UPDATE #3

Friday, 10/3/08--Sugar over at Sugar N Spice has posted yet ANOTHER video of more group-think in performance, this time, a group of young men...Some of it is hard to understand due to poor sound...there are noble intentions expressed and a parroting of Obama's "plans"...but what's with the military fatigues and drill formation? Here's the link to her post!

More Obama Youth on Video?????

******

By now many of you have seen the eerie video of the children singing in homage to Barack Obama...(Update #1: Note: This video is "no longer available."  See LYRICS below at end of this post.  Screen capture of opening shot here at NQ...)

Update #2--Portion of the video included in this video at http://www.no-libs.com/index.php/MyBlog/The-Enemy-Within/Kids-for-Obama.html Hat tip to Uppity Woman for the IA mention and the link to the video...The full video is at The Confluence.

"We're gonna change it, and rearrange it..."

Just how many times did they chant "Yes, we can..."?

Although the line "We're gonna change the world" reminded me of a Coke commercial, the first thought that actually flashed across my mind was about children singing for Chairman Mao.  I searched for audio, but couldn't come up with anything...but I did find Maopost.com--Chinese Propaganda Posters with thumbnails of posters from years ago that illustrate exactly what I envisioned. This site is simply chock full of images that should inspire any Obamacrat, of any age!

One site that is an absolute must for the Children of Obama is Morning Sun. This fantastic site is full of media and audio from and about the era of Mao's Cultural Revolution. Here's an instructive picture:

This inspiring family is described here:

Ting often teaches his children: Now that we are emancipated, don't forget the Communist Party; we owe our happiness to Chairman Mao!

In March 1967, with the enthusiastic help of the People's Liberation Army, a Mao Tse-tung's thought study class was set up in Ting Lai-yu's family. This further promoted their ideological revolutionization and aroused an inexpressibly deep class feeling of loyalty to Chairman Mao. Every member, with the exception of Hung-ping who is less than three, can recite the "good old three" articles and over 100 quotations from Chairman Mao. Every bit they learn, they apply, combining study with application. The invincible thought of Mao Tse-tung is the life-blood of the revolutionary people. They feel that in addition to studying and applying well Mao Tse-tung's thought themselves, they should also propagate it among more people. They study and practise every day. So far they have learned to sing more than 100 revolutionary songs and perform 50-odd minor revolutionary items of literature and art.

They disseminate Mao Tse-tung's thought with soaring enthusiasm, giving expression to their boundless love for and loyalty to the great leader Chairman Mao. Ordinarily they perform for the local poor and lower-middle peasants. When arrangements for them to go on tour are made by the departments concerned, they think nothing of crossing mountains and rivers to perform for the workers, peasants and soldiers. They are always compiling material about the moving deeds of the poor and lower-middle peasants which shows their fervent love Chairman Mao, elaborating it and arranging it into new items. Whenever a new instruction of Chairman Mao's is published, they find it set to music in the newspaper, learn to sing it as quickly as possible, sometimes adapting dance movements to it, and propagate it among the revolutionary masses. At present, a total audience of 400,000 have enjoyed their performances. The broad masses of workers, peasants and soldiers acclaim them as "singing what is in the bottom of our hearts and expressing our deep feeling of infinite loyalty to Chairman Mao".

Here's another pastime that was enjoyed out in the countryside during Mao's revolution which we may see here in the future:

When night comes you can hear a lot of children are reading in our village. If you come near them, you may know they are reading Chairman Mao’s works. Really they are reading for villagers. They are Red Guards. So all the villagers can study Chairman Mao’s works, the Red Guard have this good idea: when night comes they standing at street, every one hundred foot a guard. The leader reads a sentence. The second guard read it again then the third read again … and so on. They just like radio station. After peasants Iabour all day long they can listen to Chairman Mao’s works for their rest.

There is some video of young Albanians singing about Mao at the site, but the real mindblower is the section on an English lesson, which I can't access to copy, but which is available here.  There is also audio of this lesson which is fascinating to hear.  I'm wondering if this "classic" is on the current Obamacrats reading list.  I've transcribed the text:

Readings from a Junior High School English Textbook, 1960

Lesson 36: A Black Boy

Jimmy is a black boy. He lives in America. He is not happy. He has two brothers and four sisters. His mother is often ill. His father is a worker. He works day and night, but gets very little money. They are very poor.

In America, black people cannot live in the same houses with white people. The houses for black people are small and poor.

Jimmy and his family live in only one very small room.  The room is cold in winter and hot in summer. They have only one bed. Jimmy and his brothers and sisters all sleep on the floor.

Jimmy is a pupil. He goes to school with other black boys and girls. He plays with them. In America, black boys and white boys cannot go to the same school. They cannot play together. Black people in America are cruelly oppressed. Now they are fighting against their oppression.

But, apart from the Obama Cult,  echoes of Mao are cropping up in some of the most unlikely places lately.  A Christian site promulgating Asymmetric Spirtitual Warfare quotes from Mao's Little Red Book. Advice from Mao is used to suggest a model of how to to "spread the word" in a section titled "What Chairman Mao Can Teach Us About Spiritual Warfare."  I wonder if any of the mega-pastors that Obama has enlisted have been using Mao as a guide?

Now to be fair, John McCain once made a brief reference to Mao (video); describing how he was written off politically, he's joked by quoting Mao: "It's always darkest before it's totally black..."

But at least he doesn't have a cult-like group of kids worshiping him in song...

*****

Lyrics of songs on video:

WE’RE GONNA CHANGE THE WORLD Music and lyrics by Lily Campbell, age 9

We’re gonna spread happiness
We’re gonna spread freedom
Obama’s gonna change it
Obama’s gonna lead ‘em

We’re gonna change it
And rearrange it
We’re gonna change the world.

SING FOR CHANGE
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Now’s the moment, lift each voice to sing
Sing with all your heart!
For our children, for our families,
Nations all joined as one.
Sing for joy and sing abundant peace,
Courage, justice, hope!
Sing together, hold each precious hand,
Lifting each other up;
Sing for vision, sing for unity,
Lifting our hearts to Sing!

YES WE CAN
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Yes we can
Lift each other up
In peace, in love, in hope
Change! Change!

sing…vote

http://www.singforchange.com/

Note: Maybe the Obama kids will someday reach the heights we saw at the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies, which were stunning, in more ways than one...

The information & commentary in this article is not meant in any way to demean or disrespect anyone who has served this country in uniform. The people who responded to what they believed was a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by immediately enlisting in the military and voluntarily putting their lives at risk are truly heroes who can never be paid the debt we owe them.

However, that being said, they were horribly misled, lied to, and even tricked into doing what they did and most of them that are still with us continue to be misled, but now it is voluntary.

It is THE HARD TRUTH that many will not accept the truth that the "Greatest Generation" described by Tom Brokaw as the generation that "won the war" was nothing of the kind.

The sad truth is that the Greatest Generation That Wasn't, the generation that fell to their knees to worship at the feet of the Communist / Socialist Franklin D. Roosevelt and the treasonous George C. Marshall, allowed themselves to be tricked & manipulated into war, thanked their heroes for sending them to their deaths, came home, impregnated their wives & bore the most selfish individuals, (with the exception of my mother and her sisters),  the "baby boomers", our country has ever seen, and then went completely to sleep not paying attention to what was really going on in their government.

And now, after all of what I have just said has been proven, do they try to help clean up the mess they have saddled us with? No! They just get extremely angry and tell us we owe them something.

I agree and here is what you are owed: THE HARD TRUTH, so here it is.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was an adulterer who manipulated you into suffering through "The Great Depression" which he and his co-conspirators, with help from the Federal Reserve, intentionally created so they could implement the first attack on the capitalist economic system that all communists hate because it represents the freedom for individuals to be all they can without the government's help. This same plan further enriched the Federal Reserve. And, oh by the way, there is nothing "federal" about the Federal Reserve. It is a privately held bank with stockholders who are paid dividends; that's right, big, nasty profits.

The Federal Reserve was enriched by FDR's Executive Order # 6102 issued on April 5, 1933 in which he made it illegal for individuals to possess gold and required American citizens to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 to a Federal Reserve bank all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them.

In exchange for their gold Americans were given Federal Reserve Notes; pieces of paper issued by a private bank and intrinsically worthless. You could just about call it robbery by executive order as any Americans who dared keep their own property, their gold, could be fined $ 10,000, imprisoned for 10 years, or both. What a hero!

But prior to stealing the gold, private property of American citizens, Roosevelt refused to implement steps suggested by President Hoover that would have prevented "The Great Depression". For if the "Depression" were prevented FDR and his pals wouldn't have reasons to implement their socialist solutions to the problems they created which enabled them to begin the demise of capitalism in the USA.

Then, when the socialist policies they implemented began to fail as they always do, FDR got together with Marshall & Co. and manipulated the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor so they would have an excuse to enter the war. The plan worked perfectly.

In the years since, records have been released that proved FDR & Marshall knew every move the Japanese were making and that they knew well in advance that the "attack on Pearl" was coming, the US had cracked the Japanese radio code and listened to every word they said, and deliberately didn't notify our military leaders at Pearl, US Army Lieutenant General Walter Short & US Navy Admiral Husband Kimmel, who have been cleared of any wrongdoing or incompetence.

In fact, the Army & Naval Boards of Inquiry that investigated the Pearl Harbor attack to learn why we were not prepared for the "surprise" openly stated that Kimmel & Short were not told of the impending attack even though Washington knew it was coming.

Then, after the war, the same "Greatest Generation" stood by silently as Roosevelt literally handed Eastern Europe to the Communist Stalin and Russia on a silver platter. And, as if that weren't enough, the vaunted George Marshall went to China and ordered Chiang Kai-shek to form a coalition government with the Communist Mao Tse-tung. When Chiang refused, Marshall disallowed supplies to Chiang's troops and the Communists took China while Chiang fled to the Island of Formosa. Today we call it Taiwan.

After all of this there is still more. Following Roosevelt's death, Communist in waiting Harry S. Truman slid into the Oval Office and allowed the United Nations, a thoroughly Anti-American organization designed to be a world government, to take root in New York of all places.

Not long after Truman's UN stupidity, the Korean War started with the Communists Marshall installed in China supplying the North Koreans. But, the grand finale of treachery of the heroes of the "Greatest Generation" is this: General Douglas MacArthur, possibly the greatest military mind our country has seen, put forth plans to defeat not only the North Koreans, but the Chinese as well, but Truman wouldn't let him carry them out. When MacArthur went public Truman fired him and the "Greatest Generation" did nothing.

 That's right, the only reason that there are Communists in China, Russia (no, they never really went away), even Cuba, is because of the "Greatest Generation That Wasn't".

The information in this article can be found by anyone interested in knowing the truth from multiple sources including the US government, but the most concise and incredibly well documented source of information is Robert B. Stinnett's "Day of Deceit" (ISBN 0-684-85339-6 (hc)). In addition, "The New American" magazine is an excellent resource as well.  Also, please see Whistleblower magazine of November 2007 "Did The Federal Reserve Cause The Great Depression?" pages 35-38.

LEHRER: Two minutes on Iran, Senator Obama.

OBAMA: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.

So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.

Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we're going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon.

But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.

LEHRER: Senator, what about talking?

MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they've probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.

The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn't sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.

Or whether it be Nixon's trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I'll sit down with anybody, but there's got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn't legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.

OBAMA: So let's talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe.

And I'm glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.

Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

Now, understand what this means "without preconditions." It doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don't do what we've been doing, which is to say, "Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won't have direct contacts with you."

There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.

But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.

Again, it may not work, but if it doesn't work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.

And when we haven't done it, as in North Korea -- let me just take one more example -- in North Korea, we cut off talks. They're a member of the axis of evil. We can't deal with them.

And you know what happened? They went -- they quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.

When we re-engaged -- because, again, the Bush administration reversed course on this -- then we have at least made some progress, although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are seeing it on shaky ground.

And -- and I just -- so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain's own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.

He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.

MCCAIN: Of course.

OBAMA: If we can't meet with our friends, I don't know how we're going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism.

MCCAIN: I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet.

Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.

OBAMA: Of course not.

MCCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I've always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.

What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.

This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.

As far as North Korea is concerned, our secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, went to North Korea. By the way, North Korea, most repressive and brutal regime probably on Earth. The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean, a huge gulag.

We don't know what the status of the dear leader's health is today, but we know this, that the North Koreans have broken every agreement that they've entered into.

And we ought to go back to a little bit of Ronald Reagan's "trust, but verify," and certainly not sit down across the table from -- without precondition, as Senator Obama said he did twice, I mean, it's just dangerous.

OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.

When we talk about preconditions -- and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions -- the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.

And, you know, the Bush administration has come to recognize that it hasn't worked, this notion that we are simply silent when it comes to our enemies. And the notion that we would sit with Ahmadinejad and not say anything while he's spewing his nonsense and his vile comments is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about that.

MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please.

OBAMA: No, let me tell...

MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.

MCCAIN: Of course he encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.

LEHRER: We're going to go to a new...

MCCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.

OBAMA: I am not parsing words.

MCCAIN: He's parsing words, my friends.

OBAMA: I'm using the same words that your advisers use.

Please, go ahead.

Alright, so again, I bolded the parts relevant to Dr. Kissinger.

Obama is arguing that Kissinger said that we should meet with Iran without preconditions.  McCain has taken this to say that Obama is saying that we should have the President meet with President Ahmadinejad without preconditions.  Personally, I didn't get that strong of a statement from this debate; HOWEVER, he did say (back in the Youtube primary debate) that HE would meet with Iran (and other nations) without preconditions in his first year of office.  He also said (in this debate), "I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe." So although Obama may only be arguing for lower-level negotiations now, he HAS in the past said HE HIMSELF would meet without preconditions.  To me, it seems like McCain is making Obama's statements from this debate seem a little more extreme than they necessarily are, but Obama is clearly changing his stance on the issues.

But we have one other thing:

Dr. Kissinger released the following statement:

Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Sen. John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.

So, although McCain may have stretched Obama's statements a bit, Obama took Dr. Kissinger's comments farther than Dr. Kissinger intended, and Obama has flip-flopped on the issue.  The greater fault definitely lies with Obama here, who is just being completely dishonest.

Kissinger did say that "I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."  Personally, I disagree with that - I will note that we have NEVER successfully met with a hostile country without preconditions at the Presidential level.  Nixon and Mao met with preconditions after years of other lower-level talks.  The same with Gorbachev and Reagan.  And the one time we did meet without preconditions, was when Kennedy met with Khrushchev and Kennedy admits that "He just beat the hell out of me.  I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.  Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him."

That, my friends, would be Barack Obama.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

[caption id="attachment_211" align="aligncenter" width="320" caption="A guerrilheira Stella "][/caption]

 

 

É uma leitura. E, como toda leitura, existe para ser contestada. Mas ela não nasceu por acaso.

As telenovelas brasileiras são famosas por difundirem modismos e por refletirem temas candentes de nossa realidade. Algumas até acabam gerando pautas de discussão. Uma novela como “Escalada”, por exemplo, colocou na casa das pessoas a discussão sobre a legalização do divórcio, numa época em que isso era proibido. Muitos dizem que as novelas alienam as pessoas, mas, em uma análise mais profunda, podemos ver que elas nada mais são que reflexos do estado de espírito do brasileiro. Mais do que histórias água-com-açúcar e fantasiosas, as telenovelas mostram, muitas vezes sutilmente, uma leitura da situação do país. É o caso de grandes sucessos como “Saramandaia”, “O bem amado”, “Pecado capital”, “Vale tudo”, “Roque Santeiro”, “Gabriela”, “Pátria minha” etc.

No caso de “A favorita”, novela de João Emanuel Carneiro, temos alguns personagens interessantes: Romildo Rosa, o epítome de um certo tipo de político brasileiro; Ariovaldo Copola, o velho comunista, pintado em cores ternas pelo autor; Orlandinho, um gay recém-assumido; Halley, um malandro de bom coração; Dodi, um malandro de má índole; Leonardo, um operário que bate na esposa; Maria do Céu, uma alpinista social; Cilene, uma cafetina; etc. São personagens que, de modo estereotipado, criam uma paisagem variada da sociedade brasileira. O autor se permite a algumas subversões: a família Rosa é formada por negros e é muito rica, por causa das falcatruas do seu patriarca; o operário Leonardo é um monstro insensível e sua violência não é justificada; as prostitutas da casa de Cilene são bem resolvidas e até felizes; a rica Donatela é a mocinha, enquanto que a “pobre” Flora é a grande vilã da trama, uma Hannibal Lecter de saias.

É aqui que entra a minha teoria: na relação entre Flora e Donatela.

Na paleta do autor, o ódio de Flora por Donatela é justificado pelo fato de esta ser sempre “a favorita”. Donatela sempre superou Flora: em casa, era mais querida pelo pai de Flora; na dupla sertaneja, tinha mais carisma; no amor, ficou com o melhor partido, Marcelo Fontini; e, após a morte deste, cuidou da filha dele com Flora. Nos dias de hoje, Lara, a filha de Flora, ama Donatela como se ela fosse a sua mãe de verdade. Como se vê, um dramalhão que faz jus à música de abertura: um tango eletrônico do grupo Bajofondo. Mas uma outra leitura é possível.

No início da novela, a maior parcela do público torcia por Flora. A sua versão dos fatos parecia mais verossímil. Seu ar sofrido, sua postura sempre tranqüila e seu modo de se portar contrastavam com Donatela, uma mulher rica, fútil e casada com um canalha, Dodi. Ao saber da libertação de sua inimiga, Donatela passou a vigiá-la, o que aumentou as suspeitas do público sobre a personalidade da ricaça. O autor, usando o recurso da elipse e se negando a mostrar os fatos passados, construiu um confronto no qual aparentemente havia uma oprimida e uma opressora. Com o tempo, o autor foi desmontando o que havia construído no começo: Donatela não era tão má assim; Flora não era tão honesta quanto parecia. Em pouco tempo, o público já não sabia para quem torcer.

Em um capítulo decisivo, o autor revelou os fatos: Flora é verdadeiramente uma assassina. E Donatela, vítima de uma armadilha, perdeu a sua liberdade. É precisamente nessa reviravolta que está a minha teoria.

Olhemos para a história recente do Brasil.

Durante anos vivemos sob a chamada “ditadura militar”. Em 1964, os militares tomaram o poder no Brasil. Os livros de história dizem que o governo militar instaurou um regime violento, marcado por perseguições, torturas e censura. Hoje se alardeia que alguns “heróis” lutaram em defesa da democracia. E alguns até pagaram com a vida por isso. Outros foram exilados. Alguns foram presos. Uns até mudaram de rosto e de identidade.

Os que sobreviveram aos “anos de chumbo” estão muito bem hoje; alguns até receberam gordas indenizações. Presidentes como Costa e Silva, Médici e Geisel são, em maior ou menor grau, demonizados nos dias de hoje. E isso é ensinado nas escolas, nas universidades e alardeado na voz dos artistas “engajados”.

Ao que parece, os “heróis” que resistiram à “ditadura militar” foram perseguidos injustamente. E o governo militar, como um monstro assassino, cometeu as piores atrocidades. Os “heróis” queriam a democracia. Os militares, o controle absoluto.

O que os livros escondem, ou disfarçam, é que os “heróis” queriam implantar no Brasil um regime semelhante ao cubano, ou seja, o comunismo, sob cuja bandeira mais de cem milhões de pessoas foram mortas só no século XX. Algo como os gulags soviéticos, os paredóns cubanos e o grande salto chinês de Mao Tse-Tung seria implantado em nosso país tropical, se os militares não tivessem agido naquele aziago ano de 1964. Esconde-se também que, na luta pela defesa desses ideais, os “heróis” recorriam a métodos violentos: seqüestros, assaltos, atentados a bomba, assassinatos. Em suas ações, muitos civis terminavam feridos ou mortos. O atentado do aeroporto de Guararapes, no Recife, em 1966 e o ataque ao quartel-general do II Exército em São Paulo, em junho de 1969, são fatos incontestáveis: os “heróis” estavam dispostos a matar. Como um governo reage a uma ação terrorista? Com repressão, é lógico. E cumpre dizer que boa parte desses “mocinhos” recebeu treinamento em Cuba, e eles conheciam táticas de guerrilhas, sabiam manusear e fabricar armas e explosivos, entre outras coisas. Em termos menos gentis, eram terroristas.

Alguém pode afirmar que a reação militar foi desproporcional; mas, se o rato sabe de sua fraqueza, por que ousa desafiar o leão? O governo militar reagiu à agressão dos terroristas.

Hoje os terroristas de ontem estão no poder. E os militares da época são pintados como seres insensíveis e assassinos. Naqueles terroristas eu vejo a Flora, interpretada por Patrícia Pillar.

Assim como Flora, os terroristas de ontem distorcem a história, de modo a extrair uma realidade que lhes seja mais palatável. Para isso, suprimem fatos, mudam as palavras e transformam em vilão quem os combateu. Consideram-se inocentes e vítimas. E colocam a sua dor como merecedora de toda a compaixão do mundo. Em outros termos, sofrem de um tanto de sociopatia, são ególatras, e parecem não ter consciência moral.

Os militares, que salvaram o país de um mal maior, agora são obrigados a ficar escondidos em suas casernas. Como Donatela, têm de ficar pelos cantos, fingindo-se de mortos.

Em algum momento, torcemos por Flora, pois não sabíamos da inteireza dos fatos. Do mesmo modo, aprendemos por intermédio de uns “iluminados” que o regime militar foi uma ditadura, e que os terroristas nada mais eram que guerreiros da liberdade. É fato que, entre eles, houve muita bucha de canhão, muitos inocentes que abraçaram sem conhecer a fundo um ideal criminoso. Mas isso não retira o sangue de suas mãos.

Não podemos persistir no erro. Sabemos quem são os que desprezam a vida, os que mentem. É hora de empurrá-los para o gulag do esquecimento.

Com o fim dos Jogos Olímpicos, o Partido Comunista perde uma desculpa conveniente para todas as dificuldades.

PEQUIM - Por sete anos as Olimpíadas de Pequim têm fornecido o guarda-chuva dominante sob o qual as autoridades chinesas têm se protegido enquanto levam a cabo algumas das mais abrangentes transformações de uma sociedade que o mundo já viu.

Com crenças tradicionais como o confucionismo sendo destruídas por décadas de luta comunista, e um após o outro dos ideais igualitários do socialismo perfurados por uma crescente e egoísta busca por riqueza, o Olimpianismo – a elevação dos Jogos a um status semi-sagrado para servir a uma variedade de fins políticos – emergiu como o novo credo da China, a sua vaca sagrada. Os Jogos têm funcionado como um leme para a política de Estado, ajudado a justificar decisões impopulares, reforçado a legitimidade do governante Partido Comunista, e unido a nação na busca de prestígio internacional e reconhecimento.

O Partido Comunista Chinês reconheceu oficialmente que até mesmo o líder Mao estava errado em 30% de suas ações, mas as Olimpíadas têm sido consideradas 100% corretas; questioná-las equivale a blasfêmia.

Desde os tempos do Império Romano, grandes eventos esportivos têm servido a uma importante função ritualística e política, ajudando a criar um senso de pertencimento comum e de orgulho entre cidadãos. Da mesma forma, na China as autoridades usaram as Olimpíadas para criar uma união nacionalista que transcende os conflitos sociais e fornece um senso de semelhança, num momento em que laços sociais tradicionais se desarticulavam devido ao desenvolvimento vertiginoso.

Tudo isso faz suplicar pela pergunta: o que preencherá o vazio do tamanho das Olimpíadas uma vez que os Jogos acabem? Nem a World Expo em Xangai nem os Jogos Asiáticos de Guangzhou, ambos marcados para 2010, têm o mesmo poder de união para mobilizar a nação. Para a liderança chinesa, esta é uma questão que demonstra a necessidade de “andar na corda bamba” que até mesmo a hábil política equilibrista dos maiores apparatchiks [termo coloquial para funcionários de tempo integral do Partido Comunista da antiga União Soviética] de Pequim vai precisar.

Quando eu me mudei para a China pela primeira vez, no fim de 2002, eu estava surpreso pela impressionante dominação dos Jogos Olímpicos em, virtualmente, todas as narrativas que eu ouvi. Se fossem analistas do mercado de ações, lobistas anti-tabagistas, advogados dos direitos de propriedade intelectual, agentes turísticos ou jornalistas estrangeiros, era quase impossível evitar a palavra que começa com “o”.

Ativistas dos direitos dos animais falaram sobre como os Jogos transformariam as atitudes dos chineses em relação aos cachorros, passando de vê-los como comida a mimá-los como o melhor amigo do homem. Analistas do mercado de ações apontaram para a flutuação econômica gerada pelas Olimpíadas como base para previsões otimistas, enquanto os motoristas de táxi lutavam com os livros de Inglês, determinados a dominar o seu ABC em tempo para recepcionar os “amigos estrangeiros” em agosto de 2008.

Nos seis anos que eu fiquei na capital chinesa, Pequim foi maltratada pelos guindastes e pelas escavadoras mecânicas, com largas faixas da antiga cidade esmagadas e construídas novamente. As brilhantes fachadas que emergiram do pó da antiga cidade não apenas mandaram uma clara mensagem sobre a visão particular de modernidade da China, mas desfazendo todas as ligações físicas com o passado, eles apagaram a memória coletiva da cidade. Este foi um fenômeno que ajudou a sublimar as ainda não resolvidas feridas da história recente – incluindo a devastação emocional e física liberada pela Revolução Cultural de Mao – enquanto dirigem a atenção para um futuro ostensivamente mais brilhante do que o ofuscante estádio “Ninho de Pássaro”.

Centenas de milhares de pessoas foram deslocadas no processo. Algumas protestaram, mas muitas outras com quem eu conversei aceitaram seu destino como algo necessário para a “Nova Pequim” que as Olimpíadas desvelariam.

Os Jogos foram projetados como um palco sob o qual Pequim seria reformulada arquitetonicamente, até mesmo em seu temperamento. Os banheiros públicos notoriamente fétidos da cidade tornaram-se relativamente aromáticos; exércitos de cidadãos idosos foram convidados a terem aulas de inglês gratuitas; multas para quem cuspir foram ocasionalmente implementadas. Novos museus e linhas de metrô, uma nova aparência para o zoológico e um encantador terminal de aeroporto, foram todos forçados a entrar no serviço de criação da “Nova Pequim, Novas Olimpíadas”.

Com a promessa deles de trazer uma “cara” forte para o país, os Jogos alimentaram as chamas do nacionalismo com considerável sucesso, construindo a confiança na habilidade do Partido Comunista em ganhar reconhecimento internacional sob os olhos do seu eleitorado interno. Eles também serviram como um poderoso pretexto para calar os dissensos. Se toda a necessária acomodação, dolorosa quando necessária, para assegurar o sucesso das Olimpíadas for considerado e aceito como patriótico, então aqueles que questionaram o seu valor foram, por definição, traidores.

A utilidade das Olimpíadas às autoridades chinesas foi ilustrada pela maneira na qual os Jogos foram usados para distrair a população e silenciar a crítica sobre as construções fajutas e a corrupção enraizada, reveladas como conseqüência do devastador terremoto de Maio na província de Sichuan.

Em várias das cidades mais atingidas pelo terremoto, repetições do Revezamento da Tocha Olímpica foram organizadas. A idéia, de acordo com a mídia local, era a de usar “o espírito Olímpico nas escolas para ajudar na recuperação”. Houve declarações explícitas igualando o “espírito Olímpico” ao “espírito de superar o desastre”, ou de resistência e contenção.

Esta estratégia funcionou de muitas formas. Após décadas de fome, guerra, ocupação estrangeira e excesso revolucionário, sediar os Jogos Olímpicos foi visto por um número significante de chineses como o momento no qual o seu país pode finalmente erguer a sua cabeça e receber medalha de ouro atrás de medalha.

Vários inconvenientes de curto prazo foram suportados sem muito protesto, incluindo falta de eletricidade em províncias vizinhas, perdas econômicas temporárias sofridas pelos comerciantes que foram ordenados a fechar durante os Jogos, o deslocamento de bordéis e de outros locais “inadequados”, e assim por diante.

A idéia de que certos sacrifícios eram necessários e valeriam à pena alcançaram um alto grau de popularidade. Estes “ajustes” incluíam mudanças fundamentais, tais como a criação de uma cidade capital na qual muitos moradores de longa data se encontraram simbolicamente e fisicamente expulsos para a periferia. A Nova Pequim não tem espaço ou paciência para a pobreza.

Conforme a euforia das Olimpíadas chega ao fim, trazendo com ele o fechamento de um período de sete anos de exagero ao redor do evento, as contradições de curto e longo prazo varridas sob o tapete dos Jogos vão ser brutamente descobertas. Junto com o inevitável sentimento de frustração que acompanha o fim de qualquer grande festa, o término das Olimpíadas vai abrir um vazio.

Da degradação do meio ambiente ao gravemente esfarrapado tecido da previdência social, os desafios com que a China se confronta hoje são muito difíceis para que as autoridades os ajustem dentro de um discurso nacionalista, com o qual os Jogos foram amarrados tão bem. O envelhecimento demográfico, a reforma da assistência médica, a inflação e a corrupção são problemas que se tornarão mais fáceis de ouvir sem o devastador barulho gerado pelo chamado à ação levada a cabo em nome das Olimpíadas.

Como um morador há longo tempo em Pequim, o fim dos Jogos deixou até mesmo a mim com um sentimento de vazio. Após semanas gritando “Zhongguo Jia You” ou “Come on, China!”, conforme os atletas ganhavam medalha sobre medalha, há um desejo de continuar aplaudindo, mas sem vitórias para aplaudir.

Fico me perguntando o que unirá o país na ausência dos Jogos. O que irá distrair as pessoas das divisões internas e das tensões emergentes? Historicamente, espetáculos esportivos só se equipararam a pequenas guerras como tática de entretenimento. A chance de a China tomar este caminho num futuro próximo é muito pequena.

Apesar de tudo, os próximos anos serão cruciais na determinação de o quão frágil ou resistente o regime atual da China realmente é. Frente aos crescentes custos da mão-de-obra, a uma economia que está progressivamente interligada com o resto do mundo, e à crescente pressão sobre os recursos, desde a água até o petróleo, a China terá que planejar novas estratégias para transformar o seu modelo econômico, se pretende continuar crescendo à taxa de dois dígitos da última década.

Com o fim dos Jogos, a maior falha do Olimpianismo – a sua impressionante ênfase na unidade para a exclusão de diferenças legítimas – também não irá ser tão fácil de ofuscar. O descontentamento contra o domínio de Pequim sobre o Tibet e Xinjiang, o qual teve destaque por um tempo na corrida pelas Olimpíadas, ressurgirá como desafios formidáveis para as autoridades.

Sem os Jogos e seu prestígio para convencer sobre a necessidade de “harmonia” a qualquer custo, o partido governante da China terá que confrontar o seu grande tendão de Aquiles – sua incapacidade de admitir a existência de uma diversidade real e de dissenso – de frente.

Por anos as Olimpíadas têm desempenhado o papel de uma rede de segurança para os atos de malabarismo com que o partido governante da China está constantemente envolvido. A expressão de dúvida pós-Olímpica que o país provavelmente irá experimentar significa altos riscos com conseqüências imprevisíveis. Espere algumas testas franzidas em Zhongnanhai.

Pallavi Aiyar*

Acesse o texto original clicando aqui.

*Pallavi Aiyar é a correspondente baseada em Pequim para o grupo de publicações “Hindu”. Ela foi a vencedora do Prêmio Prem Bhatia Memorial de 2007 por excelência em informações políticas e análise. Clique aqui para um excerto de seu livro, “Smoke and Mirrors: An Experience of China”.

Nació en el seno de una familia de campesinos. Siendo todavía muy joven participó en la revuelta estudiantil del 4 de mayo de 1919. En 1921 formó parte de los fundadores del Partido Comunista Chino. A partir de la ruptura con el Kuomintang, Mao organizó la lucha de guerrilleros contra los japoneses y los señores feudales dando nacimiento a los primeros destacamentos del Ejército Popular. En 1934, el Ejército Popular, conducido por Mao, inició la llamada Larga Marcha. Después de vencer grandes dificultades, recorrer extensas distancias y desarrollar una teoría militar en las condiciones peculiares de la revolución china, el Ejército Popular pudo librar con éxito la guerra contra los reaccionarios y las tropas de Japón que habían ocupado el país.

El 1 de octubre de 1949, Mao Tse Tung proclamó La República Popular China

Fuente: Diario Vea

The idea of 'political correctness' was first used in Mao Tse Tung's Little Red Book, and became part of the vocabulary of the Far Left during the 1970's.  As left-wing parties gained public office across the western world through the 1980's and 90's, first in local government and then nationally, 'political correctness' gradually became public policy, enshrined in law.

Political Correctness has been defined as conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend certain political sensibilities should be eliminated.

Religious Correctness can be thus defined as conforming to a belief that religious language and practices which could offend certain (other) religious sensibilities should be eliminated.

Ideologically speaking, political and religious correctness has its origins in the deranged scribblings of a genocidal maniac.  Over the last forty plus years its strictures have been used to persecute the Christian Church, first in China and the Communist world, and latterly in the 'free' West.

Jesus will always be 'religiously incorrect', quite simply because of the claims he makes concerning himself and his selfhood, that he and he alone is the God-man, the Incarnate Son of God, God in human form, Son of Man, Messiah, Saviour, Redeemer, Lord.

All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Jesus

You can see for yourself why Wellfleet's coastal resources need to be protected.

"Be the me I seem to be."  Churm stumbles upon a growth industry.

Exposed! Women who proofread, and the men who love them!

"No one has a good word for Mao nowadays," remarked Judge Posner.

Y'see, it's all done with magnets: John C. Orr is on a supertrain going 265 MPH and gets to thinking about Henry Adams.

Denver?  I dunno.  Ask Gil Troy.

Here's some perspective on a burning issue: of course you should drown puppies, says Jean Kazez, who just doesn't want to be the one to do it ...

Natalia Cecire's brain almost explodes.  In a Pottery Barn.

Rushdie v. Fish: have you been following this?

"Some of the detail still shocks:" Peter Porter on Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.

Check this out: a visual catalog of booksellers in New York City.

And via our friend Jeff Sypek, something to bury in the yard, maybe.

Oh, hear the word of the Lord!

"Escuchar a una persona que habla no es como volverla a escuchar a través de un aparato - decía Oriana Fallaci al repasar sus entrevistas en el magnetofón para publicarlas en "L' Europeo"-. Lo que oyes cuando tienes un rostro ante ti no es nunca lo que oyes cuando tienes una cinta que gira. Unos ojos brillantes, unas manos que accionan, convierten a veces en aceptable la frase más idiota; pero sin esas manos, sin esos ojos, la frase aparece en toda su desconcertante idiotez. Por el contrario, una nariz desagradable, una actitud cohibida, desvalorizan a veces la frase más rica; y sin esta actitud, sin esta nariz, la frase adquiere toda su consoladora riqueza".

Releo todo esto en el  prólogo a su libro de entrevistas  "Los antipáticos" (Mateu ) ahora que la figura de la periodista italiana es nuevamente noticia al publicarse su obra póstuma "Un sombrero lleno de cerezas" que acaba de lanzar Rizzoli. Oriana Fallaci fue una temible y extraordinaria entrevistadora a la que Kissinger quiso a su vez interrogarla antes de ser interrogado por ella como la propia Fallaci narra en "Entrevista con la historia" (Noguer),  y mantuvo también diálogos memorables, por ejemplo con Ingrid Bergman, con Federico Fellini o con la Duquesa de Alba. Con la Bergman confesó que era la primera entrevista que ella hacía ayudada con el magnetofón y la idea de depender de un objeto mecánico le ponía nerviosa; también la actriz  se puso nerviosa. "Pero nos animamos- dijo Fallaci -, y al fin todo resultó muy fácil".

Pero en los dos prólogos a estos dos excepcionales libros de entrevistas, el nervio de la escritora italiana aparece como recordatorio de su personalidad debatida, una mujer que atrajo adhesiones y negaciones. En "Entrevista con la Historia" evoca estas palabras de Bertrand Rusell: "No te preocupes. Lo que sucede en el mundo no depende de ti. Depende del señor Kruschev, del señor Mao Tse-tung, del señor Foster Dulles. Si ellos dicen "morid", moriremos. Si dicen "vivid", viviremos". "No consigo aceptarlo - añade Oriana Fallaci -. No consigo prescindir de la idea de que nuestra existencia dependa de unos pocos, de los hermosos sueños o de los caprichos de unos pocos, de la iniciativa o de la arbitrariedad de unos pocos. De estos pocos que, a través de las ideas, los descubrimientos, las revoluciones, las guerras, tal vez de un simple gesto, el asesinato de un tirano, cambian el curso de las cosas y el destino de la mayoría".

 Por su parte, en el prólogo a "Los antipáticos", al justificar las presentaciones que ella desea hacer a cada entrevista para enmarcarla luego dentro de un libro, escribe que "esto no será del agrado de los cultivadores del periodismo objetivo, para quienes el juicio es falta de objetividad; pero esto no me preocupa lo más mínimo. Lo que ellos llaman objetividad no existe. La objetividad es hipocresía y presunción, puesto que parte del supuesto de que quien comunica una noticia o facilita un retrato ha descubierto la verdad de la Verdad. Una noticia o un retrato no prescinden jamás de las ideas, de los sentimientos y de los gustos de quien suministra la noticia o el retrato. (...) Existe, puede existir, pues, sólo la honradez de quien facilita la noticia o el retrato: con esta honradez he escrito mis prologos".

Oriana Fallaci como siempre, debatida, apasionada, independiente, lúcida, rebelde.

(Imágenes: Oriana Fallaci:especiales.diariosur.es/elmundo.es/beppegrillo.it)

“Citius, Altius, Fortius” (Mais rápido, mais alto, mais forte) não serve somente de inspiração para a delegação olímpica. Competidor invisível dos Jogos de Pequim, o serviço de inteligência chinês adota para si a divisa defendida pelo Barão de Coubertin [pedagogo e historiador francês que fundou o Comitê Olímpico Internacional].

Protegidos da mídia internacional, os “serviços” locais também tiveram sua “preparação olímpica”. Objetivo: assegurar os Jogos Olímpicos e impedir qualquer forma de contestação, anulando-a o mais cedo possível. Em um estado de alerta como eles [os agentes do serviço de inteligência] raramente estiveram desde a Grande Marcha de Mao, sua preocupação chega ao nível obsessivo devido à grandiosidade dos Jogos Olímpicos, que representam uma vitrine internacional e uma ferramenta de marketing que mostra uma “potência chinesa em desenvolvimento”.

“Para os organizadores, nada deve perturbar as cerimônias ou as competições”, lembra, resumindo o sentimento generalizado, Roger Faligot, jornalista francês autor da obra intitulada “Services secrets chinois. De Mao aux JO” – Serviços secretos chineses. De Mao aos JO. Além do risco terrorista, a inteligência chinesa quer evitar que os assuntos que causam aborrecimento “remontem à superfície, mas, ao invés disso, sejam ofuscados pelo desempenho dos atletas”.

Para as autoridades, são inúmeros os assuntos que incomodam. Estes vão desde o Tibete à liberdade de expressão e da repressão às dissidências à sufocação das minorias. A repercussão do evento exige; as Olimpíadas estão sob um nível de vigilância nunca antes visto. A China tramou sua rede de segurança e “aumentou” os níveis mínimos de segurança habitualmente exigidos dos países que sediam os jogos.

Uma cidade em estado de sítio

Entre policiais, militares, agentes secretos e “voluntários” reais ou camuflados, 400 mil pessoas “disputarão” a seu modo as provas olímpicas. Vasto, com nove milhões de km², o espaço aéreo chinês será submetido a uma vigilância aérea permanente. A “polícia da web” refinou suas técnicas a fim de marcar mais de perto os blogueiros teimosos.

Bem antes do início dos Jogos, Pequim garantiu à 29ª Olimpíada de verão um primeiro recorde: com aproximadamente 450 mil câmeras distribuídas por todas as partes, a cidade obteve o título de campeã do mundo em vídeovigilância.

Como ilustração do gigantismo do evento, os Jogos Olímpicos se propõem, mais que qualquer outro encontro planetário, a um excesso de segurança. Desde Munique em 1972 – onde atletas israelenses foram feitos reféns por seqüestradores palestinos –, a segurança se impôs na agenda e entre os requisitos olímpicos. Em tempos de Olimpíada, a cidade mais parece um território fortificado. Em Pequim, além dos 20 mil atletas, dois milhões de visitantes estrangeiros são esperados, em ondas sucessivas, de agora [o início dos Jogos] até o dia 24 de agosto. Sem contar a presença, no dia da cerimônia de abertura, de 90 chefes de Estado e de governo, entre os quais estavam a metade dos dirigentes do G8 e 160 ministros. Quatro milhões de pessoas “viverão” o evento pela televisão. Tantos motivos que inserem a capital em um regime não declarado de estado de sítio.

As ambições da inteligência chinesa vão além das questões relativas à segurança dos Jogos Olímpicos. Reconhecidos por seus pares ocidentais pela sua eficácia, os “serviços” chineses sonham com uma posição de liderança na competição mundial entre as “equipes das sombras”.

Se nada de grave vir a parasitar, de agora até o dia 24 de agosto, os Jogos de Pequim, espiões e agentes secretos do governo chinês poderão se gabar de um sucesso notável. “Independentemente dos resultados esportivos, a comunidade chinesa dos serviços secretos e da segurança terá vivenciado este evento como um teste sem precedentes, abrindo o caminho para progressos espetaculares”, estima Roger Faligot.

S. Raouf

Acesse o texto original clicando aqui.

fica aqui nossa dica de esporte olímpico para os tibetanos: o arremesso de motolov

Watching the Olympics on TV reawakened memories of a trip we made to China a few years ago. The main purpose was to take a trip up the Yangtze before much of it was flooded by the opening of the Three Gorges Dam, but it also included spending a few days in Beijing.

Apart from the day we arrived, the weather was pretty appalling, low clouds, drizzle, grey skies which washed out the unique oriental scenery of the Yangtze and iconic landmarks like The Great Wall and Tiananmen Square. The funny thing is that I only know that because of the photos we took during the trip which, incidentally, were bobbins (my defence being that I was more interested in my new mini video camera at that time).

The truth is that the weather didn’t figure highly in our memories of the trip just a series of unforgettable experiences of an incredible country. I could wax lyrical for hours about them, but don’t worry I’ll summarize:

Eating smoked eel for breakfast in Beijing whilst Andy stuck a chunky slice of bread in the do-it-yourself toaster setting it on fire.

Being approached by a business man in the hotel bar who bizarrely asked us to check his translation of an email about what was clearly a secret business ‘takeover’ proposal.

A Chinese diner in a restaurant buying everybody in the restaurant a glass of ‘special’ Chinese wine at £80 a bottle because China had just won a World Cup qualifier.

Watching a chef at the Beijing night market reach into a steel drum filled with scorpions, centipedes, silkworms and all sorts of creepy crawlies, stick them on a skewer and frying the lot on a wok beside sparrow kebabs.

On a rainy night, following a white uniformed sailor down a dark alley (no jokes) and across a Joining the Yangtze riverboat by way of a series of wooden planks across a muddy approach where other crew members in equally pristine uniforms held out umbrellas – very 1950s

The shock of finding that the alarm system in the cabin went off at 6am, when what started as quietly jaunty Chinese music got louder and louder.

The bigger shock of finding out that there was no way to turn the dammed thing off; softened by the amusement of a bleary eyed Andy cursing and smacking every impotent button on the bedside cabinets.

Being invited to partner a Chinese girl in a traditional dance which involved her putting her skirt over my head (I can think of worse traditions).

Asking another passenger, an Irish dentist, whether he thought that they’d be showing Manchester United’s Champion’s League qualifier on TV to which he replied;
“That’s the problem with you Manchester United supporters; you think everyone is going to be interested in Manchester United. We’re on the Yangtze for god’s sake; they’ve never even heard of Manchester United here.”
Within thirty minutes of the conversation we alighted at the city of Chongqing to be faced by a billboard with…David Beckham and Ryan Giggs’ faces plastered over it. HA!

The fact that the Yangtze River was brown and the cities on the banks were not straight out of ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’, but were industrial and grimy black with coal dusk.

Huge empty white cities built above the existing cities, capable of housing a million people, just waiting for the new dam to go into operation when the lower cities would be completely flooded.

The ship’s alcoholic doctor, who tried to prescribe cough medicine for an infected insect bite on Andy’s leg.

The ghost city of Fengdu, where boats wouldn’t dock in the night for fear of spirits coming on board and where shopkeepers kept a bowl of water at the till, where customers had to drop their money(ghost money floats apparently).

Undergoing a series of mystical tests in the King of the Dead’s palace in Fengdu the result of which a) Andy and I will be together for eternity and b) we both became immortal – a good result I thought.

Finding out that you need to be skilled in mountaineering to scale the Great Wall, so steep are its steps.

Causing havoc during an exhibition of Chinese medicine by fainting for the first time in my life when undergoing a medical examination; the diagnosis? “Fear of white coats”.

The emotion of standing in Tiananmen Square.

Ditto for the Forbidden City.

Seeing a real live panda and being told that said panda because of its lack of interest in having sex with its ‘girlfriend’ was being force fed a diet of porno movies…featuring humans to give it some idea of what to do!!!

Discovering that Beijing was probably the most modern city I’ve ever visited.

Noting the differences in politics and attitudes between tour guides of different ages. The one in her mid forties was very defensive about Mao Tse -Tung – obviously a supporter of his cultural revolution; I bet she still had his little red book. Whilst the other, in her mid twenties, had a more balanced view about China’s past and criticised some of his policies. Mind you her other main topic was David and Victoria Beckham – she wanted to know if reports of what they earned were true, but didn’t believe us anyway when we told her they were.

In the Forbidden City, jokingly trying to guess which burly men were the ‘Secret Service’ agents who were no doubt following our every step to ensure we didn’t stray from the official guide. When we got back to Blighty and sat through six hour of video we noticed the same little Chinese woman, pulling a child, sticking close to our group in every single location; In Beijing, in different riverside cities, Chengdu, Chongking – clever.

There were many, many more, but that’s more than enough for one blog.

I read that the idea of this movie - strangers trapped together in tight quarters - was redone in the early 90s, but they were stuck in a spacepod. I'd like to see that. I'm not too up on the current war, but I wonder how everyone in the boat would react to an Iraqi soldier joining them if it were made today. Course there's probably not enough water to make it work. The majority was so inclined to trust the German, and just after their trust burned them, they trusted another German who didn't get the chance to do much except pull a gun on them. It could be he was just scared. Maybe the message is that it's good to balance compassion and democracy with common sense and self-preservation.

Tallulah Bankhead had such a rich, husky voice. I want to watch her other films now. Her Lifeboat character bounced back from losing her camera pretty quickly. My mind stayed on that camera throughout the entire movie even though I wish I'd been able to get over it immediately and focus on the survivors. Wiki Wiki Wiki.

Here's another painting. The gal who has this one calls it Chairman Mao, and I think that's pretty funny.

I had a very interesting experience this past weekend.  Once a month, on Saturdays, I meet up with a writers group, mainly creative fiction.  One of the authors has a character in his story who is an SS Trooper during World War II, and has a lot of vicious moments of shooting Jews, Germans, or any other sort of person.  What is so crazy is that the character is an actor and he backwards rationalizes the terrible things he does by treating it like a "movie role".  Just such an interesting mentality.

While I was telling the group that I find the mentality of a megalomaniac fascinating, the conversation jumps to politics and they say, "look at our politicians, they use that mentality all the time."

Well, far be it from me to back down from an essential point of libertarian beliefs, and I tell the group, "for me that's an essential reason I believe in libertarianism."

Here's the part that kills me the most.  One of the women responds, "you're never going to get a libertarian in office, you shouldn't throw away your vote and vote for Barack Obama, the things he says are so great and he'll really make a difference."

God, I nearly vomited on myself.

I have such a hard time understanding the logical disconnect here.  It seems like the logical process goes, 'Yes, I can admit that all Politicians are power hungry megalomaniacs EXCEPT for the ones named Barack Obama.'

When I was telling the story to Cedric, he quoted The Usual Suspects, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

And that is the danger of Barack Obama.

Actually this issue runs much deeper than what its culminated in Barack Obama - this is a fundamental issue of the general breakdown of questioning politicians, politics, and people in power.

I think it has become very easy recently for people to hero worship their political leaders.  Its been several years seen we've seen the likes of a Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Mao Tse Tung.  You know a truly evil man in the helm of a great nation (even though we still have plenty of examples in the Middle East, Turkmenistan, and several African nations).  

Also, there is a strong mentality for people to "root for their own team" within the political realm.  I imagine people who are political hobbyist wearing the official team jersey: The Donkeys versus The Elephants.  Within political commentary you see the categorization of opposing view points and how easily swept away they are when people feel as if the person roots for the "wrong" team.

And don't think this only exists in political commentary, it's easily seen on the floor as congress as well:

So apparently this scientist is unqualified to be taken seriously because he's appeared on the Rush Limbaugh program.  And the problem is that this isn't some wahoo sitting behind a computer blogging, then I could honestly care less what she has to say.  But this person will make policies that affect your life.

Let's take this even further down to the essentials.

And it would be so incredibly nice to believe that a politician's job is to "take care of the people."  Who knows, maybe at some point in history politicians and leaders honestly believed in helping the "little guy" or "people in need" or "doing the right thing" (which by the way has its own problems in itself - but that's for another post).

Then kicks in reality.  People who "do the right thing", at times, have to do things that are unpopular.  That lets the true nature of the Politician's job appear.

A Politician's job is to get elected.  Solely.  Nothing more, nothing less.  This isn't even a villainization of Politicians, it's the reality of the situation.  Just like the SS Trooper Actor in my colleagues story, who would commit horrendous acts against people and others and backwards rationalize it, a Politician will backwards rationalize getting elected in the same manner.  The end point being power, the rationalization of empty promises circling around solving all "the people's problems".

So now you have two Politician's running for office.  Politician 1 is trying to do the right thing, even though it is not that popular, then there's Politician 2 who is willing to do anything it takes to get elected to office.

Politician 2, assuming he understands the electorate (or as is best seen in the "Foreclosure Crisis", the "Gas Price Increase Crisis", the "Unemployment Crisis") is naturally going to have a leg up on Politician 1, because "wow, it sounds so nice what Politician 2 is saying."

Inevitably the person with slippery morals and a need (for whatever twisted reason) to have power is going to be the one who wins the election.  The worst part, is that he's going to do it by making the public really believe in him, really get behind the things he's saying, really make you feel like he's going to solve all your problems, etc.

I hope the parallels are obvious.

In the meantime, this Politician is flushing the fundamental principals of the Constitution down the toilet because of Cult of Personality.  We need to really cast doubt on any Politician who is concerned "taking care of the public" rather than letting a person take care of themselves.  Whether Democrats and Republicans want to acknowledge it or not, when the Government takes care of people, it really mean "we're going to control you (of course with the guise of "for the greater good", or even better "because we know what's best for you)", and when you don't follow those controls... well, I think we all know where that leads.

How should "We the People" react?

Should we follow in the footsteps of our political parties and leaders who have already begun playing their favourite sport of pointing fingers at each other, or at their chosen targets? Or should we join hands and stick together to show the fear-mongers that nothing can drive a wedge between one Indian and another?

I believe we should desist from the unfortunate example of "an eye for an eye" set by President George W. Bush. We should, instead, follow the high ideals of Mahatma Gandhi in trying to find a solution to a global problem.

By trying to take revenge on a supposed enemy, Bush has unleashed thousands of Osama bin Ladens whereas by adapting the path of satyagraha and fasting to do introspection, the Mahatma succeeded in stopping the killings during Partition.

What would Gandhiji have done today had he been alive? He would have urged all of us to go on a fast, to show our solidarity and to do introspection rather than find faults with groups or individuals.

That is precisely what we should do to prevent more cities from being added to the list of Bangalore, Bombay, Delhi, Hyderabad, Jaipur....

By finding faults with our brothers and sisters, most of whom are also victims of the terrorism that is laid at their door, and many have whom have been led to terrorism by our acts of omission and commission, we will not even begin to solve the problem.

We will only be helping trigger a chain reaction, an endless spiral of more killings as we have seen in Indonesia, Britain, Spain, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan since 9/11.

So, why don't we do what the Mahatma would have done?

Why don't we embark on a symbolic fast on Independence Day, August 15, from 8 am to 8 pm?

Let us all---Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, everybody---let us all join hands, publicly and privately, and not partake of food and water for 12 hours on that day.

Let us send a strong message and an even stronger image to future terrorists that their cowardice doesn't scare us, that their dastardly designs will not work.

Let us not follow leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Mao who used terror to gain power. Let us follow Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela who used the lesson of love taught by all the religions to put it down.

Let's go hungry on August 15 to starve the terrorists of their oxygen.

Also read: CHURUMURI POLL: Should POTA be brought back?

K. JAVEED NAYEEM: 'All terror can be traced to injustice, inequality'

D.P. SATISH: 'Globalisation and terrorism are closely linked'

HARI SHENOY: Machcha, why can't we do what Israel does?

Existen mil y un motivos para escribir en la actualidad sobre China, así que este artículo apenas precisa de presentación. No obstante, como siempre viene bien explicar el porqué de las cosas, les diré que he escogido este momento con motivo de los próximos Juegos Olímpicos de Pekín. A continuación trato de analizar, de forma sintética y general, la Historia de ese país entre comienzos del XIX y mediados del XX. Pongo punto y final a mi relato con el triunfo del comunismo maoísta en China; aunque no descarto completar ese repaso histórico en artículos futuros.

China a comienzos del XIX: política interior y exterior

A comienzos del siglo XIX China era, como en la actualidad, un enorme país que contaba con un gran potencial demográfico. Sin embargo, ese gigante oriental era víctima de la inercia marcada por su centenaria tradición y por las élites gobernantes. Mientras el mundo occidental vivía un intenso proceso de urbanización e industrialización, China era un país de campesinos, compuesto por un sinfín de pequeñas y grandes aldeas; apenas existían ciudades que, desde luego, no eran como las europeas. Esa sociedad rural era relativamente homogénea; tan sólo destacaba del común un pequeño grupo aristocrático al que, debido al inmovilismo existente, era muy difícil acceder.

En Pekín, una de las pocas urbes a las que nos referíamos anteriormente, vivía el emperador con su séquito y los miembros de la administración estatal. El gobernante, para escarnio de algunos habitantes del país, pertenecía a una dinastía extranjera de origen manchú [3]. No obstante, la labor de gobierno, donde destacaba la figura de los mandarines, era relativamente eficaz. Estos, al igual que la mayor parte de la población china, recelaban de la presencia mercantil y militar extranjera que, a lo largo del siglo XIX, se fue haciendo más abrumadora.

La primera apertura de China a las exigencias comerciales de esos países –exceptuando, claro está, las tímidas relaciones establecidas desde los viajes de Marco Polo- se produjo en Cantón, y los beneficiados fueron los británicos. Posteriormente, el Tratado de Nankín puso fin a la llamada Guerra del Opio, que enfrentó a los chinos con el Imperio de la Reina Victoria entre 1839 y 1842 [4]. Según las cláusulas del mismo, los vencedores adquirían el derecho a comerciar en cinco puertos de China, uno de ellos a orillas del Yang Tse Kiang. Además, se otorgaba un estatuto especial para Hong Kong. En este mismo periodo también Francia y los EE.UU. lograron arrancar concesiones al receloso gobierno oriental. Había dado comienzo el reparto de la “tarta china” que tan bien caricaturizaron a finales de siglo los dibujantes de la prensa europea. Estas concesiones fueron ampliadas a estas y otras potencias con motivo de la larga insurrección de los Taiping, donde los occidentales tomaron postura en favor de estos o del gobierno en función de sus propios intereses [4].

Estancamiento y crisis en China.

La, en cierto modo violenta, incursión comercial de Occidente provocó un generalizado rechazo -en ocasiones rozando lo cómico- hacia todo lo relacionado con los “invasores”; incluido el desarrollo de estos. Y, por si fuera poco, la fidelidad a la civilización tradicional china no ayudó precisamente a superar estos prejuicios. Mientras el poder imperial se iba poco a poco descomponiendo, el territorio fue dividiéndose en feudos controlados por los “señores de la guerra”. Sin embargo, no todo eran desgracias para el pueblo chino. En los puertos abiertos al comercio, lugares donde se concentraban los principales intereses europeos y norteamericanos, se fueron formando enclaves de desarrollo económico. Fruto de la acumulación de población que huía de la pobreza rural, se levantaron grandes ciudades; lugares que sirvieron como catalizadores de las nuevas ideas.

La manifestación más clara del retraso de China la encontramos en el control que su vecino nipón empieza a tener sobre ella. Japón se convierte, al igual que las potencias occidentales, en “señor” de los destinos chinos tras derrotar al gigante asiático en la Guerra de Corea. La victoria japonesa tuvo consecuencia territoriales y comerciales para la propia China, de las que también procuraron sacar partido los europeos. Sin embargo, el temor de estos últimos a que el expansionismo japonés pusiera en peligro sus intereses comerciales, les llevó a apoyar al más débil. De esta manera, la nueva potencia fuerte –Japón- no pudo sacar de su victoria todas las concesiones que deseaba.

Las sucesivas derrotas y humillaciones facilitaron el surgimiento de sociedades secretas que actuaban contra los intereses del gobierno, de los señores, y de las propias potencias occidentales. Esas organizaciones constituyeron el germen de la “revuelta de los boxers”, ante cuyas reclamaciones los emperadores no tuvieron más remedio que ceder. Tan sólo la intervención occidental en pleno cambio de siglo impidió que los radicales chinos se hicieran con todo el poder. Las potencias, que por supuesto descartaban la posibilidad de colonizar territorialmente China –era demasiado extensa y llevaba asociada consigo demasiados problemas-, se limitaron a obtener nuevas garantías y privilegios una vez finalizado el conflicto.

Las revoluciones chinas.

La crítica situación que vivía China obligó a la emperatriz Tseu-Hi a aceptar el programa reformista propuesto por la nueva clase de hombres de negocios que había surgido en el país [3]. Estos impulsaron un proceso de desarrollo basado en prácticas económicas de tipo moderno, que vino acompañado de una reforma del Ejercito y del funcionariado, y por la promulgación de una Constitución. Además, se abandonaron muchas de las antiguas tradiciones, de entre las que destaca el culto a la figura divina imperial. Esto, junto con el aumento del número de funcionarios y altos cargos antidinásticos, debilitaron la posición de la familia imperial.

En 1912, tras la caída de la dinastía reinante Sun Yat Sen se convirtió en el primer presidente de la República China. Este personaje había elaborado unos años antes una teoría política en la que defendía el nacionalismo antimanchú, el antiimperialismo, la democracia y el socialismo. Sin embargo, su ineficacia en la lucha contra los imperiales y los “señores de la guerra”, a la que se unió la anarquía existente dentro del propio territorio republicano acabaron propiciando el relevo en la presidencia; Sun Yat Sen fue sustituido por Yuan Che-kai.

Al término de la Gran Guerra (1914-1918), los acuerdo de paz acabaron por legitimar la ocupación japonesa de varios territorios del Pacífico, incluidos algunos pertenecientes a China. Este hecho, unido a la inercia desastrosa que arrastraba el gigante asiático desde comienzos del XIX, volvió a sumir al país en una profunda crisis. Tras el periodo de caos, en 1927 el Kuomintang asumió el poder. La tranquilidad se prolongo durante un breve periodo de cuatro años, en los cuales este grupo mantuvo unidos en su seno a nacionalistas, socialistas y demócratas. La ruptura del pacto con los comunistas marcó el inicio de un nuevo periodo de crisis. Las luchas entre “señores de la guerra” volvieron a asolar el territorio chino, al tiempo que Japón invadía Manchuria en 1931. Con este panorama interno China iba a enfrentarse al convulso periodo bélico de finales de los años treinta y principios de los cuarenta. En 1937 iniciaba una guerra con Japón que, enlazando con los II Guerra Mundial, no tocó a su fin hasta el años 1945 [1]. La nación china sufrió grandes pérdidas en el conflicto, fue humillada en numerosas ocasiones, pero gracias a la victoria aliada salió triunfadora en la conflagración.

El final victorioso sobre Japón en la guerra de 1937-1945 no acabó de apaciguar los ánimos en China. La división dentro del Koumintang tras la ruptura protagonizada por los comunistas de Mao Tse-Tung, llevó al ejército de este a enfrentarse con el gobierno de Chang Kai-Shek [5]. La guerra civil china duró cuatro años (1945-1949). En ella los comunistas, con apoyo de la URSS, se alzaron con la victoria. Los nacionalistas huyeron del territorio continental, constituyendo un gobierno en el exilio en la isla de Taiwán (Formosa) bajo la protección y el reconocimiento de los EE.UU. Desde entonces existen dos estado que reclaman la herencia china: uno comunista en el continente, y otro nacionalista en la isla.

Bibliografía

[1] Historia Universal Contemporánea I y II; Javier Paredes (Coord.) – Barcelona – Ariel – 2004.

[2] La guerra del mundo: los conflictos del siglo XX y el declive de occidente (1904-1953); Niall Ferguson – Barcelona – Debate – 2007.

[3] Los Manchúes; Pamela Kyle Crossley – Barcelona – Ariel – 2002.

[4] Historia breve de China; Pedro Ceinos – Madrid – Silex – 2003.

[5] Cisnes salvajes: tres hijas de China; Jung Chang – Barcelona – Circe – 2006.

[6] Historia del nacionalismo; Hans Kohn – México – Fondo de Cultura Económica – 1984.

Wedgewood Relief c1780

Join Ninja and Special K on a whirlwind tour of exhibits at the Royal Ontario Museum, before the festivities of Father's Day begin. First stop: Shanghai, past, present and future.    Next stop: Wedgewood treasures and the Black Star Sapphire of Queensland.    Last stop: History of Disability and Typewriters.  Ninja talks about getting her malaria shots from a past classmate who is now a doctor.

Famous tyrants mentioned: Mao Tse Tung, Hitler. Novelties in a Museum: Man in a Dinosaur.  Ninja's rank in her typewriting course:  Second.

• 145hotfrmshanghaiexpress · 22.98 MB

Except it's not like being a journalist for the INQ, being a journalist for the Examiner. Apparently there are Gorkha riots in West Bengal, which make it very unsafe to travel.

It makes travelling on the London Metropolitan Line (banner above includes Wembley Stadium - Ed.)  seem like a very pleasant dream. As the oldest existing civilisation in the world India has seen it all. China would be the oldest existing civilisation in the world, but it had its Mao tse Tung period, and the "Cultural Revolution" changed a lot of things, init? ♥

Mercedes Rosúa, no seu livro "O Arquipélago Orwell", escreve:

Quando vemos cada vez mais licenciados que mal sabem escrever a língua, esse fenómeno reflecte o actual sincretismo neoliberal/marxista que forma carne para canhão; nivela por baixo; castra a iniciativa individual (embora digam o contrário); passa a ideia de que o sucesso do indivíduo depende não tanto do seu valor, mas essencialmente da forma como ele se "encaixa" no sistema.

Comentários abertos para este post