This really gets better by the day.  The newly formed European Empire who knows no boundaries, literally, appointed a dubious Belgium politician called Rompuy as the EU’s President and a Labour peer who has never stood for election, ever, the aptly named Baroness Ashton as the EU’s Foreign Minister.  People I have never heard of and would most definitely not voted for are now “leading” the European Project into new territory.

Baroness Ashton questioned over CND and Soviet money

The Telegraph, by Bruno Waterfield and James Kirkup

Baroness Ashton, the new European Union foreign minister, is facing questions over her role in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament amid claims that it may have had financial links to the Soviet Union.

Not only was she once in the CND, calling for Britain’s disarmament, she is an unelected Labour life peer who helped ram the Lisbon Treaty through the House of Lords.  “I spent 76 hours of my life getting the Lisbon Treaty though the House of Lords. I would very much like to see it come into force,” she is on record as saying.

The UK Independence Party has written to Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, asking him to investigate whether Lady Ashton was party to payments allegedly made to CND from the Soviet regime in Moscow.

The letter, based on allegations made by Vladimir Bukovsky, a former Soviet dissident, claimed that it is “very likely” that CND received “unidentified income” from Moscow in the 1980s.

“CND was notoriously secretive about its sources of funding and did not submit its accounts to independent audit; however, after public pressure they were audited for the first time in 1982-1983,” Gerard Batten, a Ukip MEP, wrote.

“It was found that 38 per cent of their annual income (£176,197) could not be traced back to the original donors. The person responsible for this part of CND fund-raising, from anonymous donors. . . was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.”

Only allegations but the financial links between CND and the Communist Party of Great Britain still remain.  And not only that but CND had links with the Communist-linked Labour Party of Old.  Of course, the entire European Union is Government model is a replica of the old Soviet system, democracy only for the chosen, freedom is slavery, that sort of socialist utopia.

Nigel Farage, Ukip’s leader, was officially reprimanded for asking in the European Parliament whether Mr Barroso would to investigate whether Lady Ashton had received money “from enemies of the West”.

He said: “I do not think she is a fit and proper person to do this job.”

Jerzy Buzek, the parliament’s president, has summoned Mr Farage for a meeting where he will be told to “restrain his language and refrain from making improper comments in the chamber” or face disciplinary action.

Lady Ashton’s office declined to discuss CND’s funding in detail. It said that she “left CND in 1983 and had no involvement after that”.

Her spokesman said: “Like many young people in the late 1970s, Catherine Ashton was involved in the big campaigns of the time.

“She never visited the Soviet Union, she had no contacts with the Soviet Union and she never accepted any money from Soviet sources. The first time she ever visited Russia was as trade commissioner. She has never been a member of the Communist Party.”

A CND spokesman described the Ukip claims as “decades-old unsubstantiated allegations”.

Even if Baroness Ashton didn’t know about it, she was in the Commie-infected, Marxist-loving, Labour party so is corrupt by association in my short-sighted (and very much pissed-off) mind.

Yet who to believe in all this.  Lets see.

Motives:  The European Economic Community has become the European Union run by unelected officials who have lied consistently and will continue to do so until the Empire is complete?  Or Soviet Dissidents like Vladimir Bukovsky who is from the USSR and has experienced first hand the horrors of Soviet Style Communism?

Then there is the plausibility of such events occurring.  It is highly likely that Soviet Russia would prefer a Nuke Free Britain.  It would serve their interests.  It is highly likely that the CND, through outside help, would take whatever help was offered in either the misguided hope that Peace would prevail or the perverted desire to see a Communist takeover.

I’ll take my chances with the dissident as the EU has told too many porkies.

Solution:  Treason needs to be re-instated as a hanging offence.  It will get rid of the corrupted and also employ over 20 million people, from the executioners to the undertaker, burger stands and programmes, live entertainment.  All Parties opposed to the Big Three, the Gov’t Cartel, the Three Stooges, Liblabcon, the Corruptibles, the liars, cheats and traitors, time to start spreading the message, NOT YOUR PARTY MESSAGE but by constantly reminding all and sundry of the nefarious activities of the State apparatus in the hands of the Crooked and Corrupted.

My only fear now is that our complete enslavement is not long away, for if the EU flexes it’s muscles now it has control over the whole of Europe, we shall not be allowed to leave peacefully.  What they will pull out of the hat is anyone’s guess but just like the Baroness, it will be for the Greater Good of Europe, or so they will tell us.

We are suffering the death of a thousand pricks and will soon be in the morgue, we need resuscitation fast for if we are to survive as a Nation.  We are constantly fed the fear of death by war, death by disease, death by CO2, and if we’re really naughty, no doubt the hairy runts’ would bring out the scriptures and inform us of our impending doom from the four horsemen of the fucking apocalypse.

Those who can, should.  Next chance you get, take it.  When people have nothing left to lose, they have everything to gain.

Her Telegraph profile can be found here

a mirage f1

American fighters are well-known. America is always showing off theirs and shoving it down are throats, saying they are the best, whenever we watch a program about air military. Most aviation experts have studied MiGs and Sukhoi jets – the Russian ones get not as much publicity as the American ones. Certainly, the Russian ones look a lot better than the American ones, but my favorite is the ones that don’t get a lot of publicity, like the Chinese ones (I’m not talking about their Copies of the Russian MiGs and Sukhoi jets), I am talking about the ones THEY designed on their own as a country, like the J-10. The French Mirages are my favorite, in particular, the Mirage F1/Mirage 2000 only. They are streamlined and look a lot better the French air force new Rafales. All you have to do is type in “Mirage F1″/”Mirage F1 Tchad” on YouTube to realise they’re beauty.

All of the games I’ve ever played (probably in my entire life) have been taught to me. Someone else older, more experienced, or just more apt for reading had done the dirty work of learning the game and taught me the game in the few minutes the board was being set-up to play. This can often lead to problems. Perhaps the one teaching the game doesn’t know all the rules correctly. Or maybe what they think are actual rules are a variant or house rules for the game. For example: Free Parking does not entitle you to loads of money in Monopoly. (Look it up.) You also tend to get advice from whoever is teaching you the game – picking up their strategy instead of learning to develop your own. A friend and I decided to change all this and learn a new game on our own. No coaching from anyone. No reading of strategies. Just read the rules and play. We selected another Margin of Victory favorite: Twilight Struggle.

Step 1: Read the Rules
I think this is the obvious first step in learning any game (if you don’t count “Open the Box”). Give the rules a read through once or twice. Also read any additional materials provided with text: cards, player aids, etc. Note anything that doesn’t make sense – sometimes you need to consult an FAQ.

I looked at the rulebook for Twilight Struggle. 28 pages thick, but, only 8 pages of actual rules. Nice! We read through them and it seems pretty simple. I read through them again and still haven’t seen anything that doesn’t make sense. I also take a quick look at the cards. As I read through the cards I realize that there may be some confusion on how they are played. I download an FAQ to have nearby. Step 1: Check.

Step 2: Set up the game
Make sure you have all the pieces and set up the board according to the rules. Check to see if there are any differences in 2 player vs 3 player vs more. Also be sure to set up the board/card decks according to which scenario you are using. And make sure you’ll have enough space.

Twilight Struggle board set-up is also mostly straight forward. We pick our sides: I’ll represent the US. We place some initial influence in the right countries, but here’s the first decision. Where to put the extra influence in Europe? Having never played we have no idea what the best countries are. OK, we each decide to control a couple more countries. The Military Operations, Space Race, VP and Turn markers are placed. The Early War cards are shuffled. We’re ready to go.

Step 3: Play
For a first play through allow plenty of time, but don’t worry if you make a mistake. If you realize you’ve been playing incorrectly you can rewind (if it is easy to do so) or just start playing correctly at that point. Agree on a ruling and move forward. Remember: the goal is to have fun!

We deal the cards and read through each one. I find Defectors in my hand, an obvious Headline event, and select it right away. USSR takes a bit longer, but eventually picks one. Headline phase over – that was easy. We go back and forth in the actions rounds and play is going smoothly – until the first scoring card comes out. He thinks he’s scored 8 VP – I count 3 VP. He checks the rules and realizes his mistake on what a battleground country is. He shouldn’t have been putting that much influence in Finland – lesson learned.

The action rounds start to go by quickly and I have been racking up VP. In the middle of turn 3, I go up to 19 VP. One point away from a US victory. I realize I may have been accruing Victory Points by playing the events, but at the cost of him being a few influence away from controlling Europe (another way to win). And I’m holding Europe Scoring. Uh oh… I end turn three at only 5 VP.

The mid-war begins and we’ve started to settle in. The cards are played a bit faster and we seem to know what we’re doing. Or so we thought, we realize we’ve been playing a couple things wrong. The DEFCON was 3 and we made realignment and coup attempts in Europe and Asia. We also split up Operation Points for placing influence and realignment rolls*. It’s too late to rewind. We were both guilty so we just move on with the correction. Before the end of the mid-war another minor mistake is quickly rewinded: it is obvious he didn’t want to end the game but couping a battleground country while DEFCON is 2.

We make it to end-war, only 3 more turns. At this point we are playing fast and no longer making any mistakes. Turn 8 goes by. Then 9. At this point it is all going to come down to Final Scoring. The final deal comes and is good for me. I’ll get to play 8 cards this round (due to North Sea Oil) and I’m up by 6 VP. The play slows down as each card play is calculated. I do some careful number crunching with my final two card plays. I hold the China Card, but realize I need to play it to dominate Asia and get the required military operations for the turn. My last play gets me presence in the Middle East.

Before final scoring I have a 3 VP lead. He adds up the score. I add up the score. There’s a slight discrepancy. I’ve counted wrong and we go over it again. We agree: USSR scores 3 points. We check the rules for a tie-breaker. None exists. A tie.

Step 4: Repeat Step 3

Learning a new game on our own was great. And we both agreed that Twilight Struggle is a great game that creates an intense atmosphere – even with our errors and rewinds. We didn’t worry about coaching or letting the new guy win so he’ll play it again. We were free to try anything. We made a lot of mistakes but we learned from them. We discussed the strategies we were trying and learned from each other. With the Holidays approaching I’m looking forward to learning some other newly acquired games with friends.

* Yes, there is a designer variant that allows this. However, at the start of the game we agreed to use the standard rules as written.

(source, read the full story here)

More iconic images of human rights violations are here. Something about freedom of speech is here. And here is a case of quasi book burning. And here’s a nice cartoon to remind us that this isn’t something that only happened in a certain country at a certain time:

book burning in the USSR and Nazi Germany

(if you don’t recognize the figure on the left, it’s Nikita Khrushchev holding a paper about the Pasternak controversy, one of many instances of book banning in the USSR; of course, book banning isn’t quite the same as book burning, but in a sense it’s even worse)

Interesting discussion at Amazon.

What value has the former USSR contributed to posterity?

Neil Kinnock is a traitor if this is true.  And the allegation is serious enough to warrant a thorough investigation into this matter.

Many thanks to ukipwebmaster for uploading.

But of course his European Masters will surely protect him.  For the entire Establishment is crooked, either though fear, blackmail, greed or just a sadistic mentality.

We need a total clear-out of all the Corrupted, no more NuGov, no more Tories and no more Lib Dems.  They have had more than enough time at the helm.  All the old parties are run by the same old men year in, year out so have the same plans year in, year out. Want change you can believe in, vote BNP.  Justice will be fair and swift.

Otherwise, we may have to resort to Mob-rule, plenty of rope and the decoration of our lampposts.  Enough is enough.  For if we cannot trust those who are sworn to protect us, what other option is there?

I suppose this continues my brief break from being cryptic! (edited, gotta stop writing things in the middle of the night)

Phase #8: I went back to 1971 and watched the Russians fuck up their Mars landing

****

Leonid Brezhnev: Okay, the US are gonna pull off another fucking moonlanding. I thought they’d've given up after we put a kamikaze spy in their Apollo 13 team but their fat capitalism saw them sail pretty too awesomely through that shit, so I’ve come up with the perfect idea.

Scientists standing in Brezhnev’s office, praying to dear Lenin:  Pleasedon’tkilluspleasedon’tkilluspleasedon’tkilluspleasedon’tkillus.

Brez-face: We’re sending a rocket to fucking MARS.

One of the scientists faints violently.

Scientist #1: Errr too much vodka.

Brezhnev: God I love vodka, that man’s in charge! Alright! Everyone out, its time for my weekly phone-sex with Comrade Nixon!

The scientists mope out, pretending they hadn’t heard what they just heard.

***

Back in the USSR, at the best nuclear fallout shelter in all the land:

Scientist #1: Dudes, what the fuck, I swear Brezhnev is getting smarter, letting us live in absolute filth…

Scientist #2: Hey guys, I think I like, just woke up in someone’s basement, this isn’t a farm in the Ukraine.

Scientist #3: Check it out, Mikhail fainted in Brezhnev’s office and got amnesia. He’s supposed to be #1 now isn’t h-”

Scientist #1, staring at #3: “Woah, hey there number two, how’s it going being number two?”

Scientist #4: If you can’t do Calculus, you know we’re supposed to shoot you, right?

Scientist #2: Fuck off, you guys must’ve been smashed all through college, you guy’s can’t do maths for Lenin’s bald-ass scalp.

Scientist #1: Fuck you!

Scientist #3: Hey, hey, hey, guys, we’ve gotta make some rover or some shit dance around on the moon, I reckon a good place to start is by getting a rocket or something.

The three other scientists turn around and sit down properly.

Scientist #2: That’s pretty fucking easy, the USSR made the decision to make nuclear missiles and let its peoples die from alcohol poisoning in 1917, you could’ve ticked that box like, a hour ago.

A phone rings.

Scientist #1 picks up.

#1: Hello?

Brezhnev: Nixy?

#1: Ugh, no, you’ve called the Soviet Science Department, better try again, Enlightened Dude.

Brez: Oh, shit, fuck, I mean of course I meant to ring you guys – the US fucking landed on the moon just then, they’re starting to make it look like there’s a fucking merry-go-round between Houston and and that cratery shit – you guys better be trading that vodka I gave you for some fucking astronauts or whatever the hell sciencey shit we need to rape Mars with Communism.

Scientist #1: Yeah sure. We just worked out that we can just take a nuclear missile and pretend its a deep-space rocket.

Brezhnev: Shit, shit, fucking slow down, okay, I know you guys are smart but you don’t need to tell me EVERYTHING you’re doing, jesus, I mean lenin, just fucking do the job, shit!

#1 puts down the phone.

The other scientists look at him.

#1: Yeah he’s pretty cool with it.

***

Five bottles of vodka later:

Four scientists dancing to polka music with strippers.

***

The next morning:

Four semi-naked scientists robbed by some Soviet strippers, hung over.

***

The next morning:

Four scientists checking the Soviet classifieds for a dog to pilot their rocket.

That afternoon:

Scientist #3 spraypaints the Soviet coat of arms onto a ‘decomissioned’ Soviet nuke in a Soviet hazmat suit (loosely translated from Russian ‘hazmat’ means ‘the carcass of a dead pig’).

Minutes later:

Dead dog in a Soviet nuke with four ‘hazmatted’ Soviet scientists standing around it. More strippers arrive.

Minutes later:

Four ‘hazmatted’ scientists lugging dead strippers into a Soviet incinerator.

***

Back in the Kremlin-SSR:

Brezhnev: Alright boys, what’ve you got for me?

#1: Right, well here’s the gist of it.

#1 unveils a garbage can with some shotguns attached to it.

Soviet Official (Commissar) #1: That’s just a joke, right? That’s meant to be funny, isn’t it?

Brezhnev begins laughing like a mad fuck.

Everyone begins to laugh slowly, all the scientists look at #2 with pure hatred, laughing.

Official #1: Right, so, the demonstration, please.

#1: Right, well, theoretically, if this were the landing module, which it’s not (#1 laughs nervously, Brezhnev still wiping the tears off his face, chuckling) these uh, ‘gunpowder’ engines would control the pitch and yaw of the module.

#1 continues: And inside the module (#1 leans in to take out the ‘joke’ version of the rover from the landing module, to discover a dead radioactive stripper inside) SWEET BABY LENIN – I mean, the rover is actually still in its finalising stages, I just noticed the note I left to myself inside (begins to laugh).

No-one else laughs.

#3, realising what just happened, hissing at #2: YOU FORGOT TO TAKE HER OUT

#2: I DON’T RECALL BEING THE PERSON WHO LEFT A RADIOACTIVE HAZARD ZONE UNLOCKED

Official #3, looking at Scientist #2: What’s that, comrade?

#2: Oh! I was merely saying to my colleague here how I’d love to make the US a radioactive hazard zone.

Official #2: Promote that man, Leonid.

Brezhnev, over the funnies: You are now Scientist #1, the top Soviet Magician!

Scientist #1 (now Scientist #2) steps aside.

Official #2, emboldened by these turn of events: Tell us more.

The Scientist Formally Known As #2: The lander is to be equipped with two television cameras with a 360 degree view of the surface, as well as a mass spectrometer to study atmospheric composition; temperature, pressure, and wind sensors; and devices to measure mechanical and chemical properties of the surface, including a mechanical scoop to search for organic materials and signs of life.

All the officials, including Brezhnev, squinting: Is that all?

Former #2: Oh, it will also contain a pennant with the Soviet coat of arms.

Official #2: You are a true patriot!

A phone rings.

Brezhnev: Sexy time!

***

Back in the launch-day-SSR:

#4: All instruments nominal, conditions seem perfect for landing, #1.

Former #1: Good wor-

Former #2: Good work, #4.

Former #2 turns to Brezhnev: We’re gonna go for the landing, the whole Soviet Bloc is watching this.

Brezhnev: So are the Communist Parties of the world!

#3: Shit.

F. #2: What?

#3: We fucked up.

F. #2: What?

#3: Yeah we like totally fucked up, the landing module like fucking smashed into the surface of Mars.

Brezhnev: What!

#4: Oh shit, we’re getting a message from some martians!

Former #1: Holy shit-titties!

Brezhnev: What does it say!?

#4: It says ‘Do you want your nuke back, and if so, fuck you.” Oh wait, I forgot to read this post-script: “For this insolence, we will now invade the USSR.”

Brezhnev: Damn. Guess that means I’m fired.

====

And so, this demonstrates how the age-old saying “In Soviet Russia, Mars lands on you!”.

———————–

I’d just like to say that I actually harbour no prejudice against Russians or Communism, and I would have just as easily written something insulting the US, given my travels on wikipedia. In fact, to make it up to anyone who reads this blog that was offended, I’ll write something taking the piss out of the US pretty soon.

New poll: Capitalism not too hot

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

A recent poll has people talking. The results of the poll are a sharp contrast to the free-market triumphalism of the 1990s. Intellectuals were declaring the victory of capitalism. In the 1989 book, the End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama declared that history was over and that free-market, liberal society was the final form of human society, the end point of civilization. Others got a piece of the action too. Post-modern liberal Richard Rorty liked to say that Western liberalism, with all its flaws, is the best that has been offered up by history: The age of ideology is over, or at least it should be. Globalist capitalism, or its companion “capitalism with a human face,” was the new mantra. That was then.

The recent poll implies that most people correctly know that the system as it currently exists is bad for them. The poll, conducted across 27 countries, reports that only 11 percent of people think that free-market capitalism is working well. Of the 29,000 people polled, only one in five think that capitalism is working well.

Almost a quarter of all those polled, 23 percent, think that capitalism is fatally flawed. The majorities in 22 of the 27 countries support a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. The poll shows that the majority of humanity has some sense of their own oppression even if they do not understand their oppression scientifically.

One poll result has been the focus of much commentary: Double digits in the imperialist countries see capitalism as “fatally flawed.” Over 40 percent in France and 15 percent in the US think that capitalism is fatally flawed. This figure is making its way through the First Worldist “left” that stupidly sees the double digits as confirmation of their worldview. These kinds of polls are not new. For example, Max Elbaum, in Revolution in the Air, peddled the same claim about the 1960s. Elbaum reports that 3 million people in the US thought revolution was necessary at that time. However, seeing capitalism as “fatally flawed” or that “revolution is necessary” is not an endorsement of socialism. In fact, nihilism runs deep in First World. It is a good bet that many see all systems as fatally flawed. Although there may be support for social democracy or social imperialism or fascism in the First World, there is almost no support for actual socialism there.

Actual socialism is perceived as frightening by First World peoples for the same reasons that many express their disappointment with the current capitalist system. Most in the First World believe that they are entitled to more privilege, not less. The current economic crisis has resulted in a drop in the standard of living. No doubt that this is reflected in the numbers. In addition, under actual socialism, First World populations will have even less privilege than they do under the current capitalist system. Actual socialism on a world scale entails something close to an equal distribution of the global social product. Under such a distribution, virtually everyone in the First World will see their incomes cut drastically, their purchasing power reduced, their leisure time shortened, etc.  After all, Karl Marx wrote that the ruling classes would tremble in the face of communist revolution. The entire First World, almost without exception, trembles at the prospect of genuine proletarian revolution.

There is almost no social base at all for revolution in the First World. It is a mystery to the First Worldist why the First World workers are not lining up for revolution. The First Worldist, like Goldilocks, looks to find that combination of mass line and party building, spontanaity and commandism, agitation and propaganda, hot and cold, that  will be “just right.” What the First Worldist utopians don’t realize is that there is no key that will unlock First Worldist proletarian revolution because there is no significant proletariat in the First World. There are hardly any masses at all in the First World. There are plenty of asses, however. Maoist-Third Worldists, by contrast, recognize that since the vast majority in the First World oppose real socialism, revolutionaries in the First World must design minoritarian strategies.  Revolutionaries find themselves behind enemy lines in the First World. Real revolutionaries adopt Jacobin strategies appropriate to their unique conditions in the First World.

The same poll asked people how they perceived the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. Poll results varied greatly across countries. The fall of the Soviet Union is mostly seen as a “good thing” in Europe, and, presumably, most of the First World: 79 percent in Germany, 76 percent in Britain and 74 percent in France feel that the dissolution was a good thing. However, 70 percent of Egyptians think that the fall of the Soviet Union was a “bad thing.” And, in Russia, Ukraine, and Pakistan, sizable majorities report that the fall was mainly a bad thing. In India, Kenya, and Indonesia, opinions are sharply divided.

Even though the Soviet Union in 1989 was not socialist, it is incorrectly perceived as both socialist and anti-imperialist by many. The poll results in many cases are, thus, less about the actual Soviet Union and more about the hostility that many in the Third World feel toward imperialism and capitalism. Such poll results can be more of an expression of pre-scientific, intuitive class hatred directed toward the Western imperialists. Ironically, the revisionist Soviet Union was imperialist also. In the 1950s, the Soviet Union became social imperialist. Even though the revisionists used socialist rhetoric, their actions were still imperialist.

Capitalism-imperialism has failed to guarantee a decent life for the vast majority of the world’s population. Most people in the Third World barely survive while most people in the First World live in relative luxury. Thus it is no surprise that opinions about the current system and about the Soviet Union would vary greatly. Similarly, opinions about revolutionary leaders also vary greatly between Western and non-Western countries. Stalin is seen as no different than Hitler in the West. However, in the ex-Soviet bloc, Stalin often polls as one of the greatest leaders of all time. It is a good sign that so many in the Third World understand that the system has failed them. It is the job of the communist to transform that basic intuition into a scientific understanding and revolution.

Sources

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8347409.stm

2. Max Elbaum. Revolution in the Air, p. 2

Were those emails from CRU in the UK “hacked” from the system?  People I talk to who know a thing or two about network security say it’s a given that nearly all hacked material is actually taken by insiders who have access to passwords and network storage locations.  So, most likely, a disgruntled person at CRU spilt the beans.

As a result, we have the spectacle of true believers foaming at the mouth, always edifying, as it shows more reasonable people how they most certainly do NOT want to behave.  Consider this comment on Andrew Revkin’s blog:

By: RupeeNews

Peace is impossible to be attained in the region unless India stop its support to terrorism in Pakistan, foreign minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi said. In an interview to German news agency Qureshi said, “India is supporting the terrorists in the tribal areas and Balochistan.” “Pakistan is collecting concrete evidences against the Indian intervention in the Pakistani tribal areas and Balochistan,” said Qureshi. He also said that peace and security is impossible to be attained in South Asia unless India changes its hostile behaviour towards Pakistan. India igniting terrorism in Pak: Qureshi. The Nation.

We repeatedly reported the destructive and negative role of the 4 “Indian Consulates” and the 13 Indian “Information Centers”in Afghanistan. Several news stores about the Indian base in Tajikistan shed light on the nefarious Indian designs in building Chahbahar, the support for BLA terrorists in Baluchistan, the infiltration of Indian agents in anti-Pakistan groups like the TTP, and the direct role of the Indian RAW in sending suicide bombers into Pakistan. Rupee News has now once again been corroborated by the statements of one of the most powerful advisers to Mr. Zardari himself. As the level of frustration grows in ISAF, Indian RAW tried to pawn itself off as the stabilizing factor. here is an effort to send massive Indian forces to Kabul. A growing number of Think Tanks and journalists have seen through the facade of India as a world power? and are now looking at dramatically new solutions.

The Rand Corporation in a recent study as well as the Zibig Brezinski and others are now openly opposing the old Indian version of events. Of course RAW activities are not limited to Pakistan.

FINALLY, the US Administration is being told some home truths about the realities on the ground in Pakistan, especially relating to the “war on terror” and the Pakistan-US relationship. It has been evident for some time that the US and its intelligence agency the CIA have had a major falling out with the Pakistan military and especially the ISI. This occurred, it is believed, when the CIA sought direct intervention into ISI dealings in FATA and sought to take out some valuable operatives. But at a macro level, that was simply a reflection of a far larger distrust which was aggravated by the mounting US failures in Afghanistan. Unable to correct course, the easiest option was to target Pakistan and the ISI. Meanwhile, all evidence pointing to Indian covert activities in Balochistan and FATA from Afghanistan were simply being ignored by the US, despite the Pakistan government pointing this out. Some would say the US itself allowed the free flow of weapons from Afghanistan into FATA and Balochistan.

The Pakistani leadership also, despite publicly accusing India and providing evidence to that effect, has tended to downplay it in its interactions with US officials. Now with the visit of the CIA chief to Pakistan, the military through the ISI has directly raised the issue with its US counterpart, the CIA, and given evidence of Indian shenanigans in Afghanistan and possible US involvement in and support of these covert activities. This position has also been reiterated by the Prime Minister, who not only strongly took up these issues with the CIA Chief, but also pointed out the necessity of involving Pakistan in any Afghan strategy being devised by the US.

It is commonly assumed by the public that Communism (also called “Marxism”) was created by the German philosopher Karl Marx. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a young Marx joined the already existing Communist movement and, after publishing several works on the subject of Communism and Capitalism (a term he coined), he became such a central figure that the term “Marxist” became synonymous with the term “Communist”. In much the same way Adam Smith did not create Capitalism but rather created the authoritative work on Capitalism (The Wealth of Nations) and yet is still considered the “founder” of Capitalism.

So who did create Communism?

Like most things in life, there is no short and simple answer. Communism, or at least the primitive ancestor of Communism has existed for thousands of years. At the dawn of man, humans lived in tribes, working together for survival. What one man killed was food for everyone, the spear or hammer made by one person could be used by another. The concept of private-property did not evolve until much later in human history- the reason being that selfishness and individualism simply could not mesh with the harsh realities of the time. One human could not survive on his own, the tribe as a whole could not waste time and energy on creating twenty individual hammers for the twenty men of the tribe when one could be shared just as easily. At the same time, the shared property (combined with the need for everyone to pull their own weight) eliminated any chance of a class system evolving. Without any difference in wealth or workload, society was more or less egalitarian.

So what happened?

As humans became more settled and as the barter system emerged (to be discussed in a later post), shared-property died slowly out and the class system arose. While today the vast majority of hunter-gatherer, pastoral, horticulturalist, and nomadic people groups still live in classless, shared-property systems, the majority of the world’s population began moving away from this system after the establishment of permanent agricultural communities. By the fall of the Roman Empire, most of the world’s people groups practiced Capitalism in some form. It was not until 1516 when Thomas Moore, one of Henry VIII’s closest advisers, published his work Utopia that the concepts of shared-property and classlessness were reintroduced into society (albeit merely as subjects of intellectual discussion). Only in the early 1800s were the concepts developed into actual political/economic theories. Henri de Saint-Simon, a member of the French aristocracy, created several works on the subject and while never implementing them in any major way, laid the foundations for what would become known as the Communist movement. It was not until 1848 when two young Prussian authors named Marx and Engels published their collaborated work The Communist Manifesto that Communism (or “Socialism”- at the time the two words were more or less interchangeable) became a concrete theory. Between the two men’s works, the entire Communist philosophy was created, though it was not implemented until 1871, when Parisian Socialists revolted against the imperial French government and established a short-lived attempt at a Communist government until the Commune (revolutionary government) was wiped out by the French military. While Communist philosophy spread across much of the Western world, there were no major attempts at Communism (baring the establishment of Amish, and later, Hutterite, communities- which are closer to the primitive classless/shared-property practices of various tribal societies). There was a brief attempt at Fabianism (a British Socialist movement), however it quickly devolved into a philosophy, rather than a physical attempt at the implementation of Communism. It was in Russia in 1917 that the first major attempt at a Communist revolution (since the 1871 revolution) took place. The Bolsheviks (the Russian Communist party and revolutionary movement), led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the Russian monarchy and the feudal system. After Lenin’s death in 1923, a split ensued that left the USSR divided between the followers of Leon Trotsky (creator and commander of the Red Army and Lenin’s second-in-command) and the followers of Joseph Stalin (the General Secretary of the Communist party). Stalin, despite the efforts of Trotsky and his followers, assumed control and eventually exiled Trotsky in 1929. Under the despotism of Stalin, the USSR, while maintaining the facade of Communism, devolved into a semi-Socialist dictatorship (Trotsky referred to it as a “deformed workers’ state). While Trotskyism grew in popularity in the West, the general Communist movement was marred by the atrocities committed by Stalin and the imperialists policies pursued in Eastern Europe after his death. In China, Mao Zedong led what is generally considered to have been a Communist revolution, but the later policies of Mao have caused many other Communists to doubt whether China could be counted as true Communist country since the mid 1950s. While the revolution itself is considered to be beneficial, the vast majority of modern Communists hold that contemporary China is no more a true Marxist country than Stalin’s USSR (this opinion is viciously opposed by Maoist factions of the Communist movement). While Communism was quickly becoming popular in the third-world (due largely to Western neo-colonialism) the next major advancement of Communism occurred in Cuba after Fidel Castro and Che Guevara defeated the dictator Batista. Once again Communists are split on the subject of whether Cuba may be considered a true Marxist government- much like China, there is popular that the revolution was a positive event but the movement is split on whether Cuba did or did not devolve into another deformed workers’ state. Indeed, the same could be said for almost every country where a Communist revolution has taken place (though almost all Communists are united in believed that North Korea is not a true Communist country). While the collapse of the USSR in 1990 has led many to believe that Communism has been defeated, the Communist movement is technically as active as it ever was.

In short, the history of Communism is far from simple. Much of its history can be interpreted depending on your sympathies and opinions.

Then again, the same could be said for any aspect of history.

Author’s Note: Since Communism isn’t merely an economic or political or social theory but rather a combination of all three, you can see how describing the theory itself- let alone its history- is a massive undertaking that could easily fill a book. Considering my space and the attention span of the reader is sorely limited, I have been forced so skim over the major events of Communist history. Don’t be ticked off at me if I missed some (though if I have something that might be wrong, please correct me).

The US will soon be retiring their space shuttles to replace them with a new vehicle, scheduled for 2013. Until then, the Americans will be riding on Russian Soyuz capsules. But the Soyuz itself, a 40 year old technology with many modernizations, is on its way out, to be replaced with bigger better platforms.

The replacement for the will be the Kliper, a ship carrying 6 crew and a half ton of cargo. It is scheduled to fly its maiden voyage some time in 2010. The ship is about twice the size of the Soyuz and will require much larger rockets, most likely the Zenit class of booster rockets, in order to make orbit. It will return to earth by extending wings and gliding down, for a soft landing.

Interestingly enough, if things go according to plant, the new, larger Kliper, will actually save money. The present Soyuz missions run between $20 to $30 million each (compared to the American space shuttles at around $300 million each). Kliper flights are supposed to move more equipment and people for less money, but even it the costs stay the same, with more room on the ship, there will be room for more space tourists and at $20 million per pop, the ships will earn a profit, with just one added passenger.

Development of the Kliper is also priced at the low cost of $1 billion, compare that to the $10 billion for the American Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), which is still on the drawing board.

But the Kliper is only the first modern step in a new plan by the Russian space agency to conquer the inner sphere of our solar system. Next on the development board is a manned spacecraft powered by a nuclear electric engine. For decades, Russia and the Soviet Union have developed nuclear powered satellites, which did not have to rely upon easily damaged solar arrays, for power. Of course those put out only kilowatts of power, while this ships engines will have to run on the megawatt range.

The ship’s design is scheduled to be complete by 2012 and a finished by 2021, at an estimated cost of 17 billion rubles, or $580 million. More realistic estimates put the price tag at $1 to $1.5 billion, over the next decade.

Everyday when I read news from Mumbai, one thought comes to my mind. Why is this happening? what is motive behind it?  yes, I am talking about all this new ideology of Shiv Sena and MNS. What do they want man? One thing is sure they don’t want anything for people, they want everything for themselves. Shiv Sena started with Ideology of Hindutva, which was acceptable to some extent. But what happened to them now? They know that this protest against North Indian is not going to work anyway, they are not so important that North Indians will just go back to the same miser life they had in their villages. They did the same thing to south Indians and Muslims. The result is what, Mumbai still has same number of south Indians and Muslims, no change except Shiv Sena came to power once at least.  If they want to come in power again, why don’t they make some good strategies like Narender Modi, who is most hated, but most successful political figure in BJP today.  Hitting people because they are taking oaths in national language is not going to do them any good. The best part is there are no action against them. What is going to happen to India man?

We all know because of political unrest in USSR, it  fell apart into new countries. Not same, but similar unrest can be seen in India too. Its good that common people are not supporting this maniacs, other wise India would have also fell  apart into many new countries. Just think about it, how possible it can be. North eastern part of India is already against mainland India and they already consider themselves as a independent nations. South Indian states like Tamil Nadu were always against Hindi speaking people, as they didn’t wanted Hindi to become national language. In Punjab, there was always a protest to make a different country called Khalistan. Kashimir already has its own issue and only solution to thier problem, can be making Kashmir an Independent nation. Just imagine the situation, if India divides into different nations and to go to other states, you will need visa.

A very similar thing is predicted for US by an Russian Scholar, Igor Panarin. He has been predicting that U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument — that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. — very seriously. Now he’s found an eager audience, people are actually taking him seriously.  California will form the nucleus of what he calls “The Californian Republic,” and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of “The Texas Republic,” a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an “Atlantic America” that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls “The Central North American Republic.” Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

Just imagine the same thing happening to India. One nation will comprise of North east states for sure. One south Indian nation will take AP, TN, Kerela and Karnatka. Gujrat, Maharashta and Goa will become one peaceful country. Punjab, Haryana, HP, Rajasthan will make nation. Delhi will be capital of nation comprising UP, Uttranchal and MP.  West Bangal, Orrisa and Jharkand may become on country. I am not sure about Bihar, it can go to any of the above two nations, or may be there will be a fight for not claiming it as their territory. After all,  Who wants most corrupted state in India? who wants to Lalu again?

This all is just my imagination, and is all from my mind. But you can’t ignore the possibilities of anything. Mr. Igor Panarin is great scholar, so he gave the names also to the new US countries, but I am not so creative also to give names to these different countries. I divided them on the basis of culture. But the question is, will this immigration issue will resolve even after that? We have many illegal immigrants from Nepal and Bangladesh now, so how many we will have that time? Just think about it and give your valuable comments.

For Mr. Igor Panarin prediction click http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html.

Roni tries to see Biden, goes to one of the most important places of the Orange Revolution and partakes of Soviet kitch, including Mother Motherland. [8:12]

RupeeNews

ISLAMABAD – Serious differences are understood to have cropped up between Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency ISI and US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) over the latter’s dismal role in countering terrorism in Pakistan, TheNation reliably learnt on Friday.
According to well-placed sources, the differences between the two strategic partners in war against terror cropped up when ISI Chief Lt. General Ahmed Shujja Pasha in a meeting expressed his disappointment to his US counterpart, the CIA chief spymaster Leon Panetta, over the US failure to help Pakistan in counter-terrorism efforts.

Although there was no official confirmation either from the US Embassy or ISPR about the meeting, it was learnt that both of them had thought provoking talks here in which General Pasha had presented to the CIA official a shocking evidence about Indian interference into Pakistan by using Afghanistan soil. General Pasha, the informed sources said, had presented the evidence about Indian efforts aiding terrorism in Balochistan and Waziristan.

The sources said that General Pasha was critical to the CIA’s counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan and CIA’s failure to provide concrete actionable information to Pakistan in containing flow of aid to terror networks operating from Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan.

The sources said that the CIA chief is currently visiting Pakistan as a follow-up to the visit of US of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to address complains of Pakistan’s military establishment.

The CIA chief is to meet Army Chief General Ashfaq Pavez Kayani today and is likely to get the similar input from him, the sources said. He is also expected to visit Saudi Arabia before his return to USA. ISI Chief confronts CIA counterpart with evidences.

Causes

Finally, we come to the question, how did the war start? It is fair to say that the seeds for this war were planted in 1949, when the Arab armies trying to destroy the nascent Israel were routed, and that the Suez Crisis of 1956 raised tensions in the region even more. But to call those things causes of the Six Day War is like saying World War One caused World War Two; and since the Franco-Prussian War caused World War One, and the Napoleonic Wars caused the Franco Prussian War, we can say that the French Revolution caused World War Two. This is too much of a stretch. Without going back to far, the buildup to the Six Day War started three years earlier, in 1964.

In that year, Levi Eshkol, Israel’s prime minister, and Yitzhak Rabin, its chief of staff agreed on the aims of Israel’s defence policy for the first five year plan for the military. The plan said that the State of Israel did not wish for more territory. Israel would not initiate conflict with an Arab state but if war were imposed on it, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would move swiftly into the enemy’s territory and destroy its war infrastructure.

More significantly, it was the year border clashes with Syria got deadlier. There were three sources of tension on the border: the demilitarised zones, water and Palestinian guerrillas. Moshe Dayan, Defence Minister during the Six Day War, said that in at least 80% of the clashes with Syria, “We would send a tractor to plow someplace where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarised area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.” The Israelis were provoking the Syrians.

In addition, the water issue began in 1964. Israel began withdrawing water from the Jordan River. At a conference, the Arab League approved a $17.5m plan to divert the Jordan river at its sources, drastically reducing the quantity and quality of Israel’s water. Knowing that Israelis would not sit back while their country dried up, the same conference also created a United Arab Command to protect the project and prepare for an offensive campaign. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation, or PLO, was yet another outcome of the conference. The Arab League began construction on its diversion plan the next year. The IDF attacked the diversion works in Syria in 1965, exacerbating the border tensions that led to the war.

In February 1966, an extreme left wing, anti-Zionist Baath regime took power in Damascus. It called for a popular war to liberate Palestine and sponsored Palestinian guerrilla attacks on Israeli targets. These guerrilla attacks were not about to wipe Israel off the map, but they fanned the flames of mutual hostility between Israel and Syria.

Palestinian guerrillas, mainly Arafat’s Fatah, carried out 122 raids between January 1965 and June 1967. They were mostly staged from Lebanon and Jordan, but the guerrillas were largely armed, trained and run by Syrian general staff. In response to one such attack, the Israeli Defense Forces attacked the village of Samu on the West Bank. Dozens of Jordanian soldiers were killed. The attack shocked King Hussein and exposed his military weakness. On April 7, 1967, following a border skirmish, the Israeli Air Force shot down six Soviet-made Syrian MiGs in an air battle. The Syrian government was in a rage. The countdown to the Six Day War had begun.

Because the survival of the Baath regime was important to the USSR, the Soviets sent a report to Nasser that Israel was concentrating its forces on its northern front and was planning to attack Syria. The report was false. Some who were observing at the time said that, although the Soviet warning about Israel’s amassing troops on its northern border was wrong, the Israeli cabinet was planning to attack Syria and the Soviets had gotten wind. Nasser knew the report was untrue but he felt that, as the Arab world’s leadership was in question, he could not fail to act. Syria already had a defense pact with Egypt. There is general agreement among historians that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel. What he did was brinkmanship: pushing Israel to the brink and hoping war would not be necessary.

He did so for several reasons. First, he could not afford to look weak in front of his restive public. A major share of his army was already in the Sinai, and it would have been humiliating to pull them back. Second, the other side of the coin, continuing the troop buildup would enhance his status at home and in the Arab world. Indeed, reactions to the move were, in Michael Oren’s words, “enthusiastic, even ecstatic”. Finally, if there was no imminent threat to Syria, Nasser could take credit for increasing Egypt’s troop presence in the Sinai without fear Israel would attack. After all, he had already been assured it would not.

Nasser sent a large number of troops into the Sinai, removing the UN troops already there, and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The Straits were important because, although few Israeli vessels actually transversed the Straits, it was where Iranian oil tankers exporting to Israel sailed. But more importantly, according to Aharon Yariv, Israel’s chief of intelligence, failure to act to end the blockade of the Straits would make Israel lose its credibility and deterrent capacity. These tools have been essential for Israel ever since.

In all countries, the masses were whipped into a war frenzy. They heard about the hourly radio reports from Arab countries about Israel’s impending doom, and the general feeling was of a noose tightening around the nation’s neck. Israel’s Holocaust survivors were particularly scared when Israeli newspapers likened Nasser to Hitler. According to Charles Krauthammer, “It is hard to exaggerate what it was like for Israel in those three weeks [before the war]. Egypt, already in an alliance with Syria, formed an emergency military pact with Jordan. Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco began sending forces to join the coming fight. With troops and armor massing on Israel’s every frontier, jubilant broadcasts in every Arab capital hailed the imminent final war for the extermination of Israel. ‘We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants,’ declared PLO head Ahmed Shuqayri, ‘and as for the survivors–if there are any–the boats are ready to deport them.’”

Everyone predicted a war. Eshkol was expecting a war; Cairo Radio said “our forces are in a complete state of readiness for war”; Syria’s government said “The war of liberation will not end except by Israel’s abolition.” Israel’s preemptive strike on its enemies was justified to end the tension and the fear–to stop waiting to die and start fighting to survive.

On May 12, in a newspaper interview, Rabin said “the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government”. On May 19, Rabin told his generals, “[t]he politicians are convinced they can solve the problems through diplomacy. We have to enable them to exhaust every alternative to war, even though I see no way of returning to things the way they were. If the Egyptians blockade the Straits, there will be no alternative to war.” Nonetheless, Rabin also did not think Nasser wanted war.

On May 30, King Hussein flew to Cairo to sign the mutual defense pact with Nasser. An Egyptian general was appointed commander of Jordan’s army. On June 3, two Egyptian commando battalions were flown to Jordan, and on the following morning an Iraqi mechanised brigade crossed into Jordan and moved to the Jordan River. Egypt and Iraq, traditional enemies, signed a mutual defense pact.

Israel attacked when it did because it obtained approval from the US. Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defence, gave Israel a green light to attack Egypt. However, Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, said he was outraged that Israel attacked at all.

What was the most important factor in starting the Six Day War? At a glance, it would appear to have been Nasser and Egypt’s amassing of troops in the Sinai and closing of the Straits of Tiran and Gulf of Eliat. The closing of the Straits was an act of war in itself. But historians disagree with this explanation. First, there is evidence that Nasser did not want war. His public was highly belligerent but he knew Egypt could not simply defeat and occupy Israel. He had learned from the Suez Crisis of 1956.

Second, there are alternative explanations. Avi Shlaim says that border skirmishes with Syria were the main cause of the war. “Israel’s strategy of escalation on the Syrian front was probably the single most important factor in dragging the Middle East to war in June 1967″. Israel had been forced to abandon its plan to divert water from the Jordan in the central demilitarised zone to the Negev desert (southern Israel) in 1953. The Arab states, led by Syria, poked and prodded Israel by diverting the Jordan River. Israeli and Syrian troops clashed and Israel gained the upper hand. “Having been defeated in the water war,” says Shlaim, “the frustrated Syrians began to sponsor attacks on Israel from their territory by Palestinian guerrilla organisations.” The violence escalated.

Michael Oren believes that, because (arguably) water politics led to fighting on Israel’s northern border, more than anything else, “the war would revolve around water.” The Arab League’s plans to take most of Israel’s water was provocation bigger than its threats, and the dry noose was the catalyst for Israel’s decision to strike.

Diplomacy came to naught. Tempers were not defused, the noose was not given any slack, and the push to war continued. At 07:45 on June 5, Israel attacked Egypt, beginning the Six Day War and setting in motion all the conflicts and killings Israel has suffered or delivered since.

Bibliography

Oren, Michael: Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East
Finkelstein, Norman: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Shlaim, Avi: The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World
Morris, Benny: Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001
Charles Krauthammer: Prelude to the Six Days: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051701976.html

The complete Short History of the Six Day War can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22787004/A-Short-History-of-the-Six-Day-War.