NYT Logic

We talked the other day about how the establishment tries to avoid reasonable questions like who benefits from any certain event...

Like we said, the NYT tried to answer this question about the chemical attack in Syria.

This article was interesting for several reasons. First the alleged answer given to this question:

"Yet, rather than an inexplicable act, analysts say, it is part of a carefully calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians."

First, this "analysts say" sounds too much to the "some people say" of the Fox News.

Second, amb most important, it just doesn't answer the question seriously. Even if this alleged "calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians" was real, it doesn't answer the question "WHY NOW?". Let's be serious here, if Assad wanted to do this, he could just perfectly wait until his position was safe.


The only interesting thing in this article is this sentence:

"In 2015, a mix of Qaeda-linked and other rebels, some supported by the United States and its allies, drove government forces from Idlib, the capital of Idlib Province."


PS: I find this absolutely remarkable:

"Correction: April 7, 2017

An earlier version of this article rendered incorrectly a quotation from Dr. Monzer Khalil, the health director of Idlib Province in Syria. He said, "But in Idlib we have 2.2 million people, and how many Qaeda fighters? You cannot kill the two million for their sake." He did not say 3.3 million people and three million fighters."


Makes you wonder how they write the articles, doesn't it?

CUI PRODEST

"Cui prodest" (or "Cui bono") is a latin phrase meaning "whom does it profit?". It points out that "the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain" [Wikipedia].

Cicero attributed this expression "a very honest and wise judge". And it seems indeed that this reasoning, "who profits of something?", should be the first question when looking for a culprit (this does not mean that it has to be the only question).

But as we know that common sense is the less common of all senses, it is often just ignored by the media and the population who benefits from a certain action, and it is often that the person or people blamed by the media do not only not benefit from that act, but the contrary.

I will now put a perfect example of this: the "famous" chemical attack in Syria, that all Western media attributed to Assad even before knowing about the attack. But the thing is, why would Assad do it?! What does he achieve with that?

This question, this doubt, is so obvious that even the New York Times tried to explain it to its readers:

"The diplomatic situation had been looking bright for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. With the help of Russia, he had consolidated his power, the rebels were on their heels and the United States had just declared that ousting him was not a priority.

So why would Mr. Assad risk it all, outraging the world by attacking civilians with what Turkey now says was the nerve agent sarin, killing scores of people, many of them children? Why would he inflict the deadliest chemical strike since the 2013 attacks outside Damascus?"

I absolutely recommend you this article from NYT because you will see how they completely FAIL to give a reasonable answer.

Refugiados, ¿un fenómeno espontáneo?

Parece un tema tabú. Es una pregunta incorrecta. Pero, a pesar de ello, está ahí: ¿puede una migración de la magnitud de la que estamos presenciando en los últimos meses desde Siria hacia Europa producirse espontanéamente? Y es necesario plantearla.

Y es que, en nuestra sociedad, hay temas tabús, y éste es uno de ellos. Si los refugiados fuesen del Este de Europa podríamos plantear esta pregunta, pero como són musulmanes, simplemente plantearse esta pregunta, es un acto de xenofobia/racismo...

Pero cuando algunos temas se le escamotean a la opinión pública, ciertos grupos "pescan en río revuelto", y se aprovechan de ellos. Privar a la sociedad de un debate serio sobre inmgración ha permitido a los grupos de extrema derecha apropiarse de este debate y hacerlo suyo. Así se crea una "verdad oficial", y una "verdad alternativa"; tal vez los dos conceptos más alejados de la verdad auténtica.

Iker Jiménez, responsable del programa de radio Milenio 3 y del de televisión Cuarto Milenio, puede ser criticado por muchos motivos, pero hay un mérito del que presume, y que no se le puede negar: ha tocado muchos temas que no aparecen nunca en otros programas, simplemente por que són incómodos. Lo hará mejor o peor, pero se atreve con ellos. Seguramente su aura de "friquismo", que juega en contra suya en cuanto a credibilidad, le protege de la censura corporativa (línea oficial de la empresa en que trabaja), y de la censura de lo políticamente correcto.

Así pues, parece que es el único periodista conocido (por no decir famoso o notorio), que se ha atrevido con la dichosa pregunta. En el debate sobre los refugiados que tuvo lugar en Cuarto Milenio (vídeo al final), se plantearon algunas ideas descabelladas, y en algún momento, alguna afirmación reprobable, pero también hubo información interesante, como la referencia a Peter Sutherland (noticia que comentaremos posteriormente).


La gran pregunta es, ¿a quién interesa la llegada de refugiados?

Hay una respuesta obvia: a aquellos paises musulmanes que promueven el islam en el mundo. La existencia de estos paises y su voluntad de islamización global es innegable:

"...la mezquita más conocida de nuestro país, la coloquialmente apodada como la “mezquita de la M-30”. Un lujoso complejo de más de 12.000 m2 y 6 plantas construido íntegramente con dinero saudí. El país árabe entregó 12 millones de euros para erigir su más fiel representación en España: relucientes muros de mármol, un espléndido minarete y exposiciones de la vida del profeta o de las diferentes versiones del Corán. Varios guardas custodian el recinto y hombres trajeados entran y salen sin parar. La gestión del centro corre a cargo del país arábigo, que envía a su propio personal y enseña su doctrina de interpretar el islam.

Y es que Arabia Saudí ha financiado varias mezquitas en nuestro país. Algunas de las más lujosas son la de Málaga, la de Fuengirola o la de Marbella, que el propio príncipe Abdul Aziz Al-Saud mandó construir para poder orar durante sus vacaciones. Pero dentro de la propia comunidad, muchos temen que los petrodólares traigan consigo voluntades ideológicas, es decir, la difusión de la corriente wahabí: una visión muy conservadora del islam suní,"
[¿Quién paga las mezquitas? Las finanzas del islam en Europa.]

¿Sucede lo mismo en otros paises europeos? Obviamente, sí:

"Según el periódico galo Le Figaro, “los poderes públicos contribuyen con el 30% de la construcción de lugares de culto”, según una estimación del Ministerio del Interior francés. El 70% se reparte entre los fieles y “los grandes mecenas”, revela a El Confidencial Jalul Sidiq, trabajador de la Gran mezquita de París, “gobiernos como el de Argelia, Marruecos o Arabia Saudí pagan las grandes obras”.
(...)
Yahya Birt, director del “Círculo de la Ciudad” (The City Circle), una asociación de profesionales musulmanes en Inglaterra, aseguró que “el gasto religioso saudí en el extranjero es de entre 2 y 3 billones de dólares por año. (…) Que ha sido invertido en 1.500 mezquitas, 210 centros islámicos, academias y colegios musulmanes”.
(...)
En los demás países europeos con comunidades musulmanes considerables, como Bélgica y Alemania, éstas reciben importantes sumas de dinero de las nacionalidades de su comunidad inmigrante como del Magreb o Turquía, respectivamente."
[¿Quién paga las mezquitas? Las finanzas del islam en Europa.]

Este artículo de El Confidencial viene a actualizar lo que se denunciaba en el ya "mítico" artículo de Juan de la Cal en El Mundo de 2005, "El promotor de mezquitas".

Para terminar con esta vía, dos noticias al respecto que se han producido en los últimos días, en relación a la llegada de refugiados:

"Saudi Arabia offers Germany 200 mosques – one for every 100 refugees who arrived last weekend."

"Norway Refuses Millions of Dollars From Saudi Arabia for Mosque Building."


Pero, ¿por qué los gobiernos europeos se muestran tan inoperantes ante una catástrofe de esta magnitud (y que no tiene perspectivas de solucionarse, sinó todo lo contrario, como advierte el New York Times, y explicamos más adelante)? Es más, ¿los poderes fácticos occidentales colaboran en este movimiento?

Recordemos qué sucedió en el estado español durante el boom inmobiliario: el falso crecimiento económico español (basado en la burbuja inmobiliaria) fue posible gracias a la llegada de inmigrantes que, según se nos repetía machaconamente, venían a desarrollar "los trabajos que los españoles no querían hacer", y eran imprescindibles para sostener ese "crecimiento". Visto en perspectiva, es evidente que sostener ese falso crecimiento, que en realidad era inflar la burbuja, fue un error, así pues, la llegada de inmigrantes no sólo era innecesaria, sinó contraproducente.

¿Fue un acto simplemente de ceguera política y económica, o hubo algo más? Podríamos pensar que fue lo primero (el gobierno español ha dado muestras sobradas de ceguera política con consecuencias posteriores -vease el recurso al Tribunal Constitucional contra el Estatut de Catalunya), però los eventos posteriores en otros paises, nos hacen sospechar que no.

La llegada de inmigrantes de estos últmos meses, y la respuesta de Alemania, dando la bienvenida a los inmigrantes sin siquiera plantearse alguna medida para detener esta migración (como ha hecho, bien o mal, Rusia), y decidiendo obligar a todos los paises de la UE a "hacerse cargo" "de una parte proporcional", nos lleva a pensar que no.

Y aquí es donde entra la referencia antes mencionada a Peter Sutherland en Cuarto Milenio, referencia que se puede comprobar de la BBC, y que puede aportar una nueva vía sobre este asunto:

"EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief".
Y ahora revisen el CV de quién dice ésto, Peter Sutherland:

- Special Representative for Migration, of the United Nations.
- Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (2010 -).
- Director-General of the World Trade Organization (formerly G.A.T.T.).
- Non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

Y anteriormente:

- Chairman of the Committee that produced The Sutherland Report on the completion of the Internal Market of the EEC.
- Non-executive chairman of BP.
- He served on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, until May 2014.
- European Commissioner for Competition (1985-1989).
- Attorney General of Ireland (1981-1982).
- Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (Europe) (2001–2010).
- Vice chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists (2006–2009).


La gran pregunta es, ¿por qué desena los poderes fácticos destruir la homogeneidad de los paises europeos? Los argumentos económicos no se sostienen de ningún modo.

La argumentación de Sutherland, contraponiendo EEUU, Australia y Nueva Zelanda versus la Unión Europea no tiene fundamento: pues estos tres paises son paises ex-coloniales, paises de inmigración desde su formación, es decir, más allá de aquella que desearan crear sus respectivos "padres fundadores", nunca tuvieron una identidad propia previa a su creación como estados.

Entonces, si el argumento económico no es el real, ¿cuál es? Cuesta imaginarlo, aunque aquí una teoría, parecida a la que se me ocurre, pero mejor expuesta (aunque en inglés):

"So if radically open borders make no sense in terms of prosperity, then why push for them? Perhaps it's a case of multinational big business chafing against any types of restrictions on its operations. Perhaps those who see themselves as international movers and shakers see the more closed loyalties of the nation state as limiting the control of a globalist bureaucracy. Perhaps too it's the enduring influence of a right liberal ideology in which what is thought to matter is a self-determining life and so it's thought to be immoral for something predetermined, like ethnicity, to influence where we might choose as individuals to live or to work." [Mark Richardson]


Peter Sutherland es la cabeza visible del Global Forum of Migration and Development (GFMD). una "iniciativa de la ONU", que se ha propuesta llevar a cabo el objetivo tan claramente expuesto por Sutherland:

"The Civil Society sub-committee of the GFMD meeting in Istanbul has already been tasked with achieving that ambition. According to its published five-year plan, the committee will work towards enhancing migrant labour “mobility”, “migrants’ rights protection” and “regulation of migrant labour recruitment processes”.

Defusing “tensions between the Western and the Islamic worlds” is another key theme of GFMD while “eliminating hate speech” is also high on the agenda.

It would be easy to dismiss the GFMD as a spectacularly funded debating society with little prospect of influencing national policies but it does have the ear of the UN and is granted its own special envoy in the form of Mr Sutherland.

Given that Turkey now plays host to an estimated 2 million migrants en-route to new homes in Europe, courtesy of the illegal migration path across the Mediterranean and Angela Merkel’s offer of a home in Germany to anyone who turns up on that country’s border, don’t be surprised if some of the ideas discussed in Istanbul quickly turn up on the UN’s own agenda." [Breitbart]




El New York Times advierte que la llegada de inmigrantes puede aumentar:

"There are more displaced people and refugees now than at any other time in recorded history — 60 million in all — and they are on the march in numbers not seen since World War II. They are coming not just from Syria, but from an array of countries and regions, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, even Haiti, as well as any of a dozen or so nations in sub-Saharan and North Africa. They are unofficial ambassadors of failed states, unending wars, intractable conflicts.

The most striking thing about the current migration crisis, however, is how much bigger it could still get.

While the flow of migrants to Europe this year already represents the biggest influx from outside the Continent in modern history, many experts warn that the mass movement may continue and even increase — possibly for years to come. “We are talking about millions of potential refugees trying to reach Europe, not thousands,” Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, said in a recent Twitter posting."

Cuarto Milenio: Refugiados, La realidad oculta 25-10-2015.

Lies and omissions in "As Spain Acts to Cut Deficit, Regional Debts Add to Woe, "

"Excuses are, of course, already being prepared for this lamentable state of affairs, and in particular the argument is being run that in fact the responsibility here does not lie with Spain’s central government (which was entirely composed of choirboys and girls), but with a lamentable set of constitutional arrangements which give far too much spending power and control to the country’s regional governments. To some extent this is true, but as I say, it is important not to take everything here at face value, since as ever, all is not what it is made out to be.

This advice could, as it happens, have proved useful to New York Times reporter Suzanne Daly who advertently or inadvertently seems to have been taken for a complete ride with the article she wrote for the newspaper last Friday. The focus of the article was purportedly on regional extravagance in Spain, but in the event she seems to have allowed herself to be used to float a political agenda which primarily seeks to take the attention away from the country’s central government, and the responsibility it has for the current lamentable state of affairs. Naturally examples of regional extravagance certainly abound (hell, the entire country was living beyond its means), but I started to smell a rat when I saw the example she chose to highlight in her article – the prison at Puig de Les Bases, Figueres (which just happens to be located only a few kilometers from where I live).

What worried me is that the prison you can see in the photo above is NOT an example of something that isn’t needed, like a phantom airport, or a golf course where no one will ever play golf. The problem with Puig de Les Bases is not that there aren’t prisoners waiting to be moved there from the two outdated prisons which are scheduled to close (there are, 300 of them, to which can be added an additional 450 once the new one is open). No, the problem here is that there isn’t enough money to run the place after it opens.

(...)

The issue, however, goes deeper. The offending prison is in Catalonia, and Catalonia is a region which has long been seriously underfunded by the central government – indeed as was suggested by the regional minister of economics, Andreu Mas Colell, it looks suspiciously like the central government were not paying funds owing to some key regional governments to make the regional deficit look worse, and the central deficit look better.

(...)

It is also striking how the article also draws attention to spending issues in the community of Andalusia (which is the only community the socialist PSOE really controls now, and which the PP hope to win in elections in the spring) while there is no real mention of communities like Valencia, or Galicia, which are controlled by the PP and where there are plenty of examples which could be mentioned, like the phantom airport in Castellon, built under the eager eyes of former Valencian President Francisco Camps, who had to resign and is now facing corruption charges in a trial which is currently attracting a lot of media attention." Edward Hugh in EconoMonitor.

¿Encubrió el Papa Benedicto XVI abusos a menores?

No.

Esta semana han re-surgido casos de abusos contra menores que han tenido lugar en la Iglesia durante décadas pasadas. Concretamente el New York Times acusó al Papa Benedicto XVI de haber encubierto a un cura acusado de abusos, Lawrence C. Murphy.

La secuencia de los hechos (que se encuentra en inglés al final de esta entrada) demuestra la falsedad de esta acusación.

Las primeras denuncias se producen en 1974. Lawrence Murphy es apartado del colegio para niños sordos donde se encuentra. Se traslada a vivir con su madre.

Las autoridades realizan una invesgación sobre el caso que no desemboca en juicio.

En 1996 el Arzobispo de Milwaukee escribe al la Congregación de la Doctrina de la Fe sobre si debe iniciarse o no un proceso canónico contra Murphy. Al mismo tiempo Murphy escribe también a Ratzinger, al cargo de la Congregación, para solicitarle clemencia apelando al tiempo transcurrido desde los crímenes y a su precario estado de salud.

El proceso canónico se inicia contra Murphy sin interrupción hasta que en 1998 este fallece.

Por tanto el Papa no encubrió ningún delito, pues este ya estaba en conocimiento de las autoridades que lo investigaron y abandonaron el caso.

Además el caso no llega a conocimiento del Papa hasta 1996, veinte años después de que tuvieran lugar los hechos, por tanto, es materialmente imposible que el Papa lo encubriese.

Secuencia de los hechos (según la documentación del New York Times) [timeline] (en inglés):

Here is the relevant timeline, drawn from the documents the New York Times posted on its own website.

15 May 1974

Abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than a decade.

12 September 1974

Father Murphy is granted an official “temporary sick leave” from St. John’s School for the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.

9 July 1980

Officials in the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other measures to be taken in the case.

17 July 1996

More than 20 years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy’s sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession — a still more serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.

It should be noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament of confession required notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as early as the 1970s.

10 September 1996

Father Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001, the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he had that authority to proceed.

24 March 1997

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy.

14 May 1997

Archbishop Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for solicitation in the sacrament of confession.

Throughout the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.

12 January 1998

Father Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in peace.

6 April 1998

Archbishop Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process. It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.

13 May 1998

The Bishop of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.

30 May 1998

Archbishop Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.

19 August 1998

Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry — a quicker option.

21 August 1998

Father Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet funeral