?

Log in

guerilla politics v01's Journal [entries|friends|calendar]
guerilla politics v01

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

( speak up)

[30 Oct 2008|03:18pm]

itsgrimupnorth
add_a_radical is a community in which its purpose is to link individuals together with common interests in the political spectrum--in particular the radical and revolutionary edges of the table. I created this community in the hopes of making new friends with similar views; as well as having the chance to meet different people who have varying experiences in life--I feel everyone should have a priority in their life that demands for them to speak their mind, and exercise freedom of expression and 'out of the box' thinking. I feel that most of the "Add_me" communities meant for meeting new writers on livejournal are somewhat lacking in these uniting interests, and thus, have felt obliged to create such a community as this one.

Hopefully this community will prove useful as a resource for activists and thinkers to meet new bloggers with common ideas.

Thank you for taking the time to read your invitation to the LRNC!

( speak up)

New Group for Militant Leftists [11 Jun 2008|02:13pm]

redstar08
 Hello comrades. I have just created a group devoted to miltant training, guerilla warfare and military technology. Come and join please, thank you. </a></font></b></a>gunsfighting

( speak up)

from the horses mouth [24 May 2007|01:40am]

recrea33

help the aged: 79p



i'd never heard of this autobiograpy before but
having read the opening ten pages i can see 'confessions of an economic hitman' is going to an auxhilerating, depressing, and motivating 'tell all' affair.

a cautionary tale of how the human soul is so easily sucked into the shiny black hole that is power.

here's a nice synopsis from someone that didn't particulary like the book:


'Aha, said the bad Westerners. Let’s invent a new way of colonization—one that doesn’t involve guns, administering messy countries and building highways for them that they will never maintain. What we will do instead is that we will extend to them so much debt, debt that they cannot possibly service, that they will be so hugely indebted that they will owe us big time. For collateral and payment, we will use their natural resources and we will expect them to provide us with military bases and vote as we instruct them. We won’t land marines to take their resources or re-build them, of course. We will use our companies—like Shell, American Food, Bechtel, Halliburton—to run them. Of course, it won’t make a difference whether they are private companies or the government because it is all a revolving door—two principals of Bechtel were cabinet members in the Reagan administration (Weinberger and Schultz) and Halliburton’s former CEO, as everybody knows, is the current US VP, Dick Cheney.'


see also: syriana, lord of war

( speak up)

Why invade Iraq? [11 May 2007|03:30am]

netninja1
The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating because the Afghanistan project was always held hostage to Iraq. The Bush administration after 9-11 used Afghanistan as a casus belli to get to Iraq. And you can see this written in the lackluster way in which the administration embraced the project in Afghanistan.

First, they used the war in Afghanistan as an advertisement for Rumsfeld’s theory of lightning fast, high-tech war. Where there wouldn’t be that many casualties; special forces, air traffic controllers embedded with local forces, bomb people from the sky, then Taliban get scared and run away, and finally you call in the Europeans whose NGOs can rebuild Afghanistan, and the inner American in every Afghan will start to blossom. Then you can quickly move onto Iraq, and that’s what they did.

There are several fundamental reasons why the US went to Iraq.

Read more...Collapse )

(2 kept it real | speak up)

Hello There [07 Jan 2007|08:23pm]

m0d_hatter
[ mood | crappy ]



Any articles on Che Guevara.
Wud be Grateful.
Reply if u think he's amazing.
CheerS

(4 kept it real | speak up)

Nuclear Proliferation and North Korea [23 Oct 2006|01:09am]

netninja1
Part of what we claim is that North Korea getting nuclear weapons would threaten the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.



Hmmm...



Lets look back to 1993, when the World Health Organization voted to request that the World Court consider the legality of the use of nuclear weapons, and issue an opinion on it.

As soon as they heard about this the United States and Britain went totally berserk: remember, just the fact that the World Court might hear a case on the legality of nuclear weapons is already a contribution to nuclear non-proliferation..

One must also, not forget that we benefit from proliferation, since we're the main producer, seller, and possessor of nuclear weapons.

I mean, it's not as if anybody would listen to the World Court if it said that the use of nuclear weapons is illegal (which means by implication that possession of them is illegal too) - but it would certainly be a big publicity coup for the disarmament movement if it did.

So for the big nuclear powers, this was a major issue.

Actually, it's of particular significance for Britain, because one of Britain's last claims to being a country, instead of like a country of the United States, is that they have nuclear weapons - so for them it's important on a symbolic level.

And nuclear weapons are important to the United States because they're part of the way we intimidate everyone - we intervene around the world under what's called a "nuclear umbrella," which serves as kind of a cover to back up our conventional intervention forces.

Ok, so that year (1993) Indonesia was serving as the head of the Non-Aligned Movement at the U.N. [a coalition of Third World nations in the General Assembly], and the 110 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement decided to introduce a resolution endorsing this request for an opinion - that's all that was up, endorsement of a request for an opinion from the World Court. The U.S., Britain and France immediately threatened trade and aid sanctions against Indonesia if, in their role as head of the Non-Aligned Movement for that year, they submitted this resolution at the General Assembly. So Indonesia instantly withdrew it, of course - when they get orders from the boss, they stop. And they stop fast.

Well, that just shows you that there are some atrocities that go too far for the Western powers: genocide in East Timor we can support, but endorsement of a request for an opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons is an atrocity we simply cannot tolerate. It also shows you what we can do to Indonesia if we feel like it.

Anyway, back to North Korea... if we're so concerned with non-proliferation, obviously nothing would be more of a shot in the arm for it than this World Court decision we tried so desperately to block. Okay, that tells you something about our motives in all this. But actually, I think the problem with North Korea is in fact what they're saying: the wrong guys are getting possible power, nuclear weapons.

Look, nobody in their right mind would want North Korea to have nuclear weapons. But on the other hand, there's nothing much that they would do with nuclear weapons if they had them, except maybe defend themselves from attack. They're certainly not going to invade anybody, that's not even imaginable: if they ever made a move, the country gets destroyed tomorrow... so the only role that nuclear weapons play for them is a deterrent to attack - and that's not totally unrealistic.

North Korea is a pretty crazy country, and there's not very much good and there's nothing good you can say about the government. But no matter who they were, if they were Mahatma Gandhi they would be worried about a possible attack. The United States was threatening North Korea with nuclear weapons at least as late as the 1960s. And after all, just remember what we did to that country - it was absolutely flattened. Here people may not be aware of what we did to them, but they certainly know it well enough.

Towards the end of what we called the "Korean War" - which was really just one phase in a much longer struggle [beginning when the U.S. destroyed the indigenous nationalist movement in Korea in the late 1940s] - the United States ran out of good bombing targets. We had total command of the air of course, but there was nothing good left to bomb - because everything had already been flattened. So we started going after things like dikes. Okay, that's a major war crime. In fact, if you take a look at the official U.S. Air Force history of the Korean War, it's absolutely mind boggling, it's like something straight out of the Nazi archives. I mean, these guys don't conceal their glee at all, it's just this account of all their terrific feelings: we bombed these dikes, and a huge flow of water went through the valleys and carved out huge paths of destruction and slaughterd people! I really can't duplicate, you have to read the original. And the Koreans lived on the other end of that.

Our treatment of North Korean prisoners of war also was absolutely grotesque - again, it was kind of like the Nazis. This is all documented in the West by now, and of course they certainly know about it. So there are plenty of things for the North Koreans to remember, and plenty of things for them to be afraid of - which is not to justify their getting nuclear weapons, but it's part of the background we should keep in mind.

The other thing is, North Korea is in a desperate situation right now: they're hemmed in politically, and they're struggling very hard to break out of their total isolation - they've tried setting up free trade zones, and are desperately trying to integrate themselves into the international economic system, other things like that. Well, this is apparently one of their ways of attempting to do it. It's neither intelligent nor justifiable, but that's a part of what's motivating them, and we should at least try to understand that.

(1 kept it real | speak up)

Understanding the Middle East Conflict [23 Aug 2006|07:01am]

netninja1
Israel is having more and more trouble putting down this popular revolution over the Occupied Territories. The repression of the Palestinians and the Lebanese is not qualitatively different right now from what it was 40 years ago -- it's just that it's escalated in scale sincee the Palestinians and the Lebanese started fighting back. For the Palestinians it started during the Intifada. So the brutality you see occasionally on television has in fact been going on for the last 40 years, and it's just the nature of a military occupation: military occupations are harsh and brutal, there is no other kind [Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria during the Six Day War in 1967, and has controlled them ever since]. There's been home-destruction, kidnappings, torture, collective punishments, expulsion, plenty of humiliation, censorship -- you'd have do go back to the days of the American South to know what it's been like for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. They are not supposed to raise their heads -- that's what they say in Israel, "They're raising their heads, we've got to do something about it." And that's the way the Palestinians have been living.

Well, the United States has been quite happy supporting that -- so long as it worked. But in the past few years, it hasn't worked. See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence. If violence is effective, everything's okay; but if violence loses its effectiveness, then they start worrying and have to try something else. In fact, the occupation's beginning to be rather harmful for Israel. So it's entirely possible that there could be some tactical changes coming with respect to how Israel goes about controlling the Territories.

Outside the United States, everybody knows what the solution for resolving the conflict in the region would be. For years there's been a very broad consensus in the world over the basic framework of a solution in the Middle East, with the exception of two countries: the United States and Israel. It's going to be some variety of two-state settlement.

Look, there are two groups claiming the right of national self-determination in the same territory; they both have a claim, they're competing claims. There are various ways in which such competing claims could be reconciled -- you could do it through a federation, one thing or another -- but given the present state of conflict, it's just going to have to be about the modalities -- should it be a confederation, how do you deal with economic integration, and so on -- but the principle's quite clear: there has to be some settlement that recognizes the right of self-determination of Jews in something like the state of Israel, and the right of self-determination of Palestinians in something like a Palestinian State. And everybody knows where that Palestinian state would be -- in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along roughly the borders that exsisted before the Six Day War in 1967.

All of this has been obvious for years -- why hasn't it happened? Well, of course Israel's opposed to it. But the main reason it hasn't happened is because the United States has blocked it: the United states has been blocking the peace process in the Middle East for the last twenty years -- WE'RE the leaders of the rejectionist camp, not the Arabs or anybody else. See, the United States supports a policy which Henry Kissinger called "stalemate"; that was his word for it back in 1970. At that time, there was kind of a split in the American government as to whether we should join the broad international consensus on a political settlement, or block a political settlement. And in that internal struggle, the hard-liners prevailed; Kissinger was the main spokesman. The policy that won out was what he called "stalemate": keep things the way they are, maintain the system of Israeli oppression. And there was a good reason for that, it wasn't just out of the blue: having an embattled, militaristic Israel is an important part of how we rule the world.

Read more...Collapse )

(1 kept it real | speak up)

Healthcare and the Social Security Non-Crisis [23 Jul 2006|03:42am]

netninja1
The rapidly escalating costs of health care are threatening a serious fiscal crisis, along with immeasurable human costs. Infant Mortality in the U.S. is one major index. The UN Human Development Report 2005 reveals that "since 2000 a half century of sustained decline in infant death rates [in the United States] first slowed then reversed." By 2005 the rates had risen to the level of Malaysia, a country where the average income is one-quarter that in the United States. The report also reviews the effects of government programs. In the United Kingdom, for example, the rate of child poverty rose sharply during the Margaret Thatcher years, then reversed after the Labour government adopted policies to halve child poverty by 2010. "fiscal redistribution has played a central role in strategies for meeting the target," the report concludes: "Large increases in financial support for families with children," as well as other fiscal programs, "boosted the incomes of low-income working families with children," with significant effects on child poverty.

The financial crisis is surely is no secret. The press report that 30 percent of health care costs go for administration, a proportion vastly higher than in government-run systems including those within the United States, which are far from the most efficient. These estimates are seriously understated because of the ideological decision not to count the costs for individuals- for doctors who waste their own time or are forced to misuse it, or patients who "enter a world of paperwork so surreal that it belongs in one of Kafka's tales of the triumph of faceless bureaucracies." The complexities of billing have become so outlandish that the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, the president's senior adviser, says when he gets a bill for his four-year-old child, he "can't figure out what happened, or what I'm supposed to do." Those who want to see government bureaucracy reaching levels that even Kafka might not have imagined should look at the official ninety-eight-page government handbook on the Medicare prescription drug plan, provided to Medicare participants to inform them of their options under the bill passed by Congress in June 2004, with the help of an army of lobbyists from pharmaceutical companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The idea, the Wall Street Journal informs its affluent readers, "is that patients will be encouraged to bargain-hunt for medical care" and may even save money, if they can hire enough research assistants to work through the many private options available, and make lucky guesses. Health Savings Accounts, also welcomed by the editors, have similar properties. For the wealthy and the corporate beneficiaries the exciting new programs will be just fine, like health care in general. The rest will get what the deserve for not having ascended to these heights.

The Bush administration response to the health care crisis has been to reduce services to the poor (Medicaid). The timing was again impeccable. "As Republican leaders in Congress move to trim billions of dollars from the Medicaid health program," the Washington Post reported, "they are simultaneously intervening to save the life of possibly the highest-profile Medicaid patient: Terri Schiavo." Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, while proclaiming his deep concern forSchiavo and his dedication to ensure that she has the chance "we all deserve," simultaneously shepherded through the House a budget resolution to cut $15 billion to $20 billion from Medicaid for the next five years. As if the exploitation of the tragedy of this poor woman for partisan gain were not disgraceful enough, DeLay and others like him were depriving her, and who knows how many others, of the means of moral values and concern for the sanctity of life.

The primary method devised to divert attention from the health care crisis was to organize a major PR campaign to "reform" Social Security--meaning dismantle it--in the pretext that it is facing an awesome fiscal crisis. There is no need to review the remarkable deceit of the administration propaganda, and the falsifications and misrepresentations repeated without comment by much of the media commentary, which cooperated in making it the "hot topic" in Washington. Exposure has been carried out more than adequately eslewhere. The steady drumbeat of deceit has been so extreme as to drive frustrated analysts to words rarely voiced in restrained journals: that Bush "repeatedly lied about the current [Social Security] system," making claims that were demonstrably false and that his staff must have known were false(New York Times, Paul Krugman, 15 Aug, 2005)."

It is not that the system has no flaws. It surly does. The highly regressive payroll tax is an illustration. More generally, an OECD study found that the US system "is one of the least generous public pension systems in advanced countries," consistent with the comparative weakness of benefits in the United States.

The alleged crisis of Social Security is rooted in demographic facts: the ratio of working people to retired people is declining. The data are accurate, but partial. The relevant figure is the ratio of working people to those they support. According to official statistics, the ratio of working people to dependents (under twenty, over sixty-five) hit its lowest point in 1965 and is not expected to reach that level through the projected period (to 2080). The Propaganda image is that the retirement of the "baby boomers" is going to crash the system; as repeatedly pointed out, their retirement has already been financed by the Greenspan-led increase in payroll taxes in 1983. That aside, the boomers were once children, and had to be cared for then as well. And we find that during those years there was a sharp increase in spending for education and other child care needs. There was no crisis. If American society was able to take care of the boomers from ages zero to twenty, then there can be no fundamental reason why a much richer society, with far higher output per worker, cannot take care of them from ages sixty-five to ninety. At most, some technical fixes might be needed, but no major crisis looms in the foreseeable future.

Critics of Bush's efforts to chip away at Social Security by various "ownership society" schemes have proclaimed success because public opposition was too high to ram the legislation through. But the celebration is premature. The campaign of deceit achieved a great deal, laying the basis for the next assault on the system. Reacting to the PR campaign, the Gallup poll, for the first time, included Social Security among the choices for "top concerns." Gallup found that only "the availability and affordability of healthcare" is a larger concern for the public than Social Security. About half of Americans worry "a great deal" about it, and another quarter a "fair amount," more than are concerned about such issues as terrorism or oil prices. A Zogby poll found that 61 percent believe the system faces "serious problems" and 14 percent think it's "in crisis," though in fact it is "financially stronger than it has been throughout most of its history, according to the Trustees' [President Bush's] numbers," economist Mark Weisbrot observes. The campaign has been particularly effective among the young. Among students, 70 percent are "concerned that the pension system may not be there when they retire."

These are major victories for those who hope to destroy Social Security, revealing once again the effectiveness of a flood of carefully contrived propaganda amplified by the media in a business-run-society where institutionalized deceit has been refined to a high art. The propaganda success compares well with that of the government-media campaign to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to their survival, driving them completly off the spectrum of world opinion.

There has been some discussion of the curious fact that the need to reform Social Security became the "hot topic" of the day, while reforming the health care system in accord with public opinion is not even on the agenda, an apparent paradox: the very serious fiscal crisis of the remarkably inefficient and poorly performing health care systems not a crisis, while urgent action is needed to undermine the efficient system that is quite sound for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, to the extent that Social Security might face a crisis some time in the distant future, it would result primarily from exploding health care costs. Government projections predict a sharp increase in total benefits relative to GDP, from under 10 percent in 2000 to almost 25 percent in 2080, which is as far as the projections reach. Through this period Social Security costs are barley expected to increase beyond the 2000 level of 5 percent. A slightly larger increase is predicted for Medicaid, and a huge increase for Medicare, traceable primarily to extreme inefficiency of the privatized health care system.

Sensible people will seek differences between the Social Security and Health care systems that might explain the paradox. And they will quickly find critical differences, which are quite familiar in other domains: the paradox mirrors closely the "schizophrenia" of all administrations that underlies the "strong line of continuity" with regard to "democracy promotion," to take one example. Social Security is of little value for the rich, but it is crucial for the survival for the working people, the poor, their dependents, and the disabled. For the wealthy, it is the "major source" of retirement income, and the most secure. Furthermore, as a government program, it has such low administrative costs that it offers nothing to financial institutions. Social Security helps only the underlying population, not the substantial people. It is therefore natural that it should be dispatched to the flames. The medical system, in contrast, works very well for the substantial people, with health care effectively rationed by wealth, while enormous profits flow to private power for superfluous bureaucracy and supervision, overpriced drugs, and other useful inefficiencies. The underlying population can be treated with lectures on responsibility.

There are other sound reasons to destroy the Social Security system. It is based on the principles that are deeply offensive to the moral values of the political leadership and the sectors they represent--not those who vote for them, a different category of the population. Social security is based on the idea that it is a community responsibility to ensure that the disabled widow on the other side of town has food to eat, or that the child across the street should be able to go to a decent school. Such evil ideas have to be driven from the mind. They stand in the way of the "New Spirit of the Age" of the 1850s: "Gain Wealth, forgetting all but Self." According to the right thinking, it isn't my fault if the widow married the wrong person or if the child's parents made bad investment decisions, so why should I contribute a few cents to a public fund to take care of them? the "ownership society," in contrast, suffers from none of these moral defects.

Returning to the November 2004 elections, we learn a little of the significance from them about popular attitudes and opinions, though we can learn a lot from these studies that are kept in the shadows. And the whole affair adds more to our understanding of the current state of American democracy--with most of the industrial world trailing not too far behind, as privileged and powerful sectors learn and apply the lessons taught by their leader.

( speak up)

The Empire [19 Jul 2006|03:33am]

netninja1
Despite what you hear, U.S. interventionism has nothing to do with resisting the spread of " Terrorism," or "Communism," it's INDEPENDENCE we've always been opposed to everywhere... and for quite a good reason. If a country begins to pay attention to its own population, it's not going to be paying adequate attention to the overriding needs of U.S. investors. Well, those are unacceptable priorities, so that government's just going to have to go.

And the effects of this commitment throughout the Third World are dramatically clear: it takes only a moment's thought to realize that the areas that have been the most under U.S. control are some of the most horrible regions in the world. For instance, why is Central America such a horror-chamber? I mean, if a peasant in Guatemala woke up in Poland [i.e. under Soviet occupation], he'd think he was in heaven by comparison... and Guatemala's an area where we've had a hundred years of influence. Well, that tells you something. Or look at Brazil: potentially an extremely rich country with tremendous resources, except it had the curse of being part of the Western system of subordination. So in northeast Brazil, for example, which is rather fertile area with plenty of rich land, just it's all owned by plantations, Brazilian medical researchers now identify the population as a new species with about 40 percent the brain size of human beings, as a result of generations of profound malnutrition and neglect... and this may be unremediable except after generations, because of lingering effects of malnutrition on one's offspring. Alright, that's a good example of the legacy of our commitments, and the same kind of pattern runs throughout the former Western colonies.

In fact, if you look at the countries that have developed in the world, there's a little simple fact which should be obvious to anyone on five minutes' observation, but which you never find anyone saying in the United States: the countries that have developed economically are those which were not colonized by the west; every country that was colonized by the West is a TOTAL WRECK. I mean, Japan was the one country that managed to resist European colonization, and it's the one part of the traditional Third World that developed. What does that tell you? Historians of Africa have actually pointed out that if you look at Japan when it began its industrialization process [in the 1870's], it was about the same developmental level as the Asante kingdom in West Africa in terms of resources available, level of state formation, degree of technological development, and so on. Well, just compare those two areas today. It's true there were a number of differences between them historically, but the crucial one is that Japan wasn't conquered by the West and the Asante kingdom was, by the British-so now West Africa is West Africa economically, and Japan is Japan.

Japan had its own colonial system too, incidentally- but its colonies developed, and they developed because Japan didn't treat them the way the Western powers treated their colonies. The Japanese were very brutal colonizers. they weren't nice guys, but they nonetheless developed their colonies economically; the West just robbed theirs. So if you look at the growth rate through the early part of this century-they were getting industrialized, developing infrastructure, educational levels were going up, agricultural production was increasing. In fact, by the 1930s, Formosa (now Taiwan) was one of the commercial centers of Asia. Well, just compare Taiwan with the Philippines, an American colony right next door: the Philippines is a total basket-case, a Latin American-style basket-case. Again, that tells you something.

With World War 2, the Japanese colonial system got smashed up. But by the 1960s, Korea and Taiwan were again developing at their former growth rate-and that's because in the post-war period, they've been able to follow the Japanese model of development: they're pretty closed off to foreign exploitation, quite egalitarian by international standards, they devote pretty extensive resources to things like education and health care. Okay, that's a successful model for development. I mean, these Asian countries aren't pretty; I can't stand them myself-they're extremely authoritarian, the role of women you can't even talk about, and so on, so there are plenty of unpleasant things about them. But they have been able to pursue economic development measures that are successful: the state coordinates industrial policies that are IMPOSSIBLE in Latin America, because the U.S. insists that those governments keep their economies open to international markets-so capital from Latin America is constantly flowing to the West. Alright, that's not a problem in South Korea: they have the death penalty for capital export. Solves that difficulty pretty fast.

But the point is, the Japanese-style development model works-in fact, it's how every country in the world that's developed has done it: by imposing high levels of protectionism, and by extracting its economy from free market discipline. And that's precisely what the Western powers have been preventing the Third World from doing, right up to this moment.

( speak up)

Russian KGB and Nazi in Polish Parliament [22 Mar 2006|07:38pm]
anti_fascist_ea


This photo is absolutely real.  The person on photo is the deputy of the Polish Sejm (national parliament) from populist Self-Defense (Samoobrona) party Mr. Mateusz Piskorski. He is known as editor-in-chief of nazi-rasist magazine “Odala”, as leader of Polish skinhead’s movement and radical anti-semite who has been elected in parliament in 2005.

 

In “Odala” Mateusz Piskorski sang the praises of the “Aryan Race”, Hitler, SS, Gestapo with their struggle against “world Jewish plot” and ideologies “foreign to our race, like Christianity, Liberalism, and Marxism” publishing interviews with Holocaust deniers. Except for that, he and the leader of parliamentary fraction of populist Self-Defense party Andrzej Lepper are the big fans of Russian president Vladimir Putin and of Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko.

 

Last five years skinhead Mateusz Piskorsky some times visited Russia where he has old friends among Russian Nazis. Many of them are connected with former KGB which has now renamed in “Federal Security Service of Russia” (FSB in Russian).

 

Vladimir Putin and Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs have accepted the special political program concerning Eastern Europe. So, in 2005 agent of FSB and well known Russian Nazi Alexei Kochetkov has organized the official visit of his friend Mateusz Piskorski to small, but very criminal “state” Transdniestria (rebel part of Moldova) with the purpose of political support of local dictatorship. Heads of Transdniestria are searched by the Interpol for the illegal traffic in arms and weapons, the murders, money-laundering, terrorism, genocide and drug traffic. But they have the Russian citizenship personally and use Russian support in their policy. Actually FSB supervises a situation in this rebel region and colleagues of Vladimir Putin receive a lot of money from Transdniestrian criminal business.

 

During his visit to Transdniestria the deputy of Polish parliament Mateusz Piskorski on behalf of Poland, on behalf of Self-Defense party and its leader Andrzej Lepper confirm “legality and correctness” of not free and completely forged parliamentary elections in this rebel region. After that Russia has started to provide nonofficial financial support of Piskorski’s and Lepper’s activity. So, now Self-Defense party (one of the most influential Polish political parties) is financed by Russians through the Polish Nazi and known agents of FSB-KGB.

 

Deputies of Polish parliament receive some of Russian money, as fees for the participation in election monitoring in the countries of former Soviet Union (Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko, dictator of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov, former Ukraine Prime Minister Victor Yanukovich and others) in their struggle against the democratic oppositions during the elections.. In 2005 Mateusz Piskorski has been registered, as the observer from CIS Election Monitoring Organization (CIS EMO) on elections of Transdniestrian parliament. This Russian nongovernmental organization has been created by agent of FSB Alexei Kochetkov under direction of FSB. CIS EMO purpose consists in public support of the proRussian state leaders.

 

Now Russian KGB-Nazi Alexei Kochetkov, racist Polish deputy Mateusz Piskorski and another members of  Self-Defense party are registered on elections of the Ukrainian Parliament, as the observer from CIS EMO. According to Ukrainian mass-media, FSB (through CIS EMO) has already transferred money to Andrzej Lepper and soon Mateusz Piskorski will arrive to Ukraine with his colleagues from Polish parliament. Their purpose consists in support of the proRussian political parties on Ukrainian elections.

 

In more detail about relations of Polish parliament, Self-Defense party, the Polish Nazi and Russian KGB look in clause published in Ukrainian magazine "Tribuna", informational agency “Maidan”, Polish newspaperGazeta Wyborcza”, “Searchlight” and others media.

 

It is possible to receive comments from the Poland also:

Self-Defense (Samoobrona) party and parliamentary fraction:

Phones: +48 (22) 6942583 (parliamentary fraction), +48 (22) 6250472 (party office)

Faxes: +48 (22) 6250477 (party office),  +48 (22) 6942606 (parliamentary fraction),

e-mail: Andrzej.Lepper@sejm.pl

Deputy of Polish parliament Mr. Mateusz Piskorski:

phones: +48 (22) 6942583, +48 (91) 8122658, e-mail: Mateusz.Piskorski@sejm.pl

Chairman of Polish parliament Mr. Marek Jurek:

Fax: + 48 (22) 694 22 13, e-mail: Marek.Jurek@sejm.pl

( speak up)

Buy Nothing Day against Eddie Bauer [25 Nov 2005|07:21pm]

prince_mab
Although I broke the main rule of "buy nothing day", I participated with a corporate campaign in association with USAS.

play by play of my direct actionCollapse )

( speak up)

Stand with threatened student activists at Hampton! (x-post) [21 Nov 2005|10:59am]

prince_mab
This link is to support some close friends and fellow
activists at Hampton University.
Brandon, Eba, Sheradon and the others in the United
Students Against Sweatshops crew are being threatened
with expulsion because of their participation in a
national walk out.
We must stand up for our fellow student activists and
ensure that our campuses are respecting our rights to
free speech without undue hinderance and intimidation.
Peace,

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/hampton?rk=idzQOpd1cPIWW

( speak up)

Stop Killer Coke! (x-post) [06 Nov 2005|09:53pm]

prince_mab
Hello everyone,
In the spirit of the School of the Americas (SOA) vigil and latin american solidarity, United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) is hosting a supplimental protest in Cokelanta on Friday, Nov. 18.
Coca Cola has been involved in many human rights abuses including the murder of nine labor leaders within the coca cola bottling factory, kidnap of children for intimidation, etc. More information can be found at: www.killercoke.org
Hundreds of us will converge at noon that Friday Nov. 18th at the Coca Cola head quarters to highlight the international crimes Coca Cola still refuses to address.
This will be along the way for many of us to the SOA vigil.
The vigil, hosted by SOA watch (www.soawatch.org), will draw thousands of participants to Colombus, GA, home of the infamous SOA/WHINSIC at Ft. Benning. This training school (often called the School of Assassins) has trained some of the most brutal Latin American dictators and human rights abusers that we know of.
Both marches are a great way to let Killer Coke and our military know that we're not letting up on them and that our solidarity with the people of the global south and the movements there is ongoing and growing.
For more information, contact:
organize@usasnet.org
or call Jessica at: 516.652.9772

If you are interested in going from/through Hattiesburg, MS, please let me know. Rides are currently being organized and we don't have much time!

peace,
Michael C. Ide
michael.ide@usm.edu
601.590.1260

(1 kept it real | speak up)

Interesting... [17 Aug 2005|09:13pm]

sohardcore11311
The young Brazilian shot dead by police on a London tube train in mistake for a suicide bomber had already been overpowered by a surveillance officer before he was killed, according to secret documents revealed last night.

It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:

· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;

· was unaware he was being followed;

· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;

· never ran from the police;

· and did not jump the ticket barrier.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5264078-117079,00.html

x-posted

( speak up)

Solution of the Arabian Question [04 Jan 2005|12:04am]

avrom
Flag of The International Hyperzionist Movement "Bead Artseinu" ("For Motherland")</a>
DEUTSCH FRANCAIS РУССКИЙ

(6 kept it real | speak up)

THE TAKE - those of you in Canada, support this film [28 Oct 2004|05:51pm]

harold_penis
This movie's only playing in Canadian theatres as yet (openin in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal this weekend). But if its opening weekend is successful, it'll get distribution in the States.

Here's the movie poster, for no reason.Collapse )

In Vancouver, it's playing Friday, Saturday and Sunday at 12:30, 2:40, 4:50, 7:00, and 9:25, all PM. My friends and I are going to the 7:00 showing on Friday.

The back story goes something like this: Argentina gets screwed over by the IMF, probably more spectacularly than any nation that's happened to so far. The economy crumbles, big business flees the country and takes its capital with it, and factories close down in droves. ...Argentinos say "Fuck that," occupy the factories, hold off the police with slingshots, and start producing again, with no boss. I LOVE THIS! I'm not explaining it well, but the idea is so exciting. No bosses, not even a revolutionary leader - just people, nifty and brave people but just people, asserting their ability to live outside the standard economic/political model. Argentinos: 1, The Man: 0.

Now then, kids: The number of people who see the movie this weekend is what determines whether this film gets wide distribution - so if you think this is a good cause, pass it on. (Cross-posted all over the place.)

( speak up)

[28 Oct 2004|08:41am]

sauerkraut
[ mood | aggravated ]

Good morning.
I'm new to this community, so
I figured I should introduce myself.
My name is Robert, I live in Canada,
I consider myself to be very
progressive & I find
politics to be
fascinating.

If you have yet to check them out,
I suggest you visit these sites:

www.crimethinc.com
www.corpwatch.org
www.guerillanews.com
www.rabble.ca
[for Canadians]
www.appd-online.de [for Germans]

( speak up)

oh the bittersweet irony [17 Aug 2004|04:50am]

recrea33

'The Chavez victory is likely to calm some nerves in the international petroleum market. Many traders feared an opposition win would lead to more political turmoil and possible disruption of Venezuela's vital oil sector.'

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3852655
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0301t.asp

oh and i guess everyone's seen this. but just in case you haven't

(1 kept it real | speak up)

hey my name is Jocine [08 Jul 2004|02:38pm]

dukes_up
When I went to school in the Philippines, I remembered learning from illustrated history books about General Aguinaldo and other forces using guerilla tactics against Spanish rule and in the Philippine-American War. I hope to learn more about specific events in the history of guerilla warfare, especially of lesser-known/current ones. Has anyone read and particularly liked a certain book that would further inform me on this subject? I could use some edification.

Oh yeah, and this is a goddamn great community.

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]