Cuba: Represion a activistas en Vueltas, Camajuani

FHRCuba

La policia habia prohibido a todos los activistas salir de sus casa con ocasion del Primero de Mayo. Esta pareja se nego a acatar la orden y salieron gritando "Mi casa no es calabozo".

La crisis de la información y la crisis de la manipulación de la información

eichikawa

Emilio Ichikawa

Julian Assange es más potable para la sensiblería mediática de izquierda que para la política de izquierda. Tiene cierta “onda” contestataria y púber, pero siempre ha estado demasiado protegido y los revolucionarios le guardan sospecha. Sobre todo los revolucionarios en el poder. En su serie “Diálogos con Julian Assange”, que realizó para la agencia informativa transnacional RUSSIA TODAY (ya con oficinas en Miami y La Habana), tiene un capítulo muy plástico, el número 8, que realiza a un trío de “Cypherpunks” (lo traducen como “Criptopunks”), un movimiento que él considera derivado de su propio proyecto de Wikileaks. En el esquema mental de Assange no existe una lucha entre clases, ni entre norte y sur, ni entre ricos y pobres… Su versión de Buenos Vs. Malos la formula de esta manera: “Se está librando una guerra furiosa por el futuro de la sociedad. Es invisible para la mayoría de la gente. Por un lado están las redes de gobiernos y corporaciones, por otro lado están los Cypherpunks…” (que se les oponen en Internet).

Los invitados de Assange son tres jóvenes relajados que muestran harta confianza ante las cámaras. Uno viene de Alemania, otro de Francia y el último de los EEUU. Con un magnifico humor, se dedican a contar algunas de las travesuras que han hecho a gobiernos dictatoriales del mundo; entre ellas, el cambio de horario a una guardia palaciega que provocó que actuaran con impuntualidad. No hay ideas ni proyecto, pero sí una conciencia de superioridad por tener la capacidad de “utilizar” (consumir) tecnología con una destreza por encima de la media de usuarios; cosa que les permite alterar estructuras de la “vida real” allí donde esta “vida real” empata con ellos a través de la red.

Este es un buen ejemplo para ilustrar que en el activismo político actual es obsoleto el uso de Internet como un medio para exponer e intercambiar información, ideas e investigaciones historiográficas y sociológicas que a mediano plazo lesionen la ideología del rival. La llamada “batalla de ideas” en la red es un eufemismo como nombre y una táctica depreciada como arma cuando se compara con las acciones de las “ciberguerrillas” o “cibercomandos”, que tienen como “tarea” distorsionar y “burlar” lo real. De ahí su carácter simpático o “gracioso”. Es decir, para la confrontación ideológica, a corto plazo (que es lo que interesa al auditor), no se trata por ejemplo de crear plataformas como WIKIPEDIA o ECURED que divulguen investigaciones de los intelectuales orgánicos de sus respectivos bandos; es cuestión de falsear el contenido, bloquear la red, hackear los correos de los colaboradores, privar de servicio, etc.

Ni siquiera se trata ya de propiciar una información falsa o semi-veraz en el lugar de los hechos y luego amplificarla en una familia de webs, blogs, twitters, emisoras de radio y TV; es demasiado lento y por demás caro. Como se hizo en el caso de la enfermedad de Hugo Chávez (o de Clinton), antes de multiplicar un “twiit” creado en La Habana (o en Yew York) se opta por duplicar un sitio en las redes sociales en nombre de algún familiar y dar un parte sobre su salud que después multiplicarán en la red una decena de sitios debidamente seleccionados. Realmente no hay que tener un médico infiltrado en el CIMEQ ni un General infiltrado en el Pentágono, ni un agente en un grupo de Miami u otro en Palmarito de Cauto para “activar” opiniones.

Ya no hace falta crear una información falsa cuando se puede crear un falso informador. La información falsa del periodista real puede desmentirse al confrontarla con la realidad. Frente al irreal periodista virtual toda información, por muy falsa que sea, acaba siendo verdadera en su efecto.

--------------------
-ILUSTRACION: “Equilibrium”, by Karoll William: karollvisualarts.wordpress

A Life of Integrity: Vladimir Bukovsky at 70

frontpagemag

Vladimir Bukovsky, 1977
Photo Paul Babeliowsky iisg.nl

Vladimir Kara-Murza

Yesterday, on Sunday, December 30, Vladimir Bukovsky – writer, scientist, human rights campaigner, and one of the founders of the dissident movement in the USSR – celebrated his 70th birthday. IMR Senior Policy Advisor Vladimir Kara-Murza recalls the milestones in Bukovsky’s life – and urges the present-day Russian opposition to heed his advice.

Vladimir Bukovsky does not like to be called a politician, preferring to be known as a neurophysiologist, writer or, at the very least, civic activist. In truth, he never engaged in politics: he merely realized, at an early age, that he could not reconcile himself to live quietly with a criminal and mendacious regime that sought to make millions of people its silent accomplices. Bukovsky’s protest was a moral one. “We did not play politics, we did not draft programs for the ‘people’s liberation,’” he recalls in his memoirs, To Build a Castle (a must-read for anyone interested in Russian history). “Our only weapon was glasnost (openness). Not propaganda, but glasnost, so that no one could say ‘I did not know.’ The rest is a matter for each person’s conscience.”

“I did not know” was a popular answer among members of the older generation when asked by the youngsters of the 1950s about Stalin’s times. The public condemnation of Stalinist crimes at the 1956 Communist Party congress and (almost immediately) the brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolution, which showed that the nature of the regime has not changed, were formative events for Bukovsky. His protest activity began literally during his school days: he joined a clandestine anti-Soviet group and published an underground satirical journal. In response, he was expelled from school, summoned to a dressing-down by the Moscow City Communist Party Committee, and barred from studying at university (he nevertheless won admission to Moscow State University, only to be discovered and expelled a year later.)

Vladimir Bukovsky is one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, which was born in the fall of 1960 on Moscow’s Mayakovsky Square. There, a group of yet-unknown young activists, poets, and actors (including Yuri Galanskov, Eduard Kuznetsov, Vladimir Osipov, Ilya Bokshtein, and Vsevolod Abdulov) held public readings of banned poetry – Akhmatova, Pasternak, Mandelshtam, Tsvetaeva. They also read from their own works and the works of their contemporaries, which would soon be disseminated as samizdat (literally “self-publications,” the clandestine reproduction and distribution of banned literature). Samizdat, too, was born on Mayakovsky Square. The authorities responded in their usual manner: with dispersals of the meetings by bulldozers and snow ploughs; provocations by Komsomol (Young Communist League) operatives; beatings and arrests. Yet the “seditious” meetings continued in the heart of the Soviet capital for almost two years:

“That amazing community, which would later be called a ‘movement’, was being born. It had no leaders or followers…. Each of us, like a nerve cell, participated in this amazing orchestra without a conductor, compelled only by his or her sense of self-respect and personal responsibility for what was happening.” (Vladimir Bukovsky, To Build a Castle)

Vladimir Bukovsky was one of the organizers of the unofficial poetry readings on Moscow’s Mayakovsky Square, the birthplace of the Soviet dissident movement.

The Mayakovsky readings were only the beginning: one can study the history of dissent in the Soviet Union by reading Bukovsky’s biography. He was involved in organizing the December 1965 “Glasnost Rally” on Pushkin Square (Moscow’s first opposition demonstration in four decades); the January 1967 rally against political arrests (also on Pushkin Square;) and, probably his most important endeavor, the public campaign against “punitive psychiatry” used by the KGB against dissenters. After his first arrest in 1963 for “possession of anti-Soviet literature,” Bukovsky (then 20 years old) was brought to the office of Lieutenant-General Mikhail Svetlichny, the head of the Moscow KGB. “Svetlichny said a very simple thing,” Bukovsky recalls in the documentary They Chose Freedom. “‘Here is the arrest warrant. If you honestly tell us everything – where you got this book, who gave it to you, to whom you gave it [to read], I will not sign it, and you will go home. If you refuse, I will sign it, and you will go to jail.’ …  I found such a formulation insulting, and cursed at him. He did not say anything, just shook his head, signed the warrant, and said ‘Take him away.’”

Vladimir Bukovsky paid for his refusal to go along with the regime’s lies with 12 years in prisons, labor camps, and “special psychiatric hospitals.” Not once did he admit his guilt, ask for clemency, disown his words, or betray his friends. “We fought desperately against this regime of scoundrels. We were a handful of unarmed people in the face of a mighty state with the world’s most monstrous machine of repression. And we won. The regime had to retreat. And even in prisons we proved too dangerous for them.” (Vladimir Bukovsky, To Build a Castle) On December 18, 1976, a handcuffed Bukovsky was driven to Chkalovsky military airfield and, accompanied by a convoy from the KGB’s elite Alpha unit (that was its first operation), was flown to Zurich’s international airport. Communist Party Central Committee documents referred to this as “measures relating to the liberation of Comrade L. Corvalan¹.” In the end, the regime was unable to defeat its enemy inside the country.

In the early 1990s, Vladimir Bukovsky and Member of Parliament Galina Starovoitova tried to convince the Russian leadership to conduct a trial of the Communist regime and the KGB in order to help the country comprehend its past and avoid repeating it.

The next time Vladimir Bukovsky came to Russia was at the invitation of Boris Yeltsin in 1991, before the attempted August coup d’état – and again just after the coup, when barricades were still being dismantled near the Moscow White House, and when the empty pedestal from the toppled statue of KGB founder Felix Dzerzhinsky was still hand-painted with a swastika and hammer-and-sickle – with an equal sign between them. “Let us not flatter ourselves – the dragon is not yet dead. He is mortally wounded, his spine is broken, but he still holds human souls in his clinging paws,” Bukovsky said at a rally on Mayakovsky Square in September 1991. “The Lubyanka [KGB] archives, seized by the Russian government, contain secrets of dreadful crimes. Only by making them public, by handing them over to an objective international commission, will we be able to cleanse ourselves from this filth.” Unfortunately, Bukovsky’s call was not heeded. The new Russian authorities, unwilling to “rock the boat,” refrained from fully opening the archives, from officially condemning the Communist Party and the KGB for their crimes, and from introducing lustrations for those who had participated in the crimes. A genuine moral renewal of society never took place. Russia’s young democracy was not protected from a comeback by the ideological successors of Yuri Andropov and Vladimir Kryuchkov. This comeback came just eight years after the democratic victory of August 1991. As Bukovsky had warned, “it is like dealing with a wounded beast – if you do not finish it off, it will attack you.”

Today, Bukovsky is not retiring or leaving public life – and his upcoming 70th birthday will do nothing to change that. His experience in fighting the KGB system is too relevant; his advice too valuable; his standing among the leaders and supporters of the present-day Russian opposition too high. During the frozen (in all senses of the word) winter of 2007, at the height of Putin’s power, Bukovsky was nominated for president by the democratic opposition as a symbol of moral protest. The line of people wishing to sign his nomination papers extended for seven hours; the Sakharov Center could not accommodate everyone, and people had to wait outside in Moscow’s freezing temperatures.

In December 2007, Vladimir Bukovsky (center) was officially nominated for president of Russia by an assembly of voters in Moscow. The Central Electoral Commission headed by Vladimir Churov denied him access to the ballot.

“The opposition needs a candidate for president – strong, uncompromising, decisive, with irreproachable political and, more importantly, moral authority,” read the statement of the Initiative Group that nominated Bukovsky, “Russia needs its own Vaclav Havel, not a new successor from [the KGB].”

¹ Vladimir Bukovsky was exchanged for Chilean Communist Party leader Luis Corvalan, who had been jailed by General Augusto Pinochet.

There are few people like Vladimir Bukovsky in any society – let alone Russian society, which has been wrecked by decades of Soviet dictatorship, and by 13 years of Putin’s cynical authoritarianism. It is likely that the coming years will bring significant changes to Russia. During this critical period, Bukovsky’s words will be very important. This time, they must be heard.

Naked Protesters Storm House Speaker’s Office

Fox Nation/ 

Read >>

Twitter / @chrisgeidner

BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner tweets this photo of a group of nude protesters who stormed into House Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner’s (R-OH) office on Capitol Hill Tuesday afternoon.
Fox has learned that seven demonstrators from the group Act Up came into the personal office of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in the Longworth House Office Building around 12:30 pm. This is not the Speaker's Office, but his "regular" office alongside other rank and file members.
Act Up is devoted to backing legislation to fund additonal research to end the AIDS crisis. The protesters were upset about budget cuts to federal funding in the fight against AIDS and chanted, “Boehner, Boehner, don’t be a dick. Budget cuts will make us sick.”
US Capitol Police were called and arrested three of the women charging them with indecent exposure, according to reports.
Boehner's office is not commenting on the incident.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/leftist-protesters/2012/11/27/naked-protesters-storm-boehner-s-office?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation#ixzz2DY1x4ksS

Gen.Petraeus' resignation & Cover-up at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Doug Hagmann

According to two well-vetted sources with intimate knowledge of the CIA operations and events in Benghazi, the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus is directly related to the testimony he was expected to provide before a closed-door hearing next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sources close to the controversy, citing the need for anonymity due to their positions, stated that Barack Hussein Obama was aware of the CIA director’s indiscretions “long before” the November 6, 2012 elections, and knew about the FBI’s investigative findings weeks before the election, but “erected a firewall” to prevent any disclosure before November 6th.

More on  Canada Free Press >>

Also  Hillary Clinton, David Patreaus Slither Away from Benghazi!

Why Obama Won

Supporters of President Obama watch results at an election night viewing party in Chicago. Exit poll data showed that he won by drawing on a growing base of minority voters. (Scott Strazzante, Chicago Tribune / November 8, 2012)

American Thinker

Gary Aminoff 

On election night, as the camera panned the audience waiting to hear Barack Obama give his victory speech, what struck me was that the audience was primarily young people and minorities.  My thought was, "These are the very people who will suffer the most under a second Obama administration.  Don't they know they are voting against their own best interest?"

And then I thought about it and came to the conclusion: "No.  They don't."  They don't because they are, by and large, uneducated.  Oh, some of them may have college degrees or even graduate degrees, but they are still substantially uneducated.  I would bet that very few of them know the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics.  I am sure that most of them have never heard of the Laffer Curve.  I would guess that most of them aren't familiar with the first principles behind the origin of our country.  I doubt that many of them know what evil lies in Socialism or Communism, or unbridled leftism.  Or are even aware that Barack Obama is a man of the left, and what that means.  They, for the most part, have no idea what the concept of individual liberty is, nor how a big, powerful central government reduces that liberty.  I also am pretty sure that they feel that Barack Obama is someone who cares about the poor, women, minorities, and the "middle class," and that Republicans don't.  I would stake my substance on the fact that they don't know what is meant by a limited government, or what the Tenth Amendment says.  I am certain that most of them don't know anything about Benghazi.  Substantially uneducated!

How is it that we have raised one or two generations of uneducated Americans?  The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind.  The answer lies in the curricula of our schools.

For the past several months, in my capacity in the Republican Party, I have been speaking at middle schools and high schools around Los Angeles.  It has been very enlightening.
I love engaging with children.  Most of them are very bright and ask brilliant questions.  The questions give me insights into what they are most concerned about.  It also makes clear what they are taught -- by either their parents or their teachers, or both.

To summarize -- children, for the most part, believe the following:

a) Republicans care about only the rich -- the top 1% -- and don't care about anyone else.

b) Republicans hate people of color and especially Latinos.

c) Republicans hate gays.

d) Republicans are racist.

e) It is the government that provides jobs.  (I have asked that question many times in classrooms or assemblies.  "Who is it that creates jobs in America?"  The answer is invariably, without hesitation, "the government.")

f) Corporations are bad, and profits are very bad.  Business shouldn't make profits; they should give any excess money they make to their employees.

g) Taxes are good; they provide the money for the government to take care of people.

h) Government should expand and take care of everyone in the country.

i) America, rather than being a force for good in the world, has been a force for evil.

j) Government has an unlimited source of funds.  (When I ask, "Where is the government going to get the money to do all these things you want it to do?," the answer is "taxes.")

These children will soon be voters.  How is it, in America, that we are raising children to believe that bigger government is better, that government is the engine that provides jobs, that profits are bad, that Republicans care about only the rich, that we are racist, and that we hate minorities and gays.

This is not something to be ignored.  Our country is being changed forever by children who have had this type of indoctrination.  We must figure out how to stop it.  We need to create a love of country in our children as we once did.  We need to have our children say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag every morning, as we once did.  We need to teach our children that America has been a force for good in the world.  We need to teach them that it is not the role of government to "take care" of people.  We need to teach civics once again, and the Constitution.

Until this problem is dealt with, and it needs to be soon, we will be raising generations of children who believe in an ever-larger government and who will permanently change America into Greece.  There will be no Republican Party or conservative candidates who will win elections as more and more of the population is indoctrinated with leftist thinking.  Goodbye to the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free if we don't act on this issue.

-----------------------------

Gary Aminoff is the vice chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County.  He can be reached at gaminoff@gmail.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/why_obama_won.html#ixzz2BjtNWsWO

Michael Savage: Was Breitbart assassinated?

worldnetdaily.com/

Noting that the cause of Andrew Breitbart’s unexpected death yesterday was being examined by the Los Angeles County Coroner’s office, talk-radio host Michael Savage raised the question of whether the conservative media powerhouse – who recently announced he had videos that could politically damage President Obama – was murdered.

On his top-rated show today, Savage played an audio clip of Breitbart telling an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last month that he had obtained videos that shed light on Obama’s ties to radicals in the early 1980s who helped propel him to the presidency.

“Maybe my overly active imagination kicked into overdrive,” Savage told his listeners of his decision to raise the question. “But you heard what Breitbart said – he has videos … we’re going to vet the president.”

Breitbart reportedly was walking near his home in Brentwood, Calif., just after midnight this morning when he collapsed. A neighbor saw him fall and called 911. Emergency crews tried to revive him and rushed him to the emergency room at the UCLA Medical Center.

It’s entirely plausible, Savage acknowledged, that Breitbart simply collapsed of a heart attack because of overwork and a reported history of health problems.

Weather Underground leaders Bill Ayers and BernadineDohrn

“I’m asking a crazy question,” Savage said, “but so what? We the people want an answer. This was not an ordinary man. If I don’t ask this question, I would be remiss.”

Breitbart told the CPAC crowd last month that the videos would reveal Obama during a time when he was meeting a “bunch of silver ponytails” – referring to Weather Underground terror group members Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Ayers and Dohrn reportedly launched Obama’s political career with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.  More >>

Cuba: Arte y activismo social [SATS]

Uploaded by EstadodeSats

Cuba 2012: "Pasar de activdades de la oposicion a actividades de la poblacion"/ FNCA

Uploaded by gusanomarielito on Jan 17, 2012

Cuba y Su Historia, enero 15, 2012. J.A. Albertini entrevista a Omar Lopez Montenegro, Director de Derechos Humanos de CANF (Fundacion Nacional Cubano Americana), sobre la perspectivas que enfrenta Cuba en materia de derechos humanos y de libertad para este año que esta comenzando 2012.