Maricori’s European flop

That’s Euro-deputy Willi Meyer, talking to Telesur about the latest unwelcome incursions of a certain crappy politico from Venezuela. Not content with her epic fail in Panama’s seat at the OAS, and her pitiful attempt to get back into her former parliamentary seat in Caracas, Maricori has found a new outlet for her increasingly desperate frustrations:

Willy Meyer, the vice-president of the External Affairs Commission of the European Parliament, rejected yesterday’s visit by Venezuelan ex-deputy María Corina Machado, which was part of her agenda to discredit the government of Nicolás Maduro and promote foreign interference in Venezuela.

Meyer lamented that space had been given in this instance to Machado, whom he characterized “as having taken a putschist step and who is always inspiring violence, instead of promoting a poltical dialogue.”

“It is inadmissible to use the Parliament and the External Affairs Commission to give a platform to putschists, who incite violence,” Meyer said.

In an interview with Telesur, Meyer called Machado’s speech a media circus, and questioned to commission for permitting the ex-deputy to participate in the European Parliament.

Meyer also denounced that with this tour of Europe, María Machado is seeking support from the right-wing and the “troika” formed by the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the European Community.

Translation mine.

So Maricori hasn’t yet given up trying to convert Venezuela back to the imperial system, and she’s going straight back to the imperial roots in Europe to try to drum up support for her failing efforts. On the bright side, she’s had no success in the Americas, beyond Washington and Miami (and, shamefully, Panama); everyone else has been shutting their doors and plugging their ears the moment they saw her long face coming.

No word on how the Troika received her. Probably they’re too embarrassed to talk about it; I would be, in their collective shoes.

Ex-CIA agent reveals how Venezuelan “students” get putschist training

Entrevista a Raúl Capote

Who is this man, and why does the CIA fear him? Because they thought he was one of theirs, and it turns out he’s quite the opposite. And now he’s spilling the beans on them. Read on:

Raúl Capote is a Cuban. But not just any Cuban. In his youth, he was caught up by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). They offered him an infinite amount of money to conspire in Cuba. But then something unexpected for the US happened. Capote, in reality, was working for Cuban national security. From then on, he served as a double agent. Learn his story, by way of an exclusive interview with Chávez Vive, which he gave in Havana:

Q. What was the process by which you were caught up?

It started with a process of many years, several years of preparation and capture. I was leader of a Cuban student movement which, at that time, gave rise to an organization, the Saiz Brothers Cultural Association, a group of young creators, painters, writers, artists. I worked in a city in southern-central Cuba, Cienfuegos, which had characteristics of great interest to the enemy, because it was a city in which an important industrial pole was being built at the time. They were building an electrical centre, the only one in Cuba, and there were a lot of young people working on it. For that reason, it was also a city that had a lot of young engineers graduated in the Soviet Union. We’re talking of the last years of the 1980s, when there was that process called Perestroika. And many Cuban engineers, who arrived in Cuba at that time, graduated from there, were considered people who had arrived with that idea of Perestroika. For that reason, it was an interesting territory, where there were a lot of young people. And the fact that I was a youth leader of a cultural organization, which dealt with an important sector of the engineers who were interested in the arts, became of interest to the North Americans, and they began to frequent the meetings we attended. They never identified themselves as enemies, or as officials of the CIA.

Q. Were there many of them, or just always the same person?

Several. They never presented themselves as officials of the CIA, nor as people who had come to cause trouble, or anything.

Q. And who do you suppose they were?

They presented themselves as people coming to help us and our project, and who had the ability to finance it. That they had the chance to make it a reality. The proposal, as such, sounded interesting because, okay, a project in the literary world requires that you know a publisher, that you have editorial relations. It’s a very complex market. And they came in the name of publishers. What happened is that, during the process of contact with us, what they really wanted became quite evident. Because once they had made the contact, once they had begun frequenting our meetings, once they began to promise financing, then came the conditions for being financed.

Q. What conditions did they demand?

They told us: We have the ability to put the markets at your disposal, to put you on the markets of books or sculpture or movies or whatever, but we need the truth, because what we’re selling in the market, is the image of Cuba. The image of Cuba has to be a realistic one, of difficulties, of what’s going on in the country. They wanted to smear the reality of Cuba. What they were asking is that you criticize the revolution, based on anti-Cuba propaganda lines, which they provided.

Q. How big was these people’s budget?

They came with an infinite amount of money, because the source of the money, obviously, we found out over time from whence it came. For example, there was USAID, which was the big provider, the overall contractor of this budget, which channeled the money via NGOs, many of them invented just for Cuba. They were NGOs that didn’t exist, created solely for this type of job in Cuba, and we’re talking thousands and thousands of dollars. They weren’t working on small budgets. To give you an example, at one time, they offered me ten thousand dollars, just to include elements of anti-Cuba propaganda, in the novel I was writing.

Q. What year are we talking about?

Around 1988-89.

Q. How many people could have been contacted by these people, or captured?

In reality, their success didn’t last long, because in Cuba there was a culture of total confrontation with this type of thing, and the people knew very well that there was something behind that story of them wanting to “help” us. It was nothing new in the history of the land, and for that reason, it was very hard for them to get to where we were. In a determined moment, around 1992, we held a meeting, all the members of the organization, and we decided to expel them. They weren’t allowed to attend any more of our meetings. Those people, who were already coming in with concrete proposals, and also preconditioned economic aid they were giving us. What happened is that at the moment we did that, and rejected them, we expelled them from the association headquarters, then they started to particularize. They began to visit with me, in particular, and other comrades as well, young people. With some they succeeded, or should I say, they succeeded in getting some of them out of the country as well.

Q. What kind of profile were they looking for, more or less, if any kind of profile could be specified?

They wanted, above all at that time, to present Cuba as a land in chaos. That socialism in Cuba had not managed to satisfy the needs of the population, and that Cuba was a country that socialism had landed in absolute poverty, and which, as a model, no one liked. That was the key to what they were pursuing, above all, at that time.

Q. How long were you an agent of the CIA?

We were in this initial story until 1994. Because in 1994, I went to Havana, I came back to the capital and here, in the capital, I began to work for the Union of Cultural Workers, a union which represented the cultural workers of the capital, and I became more interesting yet to them, because I went on to direct — from being a leader of a youth organization with 4,000 members, to directing a union with 40,000 members, just in the city of Havana. And then, it gets much more interesting. Contacts followed. In that period there appeared a woman professor from a new university who came with the mission of kick-starting the production of my literary work, to become my representative, to organize events.

Q. Can you give her name?

No, because they used pseudonyms. They never used real names. And that type of work, promoting me as a writer, was what they were very interested in, because they wanted to convert me into a personality in that world. Promoting me now, and compromising me with them in an indirect manner. And then, in 2004, there arrived in Havana a person well known in Venezuela, Kelly Keiderling. Kelly came to Havana to work as Chief of the Office of Press and Culture. They set up a meeting. they arranged a cocktail party, and at that party I met with 12 North American functionaries, North Americans and Europeans. They weren’t only North Americans. All of them people with experience, some also inside the Soviet Union, others who had participated in training and preparation of the people in Yugoslavia, in the Color Revolutions, and they were very interested in meeting me. Kelly became very close to me. She began to prepare me. She began to instruct me. I began to receive, from her, a very solid training: The creation of alternative groups, independent groups, the organization and training of youth leaders, who did not participate in the works of our cultural institutions. And that was in 2004-5. Kelly practically vanished from the scene in 2005-6. And when I started to work, she put me in direct contact with officials of the CIA. Supposedly, I was already committed to them, I was ready for the next mission, and they put me in touch with Renee Greenwald, an official of the CIA, who worked with me directly, and with a man named Mark Waterhein, who was, at the time, the head of Project Cuba, of the Pan-American Foundation for Development.

This man, Mark, as well as directing Project Cuba, had a direct link to Cuba, in terms of financing the anti-revolutionary project, as well as being involved in working against Venezuela. That is, he was a man who, along with much of his team of functionaries of that famous project, also worked against Venezuela at that time. They were closely connected. At times it took a lot of work to tell who was working with Cuba, and who was not, because many times they interlocked. For example, there were Venezuelans who came to work with me, who worked in Washington, who were subordinates of the Pan-American Foundation and the CIA, and they came to Cuba to train me as well, and to bring provisions. From there arose the idea of creating a foundation, a project called Genesis.

Genesis is maybe the template, as an idea, of many of the things going on in the world today, because Genesis is a project aimed at the university youth of Cuba. They were doing something similar in Venezuela. Why? The idea was to convert universities — which have always been revolutionary, which have produced revolutionaries, out of those from which many of the revolutionaries of both countries came — and convert them into factories for reactionaries. So, how do you do that? By making leaders. What have they begun to do in Venezuela? They sent students to Yugoslavia, financed by the International Republican Institute (IRI), which was financed by USAID and by the Albert Einstein Institute, and sent them, in groups of ten, with their professors.

Q. Do you have the names of the Venezuelans?

No, we’re talking of hundreds being sent. I spoke with the professor, and watched one group and followed the other. Because they were working long-term. The same plan was also in place against Cuba. Genesis promoted, with in the university, a plan of training scholarships for Cuban student leaders and professors. The plan was very similar. Also, in 2003, they prepared here, in Havana, a course in the US Interests Section, which was called “Deposing a leader, deposing a dictator”, which was based on the experience of OTPOR in removing Slobodan Milosevic from power. And that was the idea, inside the Cuban university, to work long-term, because these projects always take a long time in order to reap a result. For that reason, they also started early in Venezuela. I believe as well — I don’t have proof, but I believe that in Venezuela it began before the Chávez government, because the plan of converting Latin American universities, which were always sources of revolutionary processes, into reactionary universities, is older than the Venezuelan [Bolivarian] process, to reverse the situation and create a new right-wing.

Q. Did the CIA only work in Caracas?

No, throughout Venezuela. Right now, Genesis has a scholarship plan to create leaders in Cuba. They provide scholarships to students to big North American universities, to train them as leaders, with all expenses paid. They pay their costs, they provide complete scholarships. We’re talking 2004-5 here. It was very obvious. Then, those leaders return to university at some time. They’re students. They go to end their careers. Those leaders, when they end their student careers, go on to various jobs, different possibilities, as engineers, as degree-holders in different sectors of Cuban society, but there are others who go on constantly preparing leaders within the university. One of the most important missions of the university leaders was to occupy the leadership of the principal youth organizations of the university. In the case of Cuba, we’re talking about the Union of Communist Youth, and the University Student Federation. That is, it was not to create parallel groups at that time, but to become the leaders of the organizations already existing in Cuba. Also, to form a group of leaders in the strategies of the “soft” coup. That is, training people for the opportune moment to start the famous “color revolutions” or “non-violent wars”, which, as you well know, have nothing to do with non-violence.

Q. What were they looking for in a professor, in order to capture them?

Professors are very easy. Identify university professors discontented with the institution, frustrated people, because they considered that the institution did not guarantee them anything, or didn’t recognize their merits. If they were older, even better. They didn’t specify. Look for older persons, so you can pick them. If you send a scholarship plan, or you send it and, first crack, they receive an invitation to participate in a great international congress of a certain science, they will be eternally grateful to you, because you were the one who discovered their talent, which has never been recognized by the university. Then that man you sent to study abroad, if you’re from his university, and participating in a big event, and publish his works, and constructing him a curriculum. When that person returns to Cuba, he goes back with a tremendous curriculum, because he has participated in a scientific event of the first order, has passed courses from big universities, and his curriculum reaches to the roof, then the influence he could have in the university will be greater, because he could be recognized as a leading figure in his specialty, even though in practice the man could be an ignoramus.

Q. And how effective were these types of captures, that type of missions they came to accomplish here?

In the case of Cuba, they didn’t have much of a result. First, because there was a most important reason, because I was the one directing the project, and I, in reality, was not an agent of the CIA, I was an agent of Cuban security, and so, the whole project passed through my hands, and they thought I was the one who would execute it. And the plan always passed through the work I was able to do, and what we did was slow it down as much as possible, knowing right away what was being planned. But just think, the goal of their plan, they were calculating for the moment in which the historic figures of the Revolution would disappear. They were figuring on a five- or ten-year term, in which Fidel would disappear from the political scene, and Raúl, and the historic leaders of the land. That was the moment they were waiting for, and when that happened, I was to leave university, with all the support of the international press and that of the NGOs, USAID, and all the people working around the CIA’s money, and that there would arise an organization which would present itself before the light of the public, as an alternative to what the Revolution was doing. That is what was to have happened with the Genesis Foundation for Freedom.

Q. What is that Foundation?

The Genesis Foundation for Freedom was to have a discourse, apparently revolutionary, but the idea was to confuse the people. The idea is that they would say they were revolutionaries, that what they wanted was to make changes in the government, but, when it comes to practice, when you get to the essence of the project, when you ask yourself “What is the project?” the discourse was, and the project was, exactly the same as those of the traditional right-wing. Because the changes they promoted, were the same that the right-wing, for a long time, has been promoting in the country. In practice, they almost had their big opportunity, according to their criteria, in 2006, when the news came out on TV that Fidel, for health reasons, was stepping down from his governmental responsibilities, and they have always said that the Cuban Revolution would die when Fidel died. Because the Revolution was Fidel, and on the day Fidel was no longer there, either by dying or leaving government, the next day the Revolution would fall. And they calculated that there would be internal confrontations, that there would be discontent with this or that. Calculations that I don’t know where they got them from, but they believed it. And in that moment, they believed that the time had come to act.

Q. We’re talking about 2006. What was the plan?

They called me automatically. We met, the CIA station chief and I, here in Havana. Diplomatic functionaries also showed up, and one of them said to me, we’re going to organize a provocation. We’re going to organize a popular uprising in a central neighborhood in Havana. There will be a person going there to rise up for democracy, and we’re going to execute a group of provocations, in different locations, in such a way that Cuban security forces will be forced to act against these people, and later we’ll start a big press campaign and start explaining how all of this will function. The interesting part of that, what really caught my attention, was this: How was it possible that a functionary of the US Interests Section could have the power to call upon the principal media, and that those people would obey with such servility? It was really attention-getting. The idea was — and I even told them this — what you’re telling me is just crazy. This man you mentioned to me, called Alci Ferrer — the guy they picked, a young agent, a doctor — they picked him to be the ringleader of the uprising. I told them, that guy won’t budge anyone. No one is going to rise up in the centre of Havana. The date they picked was none other than Fidel’s birthday, and they told me that day! And I said, Look, buddy, if that man, on that day, decides to go make proclamations, or to start some kind of uprising in the middle of Havana, the people are going to respond harshly. It’s even possible that they might kill him. Why, how could you put him in a humble working-class neighborhood to start those things, the locals…And he told me, flat out, the best thing that could happen for us is if they kill that man, it would be perfect, and they explained to me what would happen. All he had to do was provoke. They would go into the street, and there would be a clash there. If that happened, the press would do the rest, and they told me, we’re going to start a huge media campaign to demonstrate that there is chaos in Cuba, that Cuba is ungovernable; that in Cuba, Raúl is unable to hold the reins of government; that the civilian population is being killed; that students are being repressed in the street, and the people in the street, that the police are committing crimes. What a resemblance to Venezuela! It’s not a coincidence. It’s like that.

Q. So, what was supposed to happen in those circumstances?

Once all the opinion matrices were created, and all the media matrices had constructed that image, the whole world was supposed to have the image of Cuba as a great disaster, and that they’re killing the people, that they are killing them all. Then, my organization was to complete the final task.

Q. What was the final task?

Well, to gather the international press, in my capacity as a university professor, and as a writer, and as a leader of that organization, that I go out publicly to ask the government of the United States to intervene in Cuba, to guarantee the lives of the civilians and to bring peace and tranquility to the Cuban people. To speak to the country in the name of the Cuban people. Just imagine that!

That plan fell apart on them. It gave them no result, but as you could see, later, the way the war in Libya went, and the way it was set up. More than 80% of the information we saw, was fabricated. They’re doing the same in Syria, and they’ve done the same in Ukraine. I have had the opportunity to converse with a lot of Ukrainians, since they were in the bases. People in favor of uniting with Europe. I tried to talk with them these days. Trying to find out, what are those processes like? And they were surprised at the images which were transmitted around the world. What happened in Miami, and they themselves said so, but we’ve been protesting there, but those things that appear on TV, that was a group, or rather, there were sectors, there were places where there were right-wing groups, of the very far right, where there were incidents of that type, and where they burned things, but the greater part of the demonstrations didn’t have those characteristics. Or that this is, once more, the repetition of the scheme, using all the communication media.

Q. The relationship between the CIA and the embassies, in the respective lands, are they direct, then?

Yes, completely direct. In every embassy in Latin America, all the US embassies have CIA officials, working within them, using the façade of diplomatic functionaries.

Q. From what you know, is there a greater CIA presence in the region?

Well, at a certain moment, Ecuador was a major power in that, it had a strong concentration of them, and of course, Venezuela, because in 2012, when I attended the Book Fair in Caracas, all those people who had worked with me against Cuba, all the CIA officials, including Kelly Keiderling, were in Caracas at that time. And I was on a TV show, on VTV, where we talked about this subject, being very careful, because we were talking about two countries who have relations. That’s not the case with Cuba, or rather, Cuba has no relations with the United States. That’s a declared enemy. But we were talking about functionaries who had diplomatic relations, and it was very awkward to do it, without having concrete proofs you could present. However, the interview happened, and the denunciation was made of what was going on. Kelly Keiderling is an expert in this type of war. I have not the slightest doubt. When one follows the itinerary she has, in the countries where she’s been, and when I was in that type of conflict.

She has toured a series of countries in the world where very similar situations have occurred, like what she tried to do in Venezuela. And when you analyze Venezuela, and what has happened nowadays and the way in which she has acted, I think that in Venezuela, the characteristic that has been that they are tremendously aggressive in the manipulation of the information. Tremendously aggressive. To the point where you say it’s a blunder, because there are images which are so obviously not from Venezuela. I saw a very famous one, in which a soldier appears with a journalist, with a camera.They are Koreans. It’s an image from Korea. They’re Asian. They don’t look like Venezuelans at all. Also, the uniforms they wear. They’ve been very aggressive with that image which has projected what’s going on in Venezuela to the world. The greater part of the world’s people, this image is the one they’re seeing, of what they’re trying to say.

Q. They control the media. Do you know any case of any journalist which has been, as you have seen, known or unknown, which you have seen in the process of training?


Q. CNN, for example?

No, there was a guy who had a lot of ties to me at the time here, who served as a link for meeting an official from the CIA., Antony Golden, of Reuters. But, all right, he was an element independent of Reuters. CNN has always been very closely linked to all these things. CNN, from its first moments of operation, above all this latest step, and above all, CNN en Español, has been an indispensable tool for these people, but the problem is that you have to understand one thing: to understand what’s going on, and to be able to mount a campaign, you have to understand that nowadays, there is no TV station that acts on its own. There are the conglomerates, and the communications conglomerates — who directs them? Because, for example, Time Warner and AOL, and all those big communications companies — cable TV, movie TV, TV in general — who is the boss, in the end? Here it’s Westinghouse, there it’s General Electric. The same who build warplanes, the same US arms industry, the same people who are the owners of TV networks, movie studios, publications, book publishers. So, the same guys who produce warplanes, the cookie you’ll eat at night, that presents an artist to you, are the same who rule the newspapers of the entire world. Who do these people answer to?

Q. When you see what’s happening in Venezuela, and you compare it with what you did here [in Cuba], what conclusion can you draw?

It’s a new strategy, which they’ve been developing based on the experience they’ve had all over the world, but I see, I’m convinced, that they’ve only gotten results when people in those places don’t support the revolution. They managed it with Milosevic, because Milosevic was a Yugoslavian leader whose image had fallen far, thanks to things that happened in Yugoslavia. The same happened in Ukraine, because Yanukovych was a man with very little popular support, and it has given results in other places where the governments had little support from the people. Wherever they have a legitimate government, a solid government, and people disposed to defend the revolution, the plan has failed on them.

Q. And what phase do they enter when the plan fails?

They’re going to keep on doing it, they’ll go on perfecting it. We are the enemy. That is, Venezuela, Cuba, everything going on in Latin America as an alternative. We are the dissidents of the world. We live in a world dominated by capitalism. Where that new capitalist way of being dominates, so that now one can’t even call it imperialist, it’s something new, something that goes way beyond what students of Marxism wrote in history years ago. It’s something new, novel. It’s a power, practically global, of the big transnationals, of those megalopolies they’ve created. Therefore, we are the enemy. We are presenting an alternative project. The solution that the world proposes to us, is not that. We know how to do it, and Cuba, Venezuela, the ALBA countries, have demonstrated that it can be done, that one or two days more are nothing. The Cuban revolution has been in existence for 55 years, and with political will, it has achieved things that the US government, with all the money in the world, has been unable to do. So that’s a bad example.

And I’ve told my students: Can you imagine that the Indignants in Spain, the thousands and millions of workers out of work in Spain, that the Greeks, that all those people in all the world, know what we’re doing? Can you imagine that these people get to know who Chávez is? Or who Fidel is? Or of the things we’re doing here? Or the things we’re doing with so few resources, only the will to make revolution and share the wealth? What will happen to capitalism? How much longer will capitalism last, which has to spend billions of dollars, every day, to build its image and fool the people? What would happen if the people knew who we really are? What is the Cuban Revolution, really, and what is the Venezuelan Revolution? Because, if you talked to a Spaniard and asked him about Chávez, and he gives you a terrible opinion of Chávez, because it’s what they’ve constructed in his mind/ And you meet an unemployed person who tells you that Chávez is a bad guy, because the media have convinced him of that, but if these people knew how things really were! So they can’t allow that such formidable enemies as ourselves should be there, at the door.

Q. From the viewpoint of the national sovereignty of our people, how can we stop the CIA? We’ve already talked about the consciousness of the people, which is fundamental in these types of actions, but, in the concrete, how does one foresee the CIA’s work? What can be done? What recommendations do you have?

I think of a thing that Chávez said, and that Fedl has always said, that is the key to defeating the empire, and that is unity. It’s not a slogan, it’s a reality. It’s the only way you ahve of defeating a project like that. A project that comes from the Special Services and from capitalism. One can only do it with the unity of the people.

Q. Are we talking about the civilian-military?

Yes, unity in all senses. Unity based in diversity, in the peoples, but unity as a nation, unity as a project. Wherever the people are divided, there is another reality.

Q. Where do they have to concentrate? In what area must they concentrate forces to defend us from this type of actions, this type of attacks?

The army to defeat that is the people. I believe that the Cuban experience has taught that very well. There are experiences in the world which mark you very clearly. What has happened in the world, when the people have not been protagonists in defence of the Revolution? And when the people have been protagonists, what happened? And there’s the case of Cuba. We have managed to defeat the CIA and the empire millions of times, because the people have been the protagonist.

Q. Does the CIA use the databases of the social networks, and that sort of thing, to define their plans?

They’re the masters. They’re the masters of that. Fine, there are the denunciations of Snowden and all that has come out of Wikileaks, and all those things that are no secret to anyone, because we suspected, but it’s been demonstrated. It’s been demonstrated that the servers, the Internet, are theirs. All the servers in the world, in the end, die in the North Americans’ servers. They are the mother of the Internet, and all the networks and services are controlled by them. They have access to all the information. And they don’t hesitate to record it. Facebook is an extraordinary database. People put everything on Facebook. Who are your friends? What are their tastes, what movies have they seen? What do they consume? And it’s a source of firsthand information.

Q. Have you been in contact with Kelly Keiderling, after what happened in Venezuela?

No, I haven’t had contact with her. I don’t know what was her final destination, after what happened (she was expelled from Venezuela for meeting with and financing terrorists).

Q. With the experience she has, how far was she able to penetrate into Venezuela, and Venezuelan universities?

I am certain that she got quite far. She’s a very intelligent agent, very well prepared, very capable, and very convinced of what she’s doing. Kelly is a person convinced of the job she is doing. She is convinced of the justness, from her point of view, of what she is doing. Because she is an unconditional representative of capitalism. Because she comes from capitalism’s elite. She is organic of the actions she is doing. There is no contradiction of any kind. And, based on the experience of her work, of her capability, I am sure that she managed to get very far, and gave continuity to a job which is not just for now, it’s a job she will go on doing for a long time, to reverse the process in Venezuelan universities. What’s going on is that up to whatever point they can reach, in the long term, that is what will show the Bolivarian process, in the measure of which the people are aware of what could happen. If that fascist right wing becomes uncontrollable, it could get into power again.

Q. What kind of person who has contacts, who could reach the people, such as by being an activist in a movement, could be captured by the CIA?

They will find them, they will try to do it. If it’s a young person and a leader, they will try to capture them for their interests. We have to train our leaders. We can’t leave that to spontaneity, we can’t leave that to the enemy. So, if we leave them to the enemy, those are spaces which the enemy will occupy. Any alternative project that we leave unattended, any alternative project that we don’t realize the necessity of getting close to, that is a project that the enemy will try, by all means, to take advantage of. Using the enormous amount of money they have for that, which has no limits, in terms of resources to be used, because they are playing with the future and, above all, the young are the key.

The good thing is that the young are the present of Latin America. The Latin American revolution which is there, which is everywhere, is of the young. If not, fine, it will never have results, and if you manage to make young people think differently, if you succeed in getting these youngsters to believe that savage capitalism is the solution to all their problems, then there will be no revolution for Latin America. It’s that simple.

Translation mine.

So we can see that the same pattern which is currently playing out in Venezuela, exactly parallels that of Cuba. The CIA was not above a little human sacrifice then, and it still isn’t now. Then, it was this unlucky fellow named Alci Ferrer, who would very likely have been killed if Raúl Capote had not spoken up to inform them that the plan was crazy, that it could not work. Now, in Venezuela, it’s Leopoldo López…or would have been, had the Venezuelan authorities — yes, the same bunch of Bolivarians he hates so murderously — not saved his life by informing him of the plot to sacrifice him, and not taken him into custody before that could happen. The CIA were perfectly willing to take this expensively educated upper-class darling of theirs and throw him to the dogs. And then they would have blamed it all on the Bolivarians, just as surely as they would have blamed Alci Ferrer’s intended death on the Castroites in Cuba. That’s what’s so sickening about all of this: They have infinite money and resources to educate any “leader” they care to cultivate, and they’re still perfectly willing to let that person die, if it can somehow be made to further their twisted cause.

And of course, we see a lot of already-known suspects emerging from the woodwork: USAID, the IRI, and the same CIA agents operating in Venezuela as tried to corrupt Raúl Capote in Cuba. Would it surprise anyone terribly to see the same people who corrupted Serbia, Croatia, etc., now at work in, say, Ukraine? Or at the very least, the same fascist connections and strategies? Because those same have actually tried it before, in Bolivia in 2009, and failed. Evo and his parliamentarians are still alive, thanks to some good shooting on the part of the local federal police, and an investigation which turned up mercenaries who not only trained in the Balkans, but actually came from there, had fought there in the 1990s…and who were well enough experienced, or so their handlers thought, to turn Bolivia into another former Yugoslavia.

And would it surprise anyone to see how the financing for those ex-Balkan mercenaries came from the coffers of the CIA, via the so-called ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg? Indeed, would anyone be surprised anymore to learn that all so-called US diplomats are, in fact, CIA spooks? And that they are the key to how the CIA does all its dirty work, wherever it can be found?

Nah…didn’t think so!

Daniel Cohn-Bendit and the German Greens’ pedophile problem


“I stand for sex with children! How about you?”

Meet Daniel Cohn-Bendit. He’s a long-standing, high-ranking member of the German Green Party, as well as the Green faction chief in the Europarliament. And he’s also a major component of its Achilles’ heel: the pedophile contingent, which during the 1970s and ’80s was active in trying to wipe out two paragraphs of German criminal law, specifically those dealing with “sex” between adults and children. You’ll notice I put the word in quotation marks. There’s a good reason for that. You’ll see it soon enough, if you don’t already. Meanwhile, let’s talk a bit more about Herr Cohn-Bendit and the ever-spreading toxic stain he is.

For the past week or so there’s been hard talk about bombing Syria. Bashar al-Assad stands accused of using sarin gas on his own people. Evidence now points to the so-called Syrian rebels, who have al-Qaida ties and are financed and armed by the Saudis and the US. They are a most unsavory bunch. But since Bashar is the designated scapegoat in certain pro-war circles, that’s all been swept under the rug. And in a twist of very strange irony, one of those sweepers is Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who gave an interview to Der Spiegel in which he too beats the war drums, and rails against the “cheap anti-Americanism” of those opposed. It’s not the first time he’s done so, either; right there in the first lines of the interview, Cohn-Bendit shows himself to be the greenest warhawk in Germany:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You were the first Green to call for western military action in the Yugoslavian war [over Kosovo]. Now the Syrian dictator, Assad, has very probably used chemical weapons against his own people. Can the west take that without a military response?

Cohn-Bendit: Assad has overstepped a symbolic boundary. That has to be avenged. But the reaction of the west must be embedded in a political strategy.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you against a punitive action that shows Assad that he has overstepped a red line?

Cohn-Bendit: A punitive action without political strategy would be wrong. But the west has to mobilize militarily. As a prerequisite — either for a military strike or to force a cease-fire and end the bloodshed.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Should Germany also take part in that militarily?

Cohn-Bendit: Yes, the federal government should participate in preparation for a military action with other EU countries.

Translation mine.

I find his phraseology extremely interesting: “overstepped a symbolic boundary”. They accuse Assad of genocide without concrete proof (and the hard evidence, embarrassingly, points the other way), so of course the boundary is merely “symbolic”. Meanwhile, in his own past, Daniel Cohn-Bendit repeatedly overstepped a very real boundary, and remains unpunished for it to this day.

“When a little girl of five or five and a half years old starts to undress you, that’s fantastic. It’s fantastic because it’s a game, an absolutely erotic-manic game.”

With this sentence on a French talk show in 1982, Daniel Cohn-Bendit wanted to provoke the public, in order to stand in the light he regarded so highly, that of the taboo-breaker. He didn’t quite succeed. None of the other guests in the program reacted with any recognizable upset, no one wanted to rein in the chubby-cheeked thug. Even in the press you never read any critical commentaries afterward. The public reacted quite similarly seven years before on the stunning, meanwhile famous-infamous passages from Cohn-Bendit’s “Le Grand Bazar” — not at all.

And why? Among French intellectuals, calls for punishment-free sex with children and adolescents fell on fertile ground. It was “another time”, as Le Monde wrote, somewhat shamefacedly, years later. Eve this reputable paper gave considerable leeway in the 1970s to the pedophilic circles, while the left-republican Libération attested to a “genuine social mission” in sex with children, as historian Anne-Claude Ambroise-Rendu noted in retrospect.

When, in January 1977, three men were facing trial over charges of sexual crimes against 13- and 14-year old children, various intellectuals, including Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Louis Aragon, Catherine Millet, André Glucksmann, Jack Lang, and Sarkozy’s future foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, declared solidarity with them. That was just “the times”, and thus, Cohn-Bendit too is trying to exculpate his then declarations: “The sexual debate knew nothing of sexual abuse.” The sexual-freedom impetus sailed in the years after 1968 in the lee of disappointment over the missing political revolution. So the prophets of fundamental change settled on self-reform, on pedagogy, on the emancipation of individuals from the pressures of a bygone, clerical and bigotry-soured class society. That was the jargon of the day. As always in times of deep political disappointment, the hopes fell on the not-yet-corrupted mindset of youth, now even that of children. Pedophilic affection advanced in the ferment of everyday upheaval, coexistence, and liberating love. So it was in France. Thus they experienced it, most particularly, in the Netherlands. And thus did a part of the German “New Left” also develop.

Translation mine.

Here’s the interview (not embeddable, sorry), in French with German subtitles, where Cohn-Bendit raves to his host, Paul Guth, about sex with children. He sounds pretty stoned, which stands to reason; he also brags that he ate hash brownies a short time before he went on air. (The Greens were also in favor of legalizing soft drugs.) Apparently the dope not only loosened his tongue, it got him to proudly reveal things most people would keep a deathly silence about, even if they were not personally ashamed of having done them. That is, most people who’ve actually perpetrated child sexual abuse. Not he! He seems to revel in having done not only that, but in bragging about it.

But here’s the thing: This man truly doesn’t see that what he did there WAS abuse, just because no physical force was involved. His definition of what’s abusive is remarkably narrow, and takes no account of what happens years down the line, when sexually abused children become emotionally disturbed adults. So convinced is he that what he did was not wrong that he even tried to get the laws against it struck off the books in the name of the Sexual Revolution.

And for a while there, it looked as if Germany might go his way. Alice Schwarzer, editor-in-chief and publisher of EMMA, Germany’s leading feminist magazine, knows the dark side of Daniel Cohn-Bendit all too well. She has been watching him and his ilk for decades now, presciently warning of the dangers of their plans, and she recounts:

It was the Greens who, at their second party congress in 1980, were already debating the striking-down of Paragraph 176, which levied punishment for sex with children under 14 years of age, as well as that of Paragraph 174, against sexual abuse of minor wards of the state.


On the basis of §176, which punished child sexual abuse with up to 10 years’ imprisonment, according to Der Spiegel, some 20-25,000 perpetrators a year were sentenced. Considering that this is just the tip of the iceberg — because most child victims are too confused, intimidated or dependent to fight back — then you get an idea of the magnitude of the crime.

Even non-pedophilic men — that is, those whose desire is not compulsively fixated on prepubescent children — were already frequenting the “kiddie stroll” of Zoo Station [in Berlin], or flying to Thailand or Mexico, in order to buy children even more cheaply there. The women at home had become just too inconvenient — and the children were not so available anymore.

Translation mine.

I caught the tail end of those “revolutionary” but in fact counter-revolutionary times when I started reading grown-up German magazines around age 12 or so. I even read Christiane F.’s now famous “Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo” (“We Children of Zoo Station”), a firsthand account of teenage prostitution and heroin addiction on the streets of West Berlin, published in two parts in the magazine Stern. (It was later republished in book form.) It was a harrowing read. A lot of the words were unfamiliar to me, but the meaning was clear enough. I was appalled that anyone would do such things to helpless children, especially girls not much older than I was. If I ever had to credit any cautionary tale with keeping me off drugs and out of trouble, that’s the one. (Amazingly, Christiane F. is still alive, and in 2008 she gave this interview at age 45. This despite a decades-long battle with addiction and HIV. She finally got off heroin in 1993, and she has a teenage son whom she credits with giving her the strength to do so. My hat is off to her; she is a survivor in the fullest sense of the word.)

The idea that anyone would want to normalize and legalize sex, and specifically commercialized sex, with children of any age, is appalling. The realization that more than one prominent German Green who did advocate for just that is still on the loose and sitting in the Europarliament? Disgusting. And the fact that this monster is squatting there, beating the drums for war against Syria? Well, let’s just say that even I don’t have a bad enough word for it in my extensive vocabulary. In no sense does Daniel Cohn-Bendit have any moral right to condemn other countries or their politicians. What he’s done in Germany, and to Germany, is bad enough without him dragging the country into yet another horrific war. And if the Greens care about being electable, they’d do well to jettison him…and all his fellow Old Greens who beat the drums for legalized pedophilia, back in “another time”.

A few random thoughts on women’s sexuality


“Feminine psychology is at times twisted: They have created in us the conviction that all the bad things in the world are lying in wait, trying to sneak in on us from between our legs.”

–Laura Restrepo, Colombian writer.

Lupita Domínguez sent me that quote this morning, so muchas gracias, hermana. She also asked what I think of it, and since I realized my reply would probably be too long for Facebook, here it is:

I have a hunch Laura Restrepo is being a bit sarcastic and mocking here, and she’s quite right. Not all the bad things in the world are trying to get into us ladies from between the legs. Some of them are trying to get into us via our eyes, ears, noses, mouths, hands, and hearts. Some are trying to get into us via our wallets. Some are trying to get into us via the media and the Internet. Some are trying to get into us via bad, simplistic books expounding all kinds of inane theories. There are a great many ways for trouble to find us, and sex is just one. So to reduce all female psychology to “what lies between the legs” is insulting and belittling, to say the least. We are more than just a vagina and a pair of breasts, and so is what’s on our minds.

Of course, there are guys out there who think we should be reduced in this fashion, and the more so, the better. They think our minds don’t matter, and that we should quit worrying about what we put into them, and turn them strictly to catering to Teh Menz. They’re calling themselves Men’s Rights Activists — oh, pardon me, Men’s Human Rights Activists, now. As though men have not been the only ones fully recognized as human throughout, oh, only all of human history. And their “human rights” activism seems to be take the form of things like this:


Yup, Man of the Year material right there.

I think what this guy’s really trying to say here is “You’re not supposed to like books, and you’re not supposed to write them, you’re just supposed to be a convenient hole for me to plug into. I’m the one who’s supposed to like books! I’m the one who’s supposed to write them! How dare you usurp my privileges!”

Reductio ad absurdum, anyone?

And then there’s Miley Cyrus’s performance from the other night. Those who say critics are only “slut-shaming” her are missing the point. What she did there was not so much expressing her own sexuality, but rather faithfully enacting a cartoonish exaggeration of what men assume women’s sexuality to be: a submissive pose, wiggling a tiny heinie, ever ready to be penetrated by all comers. Again, reductio ad absurdum. Plus a creepy Pedobear-ish costume, which at some point gets removed to reveal what is NOT real skin, but rubbery plastic with no nipples, no labia, no pubic hair — in short, nothing that actual women have. “Female Sexuality” à la Barbie. And this weirdly puerile sex show is supposed to be Miley’s signal that she’s a woman now? Whoopdefuckingdoo!

Of course, I might be missing some element of irony here. If she was actually sending up this whole cartoonish image of what female sexuality is supposed to be, according to men, media and porn, then I may have to rethink Miley altogether, and give her some credit for being a wry social commentator, and not just a performer making bank at a pretty damn douchey gig. That wagging tongue ought to have been planted firmly in cheek, rather than hanging out for all the world to gawp at like Gene Simmons’s ugly appendage. But I don’t think this was actually the case, more’s the pity. It could have been a great performance if there had only been some indication that this was a joke on rape culture, and that nobody is really like this, or should be. But there was no punchline. Instead, it was meant to be taken exactly for what it appeared to be: a young woman casting aside “girlhood” (symbolized by teddy bears) and embracing “womanhood” (symbolized by fake nudity, submissive pose, and grinding her ass on a fully-clothed, and very sleazy, Robin Thicke.)

It all reconfirms everything Laura Restrepo was saying: Everything seems to be waiting to crawl in on us through our vaginas. We are limited to the roles they compel us to play: virgin, mother, whore. Nothing else about us exists. Miley isn’t expressing her own sexuality (she still has a long way to go in discovering that, since she’s just 20); she’s expressing how our culture sees all female sexuality, and by extension, all females. And the fact that she combined twerking with teddy bears (very icky teddy bears) seems to suggest that we are nothing but sex toys, and that our sexual objectification starts very young. Especially black women, who seem to get appropriated along with everything else when it comes to “empowered” upper-class white women’s ostensibly de-Disnified “sexuality”.

The fact that sexual evils aren’t the only ones besetting us is conveniently swept aside by the sexualized narrative. Most women are dealing with economic disadvantages tailored to gender lines. Every day, that deck gets stacked against us a bit further. We’re still only paid, on average, 70 cents to a man’s dollar, our clothes cost more than men’s, and we’re supposed to buy more of them to keep up with the Joneses. There’s even talk of charging women higher health insurance premiums in the States, “because they have breasts”. We’re facing sanctions against abortion that are more restrictive than what prevailed in Victorian times. And student loan debts are leaving young people, women especially, financially crippled before their careers even begin.

And good luck trying to dig your way out of the financial hole without resorting to stripping or prostitution; those are the two most lucrative professions for women, and you can bet the pimps are taking note; in Germany they and the state have conspired between them to make sure the women get it coming and going. Brothels charge low flat rates for all the sexual servicing a client demands, no limits. And women who work there are expected to fork over not only a heavy percentage of their direct earnings (supposedly, to defray the cost of living in such a dump), but taxes to the state as well. And since a lot of them come from the poorest parts of Eastern Europe and are supporting families, well…you can do the math. Poverty prostitution actually has its own word in German: Armutsprostitution. Most prostitutes in Germany are not Germans; they are not free-spirited Happy Hookers doing it for love of sex, either, but impoverished immigrants who have run out of options — and in many cases, are trafficked as well. Their problems began long before they started working in the sex trade; money, not sex, is the way the ills of the world have crept up on them. Worst of all, many of them don’t make it out alive, and any dreams they had of better lives and meaningful work in non-sex professions have been yanked out from under them.

It seems to be only a matter of time before all of us find that our wallets are the main conduit between us and a similar fate. Lupita, who sent me that quote, knows it already, since need drove a lot of her friends from the Mexican nightclubs into stripping and prostitution. When I translated her book, one thing that leapt out at me was how many of them were forced into it by their own families. They are paying for their children’s food and clothing, their siblings’ educations, and their mothers’ houses. And they have to do so by taking money from strange men for acts that are often undignified.

And the worst indignity of all is that they have to deal with this double standard every day, every night, and pretend that it’s normal, and that they like it. The client gets to keep his suit on; the woman gets naked, or very nearly so. The power imbalance could not be more obvious. And neither is the twisting of psychology that says, on the one hand, that women’s bodies are “dirty”…but which, on the other hand, expects us to use them, and not our minds, to make the only living we are allowed to make, and to pretend that we are merely “exploring our sexuality”. We’re not supposed to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, scientists or politicians, ever; when we grow up, we’re supposed to be either wives or whores. Y punto.

Reductio doesn’t get more ad absurdum than that, does it?

Why Evo?


Further to my post from the other day, it seems that I’m not the only one who’s picked up on the not-so-subtle racism of the European countries who denied Evo’s plane the right to pass through their airspace. Venezuelan TV journalist Miguel Angel Pérez Pirela has also noticed it. Here are his thoughts on the matter:

Colonialism has long arms. It has been able to perpetuate itself for centuries.

I have to believe that 200 years ago, the Europeans did not accept the colossal defeats which the Haitians handed to the French, or the Bolivians and Venezuelans to the Spanish.

No doubt about it, gringo pressure played a fundamental role in the humiliation which they tried to foist on Evo Morales. But the Europeans would never have thought of this, had it not been about the first indigenous president from our continent.

That Evo Morales governs Bolivia is a slap in the face to the “good morale” of the north.

So we find ourselves confronted with an act of unprecedented racism. Racism which also contravenes international laws which those same Europeans use as an excuse to bomb villages.

Placing a South American president in danger of death in such a grotesque and shameless fashion evokes for us the massacres, violations and humiliations of every kind that European colonialism has subjected us to in our Latin America.

So, what should we do?

Right now, recognize the importance of the processes of our Latin American union and don’t forget that the only possibility we blacks, Indians, mulattos and whites of the southern world have for not returning to colonial times is to unite in the face of the Europeans who “think well” and act badly.

The UNASUR emergency meeting served to make Europe understand that if its integration via the European Union is economic, ours is ethical and political. Without any desire to be chauvinistic, but to affirm, without any room for doubt, that now, in South America, whoever messes with one of us, messes with us all.

If Evo Morales is the pebble in the shoe of European colonialism, then let us go on throwing stones at the “illuminated” and hypocritical windows of the north. As Mario Benedetti said: The South also exists. So let them pick up their broken glass panes.

Translation mine.

It’s a funny thing, is it not? Nicolás Maduro was in Russia at the same time as Evo, and at the same conference of gas-exporting countries. He has made clear his intention to shelter Edward Snowden if the latter should happen to request asylum in Venezuela (and he has). If anyone’s plane should have been stopped with demands for a search, it would have been Maduro’s. Yet four European countries denied Evo the right to pass overhead, and one — Austria — forced him to land, at the behest of the US ambassador to that country.

Since I keep hearing that Evo’s life was in danger, I gather that a shoot-down threat was uttered at some point, forcing a landing that would otherwise not have taken place. There was no search of the plane; that would have required a judge’s permission, and since the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, it had no right even to request the landing of Evo’s plane! So this incident is a pretty flagrant violation of international law, and Evo has that much on his side should he decide to sue. (I hope he does.)

So why, then, this brazen international crime? Why Evo and not Maduro?

It’s as obvious as the color of their respective skins. Maduro is white; Evo, brown. Maduro is of Spanish-Jewish extraction; Evo, Aymara. The one has roots in Europe; the other, the Bolivian Altiplano. This incident is, as Pérez Pirela makes clear, profoundly racist. Just as is the ongoing punishment, 200 years later, of Haiti’s successful slave revolts.

Of course, nowadays, no one in Europe or the US has the temerity to suggest that these little countries of Latin America and the Caribbean be re-enslaved outright, or their indigenous populations massacred without pity. That would never go over with any of their respective populaces, who have fought hard to expunge the stain of racism from their own hands. So now, it has to be done in an “enlightened” manner, with “aid to developing countries” that magically blossoms into unsustainable debts to the IMF and the World Bank, or a permanent foreign military presence that does nothing to make peace in that “ungovernable” land (which has been deliberately rendered so through coups against elected, popular leaders), never mind keep it. Or, if that avenue has been rejected (as is the case in Venezuela, and even more emphatically so in Bolivia), the knives come out in other, sneakier, quasi-legalistic ways. Like forcing a diplomatic incident over “confirmed information” that is nothing of the sort, say. Something shocking, distressing, humiliating — a direct affront to no less than the president of the land. Something that says, implicitly: You might be a popular, elected leader among your own people, but to us, you’re just a shitty Injun. And we will bat your plane around between our paws like a catnip mouse toy.

That such an incident — a diplomatic reiteration of the Shock Doctrine — will have unpleasant, unexpected repercussions for the “enlightened” racists who perpetrated it, may have been unthinkable to the perpetrators just a decade ago, but it’s inevitable now. Because now, the countries of South America are pulling together, as a political bloc. An injustice to one president is, as we have seen from the indignant responses of Rafael Correa, Cristina Fernández and others, an affront to them all. And the backlash, when it comes, will be dramatic. The US is about to find out, in the hardest possible way, that the region is out of its control, and that any efforts to reassert control will meet with more pushback than they can handle. Because when a region has 500 years of colonialist indignity behind it, the force of all that pent-up rage is greater than any neocolonialist could ever imagine.

Spanish twits laugh at Evo

This is simply disgusting.

They made fun of the kidnapping of Evo Morales at the hands of the Spanish government, one of the colonies of the European Union in the power of the United States. Nothing new in the Spanish media, since this sort of thing is common on every occasion.

The actors in this scene on Spanish TV appear in the following order:

Mamen Mendizabal, Miguel Ángel Aguilar, Daniel Montero, Rubén Amón, Alberto Carnero, Ana Ibáñez, Julio César Herrero, Graciano Palomo, Antonio Papell, Ángel Expósito, Bernabé Sánchez-Minguet José Hervás.

Translation mine.

Go ahead and giggle, silly EuroPeons. You’re all vassals and you don’t even know it. But Evo does, and so do I. And I’m sure we both feel the same mixture of pity and contempt for every one of you.

See the Injun fly the airplane?


In the 2006 documentary Cocalero, which shows how Evo Morales first became president of Bolivia, there’s a scene near the end where he and his campaign manager are boarding a small plane, flying over rugged terrain back to the capital city of La Paz after touring the country on election day. Evo teases the pilots about being afraid of rough weather, rather than imperialism, and reminisces about another such flight, where there was no one on board but him, his campaign manager and the captain. Evo actually sat in the co-pilot’s seat, and was allowed to fly the plane for a bit, with supervision. He mimes how he held the yoke, going up and down, turning this way and that, and his campaign manager mimes how he nearly had a heart attack at the prospect of losing both his future president and his life all in one fell swoop. Then they both laugh.

In Kurt Vonnegut’s 1990 novel, Hocus Pocus, there’s a scene where an air-show stunt pilot of yesteryear advertises his mad barnstorming skills. The sign reads, simply, “See the Nigger Fly the Airplane”. That’s it; nothing about his breath-taking, death-defying aerobatic feats. Nobody cares about those. His flying prowess is unimportant; he is, novelty of novelties, a black man flying an airplane.

Well, what is Evo if not, novelty of novelties, an indigenous man at the controls of a country?

Never mind that Bolivia is no longer Latin America’s poorest state, thanks to Evo. Never mind that it has clawed its way out of a deeper hole than the mine shafts of Potosí. Never mind that it has 100% literacy now. Never mind that they’re doing better at stopping the production and trafficking of cocaine since they kicked out the US DEA. Never mind that the Bolivian economy has been going nowhere but up since the decision was made to turf out USAID, too. None of this matters. Evo is an Aymara at the helm of a country, and that makes him, to paraphrase Vonnegut’s recurring tragicomic motif, a “nigger flying an airplane”. (Or, in Evo’s case, an Injun.)

And if there’s one thing white supremacists everywhere can’t stand, it’s a person who isn’t white, doing something only whites of super-duper-double-looper elite status are supposed to be able to do. The only thing worse, in their eyes, is if this insignificant little non-white person actually beats them at it.

And Evo has been doing that ever since he was elected. Like Chavecito before him, he came from poverty and from brown skin and indigenous heritage, and landed right in the pilot’s seat of the plane. Nobody saw that coming! Nobody but the people who helped put him there, that is. And, in the eyes of Washington, Europe and white elitedom, those people are also nobody.

So what happens when a nobody becomes a somebody, despite the color of his skin, and without making the slightest effort to lighten it, conceal it, or apologize for it? All the knives come out; he must end up like Patrice Lumumba. The US has had it in for Evo since even before he was elected; the campaign against him, as Cocalero shows, was dirty. Lots of fear and talk of lost jobs, specifically in the export-related industries that do a lot of business with the US. And lots of dirty talk on other levels, too: At Viru Viru airport in Santa Cruz, a white man starts yelling at Evo, calling him a “shitty Injun”, and claiming Evo’s very presence there is an “insult”. And a white woman, her voice quaking with fear and indignation, says he should go back to the Chaparé, and build his own airport there, because (in her words) “he doesn’t like us either”. But Evo, who has clearly heard all this a thousand times before, doesn’t react. Cooler heads prevail.

And yet, the heads of the indignant racists are supposed to be the superior minds, even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Evo has scarcely gone a day of his political life without some racist or other making irrational assumptions about him based on the color of his skin, the shape of his features, and the fact that he makes no effort to downplay his dirt-poor origins. The fact that he wears no conventional suit or tie is a terrible insult to white sensibilities, which would rather ignore the aguayo, the poncho, and the coca-leaf garlands Evo prefers. The idea that his native culture is something to be proud of flies in the face of 500 years of Spanish-American imperialism. The fact that it survives at all, despite all efforts to exterminate it, is a terrible threat to homegrown cambas and whites from the Northern Hemisphere alike. It is proof that their effort to colonize everything has failed.

So it’s not really such a surprise that Evo’s plane got barred from flying over several European countries. Edward Snowden, who was not on that plane (he is still in Russia) is just a red herring. It’s the idea of an indigenous head of state, flying over their heads, that’s the real “terrorist” threat. (The fact that the “sovereign” Europeans’ strings were being pulled by Washington is not mentioned in polite company.)

Nothing about Evo, or his plane, was ever a threat to any part of Europe or their way of life. But the tyranny of a good example, set by an Aymara showing that South American natives can govern themselves, without any more debt-heavy neoliberal “help” from foreign imperialist powers? Not to be tolerated. And if he can’t be brought down any other say, he will have to be trivialized and humiliated to death.

As Kurt Vonnegut might say, “See the Injun fly the airplane?”



Really. What more can I say when Evo Morales, of all people, has been denied permission to overfly four European countries, just because some nimnul thinks that Edward Snowden might be on board his plane (and he isn’t)?

Or when the president of Argentina has this on her Facebook page?

I’m back from La Rosada. Olivos, 9:46 p.m. They tell me President Correa is on the phone.

“Rafael? Give me the call.”

“Hi, Rafa, how are you?”

He replies something between angry and upset. “Don’t you know what’s going on?”

“No, what’s happening?” I’m all out to sea. Unusual, because I’m always alert, and vigilant. But I’ve just gotten back from a meeting.

“Cristina. They detained Evo with his plane, and they won’t let him leave Europe.”

“What? Evo? Evo Morales detained?” Immediately his latest photo comes to mind, him in Russia with Putin, Nicolás Maduro, and other heads of state.

“But what happened, Rafael?”

“Several countries revoked permission for him to fly, and now he’s in Vienna,” comes the reply.

They are all definitely out of their minds. A head of state and his airplane have total immunity. This degree of impunity cannot be.

Rafael tells me he’s going to call Ollanta Humala, urgently, for an emergency UNASUR meeting.

I call Evo. On the other end of the line, his voice responds calmly: “Hello, comrade, how are you?” Did you catch that? He asked me how I was doing!

He has thousands of years’ worth of civilization on me. He tells me the situation. “I’m here, in a little room in the airport, and I won’t let them check out my airplane. I’m not a crook.” Simply perfect. Stay strong, Evo.

“Let me call the Foreign Ministry. I want to see jurisdiction, Treaty and Tribunal. I’ll call you back,” I say.

“Thanks, comrade.”

“Hello, Susana.” That’s Susana Ruiz Cerruti, our expert in international legal matters for the Foreign Ministry.

She confirms that Evo has absolute immunity by customary right, received by the Convention of 2004, and the Hague Tribunal. If Austria doesn’t let him go or wants to check his plane, they have to appear before the International Court in The Hague, and ask.

Yesss! A precautionary measure. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You know what precautionary measures are for.

Fine, let’s see if we can send some judge from here. Mother of God! What a world!

I call Evo again. His Ministry of Defence is taking notes. In Austria it’s 3 a.m. They’re going to try to talk with the authorities.

I talk with Pepe Mujica. He’s indignant. He has a right to be. It’s all very humiliating.

I talk to Rafa again. He tells me that Ollanta is going to call an UNASUR meeting. It’s 12:25 in the morning. Tomorrow is going to be a long, hard day. Stay calm. They won’t win this one.

Translation mine.

So there it is. Snowden is NOT on board, and Evo is rightly pissed that anyone would even think as much. And now all of South America is up in arms over it. And rightly so. The asylum request went through proper channels in Ecuador, that much I do know. It’s still under review. For Evo to do something like this would be unbelievably rash. And that’s not Evo’s style. He may be a badass with more cojones than a roomful of his European counterparts combined, but he’s not an impulsive or a stupid one.

And according to Pepe Escobar, Evo has just had clearance (from France and Portugal) to fly wherever the fuck he likes, so obviously those cojones paid off.

Fucking EuroPeon chickenshits. And their fucking overlords in Washington, too.

PS: And the backlash has already begun:


Oui! Oui! Wee-wee!

PPS: And now Italy has also caved. That leaves Spain as the last holdout.

Press freedom under threat again in Venezuela and Ecuador

Press freedom is deteriorating rapidly in South America. Two politicians — one from Venezuela, one from Ecuador — attack a Dutch reporter for asking critical questions:

Ha, ha, whoops. That didn’t happen in South America. It happened in Europe — Brussels, to be exact. The politicians were not from Venezuela and Ecuador, but from the Czech Republic and Italy. And here’s what went down, according to a German business news site:

EU delegates are paid strictly according to their achievements. If they are present for a sitting, they get “day money”. This is to cover their accommodations and expenses for one day. For every day that the delegates are physically present in the EU Parliament, in either Brussels or Strasbourg. In order to confirm that they were in Parliament — perchance, to work there — the delegates have to show up on the spot and sign in.

In practice, the politicians have found a very efficient form of presence: Many EU delegates only go into Parliament for a short time, formally announce themselves, and then disappear again. For this, they collect 300 euros “day money”. That works out to 1800 euros an hour, when you take into account that the whole process takes just ten minutes, elevator trips up and down included.

The taxpayer has to carry these costs. Any colleague in private business would say it was betrayal.

A Dutch journalist, Tom Staal from GeenStijl, went to Brussels not so long ago, in order to see if this method, criticized for years, was still in effect.

He got lucky fast.

The Czech delegate, Miroslav Ransdorf, of the European leftist party GUE, and the Italian delegate, Raffaele Baldassare, of the European People’s Party, are two such fine examples — of those who shamelessly cash in on taxpayers’ money without working for it.

First the Dutch journalist met up with Miroslav Ransdorf. He had just come in to Brussels from the Czech Republic, shown up in Parliament, and left a few minutes later. His apartment is just a few hundred metres from the parliament building. When Staal confronted him with it, Ransdorf walked away. “But you just pocketed 300 euros, without having done anything, and now you’re going again. You only just arrived, you signed in, and then you go,” Staal added. Ransdorf hit the microphone, trying to fend off the journalist like a pesky insect, and played dumb: “I have no idea what you’re here for” — and kept going. “I work here,” said Ransdorf a little later. “Is it normal for someone who works to show up at six o’clock in the evening and then leave again at five after six?” the Dutch reporter persisted. “Isn’t that unfair to the other EU citizens?” He got no reply; the Czech delegate vanished behind the door of a house.

Staal got no explanation at all from the Italian delegate, Raffaele Baldassare. “We saw how you just signed in, and it’s 6:30 p.m. Isn’t that a little late to show up for work?” Staal asked. Baldassare went into the Parliament with his suitcase at 6:30, and left a little later. “I don’t understand,” Baldassare replied, in English. Because he understood full well that he’d been caught, he later replied only in Italian. As Staal repeated himself several times, the same answer came. Three times Staal asked the question, then tried to follow Baldassare into the elevator. That’s when Baldassare went off on him, trying to throw him out by force, hitting at him and not letting go.

Translation mine.

Can you just imagine what the media would say if this happened in Venezuela or Ecuador, though? The IAPOA would be on it like a duck on a junebug. They’d be jumping down the throat of Nicolás Maduro — or Rafael Correa — and calling them commie-fascist strongmen and thugs, and accusing them of censorship, interfering with the freedom of the press, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

But since this was just a couple of crummy Europarliament deputies, one a nominally leftist Czech and the other a conservative Italian, well…it’s kind of hard to blame Bolivarian socialism for that. So the whole thing gets no mention in the anglo-whore media at all.

I’m really trying to muster up the energy to yawn at this, but somehow I just can’t even do that anymore.

Cuban “dissidents” get a taste of Spanish capitalism


A Cuban woman being evicted from her home in Spain. Scenes like this are becoming more common as Spain’s economic woes deepen. They’re also putting the bitter lie to the idea that a capitalist economy spells more freedom, as one Cuban family found out the hard way after no longer being able to pay their own rent:

A man and a woman have been detained by the Spanish national police after opposing the eviction of a family of five Cubans from their home in Alicante for not paying the rent as of last July.

Police sources indicated to the EFE press agency that the detainees, also Cuban, have been transferred to the Commissary of Benalua, accused of “assaulting agents of authority, resistance, and disobedience”, and state that two police officers have been “slightly injured” during the eviction.

The incident occurred when police intervened to speed up the eviction of a family composed of two dissident Cubans and their three children, two of them minors, from their home in the area of Gran Vía and Novelda Avenue.

At the time the police tried to enter the house, about a hundred people, most of them members of the group “Stop Evictions”, who had been gathered around the block, sat down on the ground to prevent them from entering.

The police began to remove the demonstrators, who had locked arms and legs for greater resistance, so that many of them had to be removed as a string.

There was a moment of heightened tension when the agents removed a disabled person who was participating in the demonstration in a small adapted vehicle. The demonstrators then began to advance on the agents, hurling insults.

The police also removed one of the daughters of the evicted family, a minor, by force, causing bruises to one of her hands.

When the agents gained access to the door, there was a struggle with the persons inside, resulting in several broken windows to the door.

Finally, the police entered the home of the family, who began to empty the house of their personal belongings and bring them to the street, assisted by members of the “Stop Evictions” group.

“We won’t stay in the street, nor will they take our children to Social Services, because I am a mother, and I didn’t come to Spain to have problems with the justice system,” said the mother of the family, Ismara Sánchez, to the media, minutes after having to vacate her home.

The family moved to Spain in 2011, thanks to a plan in which the Catholic church and the Spanish government collaborated to evacuate various political dissidents from Cuba.

According to a friend of the family, Juan Francisco Marimón, this plan brought 600 Cuban families to Spain, promising them a residency and work permit for five years, and economic aid of some 300 euros a month.

Marimón said that the family enjoyed subsidized protection in Spain as “political refugees”, since they belonged to a “national civic movement” in Cuba, for which they had been “incarcerated for seven and a half years.”

“When we came to Spain, the ambassador himself told us that as long as we didn’t find jobs here, they would give us economic aid from the European Fund for Refugees,” said Marimón.

However, the evicted family could not find work in Spain, and stopped paying the rent on their home last July, which was the reason for their eviction.

Translation mine.

The irony of the situation could not be more clear. These unfortunate souls were “evacuated” from Cuba after allegedly being imprisoned for belonging to an anti-communist movement of some sort (which one is unknown at this time). If they thought they could find more freedom (or at least, more money) in Spain, they have been harshly disabused of that notion by the bankers of the European Union, who, like their landlords, couldn’t care less that they were not able to pay their own way. In the end, these celebrated “dissidents” became just one more economic burden on the cash-strapped Spanish state. And so in the land of capitalist “freedom”, they once again find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Along with a great many Spaniards…who, ironically, may be taking a fresh look at communism and socialism now that capitalism has proved itself unable to keep its own promises. And who, if they still remember what Spain was like in Republican times, might well be feeling some nostalgia for those pre-Civil War days…or even eyeing Cuba with sighs of envy. Because the problems of Spain are threatening to become worse than anything Cuba has ever seen since the Revolution, and even the terrible Special Period is starting to pale by comparison…

¡Cuba y España…nunca se engaña!