PT — LARRY ROMANOFF — Nações Construídas sobre Mentiras — Como os EUA se Tornaram Ricos — Volume 1 — Parte 3 -- TRABALHO E ROUBO SALARIAL

 Nações Construídas sobre Mentiras

Volume 1 – Como os EUA se Tornaram Ricos

 

CHINESE ENGLISH POLSKI PORTUGUESE SPANISH

 

© Larry Romanoff, October, 2021

Parte 3 – Trabalho e Roubo Salarial

Parte 1 de 6
Part 2 of 6
Part 3 of 6

 

 

Conteúdo da Parte 3

Uma Breve História do Trabalho nos EUA

O trabalho infantil na América

Roubo Salarial

Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, Apple, Nike, Amazon, Starbucks

A Educação Americana

 

Uma Breve História do Trabalho nos EUA

 

Ao contrário da maioria das outras nações industrializadas, os EUA nunca aceitaram o conceito de sindicatos de trabalhadores, que foram sempre descritos e denegridos nos meios de comunicação social norteamericanos como uma espécie de socialismo perigoso que exploraria os trabalhadores. Mas foi sempre verdade que foi o capitalismo que explorou os trabalhadores e o socialismo que os tentou proteger. Graças aos meios de comunicação social, a maioria dos americanos ainda hoje tem esta compreensão errada da realidade. De facto, ao examinar o registo histórico, é perfeitamente visível que nem o governo dos EUA, nem o seu tecido empresarial, alguma vez tiveram os trabalhadores ou os empregados em grande consideração. Houve um breve período após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, durante o qual o auto interesse empresarial causado pelo medo produziu uma paisagem laboral bastante benigna, mas isso foi apenas uma espécie de ilusão que se desvaneceu durante os anos 80 quando, tanto o governo como o capital, voltaram às suas cores originais. A partir da década de 1980, o número de trabalhadores do sector privado industrial filiados em qualquer tipo de sindicato caiu cerca de 70%, em grande parte devido ao duro clima capitalista e legislativo. A maioria dos trabalhadores americanos ainda queria sindicatos de trabalhadores, mas a conspiração anti-sindical era demasiado poderosa.

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- Why a U.S.-v.-Russia War Would Inevitably Be a Globe-Annihilating Nuclear War, Over Within An Hour or Two

 

 

Why a U.S.-v.-Russia War Would Inevitably Be a Globe-Annihilating Nuclear War, Over Within An Hour or Two

 

Eric Zuesse, December 29, 2021

 

Even Russia acknowledges that any conventional war between the U.S. and Russia would destroy Russia but not destroy the U.S. Consequently, for Russia, any such war will not be waged. Only idiots would choose to engage in a war that they are certain to lose, and which would utterly destroy themselves. This means that if the U.S. strikes Russia by a conventional (i.e., non-nuclear) invasion, then Russia has only two options: (1) to respond with conventional weapons and assuredly be destroyed while achieving nothing; or, else (2) promptly release at least enough of its 6,255 nuclear warheads so as to maximally weaken the U.S.A.-and-allied retaliatory capability so as to be able then to go into a “Round Two” nuclear attack against the U.S.-and-allied side by having a much stronger military position than all of its many enemies (America and its allies) do.

 

That second option would leave BOTH SIDES, and (because of the then-inevitable nuclear winter) actually the entire planet, either doomed or else being close to being so. However, the U.S. and its many allies would be in far worse condition than Russia would be (because they’d have been greatly weakened by Russia’s nuclear first-strike); and then, MAYBE, Russians could survive that war by having lives that might be worth living.

 

The second option, for Russia, would be enormously less horrible than the first option; and here is why:

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- Why India will likely ally with China, not with U.S.

 

Why India will likely ally with China, not with U.S.

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at The Duran

 

India — like the USA that used-to-be — was born out of a revolution (in 1776 in U.S.; in 1947 in India) against imperialism (in fact, against British imperialism, the very same master; i.e., enemy; as the American public had and — ever since 1945 — still has, though this time in the form of a united UK-&-U.S. Deep-State aristocracy, who control the U.S. Government, behind the scenes). The world is now splitting-up, into two. One side is the pro-imperialist (or “neocon”) side (the conquerors of Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Guatemala, and many other countries), which includes all of the Axis Powers during WW II (Germany, Italy, and Japan), plus almost all of the other EU nations, plus Israel, plus almost all of the Western-Hemisphere countries. It’s headed (behind the scenes) by the U.S.-and-UK billionaires. On the opposite side are the nations that the imperialist nations (the united fascist billionaires). They are against and trying to conquer: China, Russia, Iran, and their allies, all of which targeted nations are ideologically committed anti-imperialist nations. 

 

Therefore, virtually all wars and coups after WW II have been wars and coups by the U.S. and its allies, to conquer (take control over) additional nations (nations that hadn’t yet buckled to them). That (the aggressiveness of the imperialist nations) is just a historical fact, about the world during the years after 1944, and it is now driving the remaining targeted nations (principally China, Russia, and Iran) toward closer-and-closer cooperation amongst themselves, so that if  WW III happens, then it will be between the imperialist nations on the one side, versus the anti-imperialist nations on the other. It would be a nuclear-war-updated version of the WW II Axis (pro-imperialist) nations versus the Allied (anti-imperialist) ones. (Churchill was imperialist, but he was forced by FDR to suppress his imperialism during WW II. Truman instead adopted Churchill’s imperialism.) All of the former Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) would then be led by the Rhodesist UK-U.S.-Israel team.

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- China’s success against covid dwarfs The West’s. Here’s how & why:

 

China’s success against covid dwarfs The West’s. Here’s how & why:

 

Eric Zuesse, December 23, 2021

 

Libertarians/neoliberals in The West can’t believe the enormous extent of China’s success at keeping down the rates of disease, and of death, and of unemployment, from covid-19, because China’s policies on covid are, and have been, the exact opposite of libertarian/neoliberal. (What’s called “libertarian” in America is called “neoliberal” throughout the rest of the world.) The success of China in this matter dwarfs The West’s, by hundreds-fold to thousands-fold: it’s that awesome. And The West doesn’t want to learn from this, because The West’s ideology — libertarianism/neoliberalism — is being extremely disproven by it.

 

A libertarian friend wrote to me recently:

 

You WANT to believe the govt, you want to hold it as the bringer of all things good. The tide is heavily turning on this idea. I would fight to the death, pretty much literally, to not live in this kind of society, to be treated as sovereign and responsible. A lot on the left are waking up to this now.

 

You should look at John O'Looney on my site. He has hooked up with people like Dolores Cahill - he's a FUNERAL UNDERTAKER. These guys can tell us when deaths ramped up, and they've done so for each age group as the 'vaccines' have rolled out for different age groups. When pregnant women were being vaccinated at the start, guess what? spontaneous abortions up 10 fold. …

 

I don't ignore the death rates. I didn't ignore any of the stats. I looked into what people - doctors who weren't afraid to stick their necks out - were saying about them. And because of the FAKE PCR test being used everywhere and because of the 'every death is a Covid death' type of attitude, it quickly became apparent that the stats were being deliberately twisted to make it seem bad.

 

I don’t know whether China is using “the fake PCR tests” but CERTAINLY China has been spectacularly successful at having the best of all covid numbers (lowest disease-rates and lowest death-rates from the virus) and has consistently been applying the least-libertarian policies against transmission of the infection, and their covid-testing program is an essential part of these anti-covid policies (those astoundingly successful policies). If they were using any FAKE tests, then those numbers would be hundreds or thousands of times higher than they are — like they are in Western countries, all of which are vastly more libertarian in their anti-covid policies than is China, and all of which have hundreds-to-thousands-of-times-higher disease-rates and death-rates from this disease than does China.

 

And ALL of the countries that have had the largest rates of disease and of death from covid-19 have had libertarian policies on it (though in a few of those, such as Peru, the nation’s leader had wanted to pursue, and did try, to institute more-socialistic policies on the matter, but the public didn’t trust him and massively disobeyed the restrictions, thus producing the bad covid-numbers there).

 

Initially, I had been skeptical about China’s extremely low covid numbers, but, as time went by and I learned more and more about how low those numbers have actually been and how strictly China has enforced its “zero-tolerance policy” on covid, I by now no longer am skeptical of them, at all. China’s terrific performance on covid is shaming all of the U.S.-and-allied countries. And, as China has been doing this, their unemployment-rates have been kept below those in the U.S.-and-allied countries. So: the libertarians’ allegations of there being a ‘trade-off’ between low covid numbers versus low unemployment-rates, has likewise been PROVEN to have been GARBAGE.

 

But this is being kept a secret in The West — the U.S.-and-allied countries. Just go to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries, which is the most comprehensive of all websites on the covid-19 numbers in all countries, and which has terrific breakdowns by rates-per-million inhabitants and other factors, and you will see this reality clearly, for yourself. It is the reality, but libertarians/neoliberals (and almost all news-people and executives in the major media in The West are that ideology) don’t want to know it, and don’t want to report it. (And, when they DO report on China’s covid-response, it is presented in as negative a light as possible, and without mentioning China’s world-beating numbers on covid-rates, death-rates, and unemployment-rates.) So, too, Western publics are not informed of these realities. So, I am trying to do that here — but more than just this: also, the ideological reason behind those stellar (but hidden-from-the-public) numbers.

 

Right now, from covid-19’s start, up till the present, China (under the column headed “Tot Cases/1M pop”) has had 70 covid-19 cases, and 3 deaths from covid-19 cases, per million residents. America has had 158,061 cases, and 2,499 deaths. The ratios there, are, on cases, 158,061/70=2,258/1; and, on deaths, 2,499/3=833/1. As-of November 2021, China’s unemployment-rate was 5.0%; America’s was 4.2% — 16% better. However, throughout the period from January 2020 to November 2021, China’s unemployment-rate has averaged around 4.9%, considerably lower than America’s around 8%. Consequently, China not only has done phenomenally better than America on keeping down the numbers of illnesses and deaths from covid, but has also done considerably better than America on keeping unemployment down during the covid pandemic.

ERIC ZUESSE -- How Red Are the EU’s ‘Greens’?

 

How Red Are the EU’s ‘Greens’?

 

Eric Zuesse, December 22, 2021

 

Blood-red. But that’s a banned fact. (It will be documented in what follows.)

 

Here are the announced values (the “Guiding Principles”) of the European Green Party:

 

“Environmental Responsibility”

“Freedom through Self-Determination”

“Extending Justice”

“Diversity, an Indispensable Condition”

“Non-Violence”

“To sum it up, Sustainable Development”

 

This “Charter of the European Greens” fills-in those blanks by stringing together clichés, which 90% of the pubic will like, because they’re written so as to avoid (as much as possible) saying anything that’s broadly controversial. For example, “Our answer is sustainable development, which integrates environmental, social and economic objectives for the benefit of all.” (Oh? And how is that pap to be realized in actual policies? What are the measures, and the precise priority-rankings, when any of those values conflict with one-another, which is often?) The Green Party is simply conning liberals, but what is their reality? What are they actually doing, when in power? Inside their own country, and in the EU? Let’s take a very concrete (but broadly representative) case:

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- Russia Warns NATO Membership for Ukraine Would Mean WW III

 

Russia Warns NATO Membership for Ukraine Would Mean WW III

 

Eric Zuesse, December 20, 2021

 

Just like when U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s American Government, during the 1962 Cuban Crisis, warned that Soviet missiles in Cuba would mean World War 3, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s Russian Government warned, on 20 December 2021, that if its adjoining nation of Ukraine becomes a NATO member (which would present the danger of U.S. missiles only a 7-minute flight-time away from Moscow) would mean WW3. 

 

Soviet communism is gone, the Soviet dictatorship is gone, the Soviet response to NATO, the Warsaw Pact, is gone; but America and its allies have continued the Cold War against Russia; and, now, finally (after decades of NATO expansion right up to Russia’s borders), Russia has laid down the gauntlet to them, just as America had laid down the gauntlet to the Soviet Union and its allies, in 1962, regarding Cuba.

 

Russia’s RT News bannered on December 20th, “Russia promises ‘military response’ to any further NATO expansion”. Of course, any “military response” would be against NATO — all of it — and probably within less than an hour, most people on both sides of that nuclear war would be either dead or doomed soon to die — and even throughout the world there would be billions of deaths. No military conflict between Russia and America (and its ‘allies’ or vassal-nations) would be able to remain non-nuclear, because whichever side would be losing any non-nuclear war would promptly release all of its nuclear stockpile against the other, and so the nuclear exchanges would become a part of any U.S.-v.-Russia war.

 

The reader-comments at that news-report were informative, especially if a reader there clicks onto “Best” so as to be reading first the most “like”ed of the reader-comments (and this means that the most representative of all of the comments are being posted at the top). Here they are:

 

COMMENTS — “BEST” (the top-listed ones)

 

TheFishhv2

About time. NATO expansion must stop, because NATO's intentions are not good. This organization has done a lot of damage in the last 25 years, and it must be reigned in.

Sun Tzu  TheFishhv2

NATO is a defense organization pal, they never attacked anyone!

1Beak1  Sun Tzu

How true as they were in Libya, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia - What a wretched Liar.

LaCarreta  Sun Tzu

NATO in its 72 years of existence never defended a single member state only attacked, bombed, invaded a number of foreign nations.

On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five U.S. Joint Direct Attack Munition guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists and outraging the Chinese public.

NWOD  Sun Tzu

LOL, NATO is an aggressive imperialist enterprise. It has NEVER acted defensively - name a time it has - and every single war, battle, sabotage, and threat it has engaged in has been aggressive, unlawful and evil.

TheCruXx  Sun Tzu

And how can you explain it to the world, that NATO was in several wars, when NO ONE ATTACKED THEM, OR ANYONE OF THEM. Kinda odd for a defense club...

LeftForward  Sun Tzu

The best defense?

Libertarian4Eva  TheFishhv2

When Russia is done with eastern Europe, think they'd mind coming to our US southern border? It's not like it is defended at all, anyone can get through, and frankly the Russian troops would be good business for Texas. Considering our true enemy is in Washington DC, I think it would be a good breath of fresh air to have the visitors.

ELPuerco

One should keep in mind that during the 1990 negotiations between the Soviet Union and the US-led Western “bloc” over the issue of German reunification (the so-called fall of the German wall), the Western side promised that NATO would not expand itself into Eastern Europe. And yet, expand it did – and it has been expanding, and getting very close to Russia. To this day, Washington maintains a policy of “encircling” and “containing” Moscow. In fact, declassified documents that became public in 2017 show us that between 1990 and 1991, security assurances against any such NATO enlargement were given to Soviet authorities by western leaders of the highest level. This 1990 promise was broken, which makes Russia the aggrieved party – and not the other way around, as US narratives would have it. Basically, the so-called Iron Curtain fell, while its western counterpart (NATO) has grown larger and stronger – even though the Cold War supposedly ended. And that brings us to the current crisis.

 

—————

 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

IT -- Manlio Dinucci -- L'Arte della guerra -- «Mossa aggressiva» russa: Mosca propone la pace

 

L’Arte della guerra

 «Mossa aggressiva» russa: Mosca propone la pace 

Manlio Dinucci

 FRANÇAIS  ITALIANO  PORTUGUÊS

 

La Federazione Russa ha consegnato agli Stati Uniti d’America, il 15 dicembre, il progetto di un Trattato e di un Accordo per disinnescare la crescente tensione tra le due parti. I due documenti sono stati resi pubblici, il 17 dicembre, dal Ministero degli Esteri russo. La bozza di trattato prevede, all’Art. 1, che ciascuna delle due parti «non intraprenda azioni che incidono sulla sicurezza dell'altra parte» e, all’Art.2, che «si adoperi per garantire che tutte le organizzazioni internazionali e alleanze militari a cui partecipa aderiscano ai principi della Carta delle Nazioni Unite».

All’Art. 3 le due parti si impegnano a «non utilizzare i territori di altri Stati allo scopo di preparare o effettuare un attacco armato contro l'altra parte». L’Art. 4 prevede, quindi, che «gli Stati Uniti non stabiliranno basi militari nel territorio degli Stati dell'ex Urss che non sono membri della Nato», ed «eviteranno l’adesione di Stati dell’ex Urss alla Nato, impedendo una sua ulteriore espansione ad Est». Nell’Art. 5 «le parti si astengono dal dispiegare le loro forze armate e i loro armamenti, anche nell’ambito di alleanze militari, nelle aree in cui tale dispiegamento può essere percepito dall'altra parte come una minaccia alla propria sicurezza nazionale». Quindi «si astengono dal far volare bombardieri equipaggiati con armamenti nucleari o non nucleari e dallo schierare navi da guerra nelle aree, al di fuori dello spazio aereo e delle acque territoriali nazionali, da cui possano attaccare obiettivi nel territorio dell'altra parte».

All’Art. 6 le due parti si impegnano a «non usare missili terrestri a gittata intermedia o corta al di fuori dei loro territori nazionali, nonché nelle zone dei loro territori da cui tali armi possano attaccare obiettivi sul territorio dell'altra parte». L’Art.7, infine, prevede che «le due parti si asterranno dallo schierare armi nucleari al di fuori dei loro territori nazionali e riporteranno nei loro territori le armi già schierate al di fuori» e che «non addestreranno personale militare e civile di paesi non nucleari all'uso di armi nucleari, né condurranno esercitazioni che prevedano l'uso di armi nucleari».

Il progetto di Accordo stabilisce le procedure di funzionamento del Trattato, basate sull’impegno che le due parti «risolveranno tutte le controversie nelle loro relazioni con mezzi pacifici» e «utilizzeranno i meccanismi delle consultazioni e informazioni bilaterali, comprese linee telefoniche dirette per contatti di emergenza». Il Ministero degli Esteri russo comunica che la parte statunitense ha ricevuto spiegazioni dettagliate sulla logica dell'approccio russo e di sperare che, nel prossimo futuro, gli Stati Uniti avviino seri colloqui con la Russia su tale questione critica.

Tace per ora la parte statunitense. Si fa sentire però la Voce dell’America, megafono multimediale di Washington che parla in oltre 40 lingue a centinata di milioni di persone in tutto il mondo: dice che «molti esperti sono preoccupati per questa mossa della Russia, che vuole sfruttare il fallimento del negoziato come pretesto per invadere l’Ucraina». Tace per ora la Nato, in attesa degli ordini da Washington. Tace l’Italia che, pur non essendo destinataria diretta della proposta russa, è parte in causa: tra le armi nucleari che gli Usa schierano al di fuori del proprio territorio vi sono le bombe B-61 installate a Ghedi e Aviano, tra poco sostituite dalle più micidiali B61-12, al cui uso viene addestrato il nostro personale militare nonostante l’Italia sia ufficialmente paese non nucleare. E gli Usa si preparano a installare in Italia anche nuovi missili nucleari a gittata intermedia.

Mentre i media calano una quasi totale cappa di silenzio sulla proposta russa, i gruppi parlamentari la ignorano come se non avesse niente a che fare con l’Italia, esposta a crescenti pericoli quale base avanzata delle forze nucleari Usa contro la Russia. Trovino almeno il tempo di leggere in pochi minuti la bozza che la Russia ha consegnato agli Usa per aprire la trattativa, e abbiano il coraggio politico di esprimere pubblicamente il loro giudizio. Se è negativo, spieghino perché è in contrasto con la nostra Costituzione e la nostra sicurezza.  

Manlio Dinucci

 

(il manifesto, 21 dicembre 2021)