogance from Christine Lagarde, the French candidate for the position of Director of the International Monetary Fund. When asked what she thought about the prospect of the one of the emerging countries substituting for ex-director Strauss-Kahn, said she believes the institution should stay in European hands. She said that for the past two years it has been said that, within the International Monetary Fund, whoever pays is in charge. The way she sees it, the idea is that the institution is not international; rather, it belongs to a handful of countries that play as if they are the owners of all of the world’s money. If this is Mrs. Lagarde’s criterion, then now is the time for new leadership within the International Monetary Fund.

Today, the emerging countries are the main creditors in the world. China, Russia, India and Brazil together hold the largest world reserves while the United States and the majority of European countries are the biggest international debtors. The United States’ public and private debt is nominally $50.2 trillion dollars (three times its gross national product). This figure does not account for the trillions upon trillions of dollars that are unaccounted for circulating throughout the entire world. In this case, it’s China and the other members of BRIC who are footing the bill, directly or indirectly.

With all its arrogance, Obama’s speech is empty: The only power that Washington, London and their allies in NATO have is war, and they find themselves mixed up in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If all that matters is who pays is in charge, then Brazil, Russia, India and China should abandon the International Monetary Fund and establish a new institution which serves them.

Translated from the Portuguese version by:

Deonca Williams

Edited by Sam Carter



segunda-feira, 16 de maio de 2011


The children of bin Laden accused the U.S. of violating the immemorial principles of justice, such as due process, by killing the head of household in Abottabad. Clearly, they demand a United Nations investigation into the facts and admit taking the case to the International Court of Justice. A group of British lawyers was already contacted.

They argue that they have always been against the acts of their father and, as they condemned them, today they condemned the killing of an unarmed man, who could have been trapped alive and taken prisoner, like many others, to a legal trial.

The idea is clear: if President Obama has violated the principles adopted by the international community and the conscience of men, such as others who have violated them and were subject to trial, he should be treated the same. Admittedly this will not happen. Since the world exists, they are only really punished eventually by the the weakest courts.

The great French Catholic intellectual and dissident François de Menthon, the French prosecutor at Nuremberg, spoke about two outstanding phrases at that time. In one, he defines what a crime against humanity is, "crime contre le statut d'être humain, motivé par une ideologie qui est contre l'espirit, visant a rejeter l'humanité dans la barbarie" (crime against human laws, motivated by an ideology that is a crime against the spirit, returning humanity to barbarism. The definition served at that time, but we always have difficulty in defining which ideology is against the spirit and aims to bring humanity back into barbarism.

Since each of us has an ideology, it is normal for us to defend our own and we reject those that oppose it. The other Menthon phrase is more effective as an aid to reasoning. When everyone was smiling at the stupidity and nonsense of Nazi slogans and ideas, the Frenchman said, with lucid skepticism: "We consider such slogans ridiculous and stupid, but if they had won the war, we'd be repeating them, and in some cases, with enthusiasm."

It is with enthusiasm that many people repeat the many arguments of Washington, which boil down to one: by having sufficient force to impose democracy made in United States and its peculiar exegesis of Human Rights, Obama has done right by invading a foreign country, going there to kill some unarmed people, hijack a corpse who must be buried by relatives, and threaten, covertly, sovereign countries and other enemies, of acting likewise, if deemed necessary. It is with this type of enthusiasm that the vehicles of communication in the world and some statesmen and academia have responded, in most cases.

Those that prophesy new barbarism in man haven't been in short supply since the Enlightenment. This barbarism would be based on the technological application of the discoveries of science and the myth of efficiency and progress. This sad and prophetic vision, which was admirable in its formulation in Vico, almost took place under Nazism, during the war with its organization and management of near perfection, the examples of which were the concentration camps. And while we are speaking of Nuremberg, the substitute for Francois de Menthon at the end of the trial, Champetier de Ribes, was accurate in his final pronouncement:

"The historian of the future, as the columnist of today, will know that the work of twenty centuries of a civilization that believed itself eternal escaped collapsing by returning in a new form of ancient barbarism, more savage, because it is more scientific."

We still do not escape from the barbarism that threatens us, the "unique thought" and the arrogance of a nation that considers itself the lady of Western civilization, with the complicity of its large and small vassals. Faced with that, only the reaction of men and women of the world (who still remain human for us) will be able to save the best of our historical experience.

Translated from the Portuguese version by:




sexta-feira, 6 de maio de 2011


The north-americans always create, encourage and finance opposition movements in all countries where it is in their interest to destabilise governments and political systems.

So, not surprisingly, their agents and allies in Muslim countries have encouraged the movement that started the so seemingly accidental, Tunisia. Young people from Islamic countries are dissatisfied with life. They lack opportunities for professional and personal fulfillment. Their freedom is limited, and their dreams crumble in front of a closed society.

In the last 21 days, the New York Times published an article by a 24 year old successful and reputable developer of the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. Matthew C. Klein examined the situation of young Americans, showing that the unemployment situation is similar to that of young people in poor countries, and that their dreams are also limited.

He could have also discussed the disillusionment of the unpaid portion of alienated youth in his country with the government, with Congressional corruption, the indecent behavior of large corporations that have their head on Wall Street and with the bellicosity of their country. The fact that there is an illusion of freedom of the press and periodic elections does not reduce the absolutism of the essential American system. People vote, every four years, the justice system works, although the Supreme Court does not always judge with impartiality. But still, freedom, here as elsewhere, is a market good, a commodity. You have to be able to buy it.

Human rights, proclaimed in lofty statements are also violated in the United States and countries that sing in their chorus. Just remember what goes on at Guantanamo, what was documented at Abu Ghraib, and the conditions which are seen in a naval prison, for the U.S. soldier, Bradley Manning.

The claim that the intervention in Libya is made on behalf of human rights and the protection of civilians is immoral. It is considered unwise even to British MPs, like Rory Stewart, in an article published on the 18th, in the London Review of Books. Stewart is not a leftist.

Deputy for a traditional conservative stronghold in the northwest of England, the parliamentarian reveals knowledge of the subject. He was with British troops in Iraq, and after that, crossed Afghanistan on foot as part of a larger trip from Turkey to Nepal, for 6,000 miles and lasting two years. Although conservative, Stewart considers his country's participation in anti-Islamic crusades an error. He justifies, in part, the intervention in Yugoslavia in the name of protection of a civilian population they pretended was threatened by genocide there - but does not agree with the rest. We reproduce some text of his article, published under the title "Here we go again":

"It seemed doubly unlikely that Britain would ever intervene militarily in country like Libya. Although poor in oil, Afghanistan and Central Asia were seen by many Muslims as objects occupied by infidel crusaders, led by Israel, and in order to deploy military bases or get cheap oil. Any move against Libya - an Arab Muslim country, obsessed in a relentless struggle against colonialism and sweating oil - gave the impression that it would be viewed as an extremely hostile and sinister move, first not only by their own Arab neighbors, but also the developed world and even by Libyans themselves.

Libya does not meet even the criteria of international law as a target for military intervention. Gaddafi is the sovereign power, not the rebels, nor did he practice genocide or ethnic cleansing...

As deputy to the House of Commons, it occurred to me that maybe it's time to remind people that despite the misery of Afghanistan, Britain can still have a constructive role in the world."

At the end of his article, the parliamentarian is pessimistic and gets to the bottom in the exhibition of the pretenses of the colonialists:

"Nothing makes me more aware that the greatest danger is not despair but these unstoppable decisions, almost hyperactive, the feigned sense of moral obligation, fear of rogue states, failed states, of losing our "credibility." This, indeed, makes me fear that we are at the beginning of another decade of military superintervention."

Rory Stewart (born in Hong Kong, to English parents, educated in England) thus confirms the objective of another colonialist movement, again "manu militari" (with a military hand) of the old rulers. Intimidated by the lack of cheap oil, they cling to the past, in search of their security and pride, as owners of the world.

The elite oligarchs of the lecherous imperialist capitalist world no longer make any pretenses of serving the people they rule, they have long distanced themselves from the will of the people. Meanwhile, this collection of thugs, murderers and false accusers meets in London to decide "the future of Libya." Who asked them?

Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama should all go, they have lost all legitimacy. I am sure some polar bears in the Arctic might welcome their presence. It is doubtful they would be welcome anywhere else. But that would hardly be necessary if they were first forced to go before a war crimes tribunal.

Translated from the Portuguese version by:






The pretext for military intervention in Libya is the defense of "human rights." The argument for the crusades was the defense of the "holy places." The alleged cause for foreign intervention in the Amazon is to protect the environment and indigenous rights.

The secular principle of non-intervention in internal affairs gives rise to the spirit in some countries of a special mission, feeling mighty and powerful, they are prepared, either alone or through coalitions, to invade the territory of others.

The sovereignty of states can be likened to the inviolability of the home. The reason that man uses and builds a house is to protect himself and his family from the weather and from predators. It is this same principle that drives the creation of states.

Jean Bodin, French thinker of the 17th century, sums up the idea, to identify the higher states as "societates quae non recognoscunt" (Latin), in short, the state exerts over its subjects and territory the summa potestas, the sum, finality or totality of power.

If eventually violated by a subject or by a prince, it does not pawn the state in its pure situation. In the case where there is submission to another state, it can only be understood as a temporary concession of sovereignty, a mutual convenience, or religious or ideological allegiance, as in the case of theology-based states, including Muslims and pontifical. Or, in the case of military defeat.

The logic of common sense indicates that only defensive wars are just. When German submarines sank ships off the coast of Sergipe in Brazil, in national waters, we had to declare war on the Axis. The same occurred in the Paraguayan War: in retaliation to aggression.

A third country can come to the rescue of the victim, hence the known military pacts, the Entente and the large and small coalitions. The doctrine of intervention to impose internal order on the other can only be defined with the raw phrase of Peron: "la fuerza es el derecho de las bestias" (force is the right of beasts).

Like any other adjective, human rights depends on the choice of each. The right to associate freely and to individual freedom, the vision of Stuart Mill, who says that "liberty is to be able to make a choice." My right, I choose, and it will be legitimate, if it does not violate those of others.

Some days ago in a seminar in the Amazon, Americans like Bill Clinton and the swine James Cameron were received by aboriginal leaders to appeal for open foreign intervention against the construction of the Belo Monte factory. The mere presence of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Schwarzenegger in Manaus to discuss the problems of the Amazon is already an intolerable intervention.

Let the reader suppose that, in response, the Americans decide to bomb the hydroelectric plants in Brazil. Or that a few rich countries "moved" with the misery of our children, resolve to send troops to save them.

Thinking about it now may seem absurd, as absurd as to imagine that after 1945, there were still messianic military expeditions, such as the "Liberator" Hitler against Eastern Europe.

In 1936, Franco, with foreign troops (Moroccan), and the support of the Nazis, stood up against the legitimate government of the Republic. France and England shied away from intervening on behalf of Spanish sovereignty. As seen, doctrines change according to convenience. In Spain there is no oil.

Translated from the Portuguese version by:






President Lula and Prime Minister Putin made basically the same speech yesterday [9 / 12] in defense of Julian Assange, although with different arguments. Lula made this point: Assange is just using the old right of freedom of the press, of information. It is not proper to accuse him of causing damage to one of the greatest powers in history, since the authenticity of the released documents is not disputed. Everyone knows that the allegations of misconduct in consensual relationships with two women of Cuban origin in Sweden are just a pretext to detain him, so that other charges can be mounted, and he can be extradited to the United States.

What is required is to examine the political consequences from the disclosure of the secret Yankee diplomatic documents, some laughable, others very serious. Yesterday [9 / 12] in Brussels, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented on the revelations of WikiLeaks on the attitudes of NATO toward his country. While the organization, under the domination of Washington, called on Russia to join the alliance, it was updating their plans for military action against the Kremlin, in the presumed defense of Poland and the Baltic countries. Lavrov asked NATO what is your real position, since what is publicly assumed is the reverse of what they say in their secret documents. Moscow went further, proposing the name of Assange as a candidate the next Nobel Peace Prize.

An examination of history shows that whenever the holders of the written word changed, there was a corresponding social and political revolution. Without Guttenberg, there would not have been the Renaissance, without the proliferation of printing presses in the France of the Louis'es, it would be unthinkable to have the Enlightenment and its immediate political fallout, the French Revolution.

The evidence of the immense power of the printed word led the Constituent Assembly to approve Article XI of the Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen, at the beginning of the Revolution, in August 1789. The device of the cornerstone of the Constitution stipulates that every citizen has the right to speak, write and print with full freedom. The laws punish those who, by lying, achieve someone else's the honor. Freedom of the press belongs to the citizens of the society. National societies, in our age of electronic communications, make up the free, planetary society of men.

It is surprising that before this irrefutable reality, trade journalists want to claim press freedom (a word that embraces, from the political point of view, all the media) as a corporate monopoly. The Internet confirms the intention of French legislators for 221 years: freedom of expression is for all, and we are all journalists. It is enough to just have an email address. The heavy and relatively expensive printing machines of the past are now relatively cheap, easier and lighter notebooks, and with a universal reach.

There is always the quotable observation of Isidore of Seville, who wisely remarked in the seventh century, that "Rome was not that strong." Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are showing that Washington - whose fears are transparent in their diplomatic papers - is not so very mighty. It is interesting to note that the name of Saint Isidore of Seville is being suggested by Catholic bloggers as the patron saint of the Internet.

Journalists should get used to the idea of resigning or sharing their alleged privileges. All who can write and manipulate a computer are citizens, and being a citizen is much more than being a journalist. It is these citizens who, on the same line of Putin and Lula, are mobilized in a virtual agora, to defend Assange, the same way that they are mobilized in defense of a woman sentenced to death for adultery. The world has changed, but not everyone has noticed this change.

Translated from the Portuguese version by: