România are un nou ambasador american. Ce crede Rusia despre el.

Când am aflat de numirea noului ambasador  al SUA în România eram pe punctul de a striga "America ne trădează". Argumentul meu suprem ar fi fost refuzul lui Obama de a numi un diplomat de carieră într-un stat aliat NATO la graniţa de est a UE şi NATO.
DAR
Mark Gitenstein este un lobbist corporatist de origine evreiască, fost consilier al lui Joe Biden, VP SUA, fost membru al echipei de tranziţie Obama.
Cred că mandatul lui Mark Gitenstein din partea actualei administraţii Obama este:
-lobby pe lângă politicienii români în favoarea primirii Turciei în UE
-menţinerea bazei militare de la Kogălniceanu, chiar şi dacă Băsescu pleacă acasă cu axa lui cu tot
-întreţinerea unei relaţii pragmatice cu Rusia
-domolirea atitudinii României faţă de noul preşedinte şi guvern comunist din Moldova rezultat din alegerile de la sfârşitul acestei luni
-persuadarea politicienilor români că Nabucco trebuie susţinut în continuare de la Bucureşti, indiferent de culoarea politică a preşedintelui sau guvernului
-liniştirea românilor faţă de neîndeplinirea promisiunii americane cu scutul antiracheta
-echilibru regional pe sistemul Varşovia-Berlin şi Bucureşti-Belgrad
-subjugarea diplomaţiei româneşti faţă de politica dusă de SUA în raport cu UE şi arabii, ambasadorul Gitenstein este afiliat lobbiului evreiesc care l-a susţinut pe Joe Biden, cel mai capabil negociator de politică externă din administraţia Obama
Observaţii
-numirea la post a ambasadorului Gitenstein coincide cu scandalul sexual în care este implicat un membru al misiunii diplomatice a României la Chişinău, scandal regizat, pare-se, de serviciile secrete moldoveneşti controlate de consilierii FSB
-ambasadorul Gitenstein trebuie să colaboreze cu ambasadorii SUA din Georgia, Ucraina, Moldova, Rusia, Serbia, ţările baltice, caspice şi Polonia
-dacă noul ambasador al SUA la Bucureşti ar fi fost un diplomat de carieră, această numire ar fi fost un semnal de forţă faţă de sistemul totalitar de la Kremlin, şi oricum SUA tot lansează semnale că cedează toată influenţa politică din Europa în favoarea Rusiei
-lipsa de experienţă în politică externă a ambasadorului Gitenstein va fi compensată prin sfaturile date de consilierii americani ai ambasadei şi prin indicaţiile transmise de la Washington, de la State Department, MAE-ul lor
-pe de altă parte, orice ieşire publică a ambasadorului Gitenstein faţă de o chestiune românească sau o chestiune care să intereseze SUA va putea fi interpretată ca având sprijinul nemijlocit al administraţiei Obama, sau măcar al componentei Joe Biden.

Romania subtly threatens Russia to invade Moldova and to break the new Iron Curtain

Today the Romanian President Traian Basescu held a major speech in a joint parliamentary session. The topic was the turbulence in the neighbouring Republic of Moldova, formerly a Romanian territory which was taken by the USSR.
Below are the paragraphs from the speech which clearly indicate that Romania considers a military solution to the political unrest in the Republic of Moldova. Statement which could trigger a brutal start of the second Cold War.

1.
RO "Suntem îngrijoraţi de represaliile pe care autorităţile Republicii Moldova le întreprind, de încălcările grave ale drepturilor omului. Situaţia este agravată de limitarea şi blocarea activităţii reprezentanţilor mass-media, acţiuni prin care se încearcă să se ascundă opiniei publice abuzurile şi comportamentul brutal al forţelor de ordine. Jurnaliştii care mai pot transmite menţionează răpiri de persoane, reţineri abuzive, ameninţări, terorizarea cetăţenilor, fabricarea de dosare, anchete fără asigurarea asistenţei juridice pentru persoanele reţinute."

EN "We are concerned about the reprisals inflicted by the Moldovan authorities, about the serious violations of human rights. The situation is worsened by the restriction and obstruction in the journalists' activities, actions by which they try to hide to the public opinion the abuses and the behaviour of the security forces.
Journalist who can still do their job speak of kidnappings, abusive arrests, threats,terrorizing the civilizians, forgery of cases, inquiries without providing legal assistance for those held in custody."

2.
RO "România îşi manifestă preocuparea faţă de agresarea şi măsurile ilegale întreprinse până acum împotriva cetăţenilor români."

EN "Romania expresses its concern about the attacks and illegal actions launched so far against the Romanian citizens."

3.
RO "În condiţiile în care măsurile represive vor continua, România va analiza, în conformitate cu normele internaţionale, formele de asistenţă umanitară şi de protecţie pentru cei a căror viaţă şi integritate fizică sunt ameninţate."

EN "If the repressive actions continue, Romania will examine, according to the international regulations, all forms of humanitarian assistance and protection for all those whose lives and physical integrity are under constant threat."

4.
RO "Amintesc că prin articolul 7 al Constituţiei, statul român are obligaţia să acorde sprijin etnicilor români din afara graniţelor."

EN "I recall that article 7 of the Romanian Constitution stipulates that the Romanian authorities are bound to assist the Romanian ethnics living abroad."

My commentary

This is exactly how the NATO-Jugoslavia War began in 1999 and the Russia-Georgia War erupted in August 2008. The right to defend an ethnic group from repressive actions taken by a certain type of government. We are drawing closer to a war. NATO and EU are still rather neutral. We wait for their standings. I foresaw the increase in the alert condition applied to the Romanian armed forces. I bet that our army generals and the intelligence services prepared strategic planning and war scenarios.

Info Wars in "Kittens used as bait for sharks and marlin!"

I saw a short video clip on a Romanian news websites which allegedly showed kittens used as bait for sharks.

The vid ends by sending viewers to a website where the only thing you can do is to buy T-shirts...
There is this US-based NGO called PETA which is struggling to put an end to cruelty inflicted on animals by human beings. A situation which is completely true, I don´t deny it.
But the videoclip they posted is totally fake as it plays very well with people´s emotions.
The elements which indicate that an individual or PETA fabricated the vid in order not to draw people´s attention but to get a lot of money:
-in the light of US traditional system of volunteers and personal involvement, the website asks only for money, not for any real personal involvement
-the stereotype thing is present: a bunch of young rich bad cruel arrogant white Americans use adorable, innocent kittens to fish sharks in a remote area where Western civilization is absent
-you don´t really see a hook entering the kitten´s body/head, the kitten had a black collar or something to hold the hook
-you don´t actually see a kitten being killed or eaten (everything is suggested)
-the narrator´s voice sounds very unrealistic
-if PETA or this particular individual wanted to really show how kittens are used as bait they should have zoomed the image when the shark bites or kills the poor kitten, but a lot of stuff is used only to suggest
-no blood
-no direct contact between the kitten and the shark
-the only cruel thing is that they (the authors of this vid) made an adorable kitten doing a lot of swimming, the only cruel thing is as well the fact that the wet kitten is freezing and trembling
- notice cat swimming in calm water: in all open water shots, water was rough, waves choppy, boats moving with wakes behind.
-they didn´t show the content of the shark´s stomach when put on the ship, since they had the shark on board they could as well show the alleged kitten bait in his stomach, don´t you think?
-the kitten has no reaction when the hook is allegedly inserted in his body
-the various scenes are on different boats, and the high fiving at the end is no proof they were doing it because they killed a cat (again suggestion)
-time 1:01-1:05 is filmed at a lake or pond cause there is grass in the background, there's no grass at the ocean, whereas there should be a beach not grass.
-the water color is two different colors when filming. In the shots with the cats, the water is dark like a pond or lake and the ocean shot with the sharks the water is light blue like the ocean.

Just see the vid twice and consider my analysis. It´s fake and PETA or that individual got a fucking lot of money from selling T-shirts and impressing millions of light-hearted people.
This does not mean that this habit, of using animals as bait for sharks and other species of big fish, does not really exist or it does not mean that animal cruelty is a bogus, but this vid is a good fake. And it took a lot of editing, really!

Barack Obama, my friend

I discussed with many of my friends why and how Barack Obama, my friend, won the 2008 US presidential election.
One of the explanations would be this:
Barack Obama represented the rebel element, the young reformer coming from outside the system. He struggled against a White old sick Republican man(John McCain) who defended strong social conventions.
When people who are considered as marginal or they think of themselves as marginal casted their votes for Barack Obama, they invested their own personal spiritual ambitions in the representative of what they considered as being a good chance for a better future.
The last candidate from the Democratic Party to win a presidential election was Bill Clinton. He had 47 million popular votes. Barack Obama had 69 million popular votes...

Opponents:
working class+women+ethnic groups+sexual minorities+young people+green movements+anti-war activists+laymen+(traditional Republican voters angry at Bush) AGAINST the symbol of the patriarchal capitalist dictatorship.

So the huge tournout (the difference between the Democrat candidate and the Republican candidate was of 10 million votes) was an act of rebellion against the male center, oppresive, aggressive, selfish and authoritarian.

If Barack Obama, my friend, does not fulfill most of these personal ambitions...I didn´t think so far...

We applied concepts from psychoanalysis, from social psychology, from political sciences, from anthropology, from gender studies, from postcolonial criticism.

White Media and Gender-Race Oppression

22 November 2008- all news networks say about Jimmy Carter, former US president (D), and Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations (Ghana) being rejected from entering Zimbabwe in a humanitarian mission. This is their view and I do not assume it. My problem is with the third member of the Elders. Her name is Graca Machel.
What do we have here:
-a woman
-an African woman
-an African woman advocating for human rights
-an African woman advocating for human rights who held high government positions

Now let us see how several global news network included her in the news with Carter and Annan.
FOXNEWS
US news channel- allegedly rightist
-she is included in the photograph
-the headline of the article does not mention her
-her statement is presented at the end of the article
CNN
US-based news channel-allegedly liberal
-she is included in the photograph (the same photograph as for FOXNEWS)
-the headline again does not mention her
-her name is first mentioned in the middle of the body of the article
-her social identity is fully connected with the famous African male politician Nelson Mandela (so she does not a feminine identity, she is known mostly because she depended on a man)
-her statement is quite long, she is precise
-her statement begins with "We", whereas Carter´s begins with "I"
The Guardian
British newspaper- allegedly left liberal
-the title does not mention either of the African activists (Mrs. Machel and Mr. Annan)
-the title and the photograph display only the former US president
-NO statement from behalf of Mrs. Machel, even if the primary source of the news is the same as in the other cases
Washington Post
popular US newspaper
-the same photograph with the three
-the title also mentions her
-from the very beginning, she is not given the status of a woman dependent on the media image of her husbands
-she is nicely presented, as South African human rights advocate (BUT pay attention to the structure: "Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter and a South African human rights advocate"- NO name), the second time she is presented she is given a name, indeed, but the first time she is "a South African human rights advocate), she does not hold international reputation
-in the end, Mrs. Machel is associated with the status of "wife of a famous African politician" (these are my words).

I do not want to go into much details, but here are my opinions
1. How much is Mrs. Machel a South African human rights advocate rather than the wife of an African leader?
2. Even if you go to google and you search jimmy carter kofi annan graca machel zimbabwe, you will find out that most of the headlines do not mention her name or her as a woman or as African woman. And some headlines speak of the Carter group.
3. Mrs. Machel is not given access to history, her image as a woman is only a secondary one because everybody says about her that she was the wife of an African leader (maybe the continuation of White Euro-American stereotypes of the gender roles in the postcolonial world).
4. Some reporters, mainly males, speak on her behalf, not quoting exactly her statement, while Carter and Annan, as males, benefit from a large exposure within the articles.
5. None of the mainstream news articles speaks of Mrs. Machel as previously holding a top government position.

I am very eager to find out what you think about this. You are more than welcomed to post comments on this blog.