UNO, DOS, TRES, CUATRO, CINCO, SEIS, SIETE, OCHO, NUEVE, DIEZ...

UNO, DOS, TRES, CUATRO, CINCO, SEIS, SIETE, OCHO, NUEVE, DIEZ...
"EL CAPITALISMO NO ES NADA MÁS QUE UNA EMPRESA DE LADRONES COMUNES DISFRAZADA DE 'CIVILIZACION' QUE EXTENDIÓ, IMPERIALÍSTICAMENTE, A ESCALA GLOBAL, UN 'SISTEMA' (ECONÓMICO, POLÍTICO, IDEOLÓGICO Y SOCIAL) PARA LEGALIZAR Y LEGITIMAR CON LEYES UN ROBO MASIVO Y PLANETARIO DEL TRABAJO SOCIAL Y DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES, ENMASCARADO DE 'ECONOMÍA MUNDIAL' ". Manuel Freytas



"UN SISTEMA ECONÓMICO CRUEL


AL QUE PRONTO HABRÁ

QUE CORTARLE EL CUELLO"

¡ QUÉ GRAN VERDAD !
PORQUE FUÉ ESE MISMO
SISTEMA ECONÓMICO CRUEL,
PRECISAMENTE,
¡ EL QUE LE CORTÓ EL CUELLO A ÉL !


Saturday, April 20, 2013

II.- El Maraton de Boston y el Corredor de Fondo, George W. Bush


                                                           
                                                     


La Filosofía de la Sospecha fue propuesta por Paul Ricoeur en su libro «De l’interprétation. Essai sur Freud» (1965), y ha sido realizada desde entónces para describir el carácter común del pensamiento de Marx, Nietzsche y Freud, que, bajo la sospecha de que "lo-que-aparenta-ser-no-es", usaron la proporcional metodología epistemológica para quitarle la careta al iceberg de un 'status quo' donde la parte visible no refleja en absoluto lo que cubren bajo sus sucias y pestilentes aguas.

Los filósofos de la sospecha ponen al descubierto el engaño y la estafa de la sociedad tradicional-burguesa sobre el horizonte de la mejora del individuo y del sistema que pasa por la transformación de la sociedad (Marx) y por la destrucción de todo cuánto impide a los seres humanos expresar su auténtica naturaleza (la alienación en Marx, el nihilismo en Nietzsche o la represión de los instintos sexuales en Freud).

Los ejes de la sospecha son básicamente cuatro:
la religión, la política, la sociedad y la ética.

Y, en éste caso, tomando el eje de la política,
y aún corriendo en el Maraton de Boston,
en ésta II Parte, preguntamos:

¿Por qué, en medio de tantas explicaciones amarillistas
y de todos los colores del arcoiris sensacionalista
de la industria del entreteni-miento y el especta-culo
de la pinaculada burguesa,
no se nos explica y se nos dice
cuales son los concretos elementos
en los que se basa la "sospecha"
de que los hermanos chechenios
fueron realmente los autores de los bombazos
en el Maraton de Boston?

¿No es una sospechosa coincidenccia,
dada la historia ya establecida al respecto
en el "vientre del monstruo"
--palabras de José Martí,
que no era ni musulman ni comunista--
de que los citados hermanos pertenecían
--uno ya fue asesinado-- y pertenecen
--el mal herido-- a la religión de bin Laden?

¿Por que mataron al hermano mayor?
¿Para que no hablara?
¿O es que nos van hacer creer,
como a estúpidos,
de que carecen de medios
para atrapar a alguien vivo?

¿No ha sido tejida toda ésta tramoya
para predisponer al ya dañado y manipulado
cortex cerebral del rebaño a reinforzar
el "dogma teológico"
de que "todo el mal en el mundo
viene de los musulmanes
y de los ayatolás" que, por cierto,
ya están incluídos en la próxima
lista de los "Exógenos Maratones"
 a bombardear y conquistar"?


¿Ha sido todo ésto montado por los mismos
que fabricaron la estúpida e infantil trama
de hacernos creer que la CIA y el FBI
no tuvieron nada que ver
con el asesinato de Kennedy? 

Preguntamos.
Preguntamos nada más.
Sólo estamos interesados en sospechar.

Siguíendo siempre la Filosofia de la Sospecha,
único camino para ver si profundizando y reflexionando
de ésta manera podremos algún día
desenterrar los putrefactos cuerpos de los delitos
que oculta ésta Criminal Clase Dominante Imperial
en sus bien selladas tumbas,
en esos "sepulcros blanqueados",
como los llamaba Cristo,
dónde esconden todos los cadáveres
de sus fechorías internas --y externas--
como aquellas Torres Gemelas y el Edificio 7
que se auto-destruyeron para justificar
el ir a bombardear y conquistar las lineas de meta
de los Maratones en Afganistan e Iraq
...y los de  tantas carreras como han ensangrentado
a lo largo del mundo sin que se les dé
la misma publicidad
que le otorgan ahora a los hermanos chechenios
erigidos ya en productos de consumo
del mórbido pathos de éste grotesco carnaval
que constantemente necesita
de ésta clase de 'comida' para mantener
saludable la adecuada necrofília general.
 
Y de ahí que ésta  Sospecha 
se haga totalmente legítima,
legítima y racional.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BOSTON TRUTH: The “Chechen Connection”, Al Qaeda and the Boston Marathon Bombings


“False Flags”

The 19 year old suspect is being used as a patsy. He was not even born in Chechnya. While he and his brother had no connection to the jihadist movement, the US media is carefully crafting a “Chechen Connection” pointing to an inherent behavioral pattern associated with Muslims:
 
The brothers spent 10 years in the U.S. during a formative period of their lives, exhibiting normal behavior for first-generation immigrants, said Mitchell Silber, a former intelligence official in the New York Police Department.
 
“The question is, what catalyzed the change? Was it Chechen nationalism? Did it start with Chechen nationalism and somehow migrate to a pan-Islamist jihad cause?” (Renewed Fears About Homegrown Terror Threat,” WSJ April 20, 2013)

There is evidence, however, from the testimony of family members that the Tsarnaev brothers were on the radar of the FBI for several years prior to the Boston bombings and were the object of recurrent threats and harassment.

Confirmed by the Wall Street Journal, the FBI had “interviewed” Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011. (Ibid)
What is abundantly clear is that the US government is not committed to fighting terrorists.
Quite the opposite. US intelligence has been recruiting and grooming terrorists for more than thirty years, while at same time upholding the absurd notion that these terrorists, who are bona fide CIA “intelligence assets”, constitute a threat to the American Homeland. 

These alleged threats by “An Outside Enemy” are part of a propaganda ploy behind the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT).

What is the Truth?

The development of an Islamist terrorist militia in different countries around the World is part of an intricate US intelligence project.

While the Tsarnaev brothers are casually accused without evidence of having links to Chechen terrorists, the important question is who is behind the Chechen terrorists?

In an utterly twisted logic, the protagonists of the ‘Global War on Terrorism” directed against Muslims are the de facto architects of “Islamic terrorism.”

The “Global War on Terrorism” Mindset

The “war on terrorism” mindset builds a consensus: millions of Americans are led to believe that a militarized police apparatus is required to protect democracy. Little do they realize that the US government is the main source of terrorism both nationally and internationally.

The corporate media is Washington’s propaganda arm, which consists in portraying Muslims as a threat to national security.

At this juncture in our history, at the crossroads of global economic and social crisis, the Boston bombings play a central role.

They justify the Homeland Security State.
The evolving US Police State is thereby upheld as a means to protecting civil liberties. Under the guise of counter-terrorism, extrajudicial killings, the suspension of habeas corpus and torture are rightfully considered as a means to upholding the US Constitution.

At the same time, the terrorists –created and supported by the CIA– are used to participate in “False Flag” terrorist acts with a view to justifying the conduct of a global military crusade against Muslim countries, which so happen to be major oil producing economies.

“Massive Casualty Producing Events”

Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq in 2003, had outlined a scenario of what he described as “a massive casualty producing event” on American soil, (a Second 9/11) . Implied in General Franks statement was the notion and belief that civilian deaths were  necessary to raise awareness and muster public support for the “global war on terrorism”.
 
“[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.” (General Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003, emphasis added)

While the Boston bombings are of an entirely different nature to the “catastrophic event” alluded to by General Tommy Franks, the administration appears, nonetheless, to be committed to the logic of “militarizing our country” as a means to “protecting democracy.”

The Boston events are already being used to galvanize public support for an extended domestic based counter-terrorism apparatus.

The latter would be implemented alongside extrajudicial assassinations against so-called “homegrown self radicalized terrorists”:
 
“U.S. counterterrorism policy has since 2001 focused largely on killing terrorists overseas or preventing them from getting into the U.S. But the Boston bombings show how the diffusion of terrorist tactics easily transcends borders. Countering small groups of individuals inside the U.S. can be a bedeviling assignment.
 
Bruce Riedel, director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, said the Boston attack was likely a harbinger. “We are likely to see this as the future face of terrorist threats to the United States,” he said, adding that the case of a small number of radicalized participants who have lived in the U.S. and execute a plot is “the counterterrorist community’s worst nightmare, homegrown, self-radicalizing terrorism that learns its skill set off the Internet.” (WSJ, April 20, op cit)

The “terrorist massive casualty-producing event” was upheld by General Franks as a crucial political turning point.
Do the Boston Bombings constitute a point of transition, a watershed which ultimately contributes to the gradual suspension of constitutional  government?

No comments:

Blog Archive