LAS ELECCIONES EN ESPAÑA DEL 20 DE DICIEMBRE FUERON UN ENGAÑO Y UNA FARSA

                                

                                               

 

Spain has Fallen 

--not like Greece--

but Fallen all the Same

By Peter Koenig

December 22, 2015 "Information Clearing House" -  

 

The Spanish elections – 20 December – were a deceit and a farce.

 

Nobody seems to notice. At least not those concerned, the ignorant electorate, those who will suffer again possibly under a new neoliberal Rajoy leadership.

 

People forget and are vulnerable to propaganda and lies and manipulations through the bought media in Europe as much as in the US.

 

And this in Spain of all places, where unemployment is still hovering around the 20% – 25% mark, with youth unemployment around 50%, and where an average grad student coming out of university earns on average 1,000 euros or less per month, if he can find a job; hardly a liveable wage.

 

Others have to survive on monthly incomes in the 500 to 800 euro range. Spain, a country like Greece, where neoliberal troika policies cut minimum wages, pensions, increased retirement age, privatized the health system – and are at the verge of privatizing education.

 

Spain, a country where the ruling Partido Popular (PP) was and still is involved in horrendous corruption scandals all the way to the top, as was widely divulged earlier this year even by the mainstream media.

 

Does it not seem absurd that in this miserably down-trodden Spain, the largest single block of people are no more awake than voting again for their hangman?

 

Maybe they are awake, but stunned of the results and are too tired from working for peanuts than ‘wasting’ their scarce spare-time to investigate election results, analysing how elections could have turned out the way they did:

 

The arch-conservative neoliberal PP winning a majority of parliamentary seats – 123 (28.7% of votes), though a far cry from the absolute majority (176) and a drop of 64 seats from 2011; the PSOE (Socialist Party) coming in with 22% and 90 seats (down 20), its worst result ever; the up-and-coming PODEMOS – gaining 69 seats (20.7%); and the new center-right Ciudadanos Party winning 40 seats (13.9%), the latter two from basically zero in 2011.

 

Forming a new Government with these fractured election results will not be easy. While the new Congress is normally responsible for choosing the new Prime Minister, in the present divided Spain it is likely that King Felipe will have to intervene, negotiating with the leading parties to propose a candidate that suits them all.

 

This process starts officially on 13 January 2016, when the new deputies are sworn in and the speaker is selected. If the Monarch’s suggested candidate doesn’t get an absolute majority in the first round, there will be a second round of voting 48 hours later, where the proposed candidate must only receive a majority of the cast votes. Failing this, new elections will have to be called within two months.

 

This would be a first in Spain’s history.

The socialists have already said they would not support the incumbent, Mariano Rajoy. But will they stick to their promise?

 

The 2015 Spanish elections beg two questions: First, how come that in the traditional two-party system, suddenly four parties emerge, three of which of almost equal strength, PP, PSOE and Podemos, and the fourth, Ciudadanos rapidly growing. Together they accumulate 322 of the 350 seats, or 85.3%.

 

The two new ones, Podemos and Ciudadanos (also called C’s) grew from basically nothing in March 2014, some 18 month ago, to take a total of 109 parliamentary seats, almost one third of all seats.

 

That is unheard of anywhere in the western world.

 

This coincides with the time when in Greece Syriza started making headways.

 

Second, how come that in a country where 80% to 90% of the population suffered misery and social hardship from the neoliberal PP-imposed austerity programs – still vote with a considerable majority for the party that punished them?

 

Is this the Stockholm syndrome, or what?

Is there perhaps something else behind it?

 

Spain was ruled by fascist General Francisco Franco for 39 years, from 1936 to his death in 1975. Out of the Civil War (1936-1939) grew an authoritarian, nationalistic fascist party, the Falangistas. They became Franco’s official ruling party in 1939. The Falangistas were instrumental in commandeering death squads and ‘disappearances’.

 

After WWII Spain was internationally considered a pariah state due to her fascist and oppressive government and was kept out of the UN, the Marshall Plan and NATO. Nevertheless, in 1953 Washington tempted by the peninsula’s strategic situation entered into an alliance with Franco by signing the Pact of Madrid. It was a calculated step for the US to establish military bases which guaranteed America’s support for the dictator – who was also a fierce opponent of the Soviet Union. Spain was admitted to the UN in 1955 and eventually seven years after Franco’s deaths, in 1982, Spain became the 15^th NATO member.

 

During Franco’s reign, the Falangistas solidified as a dictatorial fascist party. After Franco’s death, the party did not disintegrate; to the contrary, to this day it remains very influential with close ties to the Catholic Church. With this semi-clandestine right-wing political scenario alive and well, wouldn’t it have been relatively simple for Washington to pull the strings and creating a multi-party divided Spain, easier to manipulate and to control? Another form of divide and conquer.

 

US global interests wanted to avoid the risk of another Greece, where the left would come to power and would need to be smashed as did happen with Syriza under the command of Anglo-Zionist Washington – implemented by the troika (European Central Bank, European Commission and IMF).

 

Had it not been for most likely criminal threats to the lead-politicians of Syriza, Greece was at the point – and still is – of disintegrating and exiting the euro – and possibly also leaving the EU – the European non-Union.

 

Another ‘Greece’, as Spain could have become, might have prompted not just a ‘Spaxit’, but most probably the collapse of the EU altogether.

 

That would have been an unforgiveable and probably unrepairable disaster for the Unite States which needs Europe as its puppet union of states directed by Washington lackeys in Brussels, for trade and manipulating markets, as a monetary stability base and for highly qualified cheap labor; and – maybe most importantly – as a vital buffer vis-à-vis Russia and the emerging eastern alliance with China – the BRICS and SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) states.

 

For those still in doubt – the Unite States of America were the initiators and creators of the European Union, carefully planned, step by step, from the Brussels Treaty after WWII in 1948, to the Paris Treaty 1951/52, to the Modified Brussels Treaty 1954/55, to the Treaty of Rome 1957/58, and eventually to the Merger of Treaties in 1965/67 forming the three pillars of the European Community (European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), European Economic Community – EEC); leading to the Maastricht Treaty of 1991/92 – the foundation of the European Union, enhanced and modified by the Amsterdam Treaty, 1997/99; followed by the Nice Treaty, 2001/2003; and finally the 2007/2009 Lisbon Treaty, currently in force.

 

You may notice the European Union has no Constitution; and none of the various Treaties foresees a political European Union, one that would have solidarity of federal nations as a fundamental basis.

 

A 2004 attempt to establish an EU Constitution was immediately boycotted by the UK as a proxy for Washington, so as to have subsequent popular votes in France and the Netherlands fail.

 

A Union of nations without a common political agenda and goal cannot have a sustainable common currency. That’s where the thought process may have failed. The Euro may sooner or later be doomed to collapse and so may be the European Union; the sooner the better. The prompting of the process of dissolving this fake union, of breaking loose of the nefarious fangs of Washington and NATO, will be a sign of the European populations’ awakening and wisdom.

 

Reflecting on the Spanish elections of 20 December 2015, putting them into context with never ending austerity imposed by the rich on the poor, resulting in a never ending economic ‘crisis’ – leading to ever richer banks and an ever richer Anglo-European elite — may hopefully be a trigger for action.

 

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43790.htm

WASHINGTON AND THE PRESSTITUTE MEDIA...IN THE IDIOTIC EUROPEAN CAPITALS, HAS ESTABLISHED THE GROUND FOR NUCLEAR WAR

No son todos caramelos
lo que nos han tirado éste año los Reyes Magos,
también nos han tirado ésta clase de 'mantecado'
que a continuación se lo pasamos:
 

Why WWIII Is On The Horizon

Paul Craig Roberts

"Nato is the most dangerous force on earth
to every European country
and to the entire world."
 
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to a dangerous American ideology called neoconservativism.

The Soviet Union had served as a constraint on US unilateral action. With the removal of this constraint on Washington, neoconservatives declared their agenda of US world hegemony. 

 America was now the “sole superpower,” the “unipower,” that could act without restraint anywhere in the world.

The Washington Post neoconservative journalist Charles Krauthammer summed up the “new reality” as follows:

“We have overwheming global power. We are history’s designated custodians of the international system. When the Soviet Union fell, something new was born, something utterly new–a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe. This is a stagering new development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome. Even Rome was no model for what America is today.”

The staggering unipolar power that history has given to Washington has to be protected at all costs. In 1992 top Pentagon official Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which became the basis for Washington’s foreign policy.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine states that the “first objective” of American foreign and military policy is “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat [to US unilateral action] on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” (A “hostile power” is a country sufficiently strong to have a foreign policy independent from Washington’s.)

The unilateral assertion of American power begin in ernest during the Clinton regime with the interventions in Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo, and the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq. In 1997 the neoconservatives penned their “Project for a New American Century.” 

In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, the neoconservatives sent a letter to President Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq and “the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.” 

Neoconservatives set out their program for removing seven governments in five years.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

The events of September 11, 2001, are regarded by informed people as “the new Pearl harbor” that the neoconservatives said was necessary in order to begin their wars of conquest in the Middle East. 

 Paul O’Neil, President George W. Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, has stated pubicly that the agenda of President Bush’s first meeting with his cabinet was the invasion of Iraq. 

This invasion was planned prior to 9/11. Since 9/11 Washington has destroyed in whole or part eight countries and now confronts Russia both in Syria and Ukraine.

Russia cannot allow a jihadist Caliphate to be established in an area comprising Syria/Iraq, because it would be a base for exporting destabilization into Muslim parts of the Russian Federation.

Henry Kissinger himself has stated this fact, and it is clear enough to any person with a brain. However, the power-crazed fanatical neoconservatives, who have controlled the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes, are so absorbed in their own hubris and arrogance that they are prepared to push Russia to the point of having their Turkish puppet shoot down a Russian airplane and to overthrow the democratically-elected government in Ukraine that was on good terms with Russia, substituting in its place an American puppet government.

With this background, we can understand that the dangerous situation facing the world is the product of the neoconservative’s arrogant policy of US world hegemony. 

The failures of judgment and the dangers in the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts are themselves the consequences of the neoconservative ideology.

To perpetuate American hegemony, the neoconservatives threw away the guarantees that Washington gave Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch to the East.

The neoconservatives pulled the US out of the ABM Treaty, which specified that neither the US nor Russia would develop and deploy anti-ballistic missiles. The neoconservatives re-wrote US war doctrine and elevated nuclear weapons from their role as a retaliatory force to a pre-emptive first strike force. 

The neoconservatives began putting ABM bases on Russia’s borders, claiming that the bases were for the purpose of protecting Europe from non-existent Iranian nuclear ICBMs.

Russia and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, have been demonized by neoconservatives and their puppets in the US government and media. 

For example, Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, declared Putin to be “the new Hitler.” 

A former CIA official called for Putin’s assassination. Presidential candidates in both parties are competing in terms of who can be the most aggressive toward Russia and the most insulting toward Russia’s president. 
 
The effect has been to destroy the trust between nuclear powers. The Russian government has learned that Washington does not respect Washington’s own laws, much less international law, and that Washington cannot be trusted to keep any agreement. 

This lack of trust, together with the aggression toward Russia spewing from Washington and the presstitute media and echoing in the idiotic European capitals, has established the ground for nuclear war.

As NATO (essentially the US) has no prospect of defeating Russia in conventional war, much less defeating an alliance of Russia and China, war will be nuclear.

To avoid war, Putin is non-provocative and low-key in his responses to Western provocations. Putin’s responsible behavior, however, is misinterpreted by neoconervatives as a sign of weakness and fear. 

 The neoconservatives tell President Obama to keep the pressure on Russia, and Russia will give in. 

However, Putin has made it clear that Russia wi
ll not give in. Putin has sent this message on many occasions. For example, on September 28, 2015, at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, Putin said that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later Putin took command of the war against ISIS in Syria.

The European governments, especially Germany and the UK, are complicit in the move toward nuclear war These two American vassal states enable Washington’s reckless aggression toward Russia by repeating Washington’s propaganda and supporting Washington’s sanctions and interventions against other countries.

As long as Europe remains nothing but an extension of Washington, the prospect of Armegeddon will continue to rise.

At this point in time, nuclear war can only be avoided in two ways. One way is for Russia and China to surrender and accept Washington’s hegemony. The other way is for an independent leader in Germany, the UK, or France to rise to office and withdraw from NATO. That would begin a stampede to leave NATO, which is Washington’s prime tool for causing conflict with Russia and, thereby, is the most dangerous force on earth to every European country and to the entire world.

If NATO continues to exist, NATO together with the neoconservative ideology of American hegemony will make nuclear war inevitable.

("Neoconservative ideology" = US imperialism = IV Reich)

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

Paul Craig Roberts: "Por qué la III Guerra Mudial está en el horizonte"

RT
mie, 06 ene 2016 00:11 UTC

 

"Una fuerza política nacida en Washington tras el colapso de la URSS en 1991 está empujando el mundo al borde de una guerra nuclear, ha declarado el exasesor económico de Ronald Reagan"

Paul Craig Roberts.

 

El desmembramiento de la Unión Soviética dio a luz a una peligrosa ideología norteamericana llamada neoconservadurismo.

 

Hasta entonces la URSS había servido de limitación a la acción unilateral de EE.UU., pero con la eliminación de esta restricción, los neoconservadores declararon su orden y la hegemonía mundial.

 

Desde entonces EE.UU. se ha considerado la "única superpotencia" que podía actuar libremente en cualquier parte del mundo, explica en su sitio web el destacado analista político Paul Craig Roberts.  

      
El poder unipolar que la historia ha dado a Washington tiene que ser protegido a toda costa.

"Tenemos un poder global abrumador. La historia nos ha designado como los custodios del sistema internacional. Cuando la Unión Soviética se desmembró, nació algo nuevo, algo completamente nuevo, un mundo unipolar dominado por una superpotencia única sin ningún rival y con alcance decisivo en todos los rincones del mundo. Esto supone un nuevo y asombroso desarrollo de la historia, que no se veía desde la caída de Roma. Ni siquiera Roma es un modelo adecuado para lo que hoy se llama EE.UU.",  cita Craig Roberts al periodista neoconservador de 'The Washington Post' Charles Krauthammer, quien resumió en su artículo la "nueva realidad" geopolítica.

"El poder unipolar que la historia ha dado a Washington tiene que ser protegido a toda costa", subraya Roberts.

Según el analista, la doctrina Wolfowitz, hecha pública en 1992, se convirtió en la base de esta política neoconservadora de Washington.

"Nuestro primer objetivo es evitar el retorno de un nuevo rival, ya sea en el territorio de la Antigua Unión Soviética o en cualquier otra parte, que pueda representar para el orden la misma amenaza que anteriormente suponía la URSS", expresa dicho documento. "Este es el factor principal que forma la base de la nueva estrategia de defensa regional, y debemos hacer todo lo posible para prevenir que domine la región un poder hostil cuyos recursos bajo un control consolidado serían suficientes para generar un poder global", se explica en la doctrina.

Craig Roberts considera que las fuerzas neoconservadoras dirigen la política exterior del presidente Obama y promueven acciones agresivas contra Rusia para debilitar económicamente a ese país.

El analista asevera que el golpe de Estado en Ucrania y el intento de hacer lo mismo en Siria son acciones dirigidas contra Moscú. Sin embargo, precisa Roberts, Rusia dejó claro que no permitirá el libre desarrollo en Siria de un 'califato' terrorista que en un futuro próximo afectaría también a las regiones musulmanas de Rusia. 

Mientras Europa siga siendo una mera extensión de Washington, la perspectiva de un Armagedón seguirá aumentando.

El efecto negativo de la presión a Rusia sobre la seguridad regional es aún mayor debido a que Washington lleva a cabo su política antirrusa principalmente mediante sus vasallos europeos, como Francia, el Reino Unido y Alemania.

"Mientras Europa siga siendo una mera extensión de Washington, la perspectiva de un Armagedón seguirá aumentando", concluye Roberts. Según él, esta presión geopolítica puede tener dos desenlaces.

El primero es el dominio total de Occidente y la derrota económica y militar de Rusia y China. La segunda opción, cree Roberts, es la aparición de una fuerza política independiente en Europa que acabaría con la OTAN, la herramienta principal de EE.UU. para aumentar la tensión en el continente euroasiático.
 

HOY LE TOCA AL CUENTO DE LOS REYES MAGOS

Hoy, 6 de Enero,
le toca al cuento de los Reyes Magos.

Todos los días del año
tienen sus cuentos y sus rosarios.
365 per anum.

(¿Coitus per anum?

No seamos mal pensados)

¿Que sería de nosotros
sin los cuentos cotidianos?

Los cuentos es lo que nos une,
como nación
--una e idivisible, claro--
en el camino impuesto
reglón tras renglón.

Y hoy, 6 de Enero,
le toca al cuento de los Reyes Magos.

Como decía el poeta Leon Felipe,
nacemos con cuentos,
crecemos con cuentos
y morimos con cuentos,
y, tal vez lo peor:
nos duermen con cuentos

Nos tienen que dormir.
Porque si no vivimos durmiendo
le damos muchos problemas
 y mucha lata a los Lateros del reino.

Y hoy es el día 

del cuento de los Reyes Magos.
Rey y mago.
Una combinación extraña,
salvo en España,
dónde lo extraño siempre ha reinado.

Es increíble

El hecho de que el cuento de los reyes
se siga contando,
sin variaciones esenciales,
aún con votos y elecciones,

seguimos, como niños,

peleandonos por los caramelos...

¿Cómo es posible
que ésto siga funcionando?
Que extraño.

El Rey Mago de hoy en España
heredó de su padre esa magia,
y éste, a su vez, de su padre,
y éste del  suyo...
y asi, siglo tras siglo,

siempre por el mismo camino

andando, deambulando,

funámbulos de una cuerda floja

que nos atan al cuello

para obedecer y ahorcarnos

con infantiles fábulas

que acaban gustandonos...

Por eso, hoy, 
encandilados por esa magia,
nos seguimos agachando,
en la continua cabalgata
de los Reyes Magos dónde habitamos,
cogiéndo los caramelos
que nos tira su Majestad
desde la carroza dónde va montado...

Mientras que nosotros seguimos
a pie, agachandonos.

Por eso hacen falta los cuentos
que nos cuentan y nos contamos

para que todo se puede asumir

y digerir sin hacernos daño...

LOS REYES MAGOS EN ESPAÑA

 Este año,

los Reyes Magos en España

han recibido muchísimas cartas,

pero no solamente de los niños,

sino de los padres,

las tías,

los tíos,

primos,

abuelos,

y hasta de los vecinos,

y todos pidiéndoles lo mismo:

que la Estrella de Belen

no los siga guiando por el mismo camino

para que no termine todo

en el mismo Portal,

en la misma cuadra

dónde ya no cuadra lo prometido.

No sabemos, a ésta hora de hoy, día 5, si los reyes,
cuándo salgan en su cabalgata,
cumpliran lo que se les ha pedido,
o si, como Magos,
decidiran realizar una prestidigitación global
para que no siga acabando todo
en la misma cuadra, en la misma pocilga
donde todo anda metido,
para que cambie el rumbo de la Estrella
que a los tres siempre los conduce
y los ha conducido a lo mismo.
Esperemos...