Thursday, June 25, 2009

Monica Roccaforte Info

Does anyone past was better? Vicente Ferrer

Me llama la atención la obsesión que tienen muchos comunistas por la IIª República Española. Hablan más de la Segunda República que de la construcción de la Tercera. La añoranza de tiempos que consideran mejores, de manera muy torpe, les puede ante la fe en la construcción de un nuevo orden. Yo soy socialista, comunista para ser más exacto, y por eso NO comparto los valores que fundamentaban la Segunda República, una república que, no lo olvidemos, era de carácter liberal y capitalista. Por eso no entiendo que Communist nostalgia, except for the fact that they are communists or not, or do not understand what that meant in fact the Second Republic. If I have the tricolor on my blog is because I like the rojigualda (see History of the flag ), not because they share the liberal values \u200b\u200bof the Second Republic.

is something like what happens to many fascists who yearn for the old Francoist slogan: "A great and free." "Great and free? Franco Spain ever fought for a great and free. For starters allowed the Yankees set up military bases in our country. Can there be a bigger shame? I would have preferred to shoot myself in the bunker, as did Hitler, rather than see my country subject to U.S. imperialism. How big? Franco not only began the colonization of Spain by the Americans, but also missed the last colonies of Guinea and the Sahara. Divided Franco Spain, submitted to U.S. imperialism, and finalized the remains of the empire. English nationalists who still admire Franco, or are not true patriots, or completely unaware of what Franco meant for our nation. I am a English patriot and for that I'm anti-Franco.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Vintage Stereo Receivers For Sale



Vicente Ferrer has died today. Today a great man has died. Vicente

Ferrer was born in Barcelona in 1920. Militant POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification), fought in the English Civil War and was only 16 years. Time lived in exile in France after the defeat of the Popular Front, and met briefly Francoist concentration camps. After he joined the Jesuits, which would begin its humanitarian work in India. They fought selflessly for the rights of Indian farmers, earning the suspicion of the chiefs of the place. For over 50 years has dedicated his life to others, the liberation of the oppressed classes, and to mitigate the possible social inequalities that plague our world. A sensitive man to the pain of others, slaughtered and brave. Today


died Vicente Ferrer, and with him died a piece of my heart. If there is a god, surely must be sitting at his side.

sit tibi terra levis



Saturday, June 13, 2009

Century Bob Vs Punchbag

migration processes on Iran and nuclear bomb

Capitalist propaganda has always served the creation of enemies imagery to justify their attacks against humanity. Now they claim that Iran seeks nuclear weapons and suggested that the Iranians have nothing better to do in this life to destroy the West. It's the same argument used to justify invading Iraq. First, Iran, like every nation, has every right in the world to develop nuclear energy to ensure its energy supply. What is more, the Iranian government has the OBLIGATION to make nuclear weapons to ensure the safety of its citizens. I mean,

examine history. Throughout history, only one country has used the atomic bomb to kill innocent civilians: United States of America. In the Iraq war there were people who asked for the army again employ the atomic bomb against Saddam, and even suspected that they could use neutron bombs. Throughout the twentieth century, no country has started more wars and more nations have invaded the United States of America. So yes there is a global threat, a nation that has nothing better to do than invade the rest of the world and impose their political system and culture: the United States of America. Any nation that does not accept their deposits is considered an enemy and attacked. Of course, Iran is not a threat, and this is proved by the fact that, since the Islamic revolution, has not attacked any other country. How many countries have attacked the United States in the last 30 years?

Therefore, to maintain its national integrity, Iran has only one option: to develop the atomic bomb. This, contrary to what one might think, would ensure peace. Then the U.S. would not attack Iran, and no war. Obviously, neither Iran nor the U.S. would threaten to destroy itself by using the free pump. The Iranians, an industrious people are too busy to develop their nation to worry about conquering the world. If Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction, no one had dared to attack that country. Notice the absurd reasoning of the West: "You have a weapon that can destroy, therefore I will destroy me before." Imagine walking down the street suspect that a person has a gun in his pocket, and fear that used to kill them. Then they decide to implement the policy of Bush and attack that person. It may take two things: (1) If you really had a gun, used to kill, and his attack will be served as a trigger to use. (2) If you did not have, have attacked an innocent person. Iraq used weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves because they had them, and knew very well that the invaders would otherwise not have been exposed to attack a country dangerously armed.

So while the United States maintain its imperialist policies and have the atomic bomb, it is recommended that every country develop nuclear weapons to guard against being overrun. Only if all countries are disarmed at the same time, global disarmament would be useful. Otherwise, it would turn the country disarm the Yankees.

Besides these obvious reasons, based on game theory, there are also moral reasons: what moral authority the United States has to tell a country that can not develop nuclear weapons? They have them, have used many politicians calling for return to use, and maintain a policy of imperialism and violence. This completely discredits them to require nuclear disarm any nation.

Additional note: Israel, the country that destabilizes peace in the Middle East, also has the atomic bomb, and many of their politicians have repeatedly proposed use against Islamic countries, including Iran, which further justifies the need for Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Wording About Friends



The "liberals" defend to the death of migratory processes occurring in recent years. Provide arguments in its favor as to enrich our culture as recipients, you have to be in solidarity with disadvantaged people, and so on. Closer look at who the main beneficiaries of migration.

First we must analyze why migrations occur. Migration processes are the result of territorial imbalances. These imbalances are caused by a number of issues, such as the history of each region, the historical processes of colonization and the modern history of nations. A key factor today is the neo-colonization. Neocolonialism is to withdraw troops from the colony, the colony is to pretend that independent, but keep the multinationals that are stealing from their indigenous resources. Probably the influence of multinationals on developing countries is the main cause of this underdevelopment. Given the relative impoverishment of their nation, citizens have the need to migrate most promising places.

Let us see how the migration harms or benefits to the various parts:

(1) A simplistic mind would say that the immigrants themselves are benefiting from the migration process. Not long ago we had to emigrate. When our parents and grandparents went to France and Germany in search of a better life, leaving behind their homeland and their family, they did with great joy. They were forced to, and emigration was a dramatic situation in their lives. Some immigrants, no doubt, will get to make his fortune in Europe and they will be worth the sacrifice. But most do not. Bolivia has recently lost an arm while was exploited by unscrupulous people. Have you benefited from migration? What about the hundreds of immigrants who drowned in the Strait? And those who are exploited by employers without heart? And those who are bankrupt and have to resort to prostitution or crime? No, the migration is not a happy process for immigrants, and they are the first casualties of this situation, having to leave his family and his country, and because the situation are not exactly rosy.

(2) The host country's workers are obviously affected by immigration. In a country with unemployment rates in Spain are with an increase in labor demand, in addition to the situation where immigrants are willing to work for less money. Thousand Euros for slashing poverty English, but a fortune for a sub-Saharan. Many demagogues say immigrants do the work that the English will not do. This, in general, not true. Immigrants do the work for wages that the English are not willing to admit. I put two examples. When he started the boom of the greenhouses in the Campo de Dalias, the first day workers who benefited were the inhabitants of the Alpujarras. But then farmers discovered Almeria cheap labor in Morocco. Now they are replacing the Moroccans and Romanians to be working cheaper. When the season comes the apple or grapes in France, thousands of English laborers traveling to past. Do not say that the English liberals do not want to work for day laborers? Of course, the salary they receive in France is a decent wage, while in Spain farmers operators have to resort to immigrants, which almost always have in subhuman conditions. In addition, more and more immigrants are taking jobs in all career fields, including high-paying fields or recognized. I know Colombians who have come to Spain to work for dentists! So this fallacy of "Progressive" breaks down completely.

(3) The desperation of immigrants often leads them to resort to crime. English brothels are full of foreign prostitutes, drug trafficking is controlled by foreign mafias, the vast majority of the robberies the foreign comment, including a murder rate worrying (including by male violence) are caused by foreigners. Obviously, this leads to insecurity and disgust the public. No wonder the far right has risen in the last election and I predict it will continue to rise.

(4) Among the great benefits of migration are local entrepreneurs, as the madman who recently threw away the severed arm of a migrant worker who was in a state of semi-slavery. In Spain there are many more individuals of this type that people think. There are only looking to Almeria, a desert with double per capita income than the rest of Andalusia, the sweat of the Moroccans. I invite you to walk around the places where immigrants live in deplorable conditions, while the municipality of El Ejido spent a fortune in bringing the Rolling Stone. Just as the wealth of Catalonia has been built by the sweat of Andalusia and Extremadura, which then accused of stealing the money. This is what they refer to the PSOE cynical politicians when they say that immigration brings wealth, wealth for the exploiters of unsuspecting immigrants.

(5) But surely the main beneficiaries of migration lie in the country of origin. The dictators in power and the multinationals, the first responsible for the poverty that drives migrants to leave their country. Migration works as a safety valve for social pressure generated by the poverty in these places. Just as the emigration of thousands of English helped solidify Franco on his throne, the immigration of citizens from around the world helps many other dictators like Mohamed VI, held in Morocco French and English multinationals. It also helps the multinationals who are in these countries, exploiting cheap labor and primary resources. The business is round for capitalism: send a multinational country, exploit its people and steal their resources with the support of the dictator, and thereby generate poverty forcing people to come to Europe, where they face other entrepreneurs to exploit and justify reductions in wages for local workers.

The height of impudence comes, as always, by the Social Democrats. On the one hand, the lords of the PSOE defend stealing English multinationals abroad, and other open doors to immigrants for their operation in situ, meanwhile, displayed his hypocrisy, speaking of solidarity and alliance of civilizations. C'mon, it's as if I go into neighbor's house, stole everything he has, then I invite you into my home to work as a servant in exchange for part of what he stole. The international game of capitalism, in which "liberals", willingly or unwillingly, play a key role in the propaganda "solidarity." True solidarity is to help these people to overthrow dictators and boycott the multinationals that exploit them.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Wet Cm When Period Due

Brief note on the economic advantage of communism versus capitalism

Imagine a company with 100 employees who are paid 1000 euros a month. This company should generate a profit of 100,000 euros to pay the salaries of employees, if not, it is not profitable. But it must also generate profits to pay the interest the bank has transferred the loan to the entrepreneur. You should also generate benefits to the employer. Thus, although the element producing the workers, the company also powers businessman and bankers. The employer can play a productive work as a director or manager of the company is also required. But in any case, the banks, who control the money, and therefore the economy, achieved a profit for doing nothing, which is paid by the sweat of workers and the employer, especially in SMEs. What work met banks in the capitalist economic system? They are simply a flight of capital that is not reciprocated for any type of production. That is, just steal the entire working class (proletariat, freelancers and small businesses).

imagine the same company in a communist system. In this system there is no entrepreneur, but there may be a foreman or manager who meets the necessary part of their work. But most importantly, no bank. Thus the surplus of product that was literally stolen by the bank, may impact on the workers themselves in several ways: (1) cheaper product, with consequent benefits for consumers, (2) reduction of working hours necessary with consequent benefits for the workers, (3) goodwill consumed before the bank can be used in an increase in staff (both have less working hours, keeping the same productivity), which would benefit society by reducing unemployment.

In the capitalist system, the real owners of the productive elements are banks, the "yield" to entrepreneurs in exchange for a hearty economic incentive. In a communist system would society as a whole, the yield to the union workers to perform their work productively, without asking anything in return, except for depreciation of productive elements. Why communist systems have failed supposedly rooted in a number of elements: (1) Replace capitalism with state capitalism, not a true communist. (2) could not cope with the harassment by the capitalist bloc. (3) Instead of replacing unhealthy competition of capitalism by a healthy competition, eliminated completely. It is important to maintain a level of competence for products and improve the means of production in technological terms. (4) The loss of individual freedoms (especially freedom of expression) four maneuverability of society to find a better model.

Currently, the failure of capitalism could not be more obvious, but unfortunately, the capitalist propaganda has done very well their work, and barely heard voices that suggest a shift towards the socialist model toward a model without banks being robbed.

Revealing Black Pencil Skirt



500 years ago Columbus landed in America. The name of Columbus comes in handy, as it has become the first European to set foot on this continent, ignoring the fact that contrasted Leif Eriksson came to America 500 years before him. Immediately , the Crown of Castile (not Spain, which did not exist as such) began the conquest of this new world. There were many brave men, or rather desperate , they pressed for hunger. And thanks to advances technology of the time, managed to take over the continent. The Spaniards were mixed with the natives to a greater or lesser degree, and were born Creoles and mestizos. The Creoles completed taking over the land of the Indians, who became second class citizens, and still remain in many American countries.

Then came the nineteenth century . The local bourgeoisie realized that they would be better if they stopped paying their taxes to the Crown. And the French invasion took to cut the umbilical cord with the metropolis . Today, the descendants of the English who were there are still the masters of the land snatched the Indians, who see how they steal their livelihood, as is happening right now in Peru. The bourgeois revolution Latin America, like all bourgeois revolutions, is involved in a series of lies that the American people swallow as truth, even many Indians and mestizos.

First, the current citizens of America, mestizos and creoles mostly considering their genuine owners deliberately ignore the Indians.

Second, in Latin America , take the role of indigenous people and talk about who were conquered by the English, when Actually they are the conquerors . Probably , many English people on the peninsula we are descended from those who did NOT make Americas, but the creole whites control the economy and politics of the American continent, they are descended from the ancient conquerors . At the height of the outrage, accusing us of what their ancestors did.

Third, define the English as demonic and evil beings who committed serious crimes against humanity. Leaving aside that their ancestors did, the prosecution lost completely historical perspective. First, it was Castile and not Spain, the nation that conquered America. Secondly, what did the conquerors at that time was not a crime against humanity, a concept that did not exist. (It is as absurd as accusing the Romans of wild because people threw to the lions.) Assume that if they were the Aztecs or the Incas who had come to Europe, rather than invade have given us flowers, belongs to a quite childish mentality. The conquerors were neither heroes nor villains, just people fighting for their livelihood under the command of Castilian nobles greedy, and they won a war because they had technological advantage. The Cofan , for example, are a Native American village that was submitted by the Incas, and when the Spaniards invaded the Incas, the "liberated" from their oppressors inadvertently. Yet there are tribes where anyone who comes no more killed him, before asking if he came in peace. So the Indians were not about santitos , and if we analyzed from the perspective of those who act more current human rights, may lose out.

Fourth: We are accused of having destroyed their culture. In all cases, indigenous culture, not of the Creoles and mestizos, whose culture is born directly clash of civilizations . The liberals claiming this here in Spain, however, different from the Arabs believe that we invaded, claiming that enriched us with their culture. Let's see if we self-flagellate. It is true that there was a lamentable acculturation of the American people, but also a cultural enrichment, just as Arabs we have enriched us, as Romans, Carthaginians , Germans and other peoples who have gone through here. Why we are proud of our heritage and believe "bad" cultural enrichment happened in America? The Romans also acculturated to Iberians and Celts, and by no means consider the demons.

Fifth: We talk to enslaved the Indians. First, this is false, at least in the literal sense. The Indians were being exploited by big landowners (the ancestors of Creoles hypocrites who now claim that), like the English they were in Spain. And there were a genocide like by the British North America, and they mingled with the English, the result of which the large number of mestizos there today.

funny thing about these and other lies propagated by the white Creoles of European descent is when you hear from the mouths of Indians and mestizos. He once tried unsuccessfully to make them see their error, the fallacy of many statements, but it was like talking to a wall, having the mind completely washed. But the strangest thing was when they did, there never had been deprived of "the English yoke, and that their countries were still ruling whites, descendants of Iberian conquerors, who were the actual owners of land seized from their Indian ancestors. Then the discussion turned violent, I guess because I gave very near the target (pun said).

Fortunately, there are likely to change in America. Evo Morales, a genuine Indian Bolivia rules, opposed by the local bourgeoisie. Hugo Chávez , a mestizo, governs Venezuela, also opposed Creole. And there will be even more the Indians and mestizos who have a voice on the continent. Do not think they should expel the natives (let alone kill them, as happened in Mozambique ), as already part of their country. But it must end its position of power. It is time that Indians really regain control of their own country and ends with the domain "English." But for this, the Indians have to get rid of bourgeois lies, awakening from their slumber and realize that their enemies are not English conquerors, who have long raised purple, but their descendants, who still control the country and the neo-colonizers , mainly Americans, but also English, such as Telefónica, Banco Santander, Repsol or .

for the release of the American people, and nationalization and socialization of resources! Outside multinational !