Monday, 12 December 2016

Another Three-Part Pre-Christmas post. (The third part asks - ''Was it Moscow that caused the outcome of the Battle of 1812, also?'')

(part one)

Oh my goodness!!!!!!!

Finally, some good news.

To such an extent that I feel I finally have a heart to write some sort of  a Christmas post...

Firstly I shall leave here two links to the latest news attesting that not only Allepo is at the moment safe from those renegade mercenaries for hire (no matter who's been paying those pricks, they and their ''owners'' shall not prevail) - the Daesh, but even their very recent attempt at taking Palmyra has been completely shattered.  Perhaps the spoiled brats best call up their ''mommy'' for some more pocket money for bubble gum as they probably lost it all when they had to hightail it out of there and got kicked out (again).

I don't know who exactly has been giving them their well deserved spanking, but I for one am thankful to whomever those may be.  Yes, we all know there is a difference between a ''mercenary'' group for hire (the murderous little nitwits), and the actual armed forces of nations.

I leave forthwith the two mentioned links

LINK 1.                             LINK 2.


I know the noble fight in the ''West'', now recently with support from veterans, this while I think of Mr. Leonard Peltier and his plight.

Since I've already made a post in that respect (and since that battle has had some great valour and accomplished things that are amazing (and heart warming, to say the least), I shall keep this short and simply add LINKS, just as I had done in the first part of this post.
- As apparently never has History witnessed, since the Battle of Little Bighorn, such a gathering of so many of the Great Souix Nation (from all the First Nations), and to add to that the Veterans... (my goodness), I have little more to say.
However, that ''war'' has just begun, for it has been made known that the corporations behind the continued raping and pillaging of sacred lands and waters, in dire disrespect even for Treaties  (made known by they themselves), responsible for ''militarized police'' acting on behalf not of people but as a ''private police force'' shooting water canons in freezing temperatures (which as I mentioned before, is ''murderous intent'', and can be deemed no other thing), among other hideous manoeuvres perpetrated against their own citizens, that they intend to continue despite, and in complete disregard, of Treaties, of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers decisions, or any Presidential vetos on the subject as a matter of fact.






(and three more)





Lastly,  to whomsoever may still be confused (perhaps still) as to the American Elections, I leave my thoughts on the matter.

First I must say that I hurt for those Americans I know and admire, as I imagine them having to face and deal with there being a President Trump.
You have my solidarity for having had things come out in such a way that the two final and ''major'' contenders (backed by what is said to be - two political parties) were Mr. Trump, and Mrs. Clinton,  and I'll say why.

But to say why, I must go back a few decades.   It seems that ever since the IMF came into existence, and more so as time pushed forward, that despite there being two parties what one sees due to well known lobbying, is as if there has been one.   (and said ''party'' has wielded its influence perhaps on some ''candidates'' and elected presidents of that land, more than others, but..... One way or another it has been as such, it seems, until these last American elections.

 (Yes, Mr. Obama is an elegant man, and I believe that domestically he has been a positive one, nevertheless, that said, I can not say I appreciate whom he had as ''Secretary of State'', for instance, the same way as I never really liked her husband, nor - from the other so called political party, Mr. G.W. Bush, his Mr. Cheney, and so forth.  
Personally, due to what I know of the following people (and regardless their being Dem. or Rep.), for example, I like  Senator Sanders, for instance, and more recently I heard of yet another (who actually also ran for that Presidency) - Dr. Jill Stein.
I found out late in that country's Presidential campaign that she exists, and she became more visible to me after having taken a stand for Standing Rock.

But that is I, and I am not a voter in America nor am I an American (just as I am not Russian, nor British nor, Spanish, nor Ecuadorean, nor..., ah but I do appreciate people from many lands) - I'm not important here. It is who reads this that can perhaps be, in the case that this post have any visibility whatsoever)

We all know that recently another ''world banking institution'' was born.
Things have since then been rather ''heated'', to say the least.
Since we live in a world of global economy, and corporate warfares and such, I believe it healthy to take certain things into account.
It has always seemed, especially concerning ''foreign'' affairs, that the IMF has had (one way or another) much of a say as to whom gets to actually be a plausible presidential candidate in either party. This is not to say that they are all mere puppets, no.  They, or their ''staff'' have wills of their own, but I feel it is always limited (more or less) not only by the elected Congress of that land or the Senate, but, since the Federal Reserve is and has always been a ''private'' bank (despite its name), unlike the banks of other countries, entities such as the IMF are an issue.  
As is known in 2012 the NDB (a counterpoint to the IMF, if you will) began to be devised, and by 2013 its existence was agreed upon. During the following year its foundations were laid out and by last year (2015) it came to be (It was ''born'').
So I suppose that now, in one way, there is no longer one ''party'' with respect to the will - of ''interests'' in the private financial sector, in either of the two political parties.
But these are financial ''interests'', and those are the only ones that I can see meddling in the way that that country's (or other countries') political parties ''acquire'' their candidates, not political leaders of foreign lands (any foreign land). It is the people of that land who vote, not people outside that land.
If You were left with a choice between a Clinton and Mr. Trump, perhaps you should indeed ''follow the money'', but the choice between the two, no.   In that case, one was elected by the habitual electoral process, just as had been Mr. Bush (both of them), Mr. Regan, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Carter, Mr. Kennedy.. and so forth.

This is not to say that Mr. Trump has more financial interests in the IMF or in the NDB (and frankly, it now no longer makes a difference, to me at least, in any way).

 Briefly, on the side, but nevertheless on the topic of ''special interest groups'', though elsewhere - In some lands the perfidious Octopus Dei likes to wreak havoc and try to create madness in society (such a wretched faction they are, morally and ethically speaking) and there are other groups that have, in some lands, succumbed in recent times to the entry of many people of a truly dubious nature (perhaps not all, but many it seems. And those ''many'' - they too wreak havoc, and similar to the conduct of ''Octopus'' Dei such people like to bend things to their own perverted caprices that are never for the ''public good'' in any conceivable way).

As is known such ''interest groups'' are not very interested in ''Freedom of Speech'', among other things, and due to their wedlock with institutions in High Finance, in some cases to the point of even stretching out their tentacles to the judicial system and political ranks - in some lands it brings back the stench of the Holy Inquisition (in such a way that they strangle them to the point of there being not only a death of democracy and the democratic process,  but indeed  a fierce attack on basic Human Rights)

Yes, If Galileo were around today, once again he would most definitely be either locked up. beaten or in the least prohibited from saying anything that could displace their pretty (sorry, I meant petty) little mind-sets, and  BS that they should wish to enforce. (to the point of incarceration). Yes, for some people, if they can not win by reason or wits, brute force is used (to the point of being liable for committing criminal acts against peoples' basic Human Rights.

But let us forget those (and said other lands) for the moment and get back to the case of the recent American elections.

So, regarding all the hype in much of the media about ''the electoral outcome'', and now I am addressing this especially to whomsoever has wished to sell certain ''ideas'' to be thrown on the table, for some reason or another.
(To others, which includes friends that are American along with others in other places and lands across the globe, please bear with me as I pose my thoughts to said faction who can actually much more easily ''plant'' stories in the media of that land - in the US - than any foreign nation can).

Ok, so now -

Are any of us supposed to believe that the country that claims itself to be a leader of ''whatsoever'' and as being the most powerful nation in the world, can have foreign nations (any) getting into its panties?
Really?  I mean let us think about it?

Ummmmmm..., do you see China or India or Russia or (oh - I ''dunno'', ummm,  South Africa, or Canada, or....... or Papua Nova Guinea or .... Liechtenstien or....) ...,  claim such others influence and cause their own elections to go one or another way?
I mean really, Russia?
Ummmm.. let me see, does that mean that Russia can say the same about the USA? How about New Zeeland, hmmm? Does Russia, the USA, China or Japan make them vote in (into office) their leaders too?
Russia, reeeeally?
(apparently the so called ''winners'' of the Cold War and Arms Race by the time the Wall came down in Berlin, although we all know Russia is still formidable in that aspect, of course, just as the US would be if it were the other way around,
have forgotten who apparently came a little more out ''on top'' with that one).

I'm supposed to buy that brilliant idea? (Well that is just so cute isn't it?  I wonder if they've ever thought of a job as comedians? What a waste of talent).
Ok now, even if such a thing were possible or plausible
(my goodness it is so far fetched that it hurts to think how little, whomsoever tries to play that card, thinks the thinking capacity of the general ''public'' is),
there is one basic fact that must be addressed. 
Mr. Trump was in fact elected, and whether it is liked or not, it is a fact.
Some may not like him, which may seem understandable to anyone like me, but he is the elected one. No Russians, no Japanese, Canadians, French, Congolese, Ecuadoreans, Brits, Israelis, Palestinians, Saudi Arabians, Iranians, Brazilians, Maltese, Swiss, South Africans, Bolivians, et cetera, elected him - the American public did.

Even if I were to go out on a limb here, and say that Mr. Putin or the Cookie Monster were the ''rulers'' of the NDB, (ok - I have to let that sink in, I have to grasp that idea) ....hasn't it been the ummmmm... the errrrrr, ummmm.... hasn't it been the Chinese and not the Russians that have invested like nobody else in that country?  Well, let me see... ummm, now wait a minute. I don't see any charges made against China running things in the United States (Oops, forgot to think the thing through, is it? Perhaps, to make it somehow more feasible? BS, all the same, but at least more feasible?) .
Ah, but wait, don't give up. It may someone else! Yes, the British!!!!!!!!!!!!
All that talk of dumping tea into a harbour.. (I mean think about it). I'm sure they've never truly forgiven such a gesture, though no scones were thrown in with it, and have been seething in wait for the right opportunity to come along and ''Bam'', along comes an election and finally the Revolution can be repealed, and... Ah yes, I've heard of 007.. It could only have been him.  Yes, Her Royal Majesty has finally avenged all that tea thrown away to the fish.  But in all due fairness it was the Portuguese that gave the British their tea, so perhaps it was the Portuguese that kept pestering the British, saying they didn't deserve the right to have tea in view of what had happened in that harbour and thus through manipulation and contrivance forcing the British monarch into sending Mr. Bond, James Bond into action.  No, wait! The Spaniards! They've always had it in for the Portuguese and probably thought of hitting three birds with one stone - getting the pesky Portuguese to manipulate the pesky British so that they in turn pester the pesky tea hurling Americans who attempt to speak Spanish too often for their taste.  Nanananananannah, it was the French, that's the easiest bet. They must have placed a bug in the statue's skirt, and... hmmmmm.., yes, I've always heard the phrase ''never look a gift horse in the mouth'' which in turn takes us back to the real culprits, the Greeks and the Trojans, of course. 
All right, now that that's been cleared up, it was Laocoön and his pesky sons.
image from - here

Ok - Back to the matter at hand.. 

So it seems to me you have one of two options, if you are an American.
You either are in fact democratically sound, and respect your country's democratically elected one (Whether you like him or not, as in any election in any democratic country, past or present, is beside the point after whomsoever is elected, if indeed you respect ''democracy'') What do democracies (depending on the ''health'' of said democracy, in any land) do?
They have ''oppositions''.   And unless the president elect has ''absolute'' power, which apparently (still) isn't the case, you go through your proper channels and hold whomsoever accountable, or block whatever you oppose. In the case of the US, you have your Congress (that wields power, over the president for instance though he or she be your ''commander in chief'' ), and your Senate.
If you nevertheless, this time, do not accept the use of ''opposition'', as you have always used (hopefully) in the past, you will then be for opening up a civil war. There is no way about it if it be the case. Any other way if you fail to accept what you have always accepted since you took over indigenous lands and founded said nation, is impossible. 

If on the other hand you wish to buy into the hogwash of that time old McCarthian narrative - ''Oh, it was the Ruskies'' - ''put the blame on them'', then you will be advocating waging war against whom? Russia? (for the sake of a comfortably spewed lie or whatever you want to call it?)
Is that a sane or sound thing to do? (not to mention fair?) Is this a normal ''thought process'', is it fair?

If so, if that become the case then I now understand why the country is accused of waging war everywhere it feels like for any reason, because people will always buy into any ''comfortable narrative'' that is given to them, perhaps by whom would never fess up to treating everyone as fools, American and non-American alike.  

That decades of cold war and what that can do to a country's psyche has no bearing when any ''hidden agenda'' (if there is one, that is) wishes to use the ''Russia card',' is there no thought to the matter?   It has no bearing on the ''why''-  for the use of that excuse on the part of certain people who we all know to not be stupid? I mean they may not be nice, but that doesn't mean they're stupid
(unless you use the same definition of ''stupid'' as I do. If that be the case, then ok).

So because of who would never put their own lives at stake, but put everyone else's (American, and non-American alike), such folly is possible? Because Mr. McCarthy is alive and well (it would then seem) we all must die? 

Isn't it enough to know (with sorrow, I believe, anyone who reads me), that for 500 or so years you've (sorry - 'some of you've') been as you've been toward the indigenous (not even abiding Treaties, and continuing to disrespect said people, whom as you know fight for all as above mentioned, indigenous and all others), and why the great (and so sorely missed) Dr. Martin Luther King stood his noble ground?

Isn't it enough to recall what caused the vile act of his assassination?

Or in another instance in history, the excuse of WMD to wage another war, doesn't that ring a bell?

When other nations hold elections in full democracy and respecting such values, such as Chile had in September of 1973, and some ''factions'' as is well known - from within a Super-power (one of the two during the Cold War) didn't like that outcome, in a time when perhaps either Super-powers could cause havoc in another land ►
 (though not in each other's did they ever. Both ''Super-powers'', nevertheless, had far more ''power'' than either have today in the world, not just the former USSR
- if you want to say that Russia and the former USSR are one and the same,

but the USA as well.)
► upon having Mr. Pinochet placed into power, in complete and utter disregard for the electoral outcome by that country's population. Doesn't that ring a bell either?
Indeed, as the people rejoiced in the streets (it is documented, and unadulterated through images (film, TV, radio, etc) - right after that election, and as in any land went to greet and hear whom had been placed into office, bombers flew over the Presidential Palace and bombed away.
After that ''incident'' it is fully known what happened under Mr. Pinochet's (the one whom seemed all too pleased to become the imposed leader, and no more democracy for anyone until he fell)'s  -   rule.

I seem to recall Mr. Lester B. Pearson was not popular south of his border, nor Mr. Trudeau or subsequent leaders of that other North American country, for having not only - not abided the international embargo placed against Cuba (always maintaining trade between nations, which I'm sure was good news to Americans that wanted to smoke a Havana cigar. All they had to do was go north of the border.) - I was saying, not only not abiding that embargo, but not accepting to join in and go off to Vietnam (as was requested time and time again).

I'm aware that Mohammed Ali didn't buy into certain narratives, and I'm sure many still don't (I hope, for all our sakes). 
Furthermore, isn't it enough to think of your war veterans, for instance, as well?  Those very same ones that risked their lives serving at their own peril, and that in such large numbers have taken stand to protect a truly noble stand (taken on for such a long time by the oldest Americans on the continent) - one that in turn is meant to protect, firstly, the people of said country from dire peril on the part of multinational corporations (foreign power, so to speak), not to mention the planet itself plus the people and all living things on it, from further rape?   At least those that did so, not to mention those they have vowed to take a bullet for and protect, seem to protect your own constitution, and wish to respect and uphold Treaties (those same ones that have been recklessly trampled over and over again).  Is their no respect for them as well?


So now shall I pose the question (but this time, once again, to those who actually advocate and spread said McCarthian excuses) - Was it Moscow that caused the USA to loose the War of 1812?

Oh, gosh golly, those evil little culprits...
grrrrrrrr, yes, of course, I see it.
It was Moscow that caused the USA, as a nation, to loose it's first ever war with another.
Holy Mackerel, I just don't know why the horse-shoe falls weren't called ''Na Zdorovie Falls (or: На здоровье Falls or whatever..).
Is Niagara a Russian author? (Czar, Saint, Vodka, type of soup, ...)?

  the photo that is a part of this image comes from - here


LINK (War of 1812 - a war that lasted c. 32 months)


Note: Out of fairness, I leave the past December 12 interview of President Obama, who unlike your future President Trump (at least to this date, that is - I know not the future Mr. Trump, as President elect, despite what he has shown in the past) - I was saying whom is eloquent and intelligent as he speaks, and with respect to his own country, despite lobbies that have worked within your congress and even within administrations, speaks clearly, where one can tell he does have a love for his country.  That said, he has been a leader of a country that has nevertheless caused great havoc, and definitely no less than other nations around the world, after WWII.
So here is President Obama, interviewed by Trevor Noah.

Also out of fairness, I leave President Putin, who just as much has a right as President Obama or any other president, to love and protect their own country, but more than that - I must say he seems far more interested in terms of ''protecting'' as Pres. Obama in relation not only his own nation, but much more than Mr. Obama's and his predecessors' administrations - with respect of the rest of the world. He (President Putin) most definitely did not create either Daesh (ISIL) nor the civil war that began in a sovereign nation that had had enjoyed peace prior to that, for instance.   It is a country viciously turned into a battle field since 2012.  And what should I say more that could add to the harrowing fact of the aftermath of the coup d'état created in the Ukraine, that has been a stable country for so long as I (and so many better than I) in another post regarding the Ukraine - as a new European Powder Keg ?
He also did not invade Iraque or leave a chaotic aftermath in that country.
He is not creating or financing what is happening in Yemen (also truly horrific).
He was distressed and gave heartfelt condolence to France, and other European countries that have had terrorist attacks (claimed by the Daesh), or their predecessores (Al-Qaeda), by no means less than his American counter-parts during those periods. He was truly distressed, just as he was addressing terror attacks in his own nation or the USA as well, upon having them.
Why is it that no one in certain interest groups fail to acknowledge that all one has to do is - ''to follow the money''?
So I leave you with a man by no way less reasonable than President Obama when speaking (with a difference that, concerning ''foreign affairs'' - seeming far more reasonable than most American Presidents as of late, including the charismatic and illustrious Mr. Obama.
I give you President Putin, also highly intelligent, illustrious and charismatic.

President Putin

(oh, and by the way, I must admit that though somewhat skeptically, I used to at times buy into some of the old rhetoric regarding Assad, but, as of the past few years and witnessing as others what's been going on, I have noticed something quite striking.
I never have seen women of his land ''covered up'', or rhetoric coming from his country showing ''hate for women'', not any in pictures or speech. This is so very different than the habitual images and rhetoric coming out of not only creatures such as the Daesh (ISIL), but the Taliban, and SA (Saudi Arabia) as well.
This is a fact. And the difference is indeed striking.
Sometimes, in linguistics - where one looks at speech and ''speech patterns'', and certain recurring ''subject matters'', we can easily see where the affinities and cultural ties lay, can't we?
In the words of the mighty poet - Fernando Pessoa: ''my language is my nation''.)


  1. Oh yes, regarding the financing of dangerous people and groups, I does grieve me to see the following news - this just voted by ''Congress'' and passing.. :(

    We all are aware that, anti-aircraft are used not against ground forces (the Daesh - or if you prefer for some reason the other name, ISIL) - Such weapons are used against airforces (non-Daesh, the ones who are either in fact defending against the Daesh, or any of any nation's airforces)
    - :(

    1. So, someone remind me of who is being reasonable, at least in relation to ''foreign affairs'' - and has been actually doing something about said faction (the Daesh), for instance?
      I know that either Presidents for example, Presidents Obama and Putin are far more intelligent than I, not to mention having far more information available to them and versed in terms of what is actually happening in the world. Where Mr. Obama is concerned, I know that Congress for instance is something he can not control.
      I also know that Mr. Putin has to deal with his still serving American counter-part, as he will have to deal with the future one. I truly hope, for all our sakes, American, Russian, indeed any European, Asian, Middle Eastern, African or other American nations, that Mr. Putin's wish to keep thugs such as the Daesh, are not only kept at bay, but that the predictable escalation to war on a global level - be set back (I'd like to say for good, but, to be realistic, at least set back) and no matter what I think of the future president of the US, that he prove me wrong..