Category Archives: Editorial

Opinions, arguments

Hope Restored

With the 637-city, multimillion women’s march today, hope has been restored in the ability of the silent majority to stand up and defend Liberal Democracy against the intolerance and demagoguery that the fascists use as a wedge to take and hold power. Having said that, today was not a victory per se, it was just the rejoinder of the struggle. This was just the end of the beginning.

The women’s march in Washington D.C.

Where to go from here? Run for office! The crucial positions to take are all those relating to elections, on all levels from precinct to supervisor of elections. The fascist strategy is to deny minorities their right to vote, and to gerrymander. To be able to compete for the seats in the legislature and executive, the people must first safeguard the election process. No elected office is too insignificant to be worth fighting for.

Melania, I don’t care if you were an escort, but stop acting like one!

Melania the nude model who married Donald Trump, threatens to sue anyone calling her a hooker. I don’t care if she was a hooker or not, it is beside the point. Hookers are also people. What matters is how a person behaves. What matters is her standing up for her dignity – and she is not doing it by suing media, she would be doing it by telling her lying, cheating, sexually assaulting husband to behave like a man.

Melania: It is your husband who is disrespecting you. If you want to be taken  seriously, stand up and be a WOMAN in the relationship! Stop acting like a paid escort!


Will Americans wake up in time?

When a democracy turns into a dictatorship the rules change. If the democrats realize in time what is going on, they will act decisively and stop it. “Predict the end, prevent the beginning.” But if they refuse to take in what is happening, if they bury their heads in the sand, then the dictatorship will take root. Let me give you an example. Bill Palmer runs an anti-Trump group of 150k people on Facebook which used to be pro-Hillary (and he also writes the Palmer Report). As a democracy activist I have not just one but several Facebook accounts, everybody has that in dictatorships, so I joined that group with different accounts, and one after the other was blocked. At the same time I had Bill as a friend on Facebook, so I asked him why I was blocked. When time passed without a reply I started suspecting that someone was blocking people without his knowledge, and published the warning mentioned below. After about seven weeks he replied and the exchange below took place.

My advice to all Americans who are fighting against the authoritarian regime under Trump (it is already here) is to stay united, and to engage each other in open discussions. Name calling is what the Trumpistas are doing. Blocking someone who is trying to debate is the stuff of dictatorship, and is only helping Trump. The only legitimate reason to block someone is when that person is trying to destroy the debate. What we want is the debate! Not a monopoly of ideas, but a meeting of opinions.

Not once did Bill Palmer explain what “conspiracy theories” he has talking about, nor did he ever respond to any of my posts or comments. If you want democracy, act as a democrat, that is the first lesson. Second lesson is, don’t ever trust a person who doesn’t respect the norms of democracy – such as Donald Trump.

Unfortunately I don’t see the leadership abilities in the Democratic Party that it needs. There is a lack of spine, a lack of “full speed ahead damn the torpedoes” mentality. And that is the only thing that can save America now: Courage. Lots of civil courage.

Who is Peace Prize Winner Santos?

Many things can be said about Juan Manuel Santos, president of Colombia and former minister of defense who was rewarded with (not awarded, rewarded) the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. But I’ll stick to what I personally know. In 2014, Santos’s military invited two acquaintances of mine, members of the Venezuelan non-violent resistance Operación Libertad, to visit a military base where the below photo was taken. Later Santos extradited these two to the dictatorship in Venezuela where they were thrown in the most infamous torture site, known as “The Tomb”. They are still there.

Gabriel Valles y Lorent Saleh en un base militar en Colombia en 2014.
Gabriel Valles and Lorent Saleh in a military base in Colombia in 2014. 

The last time I spoke to Lorent Saleh he told me about being invited to a Colombian military base.  Apparently this invitation was the cause for their extradition. But who is the commander in chief of the military? President Santos, of course. So he was ultimately responsible for their visit, and then he extradited them supposedly because of that visit(!).

Now as regards “peace”, for peace to be made there has to be war first. But Colombia is not in a civil war. Colombia is plagued by a terrorist group that is armed and supported by Castro on Cuba. Castro also supports and controls Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, and Venezuela cooperates intimately with FARC. So when Santos engaged in “peace negotiations” with FARC, with facilitation by Cuba, Venezuela, and Norway, it was really a negotiation to rewards a foreign-backed terrorist group. Santos is a quisling!

Norway was used as a pawn to give legitimacy to this charade. There is no reason to suspect that the Norwegians acted with malicious intent, because they are acting against their own national interest. You see, the bad guys in this deal are intimately allied with Putin’s Russia, so what Norway did—in the negotiations and in rewarding the quisling with a Nobel Peace Prize—indirectly helps Russia, Norway’s enemy.

Castro lurade byxorna av Ola Nordman

Norges deltagande i de så kallade fredsförhandlingarna mellan Colombias regeringsparti och terroristerna i FARC (utan deltagande av oppositionen, vilka fördömt hela företaget) är en skamfläck för broderlandet. Projektet har utmålats som ett fredsprojekt, men det är allt annat än ett fredsprojekt. Tack och lov att folket röstade ner det i folkomröstningen den 2 oktober.

Detta så kallade fredsavtal skulle ha gett terroristgerillan FARC en position som de aldrig skulle ha kunnat uppnå i val. Det skulle ha kullkastat hela rättsstaten. Det skulle ha grundlagsskyddat politisk förföljelse av de som motsatte sig traktatet inklusive militärer och oppositionspolitiker.

Nej till straffrihet för Castros terrorister i Colombia
Nej till straffrihet för Castros terrorister i Colombia

Det bakomliggande syftet med avtalet var att förvandla Colombia till en kubansk vasallstat, likt Venezuela under Chávez och Maduro. De främmande makter som deltog i förhandlingarna var Kuba, Venezuela och Norge. FARC är en irreguljär styrka kontrollerad av Kuba. FARCs ledare har bostäder i Venezuelas centrala militärbas Fuerte Tiuna. Det enda land i förhandlingarna som representerade det internationella samfundet var Norge.

En skamfläck på Norges flagga

Hur kunde Norge sitta vid samma bord som dessa blodsugare och förhandla bort grundläggande fri- och rättigheter för 50 miljoner colombianer utan att slå larm? Att Norge nu dessutom gett Nobels fredspris till Colombias president Juan Manuel Santos sätter en skamfläck på broderlandets flagga som kommer att ta lång tid att tvätta bort.

Nordmän, ni verkar ha glömt att “Frihet är det största ting, som sökas kan all världen kring.” Mänskliga rättigheter kan inte förhandlas bort. Att lagstifta om en “fred” som slår undan benen för rättsstaten leder inte till fred – det leder till krig! Det som Santos nu får fredspriset för var ett förräderi mot allt vad fredspriset står för: en draksådd. En draksådd som Norge deltog i och lånade sitt goda rykte för, säkert av ren och skär blåögdhet; Castro lurade byxorna av Ola Nordman.

La gran toma de Caracas

El 1 de septiembre la oposición en Venezuela, respaldado por la resistencia, ha llamado a tomar la capital Caracas. Dado que el país se ha convertido en una dictadura bajo un régimen genocida, no hay problema ninguna si el pueblo decida derrocar al gobierno en una revolución popular para establecer un gobierno nuevo. La Ley Internacional les otorga ese derecho, siempre y cuando cualquier uso de fuerza solo sea dirigido hacía el régimen y sus fuerzas de seguridad (regulares como irregulares). El llamado es a una marcha pacífica, lo cual indica una lucha no-violenta. Eso está bien, porque tiene más probabilidad de tener éxito.

La resistencia en Venezuela por años ha estado claro que es una dictadura y que la salida pasa por el uso de fuerza popular, o sea, un pueblo unido en la calle para presionar y exigir la salida del régimen. Mucho de esta acción indica que por ahí van, pero no todo. La oposición política en la MUD (mesa de unidad democrática) parece incapaz de mantener un mensaje creíble. Ellos llaman a esa marcha para supuestamente exigir un referendo revocatorio este año, lo cual es un derecho constitucional.

El problema con esta exigencia es que el régimen ya lo ha dejado absolutamente claro que no lo van a permitir, y todos los demás observadores han captado esta respuesta del régimen (la OEA, la UE, la ONU, la resistencia venezolana). Por alguna razón la MUD sigue clamando por un referendo revocatorio que todos saben no se va a dar, punto. Eso hace mucho daño a la credibilidad política de la MUD. Un elemento de la resistencia sospecha que la MUD en realidad está trabajando para el régimen. Los chavistas piensan que los de la MUD son mentirosos. La comunidad internacional se pregunta si la MUD sabe lo que está haciendo. El pueblo en general se encuentra entre mensajes cruzados y eso contribuye a la confusión dentro del país — y la confusión solo beneficia a la dictadura. Realmente no entiendo por qué la MUD mantiene esa linea y ese discurso que hace tanto  daño.

¿Por qué la MUD no habla claro y dice que “esto es una dictadura y tenemos el derecho bajo la ley internacional y el deber constitucional de restablecer la vigencia de la constitución”? Si dirían eso, a lo mejor todos los “duros”, los determinados, les respaldarían de inmediato en vez de posiblemente mantenerse en casa dudando sus intenciones. Es hora de hablar claro.

Indígenas en marcha hacía Caracas desde Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas.
Indígenas en marcha hacía Caracas desde Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas.

Too, BLM2

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:

BLM2, Black Lives Matter, Too.
BLM2, Black Lives Matter, Too.

La diferencia entre libertador y terrorista

¿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:

  1. 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;
  2. El uso de la fuerza es el último recurso y no es excesivo en relación a las ventajas concretas anticipadas;
  3. 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;
  4. 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).

Santo Tomás


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.

Pirates of the Caribbean

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.

These 13 countries have 38% of the vote, well above the 33% that is needed to shield the genocidal regime in Caracas. In fact, it's enough that 10 of them back the Maduro regime, and the 10 smallest represent only 0.2% of the population in all OAS countries.
These 13 countries have 38% of the vote, well above the 33% that is needed to shield the genocidal regime in Caracas. In fact, it’s enough that 10 of them back the Maduro regime, and the 10 smallest represent only 0.2% of the population in all OAS countries.

Responsibility to Protect

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.