Too. A little word in English that can make a world of difference. Right now Americans are up in arms against each other for the lack of a “too” in a certain spot. Some say “black lives matter” and others (me included) feel that it is exclusionary towards all other races, that “all lives matter”. But when some with a larger media platform than me have responded that all lives matter, then they have been attacked by others who say that it doesn’t respect the legitimate grievances of the blacks. Let me be clear: I know that those grievances are legitimate, but it doesn’t make their slogan any less divisive. The thing is that their school system seems to have forgotten to teach them a three letter word: too. The sentence must have a “too” in the end in order not to be divisive. So here I offer the amended logo to them:
¿Cómo y cuando se puede usar fuerza para liberar al país sin hacerse culpable de terrorismo?
Se puede distinguir cuatro justificaciones y/o excusas en la ley internacional.
1. Derecho a la Revolución
Los pueblos tienen un derecho inalienable a rebelarse contra un gobierno tiránico, bajo estas 4 condiciones:
- La mayoría de los ciudadanos respaldan el uso de la fuerza, o los revolucionarios tienen una razonable creencia que la mayoría lo hubiese respaldado si hubiesen conocido todas las circunstancias relevantes;
- El uso de la fuerza es el último recurso y no es excesivo en relación a las ventajas concretas anticipadas;
- La causa atrás del uso de la fuerza tiene que ser la opresión del gobierno o en torno a violaciones substanciales de la constitución o de derechos humanos fundamentales;
- El uso de la fuerza tiene que ser dirigido hacía el gobierno opresivo.
La fuerza que se basa a ese derecho tiene que ser limitada a los actores directamente responsables del régimen: Los que tienen en su poder cambiar la política y cambiar al régimen al irse del país, y los que ejecutan la opresión directamente: Militares, policías, grupos paramilitares, grupos criminales, militantes políticos etc que actúan en defensa del régimen. Dictaduras dependen de dos brazos principalmente para sostener el poder: Represión y propaganda. Eso significa que lógicamente el aparato de propaganda también es un blanco legítimo (por ejemplo canales de televisión y radio bajo control del régimen).
El uso de fuerza no debe ser excesivo, significa que si sabotaje técnico puede lograr la misma meta como un asesinato, se debe preferir el sabotaje.
No se justifica víctimas civiles inocentes bajo esta justificación para uso de fuerza. Es una cosa que pueden caer víctimas por la respuesta violenta del régimen, pero nunca se debe hacer ninguna acción que pone en peligro las vidas de inocentes. Por eso, bombas solo pueden ser usados donde no hay civiles presentes.
Otro principio es de no hacer daño a la propiedad privada y tampoco la pública a menos que sea necesario. Después de la revolución es importante poder gobernar, y la destrucción por eso debe ser evitado.
Finalmente, los ataques contra los personajes del régimen deben formar parte de una lucha generalizada, sistemática, y no casos aislados, para poder considerarse parte de una revolución y no asesinatos.
2. Ley de Auto-Defensa
Se distingue entre dos tipos, auto-defensa en la ley internacional publica y auto-defensa en la ley internacional criminal. En ambos casos la violencia solo se justifica para frenar un ataque inminente, por lo que solo que puede aplicar contra el ejecutor del ataque, no contra el que está dando los órdenes. En el caso de un Holodomor no existe ejecutor; la población muere no por acción activa sino por falta de comida. En esos casos se puede aplicar la ley de necesidad.
Si alguien está atacado con armas siempre se puede defender con fuerza letal, eso no cambia por estar en resistencia o rebelión.
3. Ley de Necesidad
La necesidad está definida en el Estatuto de Roma, Art 31.1.d: “…coacción dimanante de una amenaza inminente de muerte o lesiones corporales graves para él u otra persona, y en que se vea compelido a actuar necesaria y razonablemente para evitar esa amenaza, siempre que no tuviera la intención de causar un daño mayor que el que se proponía evitar. Esa amenaza podrá: i) Haber sido hecha por otras personas; o ii) Estar constituida por otras circunstancias ajenas a su control.”
En el caso de un Holodomor por ejemplo, la amenaza existe, está constituida por circunstancias ajenas a su control (ya que la democracia ha dejado de funcionar), y una acción razonable es derrocar al régimen por la fuerza siempre y cuando el número de muertes inocentes en la acción sea menor que el número de muertes inocentes por el Holodomor, y que no existe otra vía razonable aún menos violento. Como la inacción genera muchos muertos, eso justificaría acciones bastante violentos si no hay alternativas.
En caso de crímenes de lesa humanidad, genocidio, crímenes de guerra etc todos que participan en la ejecución de esos crímenes son blancos legítimos bajo el principio de necesidad, todos los que podrían ser condenados en un corte por su participación.
4. Ser Reconocido como Combatiente
Si el enemigo (el gobierno) reconoce al grupo revolucionario como combatiente bajo las leyes de la guerra, los miembros del grupo no pueden ser acusados de terrorismo al hacer actos violentos (pero siguen responsables por cualquier crimen de guerra). Sin embargo, es muy poco probable que el régimen otorga ese estatus a un grupo de revolucionario. Por otro lado, si el conflicto es o se vuelve internacional, entonces eso aplica. Por ejemplo, si el régimen resulta ser una fuerza de ocupación bajo mando y control de otro gobierno, entonces la lucha se convierte en una guerra de liberación, lo cual goza de protección en la ley internacional que una revolución no tiene (siendo plenamente doméstica).
Cada uno de estos cuatro justificaciones tiene su lugar donde y cuando puede ser aplicado, y sus limitaciones en la forma como puede ser aplicado.
|Justificación por el uso de fuerza||Cuando||Como||Blancos Legítimos|
|1. Revolución*||Hasta que caiga la tiranía**||El menor uso de fuerza necesario, y solo como último recurso||Las personas que sostienen la tiranía (no contra inocentes, no se permite daños colaterales calculados)|
|2. Auto-Defensa||Bajo amenaza directa y presente||La fuerza necesaria para parar el ataque||El atacante o equivalente para parar el ataque (no contra el que dio orden)|
|3. Necesidad||Bajo amenaza sostenida, peligro inminente pero sin emergencia||El menor uso de fuerza necesaria y menos que el daño que se pretendía evitar||Los responsables e involucrados, incluso los que planifican y ordenan la amenaza|
|4. Combatiente||Conflictos internacionales o conflictos nacionales cuando el régimen reconoce la situación como guerra civil||Según las leyes de la guerra (la meta siendo debilitar al enemigo hasta que se rinde, tratando de limitar muertos y daños)||Según las leyes de la guerra (combatientes y equipo que contribuye al esfuerzo bélico, tratando de mantener los daños colaterales a un mínimo)|
*La revolución intenta contra el gobierno de un país, mientras que la insurrección se puede ver como algo regional y la rebelión como algo local. Lo que empieza como una rebelión contra injusticia puede terminar como una revolución.
**En el momento que caiga la tiranía la violencia tiene que parar de inmediato. No existe justificación alguna para asesinar a personas del régimen cuando ellos se han dado por vencidos. Deben ser enjuiciados bajo la ley, y preferiblemente en una corte internacional para evitar sospechas de venganza. La suerte del gobierno nuevo depende de su imagen de legitimidad y defensor del imperio de la ley. Recuerda el asesinato de Ghaddafi y mira como Libia no ha logrado volver a la paz, toma eso como una lección.
Comentario: Justificación 1 no permite daños colaterales calculados, pero número 4 sí. Sin embargo, hace mucho daño por la moral de la acción, así que no es recomendable en ningún caso a menos que sea para evitar aún más muertos inocentes. Esta justificación también es la base para caso número 3, la necesidad. Se distingue entre justificación y excusa. Para caso número 2, auto-defensa, no hay justificación para matar a inocentes pero si ocurre por accidente, hay una excusa. En caso número 1 ni hay una excusa. Se debe evitar, punto. Como caso número 4 en realidad no es aplicable a menos que el conflicto se vuelve internacional, eso significa que lo único que puede justificar matar a inocentes es si es necesario para evitar la muerte de muchos más inocentes, por ejemplo, una bomba para evitar un genocidio — aunque el problema es probar que el genocidio iba a ocurrir ya que es muy difícil comprobar un genocidio hasta después del hecho. Total, casi nunca se debe hacer una acción donde civiles inocentes corren riesgo morir, y en las excepciones, la decisión debe ser tomada de un comandante en jefe que asume toda la responsabilidad.
Both Brexit and Trump are reactions to irresponsible politicians. Just like Hugo Chávez was in Venezuela in the 1998 election, for which the people now pay a huge price: Dictatorship, or rather pure tyranny, with Holodomor and Holodolencia (the regime preventing access to food and medicines). But back to Brexit and Trump.
Western Europe and USA are part of the same culture, which since WWII has created a global system in which intervention in other countries is prohibited except as permitted by the UNSC, but due to the veto powers that body rarely allows such moves. This means that the global community protects governments, even in the case of regimes that are un-democratic and lack support among the population. This has given oppressive regimes a free hand to do what they do best: Repress, rob, steal, and deprive people of hope, while holding up a pretty facade in the diplomatic arena. It’s hard to call it corruption when it is the very essence of what they do.
Since the free world has chosen to tie their hands, the people living under oppression and the violence that repressive regimes lead to, have had no other recourse than to flee to the free world if they want opportunities for themselves and their children. From Latin America they risk their lives to come to the U.S., and from Africa they risk their lives to come to Europe. Both regions have chosen to accept these refugees rather than taking effective action to improve things in their home countries.
In Europe it has for decades been politically incorrect to even question the policy of accepting the refugees rather than try to help them achieve freedom of opportunity at home. So people have gotten fed up. That’s how I interpret Brexit and Trump: Both Brits and Yankees are tired of the lack of political will to deal with the real problem, and so they do something desperate that actually can make things much worse.
Look at the countries from which the refugees come. Third world countries tend to have a filthy rich elite and a large poor population that does not have opportunities to get ahead, regardless of education, because of corruption. The wealth of the rich is such that they even can bribe leaders of the free world, and nobody will be the wiser because there is no control or oversight in these countries I’m talking about.
The international system needs to take the focus away from preserving the Status Quo and the sitting government, and focus on getting effective human rights such as freedom and opportunity to the people.
As one example of a policy area where a new tack may be needed I’d like to mention weapons control. The right to rebellion against a tyranny is a fundamental right that predates civilization itself. But the right to rebel is only a chimaera when citizens are denied the right to bear arms. For many years the international community has worked towards limiting international arms traffic to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of criminals, leaving the government in total control. That is good and well, but what about if the government is the criminal, leaving the potential rebels with no recourse? That’s what makes people flee to USA or Europe, because they have no way of fighting back, and the west will not help them in any way, shape, or form.
For 6 years I’ve followed the Venezuelan people’s fight for freedom from the dictatorship that controls their country since 2002, when the military reinstated Chávez as president after a non-violent movement had forced his resignation by peaceful protests. The dictatorship deliberately disarmed the people, and armed criminal gangs loyal to them—the Venezuelan version of Brownshirts, called “colectivos.” In 2014 the colectivos met peaceful protests with guns, for instance. Any rebellion will need to be able to neutralize the armed colectivos, but where to get the necessary weapons? There is no legal way that the rest of the world can help, and apparently no country wants to do it illegally either (since if so, it would already have been done). This leaves the Venezuelan people at the mercy of a regime that denies them food and medicines. Yes, denies: The regime does not allow these things even to be donated from abroad. What recourse does the Venezuelan have? His choices are to starve and possibly die; to fight unarmed against one of the heaviest armed nations in the Western Hemisphere; or to emigrate. Millions have already taken that las option and many of them are now homeless abroad, but at least not denied food.
There is something fundamentally wrong when the international community helps the despots against people with a legitimate right to rebel.
In a landmark meeting yesterday, the Organization of American States were summoned to an extraordinary meeting for the presentation of a report on the erosion of democracy in Bolivarian Venezuela, prepared by the secretary general of the organization, Luis Almagro. The meeting started with the point of order of approving the agenda, to which Bolivarian Venezuela, represented by its foreign minister Ms Delcy Rodriguez requested the word. She expressed that her country was opposed to the meeting being held. After the US made a point of order saying that Bolivarian Venezuela had gone into the subject matter when they were at a point in the agenda where only points of order were allowed according to the rules of OAS, and a couple of more violations to thus rule by Nicaragua and Bolivia, the vote was taken.
There was confusion because the chair had first understood that Bolivarian Venezuela requested a vote not to hold the meeting, but later their representative stated that she desired the vote to be on the approval of the agenda. Even though the chair explained this repeatedly the translation seems to have worked poorly, because Antigua and Barbuda had to ask again before voting, and Haiti later explained that they had voted on the original question and really intended to approve the agenda. In this table I present the vote and show the corrected vote of Haiti:
|Do you approve the agenda?|
|Argentina||Antigua and Barbuda||Saint Lucia|
|Bahamas||Bolivia||Trinidad and Tobago|
|Costa Rica||Saint Kitts and Nevis|
|Guatemala||Saint Vincent and the Grenadines|
That makes 21 in favor and 11 opposed, with 2 abstentions, so the agenda was approved and the meeting started. The only point of order was that Luis Almagro, secretary general, presented his report. That was followed by comments by those who so wished. All countries availed themselves of that opportunity except those in italics in the above table. The complete video of the entire meeting (except 2 minutes before the formal start, due to a transmission error) with the original language (no interpreter voices) is available on the Operación Libertad Venezuela YouTube channel.
For Spanish speakers I recommend ‘The pearls of Delcy Rodriguez,’ “Las perlas de Delcy Rodriguez,” since nobody contributed more to prove the case that Bolivarian Venezuela is an authoritarian regime than the foreign minister herself. I don’t have the time to translate it but I will leave it open for user-contributed translations on YouTube.
The fact that the report was presented was a huge step forward, because the regime’s lies were exposed publicly. But this is not to say that the democratic charter was activated. This was just the secretary general informing the countries—his employers, effectively—that “here is something I think you need to look at”. Now they need to consider the facts and then it is up to the country holding the presidency of OAS to decide if and when to call a new meeting. At present Argentina holds the presidency.
Pirates of the Caribbean will decide the fate of the OAS—and their own future on the international arena. On Thursday June 23rd, the OAS will vote. If they fail to activate the Democratic Charter against the patently genocidal regime in “Bolivarian” Venezuela, the organization will lose all international credibility. The countries in whose hands it is to decide the vote are the Caribbean ones. They are also the ones who gave the Spanish language the word “filibustero” from their ways (filibustero comes from Dutch fribuiter which means free-looter in English and fribytare in Swedish, and refers to pirates who operate under the premise of take what you can). In these days they take blood-money from the genocidal regime in Caracas, so their moral has not improved. The vast majority of the people in the Americas, something like 90%, live in countries that support activating the Democratic Charter. But 0.7% of the population has over 38% of the vote and thus the power to protect the genocidal regime of Maduro. What’s more, 9 of those so-called countries have the same head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, so much of the shame will fall on the queen of the English if they fail to exercise their responsibility to protect the Venezuelan people against Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide. The rest of the Americas would be wise to sideline those countries in any future organization of American states, because they would obviously have failed the test of being mature enough to operate on the international arena. Maybe they could be given one vote between all of them, like the 50 states of USA have.
Nobody is allowed to commit crimes against humanity or genocide. They are international crimes and they are never prescribed. Furthermore, states have the responsibility to protect their citizens from these crimes. In 2005 the world community decided that if a state fails to protect its citizens from crimes against humanity, genocide, ethnic cleansing or war crimes, the international community has a responsibility to protect, and that the UN Security Council has a right to decide to intervene and override the sovereignty of that country.
But what to do if a state itself commits crimes against humanity or genocide, and the international community fails to act? Clearly as individuals we the people still have a moral obligation to act. When faced by a situation like the one in Venezuela, where the regime deliberately is starving its people to try to stave off a rebellion (like Stalin did in Ukraine in 1932/33, the original Holodomor), a situation where people have to choose between dying of starvation or taking up arms against the regime, and the regime is armed to its teeth while the population was disarmed years ago, plus the regime uses heavily armed criminal gangs called “colectivos” to spread terror against those who protest for food, what options do we in the civil society have?
All non-violent methods have already been tried, but non-violence does not work against a regime that does not care if dissidents die. In 2010 Franklin Brito went on a hunger strike until he died and what did the regime do?, they made sure he died. In 2014 unarmed people protested all over the country and the regime used live ammo, which provoked a response by criminals (the only civilians with guns). Apparently unreported by media, 55 soldiers were shot during the “non-violent” protests in legitimate self defense. How many of these soldiers were Cubans is not known, only that Cuba sent 60,000 troops to quell the rebellion.
The Venezuelan people is fully aware that the only way to get out from this tyranny is through the use of force, but they also realize that the regime advantage in weapons and armaments is a hundred to one or a thousand to one. It’s one of the worlds heaviest armed regimes, a criminal regime, against a population that does not even have the right to own weapons (although many criminals do anyway). So its criminals against criminals, with those wanting peace and the rule of law having no power whatsoever. Because they allowed themselves to be disarmed.
The first lesson is of course that The People should always make sure that they have a legal right to own weapons, to prevent tyranny. In my opinion hunting rifles that can function as sniper rifles is the best protection because they allow for the creation of a home guard milicia, and at the same time they are virtually useless for criminals. In places high in crimes they can also work for home defense with appropriate light load ammunition to prevent over-penetration. I’m talking bolt action or single-shot, not semi-automatic. For close encounters the milicia could use semi-automatic pistols, but since they are very sought-after by criminals it would make sense to restrict them more. The milicia could instead use pump-action shotguns, another weapon useful for home defense but of little use to criminals. An armed citizenry is crucial as a way to prevent internal enemies from taking over the country.
However, in the case of Venezuela this discussion comes too late. They already allowed themselves to be disarmed and invited the Devil by voting for Chávez in 1998. They are already facing crimes against humanity from their own (illegitimate to be sure) regime, including arbitrary detentions, torture, disappearances, assassinations, Holodomor (genocide by starvation) and Holodolencia (genocide by denying basic health services and medicines). The forces of repression include the police, the national guard (part of the military), and the Venezuelan version of the brownshirts, the colectivos, fanatics who ride on bikes and spread terror. They are used for propaganda reasons, to avoid pictures of uniformed personnel committing those acts of terror. The propaganda is a key ingredient in the regime’s arsenal, and it is used to avoid that the international community acts against its crimes against humanity.
In 2014 the non-violent uprising that was met with military force did not ebb out until the civilians ran out of ammunition. For over a month they had control over one state in Venezuela, Táchira. When the regime re-took control it was a full military operation with tanks, close air support, the works. The resistance still bills it as a non-violent uprising because it was not their choice to make it an armed conflict.
Now, starting last Tuesday, June 14th, the resistance called for rebellion again, with the call coming from Cumaná, Sucre state. This time everyone is clear that the rebellion must be armed and that the colectivos must be met with deadly force. The instructions to the civilians include to barricade themselves in their homes and to meet any intruder with force, colectivo or national guard, because they know from experience that their intent is to kidnap, torture, and murder.
In this situation the international community has a difficult choice: Do nothing and watch people being exterminated, or break the law to help them.
The OAS is prohibited from intervening, so the Democratic Charter is a paper tiger. And even so, it may not be activated since so many countries in the Caribbean area are political prostitutes who vote to defend the genocidal regime in Caracas, taking Venezuelan blood money.
The UN Security Council is the only international organ that is authorized to call for intervention, that is, actions that violate the national sovereignty. Note that even the air drop of food to starving people violates the national sovereignty. But it may be necessary very soon, since the regime is firm about not allowing humanitarian aid (it is also forbidden to send food or medicines to the country, if it is found in shipments it is confiscated and destroyed). But the UNSC is very unlikely to vote for such a resolution since China and Russia are traditional allies of the regime, and both have veto power.
This leaves only one avenue for international assistance and that is to smuggle help into the country. The things they need for survival are food and medical supplies, and to defeat the regime they also need ammunition as a minimum. But here one runs into ITAR, the rules prohibiting arms trafficking. So the unarmed and defenseless people can not be helped by the international community because of rules that were designed to prevent the bad guys from getting weapons. In this case, when the bad guys are in power, the rules instead help the bad guys commit crimes against humanity.
My conclusion is that the international community has a responsibility to protect the people of Venezuela and that this justifies certain violations of ITAR, since obeying by all the ITAR prohibitions of arms smuggling would aid and assist a Crime Against Humanity.
Queda imposible instalar comunismo sin cometer un genocidio. El genocidio está en la fibra de la ideología del comunismo.
El odio es el primer paso al genocidio. Personas adoctrinadas con odio no sienten simpatía ninguna a las víctimas de genocidio u otros crímenes de lesa humanidad. Más bien sienten que lo están haciendo bien torturándoles, dejándoles morir por hambruna.
Los rusos no ayudaron a los ucranianos que estaban muriendo porque los consideraban infrahumanos. Las víctimas no pueden cambiar esa situación apelando a la simpatía, porque los victimarios ya no son capaces de sentir simpatía hacía ellos. Solo hay una respuesta viable, y es luchar por su vida.
Los victimarios solo pueden ser derrotados por la fuerza. Usar fuerza contra los que cometen un genocidio no solamente queda legítimo, sino que es un DEBER. No solamente es un DEBER para el resto del mundo, sino es un DEBER para las víctimas también. Nadie debe dejarse ser exterminado sin resistir hasta la muerte, y provocar el máximo daño posible para el victimario. ¡Confrontación total como un animal rabioso! Solo así se puede llegar a la humanidad de la otra persona – por medio del miedo.
El primer paso de la resistencia es hacerlo bien claro a los victimarios que las víctimas van a defenderse, que aún cuando saben que van a morir, van a provocar el máximo daño a los victimarios primero. De esa manera los victimarios saldrán de su burbuja de sentirse invulnerables, y vuelven a ser como seres humanos. Vuelven a pensar en su propia mortalidad.
Por eso los venezolanos tienen que dejar de tratar de buscar reconciliación con el régimen genocida. Más bien deben enfrentarles con un mensaje desafiante y con símbolos bélicos, para así sembrar miedo, el único antídoto al odio.
Ojo que la manera de enfrentarse a un régimen genocida es muy distinta a la manera de enfrentarse a una dictadura normal, lo cual se combate con lucha no-violenta. Pero contra un régimen genocida la respuesta tiene que ser mostrar los dientes. Son dos situaciones distintas que requieren respuestas distintas.
In Venezuela the regime is executing a deliberate policy of extermination by the denial of access to basic health care and medicines. This leads to a large amount of preventable deaths in many diseases, from tropical fevers leading to death by lack of acetaminophen, to cancer for lack of treatment in the early stages. The deaths are not random but are used as a political tool against dissidents. The regime is also executing a Holodomor, extermination by starvation, but that seems to be less effective, probably because in the tropical climate of Venezuela there can be many harvests a year; unlike Ukraine, where there is only one, and the regime successfully confiscated all seeds during the winter.
I suggest the term “Holodolencia” in analogy with “Holocaust” and “Holodomor”. Holocaust is from Greek and means “all burned”, and Holodomor is from Ukrainian and means “starvation-murder”. The word Holodolencia is created by keeping “holo-” from the previous words for genocide, and adding the Spanish word “dolencia” which means ‘disease,’ ‘illness,’ since the genocide consists of making a not very serious condition lethal by denying basic health care.
The method by which the regime is denying basic health care is as follows: First, declare that health care is a human right that all should have. Second, declare that the government shall be responsible for it, and create a national system but designed to support the regime base only. Third, take control over all imports and manufacturing of supplies to the private clinics, and deny them supplies and medicines so that they gradually stop functioning and have to cease their activities.
At present, the regime is prohibiting the import of medicines, it is actually forcing importers to burn medicines, and it is denying import for humanitarian reasons. Donated medicines that arrive to hospitals are ceased and destroyed. Predictably, the deaths are sky-rocketing. This Holodolencia may be more effective in Venezuela than the simultaneously executed Holodomor.
One hundred years ago today, Sir Ernest Shackleton set out on a rescue journey from Elephant Island, the Antarctic, in the 22 foot lifeboat James Caird, to the whaling stations in Grytviken, South Georgia, over 700 nautical miles away (over 1300 km or 800 statute miles). With a crew of five sailors, supplies for 4 weeks, he set out in a rescue operation to get help for the rest of the crew who had been stranded in the Antarctic since their ship Endurance sank in the pack ice on November 21, 1915. The expedition had left South Georgia on December 5, 1914.
My grandfather was a whaler in Grytviken from 1919 to 1921 so I heard the stories directly from someone who had been on South Georgia—although he didn’t arrive until after Shackleton had left, and he left before Shackleton returned in 1922 only to die from a heart attack and be buried in Grytviken.
Miraculously the James Caird arrived to South Georgia after 17 days on the roughest ocean of the world, the Southern Ocean. This was beyond the Roaring Forties, this was the Screaming Fifties, as the whalers on South Georgia knew it. They had to ride out hurricane-force winds in view of the island before they could land. But they landed on the west coast, and Grytviken is on the east coast.
A smaller team of three made the crossing over the glacier-covered mountains, making the 51 km in 36 hours. From Gytviken a boat was sent to rescue the other 3, and the remaining 22 men on Elephant Island were rescued on August 30, 1916, with the assistance of the Chilean navy.
For more information about Sir Ernest Shackleton see this Wikipedia article.
By the way, Grytviken is a Scandinavian word that means “pot bay” and was so named because that’s where they boiled the whales. While whales were still processed on shore, there was government control over the harvest, but later in the 1920’s floating whaling stations were built, and that is what totally destroyed the whale populations. In the 1930’s and forward my grandfather, Knut “Attarparn” Nilsson, was an advocate against this form of whaling because he had seen first hand how harmful it was to the whale stock.
I just received an e-mail from the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition in which they invited me to an event in San Francisco tonight: “Direct from Venezuela: Family members of the victims of right-wing violence speak in the United States”. As all informed observers know, the regime in Venezuela is harboring and supporting terrorists, and as I wrote to the Secretary-General of the UN on April 7, the regime is at this moment engaged in a genocide by starvation, also known as Holodomor. In 2014 when people all over the country protested against the dictatorship, the regime replied with military force (including 60,000 Cuban soldiers in Venezuelan uniform), for instance this iconic case of a young woman shot in the eye:
Yet in spite of this blatant illegitimacy of the dictatorship in Venezuela, and their in-your-face crimes against humanity, the ANSWER coalition defends it. This proves without a shadow of a doubt, that the ANSWER coalition is a front for the Castro-Cuban regime, and thus an enemy propaganda organization.
Here is the start of the e-mail:
Note how ANSWER calls the country-wide peaceful popular protests against the communist dictatorship “right-wing violence”. The e-mail continues:
In the text, ANSWER misrepresents the protests using the same narrative as the communist dictatorships in Caracas and Havana. None of the 43 deaths were caused by the protesters; most were murdered by the regime, some by regime supporters, while the rest were accidents.