Der Kalte Krieg zwischen den Bündnissen "NATO" und dem "Warschauer Pakt"

Der Kalte Krieg, der indirekte Kampf zwischen den Westmächten (hauptsächlich durch USA) und dem Ostblock (Sowjet-Union), ein Thema das sich in Form einer großen Mauer gezeigt hat. Die Sowjets wollten im Grunde nur einen Grund für Krieg, die USA wollte einen offenen Krieg vermeiden, jedoch wurde auch versucht, abzuschrecken. Welche Methoden auf beiden Seiten geläufig waren und was genau in diesem “Kalten Krieg” passiert ist, dass könnt ihr im gesamten Artikel lesen!

Begonnen hat der Kalte Krieg eigentlich schon sehr früh, im Jahre 1917, als Lenin an die Macht kam. Dadurch wurde ein Bürgerkrieg angezettelt, in Russland, der von den Westmächten gegenrevolutioniert wurde. Eine Unterbrechung dieses Streits fand mit der Anti-HitlerKoalition (1941) statt.

Nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg begann der eigentliche Akt. Die zwei Siegermächte teilten Europa in zwei Hälften. Die eine Regierung wollte ihr Konzept durchbringen, die andere deren Konzept. Um auch militärisch gewappnet zu sein, wurde die NATO gegründet. Der östliche Bund hieß Warschauer Pakt. In Süd-Ost Asien wurde mit der SEATO ein ähnliches Bündniss geschaffen.

Sowohl politisch als auch ideologisch wurden hier deutliche Unterschiede bemerkbar. Man wollte mit den einzelnen Staaten versuchen, verschiedene Wirtschaftssysteme aufzubauen und jeder woltle auch militärisch protzen. Fast wie ein kleiner Streit und Geschwistern, nur noch sehr viel gefährlicher. Im Westen wollte man eine Marktwirtschaft, im Osten Planwirtschaft. Auch stand sich die Demokratie mit der Diktatur im selben Schema gegenüber.

Die Westmächte versuchten den Krieg mit Waffen zu verhindern, allerdings sorgte das Wettrüsten z.B. in Hiroshima mit einem Atombombenanschlag für erste Gewalt. Das Verursachte die erste Androhung eines Atomkrieges, wobei die Selbstvernichtung der Menschheit mit betroffen war. Ein Glück das es damals nur Androhungen zur Abschreckung waren und nicht bitterböse Wahrheit.

(Videodokumentation auf Englisch zu Hiroshima)

Nach diesem grausamen Ereigniss kam es dann dazu, dass die USA mit der UdSSR verhandelte, jedoch wurde das Wettrüsten nicht gestoppt. Beispiel: Im Vietnam-Krieg war die USA beteiligt, die UdSSR lieferte als Rivale dem Gegner Geld, Waffen und mehr. Nicht nur das. Auch Bürgerkriege unterstützte man beiderseits aktiv.

1949 merkte man auch in Deutschland etwas von diesem Kalten Krieg. Zwei Staaten hatten sich gebildet, die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die DDR. Anerkannt wurde die DDR übrigens von der BRD erst, als Willy Brand Bundeskanzler wurde. Die DDR dagegen wollte bei der Bundersrepublik das “Deutschland” nicht nennen und ernannte Berlin als Hauptstadt der DDR, obwohl Berlin in zwei Sektoren unterteilt war und der eine Sektor nicht zur DDR gehörte.

Hierbei wurden dann schon Mittel wie Spionage oder Sabbotage verwendet um zu “siegen”. Es wurde z.B. festgestellt, dass die DDR terroristische Gruppen in Westeuropa unterstüzte. Die Gladio (Geheimdienstvereinigung von CIA und anderen) war als terroristische Gruppe tätig, um den Gegnern dies in die Schuhe zu schieben. Der Kalte Krieg endete erst 1991 nachdem Gorbatschow an die Macht kam und das langsam dafür sorgte, dass das gegenseitige Wettrüsten aufhörte. Auch wurden die Staaten des Ostblocks wieder unabhängig und die Sowjet Union wurde letzendlich aufgelöst.

Fonte: La Voce dell’Emergenza

http://www.9online.it/blog_emergenzarifiuti/2009/11/05/navi-dei-veleni-il-comitato-de-grazia-interroga-la-prestigiacomo/

Tutte le associazioni organizzatrici della manifestazione di Amantea dello scorso 24 ottobre, chiedono al Ministero dell’Ambiente che siano fornite le risultanze documentali delle prospezioni marine e delle analisi di laboratorio effettuate sui campioni prelevati dalla nave “Mare Oceano” che ha operato al largo di Cetraro per individuare l’eventuale presenza della nave carica di rifiuti radioattivi come rivelato dal pentito Fonti.

In attesa di poter valutare direttamente, mediante tecnici di fiducia e di analisi comparate, chiedono di fugare tutti i dubbi e le perplessità addensatisi su una vicenda piena di contraddizioni. E per questo pongono al Ministro Prestigiacomo le seguenti domande:

1. Come è possibile che una persona non del luogo, come Francesco Fonti, fosse a conoscenza della presenza di un relitto nei fondali di Cetraro esattamente nel sito dove è stato trovato?

2. Perché questo relitto, se conosciuto dalla Marina Militare e dalle Capitanerie di Porto, non è stato segnalato a tempo debito al Procuratore Giordano titolare dell’inchiesta?

3. Perché esistono differenze sostanziali tra le caratteristiche del relitto di Cetraro e del piroscafo Catania? Quest’ultimo, secondo i dati dei costruttori, era lungo 95,8 metri mentre la lunghezza ufficiale del relitto, comunicata dal Governo, è pari a 103 metri. I dati differenti del piroscafo Catania sono ben noti e riportati nel registro navale della World Ship Society e pubblicati dal sito specializzato Miramar Ship Index. Gli stessi identici dati sono pubblicati anche sul sito specializzato nella storia degli U-boat (www.uboat.net).

4. Perché dai registri navali risulta che il piroscafo Catania venne affondato almeno a 3,2 miglia di distanza dal punto dove la “Mare Oceano” stava effettuando le verifiche. Un punto più a largo di circa cinque chilometri, non qualche centinaio di metri.?

5. Come mai le foto e le riprese video effettuate dal Rov della Nave Oceano sembrerebbero diverse da quelle realizzate dal Rov dell’Arpacal?

6. Perché non è stato ancora reso pubblico l’intero filmato georeferenziato realizzato dal Rov della Mare Oceano?

7. Perché il Ministro, prima ancora che il Rov della Geolab si immergesse nelle acque, ha comunicato che il relitto di Cetraro non poteva essere quello del Cunsky ?

8. Che fine hanno fatto i fusti o maniche a vento ripresi dal Rov inviato dalla Regione Calabria e perché non sono stati recuperati e portati in superficie a prova della asserita verità?

9. Perché la ministra Prestigiacomo ha subito detto che il “caso è chiuso” senza neanche accertarsi del carico della nave?

10. Perché sono stati comunicati solo i dati delle analisi sulla radioattività effettuate a 300 metri di profondità nonostante il relitto si trovi ad oltre 480 metri? Questa differenza incide notevolmente visto che le radiazioni gamma hanno una schermatura diversa a seconda della profondità. Ad esempio 170 metri generano un livello di schermatura pari ad un fattore 3*E126. Quindi anche in presenza di numerosi noccioli di reattori nucleari la contaminazione radioattiva non sarebbe facilmente rilevabile.

11. Perché, nonostante la richiesta ufficiale da parte della Regione Calabria, non è stato comunicato il protocollo scientifico adottato per compiere le analisi sul relitto, sui fondali e nelle acque circostanti?

12. Perché non sono state condotte, in via preliminare, le dovute indagini sulla catena alimentare della fauna ittica e  sui sedimenti dei fondali onde rilevare la presenza di eventuali radionuclidi e/o agenti contaminanti di diversa natura? Questo  allo scopo di tranquillizzare la popolazione in caso di eventuale riscontro negativo o viceversa proclamare lo stato di emergenza onde ricorrere agli indennizzi in caso di riscontro positivo (alla luce di indagini pregresse che già paventarono tale possibilità)?

13. Perché per la vicenda del relitto di Cetraro è stato adottato un metodo differente da quello utilizzato per le indagini sul materiale contaminato rinvenuto nella vallata dell’Oliva dove le analisi sui campioni prelevati saranno condotte da quattro laboratori differenti mentre sulla Nave Oceano non  è stato permesso l’ingresso, se non per poche ore, ai ricercatori dell’Arpacal?

14. Perché tanta fretta nel chiudere le indagini e nel mandare via la Nave Oceano  mentre , vista la presenza in loco dell’imbarcazione, si sarebbe potuto continuare a scandagliare tutto il mare circostante Cetraro?

15. Perché la Capitaneria di Porto di Cetraro nel 2007 emise l’ordinanza di divieto di pesca a poche centinaia di metri dal luogo indicato da Fonti , subito dopo le analisi effettuate dall’Arpacal che indicavano la presenza allarmante di metalli pesanti quali l’arsenico, il cobalto ed il cromo sul pescato?

16. E perché quell’ordinanza venne ritirata un anno dopo? Sarebbe utile comunicare i risultati di quelle analisi.

17. Perché non sono stati applicati anche a Cetraro i recenti provvedimenti legislativi  (L. 123/2008 e L. 210/2008) che classificano come siti strategici di interesse nazionale le aree in cui vengono smaltiti o individuati rifiuti tossici e/o nocivi?

18. Chiediamo alla Ministro Prestigiacomo se è a conoscenza dei filmati effettuati nel 2005 2006 per conto della Procura di Paola della società Nautilus e chiediamo cosa questi hanno filmato e di rendere  pubblici tali filmati.

19. Perché ad esprimersi sui risultati dei riscontri effettuati dalla nave Oceano sono stati la ministra Prestigiacomo ed il procuratore generale della DNA Pietro Grasso e non il titolare delle indagini?

Le associazioni, i comitati e i movimenti organizzatori della manifestazione del 24 ottobre ad Amantea:

Comitato Civico Natale De Grazia / Movimento Ambientalista del Tirreno /Forum Ambientalista / Beni Comuni Cosenza / Rosso Cetraro / WWF Amantea-Belmonte C./ Associazione Paolab/ Associazione Confronti / Comitato Civico Valle Oliva Terre a Perdere / CGIL Amantea / Cib Unicobas / Ammazzateci Tutti movimento antimafia

Altre notizie disponibili qui:

http://msdfli.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/nave-dei-veleni-e-piroscafo-catania-la-rete-indaga/

http://msdfli.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/la-nave-dei-veleni-e-il-mistero-del-piroscafo-catania/

]]> http://rionovo.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/o-servico-nao-tem-fim-olga-purim-a-reynaldo-purim/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:14:48 +0000 V. A. Purim http://rionovo.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/o-servico-nao-tem-fim-olga-purim-a-reynaldo-purim/

Rio Novo 19-7-17

Querido irmão,

Recebemos domingo passado tua carta escrita no dia 28 de junho. Muito obrigada.

Desta vez minha carta não será longa como a sua, por que semana passada mandamos quatro folhas; então, na soma geral, será maior que a sua. Agora vai fazer três semanas que te mandei uma longa carta em resposta àquela que veio em nome da mamãe. E semana passada mandei a resposta àquela que veio em nome do Roberto – e nessa mandei as fotografias dos músicos lá da Igreja.

Na última vez não mandei envelope, mandei um rolinho. Comprei um bloco de cartas e dentro pus cinco envelopes. Num dos envelopes pus um papelzinho verde e no outro
10$000 em dinheiro. E mais as duas fotografias dos músicos, e mandei registrada.

Tu tens recebido todas? Agora consegui mais três fotografias dos músicos; no total tenho quatro em casa. Se tu queres mais me, escreva que eu te mando. Mas estas últimas não ficaram tão boas (escuras) quanto as primeiras e sim com um tom acinzentado. As que foram feitas depois não ficaram tão boas como as primeiras.

Aqui estamos passando bem, todos com saúde. O tempo hoje e ontem ficou encoberto, mas não choveu. Na outra vez que escrevi esta quente, mas já no dia seguinte deu uma forte cerração e soprava um vento muito frio. De terça-feira passada até a terça-feira desta semana o tempo tem sido bom, mas todos os dias amanhecem com uma geada forte. Principalmente na quarta e na quinta-feira, a geada foi pesada. Mesmo os nossos pastos aqui no alto estavam brancos, e lá embaixo perto da igreja todas árvores e capoeiras estavam cobertas de geada: mais pareciam cobertas de neve.

Agora da nossa Bukuvina dá pra se apreciar uma vista maravilhosa da serra. O céu está de um azul límpido. Mas ao anoitecer as serras aparecem um pouco enfumaçadas, porque os serranos estão começando queimar os campos. A chuva está ficando rara agora no inverno, e no verão vamos ver como vai ser.

Terminamos de colher o milho, e todo milho está no paiol. Deram 200 cargas. Nenhum outro ano tivemos tanto milho no paiol. Ano passado terminamos de colher o milho no dia 22 de agosto, e este ano um mês antes. O milho deste ano fui muito bom, com exceção do plantado mais no tarde, que não deu espigas muito grandes, porque o tempo esteve muito seco. Na semana que vem vamos começar a cortar cana. Aqui o serviço não tem fim: mal um termina e já tem outro aguardando.

Sobre os rionovenses nada vou escrever porquê tudo continua como sempre (velho). Havendo alguma novidade depois eu escrevo.

Amanhã tenho que ir a Orleans. Preciso ir dormir cedo porquê amanhã tenho levantar de madrugada. Escreva bastante. Lá onde você está você vai capinar alguma vez? As suas calças e camisas não estão por demais usadas? Você por acaso não está precisando de novas fronhas?

Muitas sinceras lembranças do Papai, Mamãe, Luzija, Arthurs

e da Olga

The Palestinian Authority has called on the public to boycott several large supermarket chains in the West Bank that carry Israeli products.

The decision targets upscale markets in Ramallah, in an attempt to pressure the stores to discontinue the sale of fruits and vegetables grown and processed in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

According to the Palestinian authorities, customers are not aware that some of the products are produced in one of over 200 Israeli settlements, built illegally on occupied Palestinian land deemed illegal under international law.

Palestinians consider these settlements the most crucial threat to their aspirations for statehood.

As a result, the Palestinian ministry of economy has announced it will aggressively pursue an already existing law that criminalises trading in settlement products, a move that is widely popular among Palestinians.

Israeli settlement products currently enjoy an estimated 15 per cent share of the Palestinian market, according to the minister of economy.

‘Good move’

Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Ramallah, says the move to ban settlement products from the shelves will take time and require awareness among Palestinian consumers.

Many products made in illegal settlements are on sale in Palestinian supermarkets!

“The government argues that it is through this boycott, that they are now striking back at the illegal settlements – product by product,” she said.

Jamal Juma, a Palestinian activist and coordinator of the Stop the Wall campaign, told Al Jazeera: “If the Palestinian Authority insists on implementing this decision, it means the authority will participate in boycotting one-third of the Israeli products that come to the West Bank.

“This is a very good step to support the Palestinian economy. It will provide the opportunity to improve Palestinians products and solve the unemployment problem.

“The decision will allow Palestinians to say: ‘No to the occupation, we are not going to pay for the bulldozers that destroy our houses and for the bullets that kill our people’.”

Maroc 1917, première mise en ligne par Thierry B.

© Georges Beauvir – Scanné à partir de plaque de verre négatif 13×18 – Vue aérienne

A nation built on the premise of Ethnic Cleansing and Terror, yet claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East is proof that it is nothing more than a Nazi state!

WE SHALL RETURN!

Haideti sa va vorbesc ceva despre istorie ,preferata mea.Astazi am sa vorbesc despre Comunism.

Comunismul a aparut in Rusia in 1917 dupa lovitura de stat bolsevica,si se intalneste in timpul lui Stalin(1928-1953).Are la baza o ideologie de clasa,considerand proletariatul clasa progresivista.

Comunismul urmarea construirea societatii socialiste in care scop urma sa distruga lumea burgheza .Spre deosebire de nazism ,comunistii isi propun schimbarea societatii dar nu in mod fatis adica pe fata ci in mod disimulat,ei afirma idealuri umane general valabile cum ar fi libertatea,egalitatea,actionanad de fapt impotriva acestora.

Instaurarea comunismului in Romania s-a efectuat in patru etape toate aflandu-se bineinteles sub controlul total al sovieticilor:

-impunerea guvernului condus de Petru Groza controlat de PCR in 1945

-falsificarea alegerilor in favoarea comunistilor in noiembrie 1946

-dizolvarea membrilor partidului national taranesc PNT si procesul liderilor sai (inscenarea de la Tamadau)

-si ultima a fost abdicarea silita a regelui Mihai in 1947

Cam atat despre comunim mai sunt foarte multe de zis dar eu v-am facut doar o prezentare.

Anna Anderson was one of a number of women claiming to be the youngest daughter of the last Czar Nicholas II, Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaevna. The Russian Revolution of 1917 saw the Czar removed from power and, ultimately, killed along with his wife, children and some servants. She was one of at least 10 claiming to be the Grand Duchess but, along with fellow claimant Eugenia Smith, she was certainly the best known. She was pulled from a canal in Berlin in 1929, and was at first called Fraulein Unbekannt (Miss Unknown) as she refused to say whom she was. She was admitted to a mental hospital in, then, Zwittau and questioned repeatedly. She at last revealed her identity to be that of the Grand Duchess. So began five decades of speculation as to her identity, divided between those who believed she was and those who believed she wasn’t. Among those who believed she was Anastasia were, Gleb Botkin (Son of the Czar’s doctor and childhood playmate of the Grand Duchess), along with various Russian émigrés. Against her claim was Grand Duke Ernst Louis of Hesse (The Empress Alexandra’s brother and uncle to Anastasia), Pierre Gilliard (The Grand Duchesses personal tutor) and also the Czar’s sister, Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna. Alexandrovna had actually visited Anderson in the hospital and kept a brief correspondence with her before declaring that the young woman was not her niece. Anderson’s claim was also not believed by other Romanov family members. Anderson launched several attempts in court to establish her identity. When the final case concluded, in 1970, it was decided that neither side had conclusively proven who she was. Her believers supported her for many years and she immigrated to the United States in 1968. She married supporter Jack Manahan in December 1968 and they remained married until her death, of pneumonia, on 12 February 1984. The recent (2007) discovery of the remains of Anastasia in the Koptyaki Forest in Siberia, for me, raises more questions. If Anderson was not Anastasia, who was she? This question already seems to have been answered as she was identified as Polish factory worker Franziska Schanzkowska, both by Schanzkowska’s family and relatives of the Romanovs. However, if this is who she was how did she come to know so much about the Russian Imperial Court? Where did she learn to speak three languages? Although personally I do not believe that Anderson was Anastasia I still find the subject very interesting. Thanks for reading.

Please “Help” Isra-hell

This post was actually a paper I wrote for one of my classes at Rhode Island College.  Considering the general path our nation is heading down, and seeing such a strong Socialist movement on my campus, I felt the need to at least voice my concerns about the reality of socialism.  What I find surprising is the sudden open movement in support of it.  There are socialists who gather on the campus square on Wednesdays who protest our capitalist system by holding signs and running a book table which even lists the Manifesto.   Let alone this movement, it is literally a very liberal college with its share of radical thoughts.  In fact, one of my teachers was herself a proclaimed socialist.  God help our country.  They’re infiltrating the youth.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Socialism, the very idea has been around for nearly 200 years.  Developing from the simple ideas put forth by Karl Marx in his “Communist Manifesto,” to a series of movements by people influenced by Marx’s ideas, claiming that the class division between the rich and the poor has been wrought by the corruption of the capitalists and the exploitation of the worker to the capitalist’s gain.

Socialism is defined as “a society based on workers collectively owning and controlling the wealth that their labor creates.” The idea of which sounds like a plausible approach to the difficulties that our capitalist system has today. Corruption, vice, and greed afflict our economic system, bringing the Socialist argument that in order to end these vices, it would be necessary to eliminate the “capitalists” and create a common ground of equality for workers.

The major motivation that comes as an initiative for this movement lies in the current recession our economy is facing; alongside the ever decreasing wealth and ability of the lower masses (the workers) to provide for themselves. Socialist ideologies, namely government intervention and redistribution of aid to those in need, have been in place since Franklin’s “New Deal” during the 1930’s.  However, the situation we are presented with now focuses on the movement by Socialists to solve all our problems by a collective government which redistributes the fruits of the laborers’ work equally among the workers. This idea seeks to fix the situation by eliminating the upper class and balancing the wealth of the lower class.

The dangers this situation presents are innumerable, and often makes one question the ability of the success of a socialist movement. On one side of the case, Socialists argue that inherently all major business owners are corrupt due to their exploitation of the worker in the quest for ever more profit. Taking this thought into consideration, I think many of us will acknowledge the corrupt tendencies of the human individual. After all, the human person is nothing more than what he is, human; capable of falling and being motivated by selfish gains.

We live in America, the land of opportunity, where by the words of our “Declaration of Independence,” we argue against tyranny, boldly stating that man is endowed with the undeniable rights of “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” A further examination of historic documentation shows us another of the principles of American freedom and independence, particularly in reference to the ideas of private property.

Socialism brings into question all of the ideals which make up the American Dream. That is, the essential freedom which immigrants from far and near come to American in search of, opportunity. America holds that the human individual has the right to expand in business, working through his own efforts to accumulate the means with which he can attain his dream. The gaining of profit through business and work, in order that he may use such funds as he deems necessary: To support his family, to invest in business expansion, or even to gain enough of a living to live his life comfortably.

Of course, we all must be wary of the dangers which accompany such a means of gain; particularly that of corruption, thievery, and usury. All of which gain profits through illegitimate means. The American Dream is this: You gain what you desire if you work hard enough. This often is the principle of the American’s life, whether or not it is the most sound principle is what socialism questions. But how can socialism work for our country if it denies the three basic rights which we are all endowed with?

1. Life:

The right to life is considered a right of the American individual. To live his life in complete freedom and security. Free from the shackles of oppression, slavery, and labor. Safe from the dangers of war, crime, and intolerance. All according to what he wishes to guide his life by, no matter which creed, race, or political affiliation he has. This right to life is undeniable, his life is his own, not his lord’s, not his superior’s, and not the state’s. The human individual has the undeniable right to exercise all of these freedoms in his life.

Socialism provides a contrary approach. Life isn’t about what ability you have, or by which path you approach your career, or how you provide for yourself and your family. Business, the very thing which socialism wishes to destroy, becomes your master. The individual must constantly work in order to support himself, but not by reaping the benefits of his work first hand; rather, what he reaps is then forcefully taken from him by a collective government or authority. This authority in turn, through the process of ‘eliminating’ capitalist trade and competition, ‘fairly’ redistributes the product of that individual’s work where it deems necessary. Wages, if there are any, are regulated equally as well. For example, a person who is a hard and ardent worker will be paid the same amount as someone who might have no interest or motivation in that particular job at all. This brings into question the fairness that socialism so proudly proclaims. Will those who commit themselves receive what is their due? Life consists of working towards a goal and reaping the benefits of a success. If a person is to work and not receive what his labor constitutes, how is he to live his life to its fullest if he is bound under the restrictions of socialist labor?

Another aspect of the life argument is the innumerable atrocities committed by Marx-influenced authorities. One might omit the facts, as it seems they so often do, but there is no way of avoiding the truth. One openly socialist government in the 20th Century has been met with some of the greatest criticism and horror: Nazi Germany. Nazism was in itself a product of National Socialism, literally translating into the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The life of the human individual is threatened by this idealistically coined principle, “The common good before individual good.” A careful examination of the The Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party reveals a frightening eye opening understanding of political and economic ideas which the Nazi’s used, and what the modern socialists wish to incorporate in their new system. On many occasions, Socialists deny these facts by claiming that the forms of socialist ideals in Nazism, Communism, and various governments throughout the world are not true Socialism because those governments consist of profit gain. If I might be bold, might I ask why don’t socialists address the countless murders, persecutions, and oppressions of the human person, and the suppression of individual freedom in these governments? The evidence is clear enough, through an analysis of socialist principle and of history itself, that socialist authority exists at the expense of the human individual. One might even say that not all socialists are Nazis, but all Nazi’s were socialists. This brings up the next question of how Socialism deals with the second right of the human individual: Liberty.

2. Liberty:

What is liberty? Citing the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language, we have two clear definitions:

• • The state of being exempt from the domination of others or from restricting circumstances (Funk & Wagnalls).
  • The power of voluntary choice; freedom from necessity (Funk & Wagnalls).

We as Americans cling dearly to our liberty, cherishing it with the patriotism and readiness to sacrifice our very lives in the protection of it. The Declaration of Independence in itself was a move to declare the importance of the liberty of the human individual from the tyrannical reign of an absolute governmental authority. In the case of Colonial America, this tyranny was the constitutional monarchy of England.

The principles of the United States hold that we as Americans have a liberty endowed upon us, that grants us the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to live life as we see fit according to our individual beliefs and morals. Freedom from being oppressed by a tyrannical authority. Many people come to America in search of this liberty, where in their homelands they are faced with religious and political persecutions. More often than not, these immigrants and refugees are fleeing the very governmental systems of socialist philosophy gone wrong.

Socialism argues that the liberty of the individual rests in the security of knowing that all men are equal in their economic welfare. There is no upper wealthy class which exploits the working masses, but rather a collective system under an absolute authority which regulates economy and work on all levels of the social structure. What liberty is to be found under such circumstances? Where the very core and natural right to pursue your individual dream is regulated and controlled by a tyrannical authority? “Tyrannical Authority?” You ask? Indeed there always is in regards to Socialism.

Socialists themselves state that there is no tyranny, but rather that the collective authoritative force is put in place by the people, for the people. Is that so? Any careful examination of every Marx influenced society will prove contrary. Even the socialists themselves state that a “temporary” tyrannical force is necessary in order to start a socialist system. In response to this statement, might I ask who, or rather, what, regulates that “temporary tyrannical authority?” American liberty is built upon a system of checks and balances. So as to speak, one aspect of government control cannot gain too much power and influence due to the contrary parts of government either above or on the same level. Socialism doesn’t  have that. The governmental authority of socialism is absolute. There is no liberty to live your life as you wish, or to pursue your dreams, or enjoy the natural happiness of comfort. Your very freedom becomes nothing more than the freedom to choose between working or starving. To quote Comrade Lenin, who himself was a practitioner of Marx’s socialist philosophy, “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

The idea of personal liberty is replaced with the shackles of starvation. Chaining the people to the necessities to always work in order to provide for society. The danger of all of this, is that Socialism boldly accuses capitalists of exploiting, overworking and underpaying the masses; and while doing so, turns its back and commits the very same crime it denounces. Exploiting the populace by turning society at its very core into a system of production, where the only good citizen is the productive worker. Like a farmer, who must work the ground to produce the goods with which to feed his family, the state will work the individual to meet the quota necessary for society.

The liberty of the human person is under attack through Socialism. Referring to the points I highlighted in the previous note, we see that aside from the constant attack on the right to life through socialist labor, and the atrocities committed in for the sake of the ‘common good,’ we can connect those individual systems with totalitarian states, such as Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. What these two states have in common is the suppression of human liberty. Free speech, the right to gather in protest, and all of these values which we in America regard as ‘human rights,’ were intrinsically put to the sword.

Stalin is a perfect example of such abuses, especially in examining how he had those who opposed his regime executed as counter-revolutionaries to the Communist movement. We must remember that Communism and Socialism are in themselves different systems, but we also must remember both are based upon Marx’s principles which were put down in the Communist Manifesto. In a reflection upon all the political systems which were rooted in Marx’s work, we find that all have failed in their initiated movement; and eventually end up forming into a dictatorship that dominates the working class. Treating them as nothing more than land to be harvested.

Adolf Hitler used the same policies in Nazi Germany, with the expulsion of non-Germanic peoples, and the violent persecution of Jews. His policy of “The common good before individual good” clearly was evident in his actions. Another look at the The Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party will reveal that the Nazi Party was in fact working towards a suppression of free speech through a state approved media.  The question comes down to this: How can we allow socialism, a system which has clearly been known to fail, take hold of the reigns of American progress? With liberty being suppressed by the state in the name of the common good, how can man truly be free to practice what he wishes, in both thought and action? This continues on into the third point I would like to focus on, “The Pursuit of Happiness.”

3. Happiness:

What is happiness? Is it an emotion? Is it a state of life? The question is often argued, but in reality we all can at least apply a natural answer to the question. Happiness is the result of liberty and life combined. The ability for the individual to enjoy that which is his, that which he has earned, and that which is his just merit. Whether it be the comforts and pleasures of entertainment, the ownership of private property, wealth, the simplicity of family life, or the liberty to pursue our dreams, happiness is what we all yearn for.

I boldly argue now on one important factor. What does Socialism do for the happiness of the human being? In fact, Socialism does away with the economic system and adopts a common state controlled redistribution system. Where the fruits of one’s labor are never truly seen, and simply stripped away from the hands of the just worker. The very clause, “The Pursuit of Happiness” comes into question. What happens to that pursuit? If the common worker is unable to reap the benefit of his work, no matter how much effort, time, and sincerity he puts forth into it, how can he pursue his dreams?

America is based on the ideals of opportunism and the American Dream. The very essence of which motivates man to give his work his all; in order that he may gain something in return for it. The pursuit of happiness follows two major paths: religion and materialism. In America particularly, we hold dearly to these two ideals. Freedom of religion allows a person to seek out God and worship under any name and religion which he sees fit; while the material aspect of happiness allows the individual to work towards his set goals, and accumulate the wealth or possessions he desires through his arduous work.

Socialism provides an alternate approach. In the history of Socialist movements, we see a powerful atheistic attack on religion. In Russia, China and North Korea, we find that religion is persecuted, and entirely removed from the public sphere. Why? According to Marx, religion is the opiate of the people. Meaning that religion inhibits a person’s ability to devote himself to endless work of requirements of socialist labor. I don’t mean to attack atheists by my above statement, but a careful review will show that a forced attack upon man’s religious liberties is also an attack upon his individual happiness.

Taking all of these factors into equation, it comes down to an indisputable fact that Socialism tramples upon these basic rights which our Declaration of Independence enumerates. If this is so, how can we as Americans, let alone as free individuals, accept such a system of change? Reflecting upon our national and family history, many of us will realize how much our fathers and their forefathers loved our country. It was true patriotism. But this patriotism does not lie simply in a love of country, but rather in the love of freedom and liberty for which our country stands. If the men and women who served our country thought that these ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were worth fighting and shedding their blood for, who are we to steer from that course and put an end to it by adopting Socialism?

I would like to close this argument with a reference to the beginning of my  work. America is currently wrought with corruption throughout its upper class, and an ever increasing number of lower class workers. Socialism is considered an answer to this problem, but throughout this argument I show how it is not; and how socialism will simply strip the human individual of his basic rights. What it comes down to is the basic strength of the American. That is, to persevere through the most difficult  of times, in order that we may reap the bounty of a new dawn. Our country undergoes a period of trial and error every so often. Each and every time we have succeeded in overcoming those difficulties. Can we do it again? Our forefathers who died for this country thought so! Let us work together and make this country something which our countrymen will not have died in vain for. Let us turn America into something that will make them proud; and while doing so, cherish the very things which make us who we are in this world. Our life, our liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(source : Dazibao Rojo Miguel Alonso para Correo Vermello. traduction FUTUR ROUGE)

Le grand paradigme révolutionnaire du XXe siècle est sans doute la Grande révolution socialiste d’Octobre (7 Novembre 1917)

Lorsque le Comité Militaire Révolutionnaire présidé par le Soviet de la ville, dirigée par Trotsky, sous la direction du camarade Lénine, ordonna, à l’aube, que le croiseur Aurora tire une salve contre le gouvernement provisoire de Kerenski agonisant, retranché dans la l’ancien Palais d’Hiver des tsars au bord de la Neva, naquis une nouvelle ère. Le matin même, les gardes rouges occupaient les rues de la ville de Petrograd, et les principales villes de Russie.

Depuis “La Commune de Paris” la muse de ce rêve devenu réalité pour tout le monde, personne et encore moins les sociaux-démocrates et révisionnistes mencheviks qui ont abjuré un temps, le caractère révolutionnaire du marxisme, ne pensait que le Drapeau Rouge brillerait en Russie avec une telle force et sa grandeur. Seul le noyau de la direction des bolcheviks était conscient de la grande étape.

Pour l’ancienne Europe de l’Espagne de la Hongrie de l’Allemagne de la France, les émeutes, les grèves générales, émeutes, révolutions, annonçaient une guerre de classe sans quartier.

Le premier État prolétaire naissait sous la forme de gouvernement des soviets. La bourgeoisie russe et internationale retenaient son souffle et ordonna à ses forces de déchirer l’état naissant, le nouveau pouvoir soviétique avec un large soutien populaire pour la direction du Parti communiste (bolchevik) et pour le camarade Lénine savait comment répondre à cette situation.

Le camarade V.I. Ulianov “Lénine” est mort le 21 janvier 1924, a été enterré avec le drapeau rouge de la Commune.. La guerre civile avait pris fin avec la victoire du pouvoir soviétique en 1921. Leon Trotsky, changea une autre fois, de faction, et le camarade Staline a poursuivi l’œuvre de Lénine. Depuis la direction il a dû développer l’URSS, étouffer le grand complot 37 et remporter la guerre a la première puissance impérialiste mondiale, le III Reich nazi, avec le coût élevé de 20 millions de morts.

La fausse guerre froide a commencé et de nouvelles révolutions ont triomphées. En 1949, Mao Tse-Toung proclama la République Populaire de Chine. Le prestige de l’URSS et de sa révolution étaient immenses, mais un virus, mal guérie, le révisionnisme a commencé à saper ses fondations. Mao l’a dénoncé dans les années 60 et a lancé la Grande Révolution Culturelle Prolétarienne, nous savons maintenant comment il avait raison.
Le 9 Novembre ils “célèbrent” la chute d’un mur qui n’aurai jamais probablement existé dans la patrie de Karl et de Frederich, de Rose et de Karl.

Le présent glorieuse de la Grande Révolution, c’est qu’elle marque le début d’un cycle qui n’est pas encore achevé. Dans sa riche expérience dans tous les aspects, dans le positif et le négatif. Des premiers nous avons à apprendre et des second, beaucoup plus, pour les éviter.

Galiza, Novembre 7, 2009

Vive le 92 anniversaire de la Grande Révolution socialiste d’Octobre!

Indira Priyadarshini Gandhi - Prime Minister

October 31st, came and went quietly, this year. The paper reminded me about the gruesome assassination that took place exactly 25 years ago. 31st Oct 1984, would have been just another day in history, but for the actions of two body guards, who though sworn to fulfill their duty to protect, chose to kill instead. She had a choice, she was warned, she also knew that there were several who wanted her dead. True to her spirit, or could be considered foolhardy in today’s world, she chose to keep her body guards even though, several followers of the Sikh faith were most unhappy with her decision to bombard the Golden Temple.

I still remember knowing about her death, late in the afternoon. The only television channel and radio service, both of them, then controlled by the government, had not put out any information. But before noon, it was quite clear that she was dead, the BBC radio service available but feeble in parts, were reporting about the assassination. The phones were ringing off the hook at our house, from friends and relatives, rumours and news spreading from far and wide. In far away Madras (now Chennai), reverberation were being felt. I was home, my early morning classes were done by 9, and my classes at the college were only in the evening. I rode my bike to a local market place (aminjikarai) to see if i could get the evening newspaper, with limited luck. By evening official news was being delivered by Doordharshan, about her death. The country was in mourning.

She was liked by thousands, many looked to her as goddess or mother, just as there were many who hated the ground she walked on and wouldnt shed a tear at this loss. She was killed because she chose to act, to cleanse a situation that she had fostered for a long time, but when she chose to do it, she was firm and also brutal. What started as political infighting, now was war, within the nation, and amongst its own people. Irrespective of all her faults, she truly believed that the Indians were unstoppable and helped instill a sense of pride in our minds. She also ruled the country during the most torturous times and many of her decisions good and bad are still having an impact on us today.

I believe there will never be another Indira Gandhi in India for a long time. There never was, even then, a person of this stature, who was able to bring the entire country together. She made stupid mistakes that most politicians make, thinking that power is endless and that people will never realize. But she also knew very clearly that her best rapport were with the same people. She won everytime she stood close to them and helped them, and lost when she moved away and let a coterie intervene.

To me, she remains a great person, the first politician i ever looked upto. The first images and realization of this person started with the 1971 war, but i was too small to associate her and victory. But it was during the period of emergency that she started to build on the impression. I guess all the hatred many people were spewing around, only endeared her closer to me. Defending her and the emergency became a constant part of my day to day life. In Madras, the impact of any emergency was minimal, but the positive effects of it numerous. The fiasco of a coalition, that began in 1977, proved that India at this time needed a strong leader like Indira. She did come back to power, voted in by the same people who rebelled against her, fed up with bickering and infighting at the highest office and seats of government. I mourned her death, unable to think what would happen to the country and its people. Looking back, it seemed we, India and Indians were poised for greater glory, to be build on a foundation laid by Indira Gandhi.

A Palestinian schoolgirl stands by Israeli Nazi forces outside a Palestinian house in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem

Settlement by stealth belies promises of restraint

Hillary Clinton has praised Israel for its policy on settlers but, the displacements go on

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

Maysaa Al-Kurd has lived all her life in the home her family moved into in 1956. The pomegranate tree standing in the garden was planted by her father when she was still an infant nearly half a century ago. But that hardly reassured her yesterday when she heard the Jewish settlers break into the next-door extension building her brother Nabil built to house his family in 2001.

“I heard the door opened by force,” she said. “And then I heard one of them say: ‘This furniture belongs to whom?’” Later she saw “with my own eyes” a settler breaking a television set. Outside, a refrigerator, cushions and household furniture, apparently removed by the intruders, stood for several hours in the pouring rain. Inside, broken glass could be seen above a stove.

What Ms Kurd, of the inner-city East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, was hearing at about 10.30am yesterday was the latest in an accelerating series of highly charged and organised moves by settlers into the city’s Arab sector.  Armed with a court order saying they own the property, the settlers – about 40, according to Ms Kurd – decided to break in just four days after [America's whore] Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, dismayed Palestinian and other Arab leaders by praising the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “unprecedented” promise of “a restraint” in illegal settlement activity.

Mrs Clinton sought on Monday to “clarify” her remarks by acknowledging that Mr Netanyahu’s proposals fell well short of the settlement freeze the US had earlier called for.  And, while Mr Netanyahu has offered temporarily to halt authorisations of new settlement building in the West Bank, he has resolutely set his face against any slowdown in East Jerusalem. The UN says that 194 people were forcibly displaced from their homes in East Jerusalem by evictions and demolitions between January and July of this year. Israel insists it annexed the Arab sector of Jerusalem after the Six-Day War in 1967, but this is rejected by most of the international community who endorse Palestinian aspirations for it to be the capital of a future state. In Amman, the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband expressed “concern” over events at the Kurd house and added: “The current situation is obviously particularly tense in respect of Jerusalem.”

Since a 2001 court order the rooms invaded by the settlers have been closed and used only to store furniture. But for Ms Kurd, whose property is one of at least 24 that settlers are hoping to acquire in this sensitive neighbourhood, their sudden arrival only intensified her fear of losing her home. “We are all worried for the future,” she said, “not just in Sheikh Jarrah but in all East Jerusalem.”

Only last week about a hundred Israeli security personnel arrived to remove a nearby protest tent that the Palestinian Ghawi family had been sleeping in since being evicted in August. That move came 24 hours after bulldozers levelled the homes of six families across East Jerusalem on the grounds they did not have the proper permit. Human rights activists say it is exponentially harder for Palestinians than Israelis to obtain permits.

Another elderly member of Ms Kurd’s extended family, Mohammed al- Kurd, died after being evicted last August from his home and moving into a similar tent to the Ghawi family’s. Like other of his relatives, he had refused to pay rent to the post-1967 Jewish owners, partly, some diplomats say, because they still dispute the historic right of ownership.

Maysaa al-Kurd said that her “life and blood” was in the house. Asked about the settlers’ argument that they have a right to the land because Yemenite Jews lived there before 1948, she added that her own family were 1948 refugees from what was now Israel. “My family are all from Haifa. Can I go there and say I own the house and I have the key? Can I tell the people there that is my house? They will kill me.”

Police stood guard outside the Sheikh Jarrah house while settlers occupied the adjacent building but eventually left on police advice. However two security guards employed by them were still there at the end of the day.

Although the house and its land was allotted to the Palestinian family in 1956 by the UN Relief and Works Agency and Jordan – then in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem – the Israeli authorities expropriated numbers of properties in the area as state land after 1967 [The stealing of Palestine]. In some cases – apparently including this one – the land was later transferred or sold to companies or organisations representing settlers. None of the departing settlers would speak to reporters, but Adnan Husseini, the Palestinian Authority governor of Jerusalem, said: “The changing position of the American administration led to this.”

Nabil al-Kurd, a father of four children, was summoned from work by his family when the settlers arrived. He was later told by police the settlers would be ordered to stay away pending 10 days in which Mr Kurd could lodge an appeal.

Appeal? We all know how the Nazis will rule.. in favor of their fellow-pig Nazis!

Era ragionevole pensare che i dubbi sull’affaire Cunsky-Catania si sarebberro diffusi in Rete piuttosto velocemente, vista l’incongruità dei dati forniti dal Ministero; e così  è stato. La Rete da questo punto di vista è una garanzia.  Fino ad’oggi non abbiamo ragione di ritenere che i dati forniti circa le missioni del U-Boot 64 siano errati  o incompleti. e pertanto escludiamo che l’affondamento del Piroscafo Catania non sia mai avvenuto.

Ma come si può evincere dalla foto pubblicata qui sopra esiste una forte discrepanza fra le coordinate geografiche fornite dalle varie fonti. Pertanto è ragionevole credere che il relitto del Catania si trovi davvero in fondo al mar Tirreno ma che il relitto incriminato a cui fanno capo le recenti indagini  NON SIA IL PIROSCAFO CATANIA.

Quantomeno i dati e le affermazioni fornite dal Ministro Prestigiacomo e dal Procuratore Grasso non sono sufficienti a dimostrare ciò. Sarebbe dovere del ministero rendere pubblici gli atti dove le prove di questo avvenuto riconoscimento si palesino in maniera inoppugnabile. La confusione generata da quella conferenza stampa è tale da non riuscire perfino a percepire se all’interno degli atti della Procura si parli di Nave Passeggeri o Nave Mercantile, particolare non di secondo piano.

A questo punto l’indagine va spostata sull’analisi dei video e delle immagini del relitto del presunto Cunsky e non sulle informazioni relative al Piroscafo Catania. Lasciare il mirino su informazioni riguardanti il vecchio piroscafo costruito nel 1906 veicolerebbe gli sforzi nella parte sbagliata. Semmai si tratta di recepire maggiori dettagli ed immagini sul relitto scovato nel 2009 e successivamente confrontarle con i dati navali del Catania. Infatti, è bene ripeterlo, esistono forti dubbi anche sulla lunghezza dei due relitti che si differenzierebbero fra di sè di quasi una decina di metri.

Nel ricordare che potete trovare il primo articolo sull’argomento QUI, vi proponiamo innanzitutto le immagini portate in superficie dai sommozzatori che avevano filmato il relitto e successivamente proposte da TeleCosenza..

WWF, INCONGRUENZE SU PUNTI NAVE, COMPARARE VIDEO

(ANSA) – ROMA, 2 NOV – Una ”urgente” perizia pubblica comparata dei video ”per fugare ogni dubbio e accertare appieno la verita’ sull’identita’ e il contenuto della nave affondata a Cetraro”. Lo chiede il presidente del Wwf Italia, Stefano Leoni, in una lettera inviata questa mattina al ministro dell’ Ambiente, Stefania Prestigiacomo, e al procuratore nazionale antimafia, Piero Grasso. Il Wwf intende cosi’ riaprire il caso della cosiddetta ‘nave dei veleni’, caso chiuso per il ministero e per la Dna visto che in base ai risultati delle verifiche si tratta di una nave passeggeri affondata nel 1917 e non contenente fusti.

Nella lettera il Wwf segnala che, riferisce una nota, ”da alcune verifiche compiute dall’associazione esisterebbero delle incongruenze sui punti nave su cui hanno operato le due indagini filmate, ovvero, quello utilizzato dalla Mare Oceano e quello su cui ha indagato la stessa Regione Calabria circa un mese fa. Secondo queste analisi il punto su cui ha operato la Mare Oceano sarebbe a tre miglia e mezzo (6,5 km circa di distanza) dal luogo dove era stato individuato dalla Regione Calabria il relitto della sospetta nave dei veleni (le coordinate fornite dalla Regione di quest’ultima sono: 39 gradi 28,50 primi nord, 15 gradi 41,57 primi est; mentre quelle della nave mercantile Catania, come risulta da dati tratti dall’Ufficio idrografico del Regno Unito, sono: 39 gradi, 32 primi nord, 15 gradi, 42 primi est)”.

Per questo il Wwf chiede una perizia pubblica comparata tra i due video girati dal Rov della nave Coopernaut Franca della societa’ Nautilus, che ha agito su incarico della Regione Calabria, e dell’Arpacal e dal Rov della nave Mare Oceano della societa’ Geolab incaricata dal ministero dell’Ambiente.

02/11/2009

http://www.ansa.it/ambiente/notizie/notiziari/inquinamento/20091102134134972230.html

E se fosse l’Olandese Volante?

Carlo Bertani

http://carlobertani.blogspot.com/2009/10/e-se-fosse-lolandese-volante.html

Gentile Ministro Prestigiacomo,

quella che può osservare nella fotografia, sarebbe il relitto scovato dalla nave oceanografica “Mare Oceano” al largo di Cetraro, in Calabria. Molto probabilmente lo è, perché la nave “Città di Catania” (all’epoca si apponeva sempre, prima, la locuzione “Città di”) fu affondata nel Marzo 1917 da un sommergibile tedesco – all’Ufficio Storico della Marina lo confermeranno di certo – e siamo dunque felici che la “Città di Catania” (proveniente dall’India e diretta a Napoli) sia stata finalmente ritrovata.

Siamo un po’ più freddi, invece, al riguardo della “cessata emergenza” diramata ai quattro venti poiché – a nostro avviso – la conclusione ci sembra cozzare contro le più elementari regole della logica. Soprattutto della logica delle costruzioni navali.

(Bertani commette un errore perchè la nave a cui fa riferimento lui è il Città di Catania affondato nel 1943 e non il piroscafo Catania a cui si fa esplicito riferimento in tutti gli atti)

Partiamo dall’inizio.

La presunta “nave dei veleni”, individuata dalla ricerca finanziata dapprima dalla Regione Calabria, doveva essere la Kunsky (che risultava, invece, demolita in Oriente ma, sulle pratiche di demolizione in quelle aree, meglio non fare troppo affidamento) ed invece si scopre che è un relitto italiano risalente alla Prima Guerra Mondiale. Le vendite di pesce sono crollate dell’80%, ed è dunque un bel sollievo sapere che si tratta di un innocente piroscafo italiano.

Ci sono, però, alcune discrepanze fra le due descrizioni, che saltano agli occhi.

Nelle risultanze pubblicate sui primi rilevamenti – quelli ordinati dalla Regione Calabria – si dice che:

E’ lei. E’ la nave descritta dal pentito di mafia Francesco Fonti. E’ come e dove lui aveva indicato. Sotto cinquecento metri di acqua, lunga da 110 a 120 metri e larga una ventina, con un grosso squarcio a prua dal quale fuoriesce un fusto. Si trova venti miglia al largo di Cetraro (Cosenza). I fusti sarebbero 120, tutti pieni di rifiuti tossici [1].

Ci sono dei fusti. Fusti in metallo, ovviamente. Peccato, Ministro Prestigiacomo, che lo stivaggio di materiali in fusti metallici non fosse assolutamente in uso agli inizi del ‘900: all’epoca, tutto veniva stivato in barili di legno, tanto che le tabelle d’armamento, almeno fino alla Seconda Guerra Mondiale, prevedevano che a bordo vi fosse almeno un mastro bottaio con alcuni aiutanti. Controlli, la prego.

Ci sono dei fusti nei pressi della “Città di Catania”? Approfondisca.

Altro capitolo che non ci convince riguarda le dichiarazioni della “Grande Silenziosa”, la Regia Mar…pardon, oggi Marina Militare Italiana:

Di certo i misteri che hanno sempre avvolto questa vicenda non lasciano sperare bene. Come aveva già confermato la Marina Militare, nella zona – siamo a venti miglia al largo di Cetraro (CS) – non ci sono relitti bellici né della prima né della seconda guerra mondiale. [2]

Ohibò, vuoi vedere che alla gloriosa Marina Italiana era sfuggita la povera “Città di Catania”? Oppure qualcuno se n’era scordato? Per di più: una nave che porta il nome della sua città natale…

Insomma: furono oppure no affondate navi, per eventi bellici, nel mare di Cetraro? Controlli, la prego: se desidera, posso inviarle i riferimenti dell’Ufficio Storico della Marina, ma sono certo che lei già li possiede.

Se il mistero dei fusti e dei barili, più le incertezze della Marina, ancora non la convincono, le sottoponiamo la relazione stesa durante i primi rilevamenti:

L’epoca della costruzione della nave affondata, secondo quanto emerso dai primi rilievi, risalirebbe agli anni `60-´70. Secondo quanto riferito dal procuratore Bruno Giordano, infatti, non sarebbe visibile la bullonatura, il che indurrebbe a pensare che sia stata costruita in quegli anni. Il relitto è coperto da numerose reti da pesca [3].

Non vorremmo tediarla con inutili dissertazioni sulle costruzioni navali, ma vorremmo ricordarle – questa è Storia, non invenzioni – che le prime navi a non avere bulloni per collegare le lamiere alle ordinate furono le corazzate “tascabili” tedesche della classe Admiral Graf von Spee (più precisamente, Admiral Graf von Spee, Admiral Scheer e Deutschland, poi Lützow), le quali – dovendo sottostare ai limiti imposti dalle Conferenze Navali di Londra e Washington – non potevano dislocare più di 10.000 tonnellate.

I tedeschi, per risparmiare il peso dei bulloni, “inventarono” la saldatura della lamiere alle ordinate, il che consentì di costruire navi con cannoni di maggior calibro (280 mm) al posto dei 203 mm dei “classici” incrociatori pesanti da 10.000 tonnellate.

Tutto questo, per dirle che – come afferma il Procuratore di Paola – se la nave in questione non ha bulloni nello scafo, non può essere la “Città di Catania” (varata nel 1906, quando si “bullonava” sempre, da non confondere con l’omonima nave affondata in Adriatico durante il secondo conflitto mondiale), ma un’altra.

Che la Kunsky sia solo un poco più in là? Perché chiudere così frettolosamente le indagini? “Caso chiuso”: così in fretta?

Rimane il mistero del Cesio 137 ritrovato nei molluschi [4], proprio in quel mare: siccome il Cesio 137 non si trova in natura, chi ce lo avrà messo? Lei ha un’idea? Che siano stati gli iraniani?

Le ricordo, infine, che le precedenti rilevazioni stabilirono che – nel mare di Cetraro – il SONAR aveva individuato ben sette “macchie scure”, che non indicano necessariamente una nave, ma che forniscono alte probabilità che lo siano.

Ciò che insospettisce, è che la notizia fu pubblicata da AdnKronos e – proprio mentre scrivevo questo articolo – è sparita! Sì, ritirata dal circuito!

Credo che, anche per lei, la cosa risulterà assai strana.

Non vorremmo che, per correre dietro all’urgenza economica di garantire la pesca, per ovviare alle proteste dei pescatori e per tacitare chi fa “allarmismo”, aveste semplicemente scambiato una nave per un’altra. Capita. In fin dei conti, quel che conta è la verità mediatica: il resto…

Provi a rifletterci un poco; se mai, chieda lumi a Bertolaso ed alla Marina: vedrà che – con un poco di calma e di riflessione – tutto si chiarirà.

Come sempre, in Italia.

Articolo liberamente riproducibile nella sua integrità, ovvia la citazione della fonte.

[1] Fonte: http://www.repubblica.it/2009/09/sezioni/cronaca/nave-veleni/trovata/trovata.html

[2] Ibidem.

[3] Fonte: Il Secolo XIX – 12 Settembre 2009.

[4] Fonte: http://www.repubblica.it/2009/09/sezioni/cronaca/nave-veleni/risultato-indagini/risultato-indagini.html

]]> http://nighthawknews.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-year-in-film-1912-1926/ Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:10:32 +0000 nighthawk4486 http://nighthawknews.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-year-in-film-1912-1926/

My Top 10:

1. The Battleship Potemkin
   

   The Battleship Potemkin (1925)

2. Greed
3. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
4. The Birth of a Nation
5. The Gold Rush
6. The Phantom of the Opera
7. The Hunchback of Notre Dame
8. Foolish Wives
9. The Last Laugh
10. The General
    

TSPDT Consensus Top 5 Films:

• #8 – The Battleship Potemkin
• #27 – The Gold Rush
• #30 – The General
• #51 – Intolerance
• #64 – Greed

AFI Top 100 Films:

• The Birth of a Nation – #44 (1998) – not on 2007 list
• The Gold Rush – #75 (1998) – #58  (2007)
• The General – #18 (2007) – not on 1998 list
• Intolerance – #49 (2007) – not on 1998 list

Nighthawk Awards:

• Best Picture: The Battleship Potemkin
• Best Director: Sergei Eisenstein (The Battleship Potemkin)
• Best Adapted Screenplay: Greed (from the novel McTeague)
• Best Original Screenplay: The Gold Rush
• Best Actor: Charlie Chaplin (The Gold Rush)
• Best Actress: Lilian Gish (Broken Blossoms)
• Best Supporting Actor: Donald Crisp (Broken Blossoms)
• Best Supporting Actress: Zasu Pitts (Greed)

Ebert Great Movies (in order that he added them):

• The General
• The Battleship Potemkin
• Greed
• Broken Blossoms
• The Last Laugh
• The Birth of a Nation
• The Phantom of the Opera
• Faust
• Safety Last
• Nanook of the North
• Cabiria
• The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
• Souls for Sale

1912 is where I begin this project because it was in 1912 that Richard III, the earliest surviving feature length film was released.  1926 is where this post ends because the Academy Awards began in 1927.  So this pretty much covers the pre-Academy era of feature films.

Because these are the pre-Academy years no group existed to decide what was the best film of each year.  So if you’re looking to try to figure out what films to watch from this era, there are several ways to go about it.  First, you can look at TSPDT and their list of the Top 1000 films of all-time.  It’s a good place to start, though it leaves a lot to sort through.  You could try the AFI list which, between the two versions of 400 films in consideration, included 19 different films from this era (aside from the 4 films on the two versions of the top 100 they also nominated Richard III, The Cheat, The Poor Little Rich Girl, Broken Blossoms, Within Our Gates, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, The Kid, Safety Last, Sherlock Jr., The Thief of Bagdad, The Big Parade, The Freshman, Greed, The Phantom of the Opera and Ben-Hur).  There are 13 films from this era that have been featured on Roger Ebert’s Great Movies list.  You could also try focusing on one director in particular.  Charlie Chaplin began in this era making short films, eventually starting his feature directing career, though his only true classic during this era is The Gold Rush.  D.W. Griffith was the top director of the era and almost his entire career was done before sound ever made it to the screen.  There is Erich von Stroheim, who made far fewer films than Griffith, but each film is worth seeing.  Then there are the foreign directors, the ones who get missed if you stick to AFI, like all of the great silent work of Fritz Lang and F.W. Murnau.  While the #1 film on my list (and TSPDT) is Russian, 5 of my top 20 are German films (1 Lang, 3 Murnau and Cabinet).  But really, it’s hard to go wrong.  I’ve seen over 100 feature length films from this era and none of them are bad and only 2 of them are as low as **.5 (Dream Street and The Idol Dancer – two of Griffith’s weakest films).  Films that have managed to survive from this era usually have survived for a reason – either because of their director, their historical value or their quality.

To me, among the actors there are four main names that stick out: Charlie Chaplin, for his amazing ability, Lon Chaney for the way he would disappear into his characters, Emil Jannings, who in the silent era proved that language was irrelevant and Erich von Stroheim, who maintained a dignified air about him even when he was acting the complete cad.  Among the actresses, there was only one; Lilian Gish rises above everyone else in the profession during this era.

Of course, there are highlights of film history all through this era:

• 1912 – Mack Sennett releases the first Keystone Kops films / Carl Laemmle organizes several independent companies into Universal
• 1913 – Lon Chaney begins working in Horror films / D.W. Griffith leaves Biograph after over 500 shorts / Cecil B. DeMille rents a barn that will later become Paramount
• 1914 – Chaplin first appears on-screen as the Tramp / Louella Parsons becomes the first movie columnist
• 1915 – Film debuts of W.C. Fields and Douglas Fairbanks
• 1918 – Warner Bros. release its first film  (Four Years in Germany) / first Tarzan film
• 1919 – Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks and Griffith form United Artists / Oscar Micheaux becomes first African-American director
• 1920 – Marriage of Fairbanks and Pickford
• 1921 – Fatty Arbuckle trial
• 1922 – Will Hays appointed head of MPPDA / release of Nanook of the North
• 1923 – Introduction of 16mm film by Eastman Kodak / Hollywoodland sign is erected
• 1924 – Metro, Goldwyn and Mayer form to become MGM
• 1925 – Soviet Union begins to finance national filmmaking
• 1926 – Death of Valentino

My Top Film from each calendar year:

• 1912 - Richard III
• 1913 – Ingeborg Holm
• 1914 – The Avenging Conscience
• 1915 – The Birth of a Nation
• 1916 – Intolerance
• 1917 - A Man There Was
• 1918 – The Spiders Part I: The Golden Lake
• 1919 – The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
• 1920 – The Golem
• 1921 – The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
• 1922 – Foolish Wives (Nosferatu is my #1, but it’s Oscar eligible in 1929)
• 1923 – The Hunchback of Notre Dame
• 1924 – The Last Laugh
• 1925 – Greed
• 1926 – The Battleship Potemkin

Overlooked film of 1923:

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (dir. Wallace Worsley)

Lon Chaney as Quasimodo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

I had actually planned to write about the 1922 version of Oliver Twist, also starring Lon Chaney.  I had begun with talking about how if you have only seen Chaney in horror films, then your film horizons need to be expanded, how Chaney was one of the greats of the Silent Era, how he was the first great film Fagin but in spite of his acclaim, today it is easier to find a still of Ben Kingsley or Alec Guinness (or even Timothy Spall) when you Google the words “Fagin” and “Chaney.”  But then going through all the lists I came to a realization.  Hunchback is obscenely overlooked.  Ebert hasn’t covered it, it isn’t included in the Top 1000 (or even the doubling the canon extra 1000 films you can find there though the inferior 1939 remake is) and wasn’t among the 400 films by AFI under consideration for either their original list or the 2007 version.  Yet it is an essential Horror film (and made it to #19 on my Top 25 Horror List) and ranks only behind Phantom of the Opera in the Chaney pantheon.  It is an excellent early example of how books could be translated onto film and how the images we see up on the screen stay with us through our voyages in literature.

Have you read the book?  The odds are no.  Victor Hugo is much talked about and much adapted, but seems to be rarely read.  Les Miserables has been memorably translated into many different forms, but at 1463 pages (longer than War and Peace) isn’t read particularly much.  And of course, Hugo didn’t write a novel titled The Hunchback of Notre Dame.  The actual title of the book is Notre-Dame de Paris.  Hugo’s title emphasizes the cathedral’s place as the center of the book.  But films didn’t go for that.  The first film version was titled Esmeralda and this film pretty much set in stone the notion of Quasimodo as the central character and Hunchback as the title (which is what you will usually find on current printings of the book).

The film certainly wanted to focus on Quasimodo and to give Chaney free reign to show his incredible talent (both for acting and for makeup).  The first shot of him, a couple of minutes into the film, captures him high in the frame, up on the balcony of Notre Dame, watching the proceedings of the Festival of Fools.  Then we cut to a somewhat closer shot and get the first hints of his grotesque looks.  Then there is the title card announcing the character and actor.  Then we cut again, this time to a close-up and we get our first real look at the hunchback: curved spine, distorted face, scar for a right eye, wild hair, rough hands covered with thick, dark hair.  It is a brilliant simultaneous slow and quick reveal that prefigures the same kind of theatrical effect we would get from the first look at the Phantom’s face only two years later.

Movie audiences hadn’t really seen anything like this before.  Here was this grotesque monster, leering and mocking the people below him, later stripped to be punished and determined to be grotesque through and through; yet their sympathies were touched.  He is so gifted that he is able to climb down the outside of the cathedral.  He is so devoted that he will go to any lengths to please those whom he feels he serves.  His love is so strong that in the end, death is more pleasurable than the concept of existence without his beloved.  He is so much more preferrable to Phoebus, has so much more honesty, courage and even dignity.  While it was Chaney who had conceived the project, even having say over the cast and director, and thus no question that his monster would be the center, it is his performance rather than any ego that makes him the star.

When Chaney died in 1930, death was already no stranger to Hollywood; yet no death before Chaney had robbed cinema of so much.  Valentino was revered by women everywhere and good films had been made by Ince and Stiller, but it was Chaney who had the most future to offer to film fans.  This film was the beginning of the crowning of Universal Studios as the champion of Horror.  Great Horror films had been made in Germany (Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu, The Golem), but nothing like this had been seen in the States.  His Phantom would cement his reputation as the Man of a Thousand Faces and we can only imagine what kind of makeup we would have seen had he been around to perhaps star in Dracula or Frankenstein or The Mummy or The Wolf Man.

But instead he died.  We were denied the chance to see him become a huge Horror star in the sound era.  And he could have done it.  “No dialogue.  We didn’t need dialogue.  We had faces.”  Norma Desmond says that, of course.  And it’s true most of all about Chaney.  He had a great voice as was proved in his one sound film, but he didn’t dialogue.  He had that face, those moves, those natural abilities.  He was always a star, even if people don’t seem to remember the film that truly made him one.

Ze Germans

Adequatly crowning the “father of horror films” is quite a tricky business. Of course, credit must be given to the mind-bending trickery of film pioneer Georges Méliès, but since his films were in fact little more than vaudeville magic adapted to the screen, and because of the fact that the films he made seldom ranged more than 10 or 15 minutes, it wouldn’t seem right to lend him such a fancy title. And although some very adequate interpretations of classic horror themes sprung from the pencils of the likes of Poe, Shelley, Hugo and Burroughs were made during the first 15 years of the fledgling genre, no-one really had such an impact that they could today be called the father of horror movies.

But one thing is utterly clear; the honour should to to a German. And although his name is now largely forgotten among a wider audience, the one who seems most fitted is a man who was called Paul Wegener. Wegener starred in what has been cited as both the first full length expressionist film and the first full length horror film, Der Student von Prag, or The Student of Prague. The film portrays a young student who is unhappily in love with a young girl, but not rich enough to ask for her hand. He makes a Faustian deal with a sorcerer who gives him gold in return for his reflection in the mirror (aka his soul). His mirror image then takes on a life of his own to do gruesome deeds.

The film was directed by Wegener and Stellan Rye and was released in 1913. Although Wegener was hardly a student (close to 40 years of age), he also played the titular character. It was his first motion picture, but it firmly cemented his vision of the motion picture as the medium for expressing new ideas and ideals. The film was a way of mirroring political and social changes in society and provided technical and scenographical opportunities that the theatre stage lacked. I shall later further discuss some of the ideas behind the German expressionist cinema, but in short it might be described as a genre that often disregarded realism in favour of mood and symbolism. One of the reasons for symblolic rather than realistic sets and a minimum of lighting was that the German film industry at the time was extremely vibrant, but horribly poor.

After the success of Der Student, Wegener got together with a friend called Henrik Galeen (who later remade The Student of Prague) to work on a film inspired by an old Jewish myth about The Golem, a magical creatured summoned out of clay who would help the Jews in times of dire need. Unsurprisingly the project backfires and the creature turns on its creator (doesn’t that sound rather like another chap we know?). In this case it featured an antique salesman who finds a Golem. Wegener, who was a large and imposing man was perfect for the title role – a performance that heavily influenced Boris Karloff’s performance of Frankenstein’s monster.

Der Golem was released in 1915 and was a huge success. Following the success he made a film about The Yeti (1916) and a parody of The Golem, The Golem and the Dancer (1917) and an origin story, The Golem – How He Came to the World (1920). The original Der Golem is today lost, save for a few fragments, and when disussing The Golem, people today mostly refer to the immensely successful third film in the series.

Although very realistic compared to later expressionist films, The Golem had a feel of “heightened reality” and a very dark, gothic feel to it, that strongly influenced later masterpieces such as Nosferatu, The Phantom of the Opera and Dracula.

So without further ado, I hereby pronounce Paul Wegener The Father of Horror Films.

For more early horror films, please check out my Playlist

Members of Congress are considering a bipartisan resolution that officially rejects the findings of the United Nations-commissioned Goldstone Report on Israel’s military offensive against Gaza. The resolution also calls on President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to urge U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to veto the report in the UN Security Council.

Congress is expected to vote on the bill – H.R. 867 – by this weekend.

People of conscience are requested to call both your Senators and your Congressperson today and tell them to vote against this bill. You can read the bill here. It ignores the conclusions of the Goldstone Report and simply parrots Israeli government denial.

Judge Richard Goldstone has challenged the U.S. to substantiate its claim that his report is “flawed.” President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have made no response. The carefully researched and documented report deserves a response, not a veto. The people of Gaza, who were brutally attacked, deserve a hearing.

It is not possible to grant Israel impunity while demanding other nations respect human rights.

What message are we sending to the rest of the world when we grant Israel complete impunity?

Let Congress know this legislation is unacceptable. It is not in the U.S. interest to disregard war crimes. It is not in the U.S. interest to rewrite international law. It is not possible to grant Israel impunity while demanding other nations respect human rights.

Please call U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and demand the U.S. supports the Goldstone Report in the UN Security Council. Tell Secretary Clinton that a veto of the Goldstone Report would further tarnish America’s image in the world. Contact Secretary Clinton at 202.647.5291.

Contact your representatives or call the Capitol switchboard at the numbers below.

U.S. House of Representatives 202.225.3121 or www.house.gov
U.S. Senate 202.224.3121 or www.senate.gov

Hjemløs

- I sit eget land -

Efter udgivelsen af min første blog ved navn; “Hjemløs i sit eget land” blev jeg mødt af en del reaktioner, både positive og negative. Dette overraskede mig forholdsvis meget da jeg ikke havde regnet med at uafhængige personer ville interessere sig for en skoleblog, men sådan kan man jo blive overrasket. Så nu har jeg valgt at udgive endnu blog, som en form for follow-up på min første. Her komemr den:

Efter Israel i 1948 fik sin uafhængighed har landet været et mekka for etniske problemer. På den ene side har vi det jødiske folk og på den anden det muslimske. Begge disse lande mener at Palæstina retmæssigt tilhører dem. Personligt ansér jeg landet for at tilhøre det jødiske folk, dette standpunkt baserer jeg på en hel del forskellige argumenter som jeg nu vil ridse op. Jeg vil dog samtidig understrege at disse argumenterer ikke justificerer udryddelse af palæstinensiske civile osv. På den anden side justificerer de argumenter som det palæstinensiske folk har, ikke for selvmordsbomber og andre ekstremistiske udøvelser.

Jeg mener personligt ikke at man kan bruge oldtidshistorie som et argument i vore dage, da dette (som nævnt i tidligere kommentarer til min 1. blog) vil være fundamentalistisk. For at finde det første argument skal vi tilbage til slutningen af 1. verdenskrig: Denne zionistiske videnskabsmand havde i en længere periode hjulpet Storbritannien med udviklingen af våben, dette bar til sidst frugt og det lykkedes den jødiske professor at udvikle noget ammunition som sikrede England et vigtigt militært fremskridt. Som tak for dette valgte den daværende engelske regering at skænke “Det britiske mandat Palæstina” til jøderne. Allerede inden da havde jøder fra hele østeruopa påbegyndt deres “aliyah” til Palæstina, og det havde faktisk lykkedes det jødiske folk at slå sig forholdvist fredeligt ned i Palæstina.

I 46′er opstod der borgerkrig i Palæstina da der opstod en fejde mellem de britiske imperialister og de arabiske palæstinensere. I 1947 valgte briterne at trække sig ud af landet, og dette gav det jødiske folk en mulighed for at sikre det land de havde skrevet under på i 1917 (Balfour deklarationen). For at gøre en lang historie kort, lykkedes det i November 1947 det jødiske folk at få uafhængighed. Palæstina blev opdelt i to stater hvoraf det ene var jødisk og det andet Muslimsk. Selvom dette var en nedgradering af aftalen fra 1917 var dette et skridt i den rigtige vej. Et skridt man kunne bygge videre på.

- Victor Koppel.

De fiecare dată când apare Conu Dinu la TV, las tot ce fac şi mă aşez în faţa micului ecran ca să iau învăţătură de la unul dintre cei mai puternici Oameni din România. Ieri seară l-am văzut pe Marele Om la Moshe Guran la una din Antene. Nu mai ştiu care, le încurc… cred că era a doua. Aşa e când ai prea multe posturi, ca Mogulu’…

Nu am prins decât ultimele două minute din emisiune şi reţin această vorbă de Duh enunţată în titlu. Durata medie de viaţă a unei companii este de doar 8 ani. În prezent, în primele 500 de companii din lume, mai există doar două companii care mai existau şi în 1917…

Oh, da! Încurajator!

Ce putem învăţa din aceasta? Capitalul trebuie rulat şi reinvestit pentru a se înmulţi viguros. Nu trebuie să încremenim în proiect. Bine spunea distinsul meu Profesor de la Filosofie, Gabriel Liiceanu, fie-i Numele binecuvântat, “prostia este stadiul încremenirii în proiect.”

Capitalul se rulează şi creşte ca un fluviu, dar pentru asta trebuie inteligenţă. Şi Boier Dinu o are pe deplin. Nu pot uita cum mijea un zâmbet şugubăţ în vârful buzelor… Fascinant individ!

A. Braga, 8 de julho de 1917

Querido amigo Reinhold,

A tua carta recebi, pela qual agradeço. No mês passado diversas pessoas foram visitar o Onofre Regis. Foram as seguintes pessoas: Arnolds, Arturs, Shenne e Koleggeene.

Desta vez “aqueles aqueles” estavam com grande coragem e disposição para viagem. Estando o tempo firme e as estradas boas, e sendo o último mês que o Arturs liderava o grupo, este conseguiu arrancar as pessoas como a Kolegeene de sua “vidinha querida e suave”; desta vez ela de boa vontade enfrentou as dificuldades de uma viagem.

No domingo seguinte elas fizeram a prometida viagem para o Rio Larangeiras: foram a Kolegeene e a Isolina. Eu também fui, mas não junto, pois as alcancei e na volta não pude voltar com elas. Saí bem depois, pois tive que conferir um trecho do ABC com a Margarida, ensinar os textos áureos das próximas lições da Escola Dominical e ler todas lições dos próximos domingos. Almocei e ainda conversei com diversos brasileiros amigos, e assim mesmo alcancei a Isolina e sua companheira.

Hoje entreguei as tuas lembranças e saudações ao pessoal de Rio Laranjeiras, pelas quais agradeceram e retribuíram – principalmente a Dominga de Medeiros e Maria da Silva, que estão também muito preocupadas com a Augusta, que se prepara para casar com aquele alemão logo que possível, apesar dos conselhos de todos. Essas coisas deixam todos muito preocupados. Nos últimos tempos tinha observado que a Augusta está um tanto diferente, mas achava que não seria nada. Diferente é a Margarida, que é diligente e aprende tudo com facilidade.

A congregação de Larangeiras está com uma freqüência menor do que naquele tempo. Alguns faltam, e também aparecem outros que a gente não conhecia.

Hoje à noite dirigi o culto aqui nos Leiman em leto e em brasileiro, pois tinham vindo diversos brasileiros.

Quanto ao Oscar tenho pouco a dizer, principalmente como ele vai, pois ele faz parte do grupo do Rio Novo. O que tenho ouvido dizer é que eles mesmos não conseguiram dividir as terras, então teriam levado à justiça para orientar a divisão.

O Arvids [Karp] está construindo a casa para o Salit e quando terminar ele vai embora. O Juris também vai escrever uma carta para você, sobre suas variadas experiências de sua vida, etc.

Que Deus te ajude e que te vá bem.

Muitas lembranças de meus familiares e finalmente também as minhas.

Roberts [Klavin]

Rio Novo, 8 de julho de 1917

Querido amigo,

Alegro-me em saber que estás passando bem. A tua carta recebi recentemente. O tempo está firme, com exceção da semana passada que estava nublado e soturno, mas chovia muito pouco.

Espiritualmente temos alegrias e tristezas. No mês passado eu, o Artur e o filho do Match estivemos fazendo uma visita ao Onofre. Eu fui a pé, através o Braço do Norte e eles a cavalo. Levei 8 ½ horas. Eles chegaram bem estropiados.

Reinato e uma órfã chamada Rumilda querem se unir à Igreja. Pela história dela, é filha da irmã do Presidente Campos Salles. O Onofre a encontrou em Tubarão em situação nada invejável. Ela é uma entusiasta cantora dos hinos de louvor.

Na volta, já próximo a Orleans, o trem atropelou um surdo mudo, mas ele não morreu na hora.

Triste é a situação de muitos jovens crentes, que se unem com os incrédulos, mas nesta nossa Igreja não é proibido.

Um domingo eu acompanhei uma Escola Dominical diferente em Rio Laranjeiras. Eles tinham aprendido a lição a seu modo e com suas próprias forças.

Avelino não mora mais com os Leimann. O “Engenho” ainda não está pronto. O Juris prometeu escrever.

De que jeito aqueles alunos que não tinham dinheiro para pagar os estudos passaram de ano?

Envio sinceras saudações e espero que tenhas sucesso em teus empreendimentos.

Arnolds [Klavin]