Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Interview Suit Juniors

difference between xenophobia and anti-cyclical migration

The other day my cousin told me at his headquarters military civilian staff is composed entirely of Muslim immigrants. Immediately I was struck by terror at the irresponsibility of the English government. Firstly, it is outrageous that four million unemployed, the State give preference to immigrants than English. In addition, taking into account the particular conditions in military barracks, in reference to national security and our own soldiers, I believe that including Muslim foreigners as civil staff is a double irresponsibility. Obviously, you can not criminalize an entire religious community by the act of a few, but we can act so irresponsible with the safety of soldiers, putting "any" in a position easily accessible to privileged information. No one would think, for example, relocating ETA prisoners in such work. Well, it can certainly PSOE that comes to mind. And in this sense I think that civilian personnel of the military barracks should be beautifully chosen, whether Muslim, Christian or atheist.
However, I noticed that the discussion becomes to another issue that is much more trivial. My cousin argued his disapproval of Muslim workers barracks with veil. I, however, I supported his right, provided it was from his personal freedom to wear it. The veil is part of their culture. For example, I'm English here in Spain, but I was when I visited Morocco. Under any circumstances by anyone admit that I demanded that, to be in another country for any reason, acquire the habits of that country. That would mean giving up my nation, the history of my people and my habits. I am English in Spain and wherever you go. Similarly, I believe that it is wrong to force people from other nations to renounce their culture, history and identity by being in Spain. Many repudiate the immigrants, not because they are foreign, but because they are different. This is xenophobia, and is inadmissible. All peoples have the right to exist freely and maintain their own identity and culture.
I oppose frontally to immigration, for reasons already explained in another post ( About migration processes), but I have nothing against immigrants or against their culture and their home villages . It should not be confused her opposition to migration xenophobia.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Baby Small Capillaries Cheeks

History and coups

admit that until recently I did not know what it was called the president of Honduras. Now we all know named Zelaya. Nor do I know what your policy, or if you do good or evil. Therefore, I can not discern, a priori , if the coup is a heroic act by the army to save the people from a tyrant, or is, as so often, an act orchestrated by elements of economic power. The fact that Mr. Aznar and the other neo-liberal People's Party and their media propaganda, implicitly justifying the coup, and you are telling us that the wires that move the Army's lead elements of economic power (in foreign majority) of Honduras. Is years ago the same argument used to justify the Iraq war: starting a war to keep peace - giving a coup to preserve democracy. Or put another way, to make it more apparent hypocrisy: start a war to prevent war - to a coup to prevent a coup. For the neoliberals argue that Zelaya was preparing a coup. I do not know if it is true, because Saddam Hussein also had, according to them, weapons of mass destruction. In any case, in the end, the coup leaders they are. And do not forget what the main concern of the neoliberals: the people? Is the nation? Does the democratic order? No: keep its economic status quo.
of Honduras
But this is an old story that repeats itself over and over again. In 1954 the CIA orchestrated a coup against Jacobo Arbenz, president elect of Guatemala. Also chosen as the "democratic" system that liberals themselves have evolved to maintain their power. The reason that the United States, the same as invading countries to "bring democracy" attacked Guatemalan democracy is that Arbenz wanted to implement a nationalization and socialization of agricultural resources. Suffered most of this land reform was the United Fruit Company, a multinational company owns almost Yankee all agricultural land in Guatemala and is dedicated to exploiting the Guatemalans. The same thing happened in 1973 in Chile. In this case the United States ended with the Chilean democracy (the oldest in Latin America) to Salvador Allende because he had thought the bright idea to nationalize the country's copper mines. This did not sit well with Yankee multinationals who were stealing copper in Chile Chileans. And there he was sent to Mr. Pinochet, an anti-patriot, and one of the biggest ass-kissing of Yankee and English in South America.
The same story is repeated everywhere across the width of the globe. It happened again here in Spain, in 1936, although this is slightly different and has its own nuances. The question is, when one examines the U.S. foreign policy notices supporting dictatorial governments (like Pinochet), democratic or Marxist (the Yankees supported the rise of the Marxist Kabila in Zaire), but immediately attack anyone, either a tyrant or an elected president, who comes to mind nationalize the resources they are stealing. Looking at the axis of evil, Mr. Bush Jr., we see that includes such disparate elements as the atheists jucheistas North Korea, to Iran's Shiite Islamic fundamentalist and the secular pan-Arabist from Iraq (the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein). All of them are "enemies" together (remember the long war between Iraq and Iran), yet the Yankees put them in the same boat. What do they have in common? Iranian revolutionary, pan-Arab Iraqis and North Koreans jucheistas advocate the nationalization of resources. And the nationalization implies that no foreign power can come to rob them. And that pisses a lot to the neoliberal, supporting its economic power in the robberies, literally at gunpoint, to comment on the entire planet.
funny thing is when the very system of government that the Liberals have developed to stay in power, what they call "democracy" turns against him. So when someone wants to clip their wings up to power by "democratic way" suddenly stop being Democrats and removed the mask. All of the neoliberal is a Democrat in the "democracies" in which capitalism remains ... But if the people vote "socialist" lose their faith in democracy itself.
History has shown that the capitalists only know two languages: the language of money, and the universal language of weapons. And yet fools still insist on talking the language of democracy. That does not help, so workers have to use a language they understand, and como el dinero lo tienen ellos, las únicas palabras que nos dejan pronunciar son las que salen del cañón de un Kaláshnikov.