It's a son of a bitch, but it's our son of a bitch. 'Our son of a bitch' Somoza is our son of a bitch

When US President Franklin D. Roosevelt was once asked about the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza (1896-1956), whom America supported in all respects, and his rule did not fit into the framework of its democracy, he replied: “Somoza may be a bitch.” son, but he’s our son of a bitch.”

Hereditary dictatorship

The Somoza family created the first hereditary dictatorship in the history of the 20th century, in which power in the republic was transferred within one clan. The founder of the dynasty, Anastasio Somoza Garcia, came from a very interesting family.

His great-grandfather, Anastasio Bernabe Somoza, was a criminal named Anastasio Seven Handkerchiefs. This nickname alluded to the fact that Bernabe Somoza covered his face with a handkerchief during raids, as well as to the Latin American fairy tale in which “half a dozen handkerchiefs are not enough to wipe the blood off your hands.” In 1849, Anastasio Bernabe was hanged from a lamppost.

The sons of the hanged man - Luis and Anastasio - were thieves and card sharpers. At a young age, both contracted syphilis, which progressed with age and finally caused dementia. One day these mazuriki did not share something and killed each other.

Our hero’s father, also Anastasio (the name was inherited), was mentally disabled and ended his days in an almshouse.

A descendant of an evil family, dictator Anastasio Somoza Garcia began his “labor” journey with a trip to the United States, where he began counterfeiting dollars. He turned out to be a useless artist - and soon ended up in a Philadelphia prison. Since he was only 17 years old, the American Themis limited himself to a two-month imprisonment followed by the deportation of the young criminal to his homeland.

After his marriage in 1919, Anastasio quickly squandered his wife's dowry and returned to counterfeiting money. And again unsuccessfully. The intervention of his wife's high-ranking relatives saved him from prison.

"Tame" general

In the town of San Marcos, liberals, to whom Somoza's wife's relatives belonged, rebelled. Somoza joined the rebels, although not selfishly. He was appointed commander of the southern flank with a fairly high salary.

Government troops surrounded the rebels near the city of Jinotega. After the first shots, Somoza fled. He ran for a long time, stopped near the capital and surrendered to government troops. At the same time, he reported: “I, Anastasio Somoza, commander of the southern flank of the rebels, am going over to the side of the legitimate government.” He was immediately awarded the rank of general. The year was 1927.

“General” Somoza met General José Maria Moncada. Moncada needed a translator for negotiations with the Yankees - in Nicaragua there was an expeditionary force of the American Marine Corps, which fought with the partisans of the hero of the Nicaraguan people, Augusto Sandino. Somoza asked for the position. He knew the language and soon became a confidant of the US government, or, more simply, an American agent.

In 1933, the Americans lost the Sandino War and evacuated troops from Nicaragua. In return, they left the national guard they created, led by a proven man - Somoza. Numerous and better armed than government troops, the National Guard was a significant force. Somoza took advantage of this, who in February 1934 organized the assassination of General Sandino and began the mass extermination of the Sandinistas, who had laid down their arms a year earlier. Two years later, Somoza seized power and declared himself president.

No to communism!

Having become a self-proclaimed president, Somoza ruled alone, but did not forget to whom he owed his achievements, and strictly followed all instructions from Washington.

Somoza was particularly cruel. He saw communists everywhere. Culture especially suffered from it. It is known that one of the dictator’s favorite artists was Pablo Picasso. But as soon as he found out that Picasso adheres to communist views, a real storm broke out. Somoza forbade even mentioning the name of this “mazila”... Soon Nicaragua was left without artists at all. By the way, when one of his wife’s relatives told the dictator that tango was first the dance of the proletarians of Buenos Aires, he immediately banned the dance throughout the country. Citizens were ordered to hand over gramophone records on which prohibited melodies were recorded. But even those who handed in the records were fined, put on the list of “unresistant to communist propaganda,” and the record was broken on the poor guy’s head. Only five years later, when the dictator learned that proletarians and communists are not the same thing, tango was rehabilitated.

Somoza corresponded with Hitler, Mussolini and Emperor Hirohito, who at different periods of time gave him their portraits with inscriptions that flattered his pride. At home he had a large photo montage where he was depicted hugging Hitler. But Somoza always remembered who his master was. When the United States entered World War II, the Americans hinted that the portrait should be removed. Anastasio Somoza complied: he removed the portrait from the living room wall and hung it in the bedroom.

One day, US President Roosevelt remarked to Somoza that life in Nicaragua was undemocratic, to which he replied:

Democracy in my country is a child, but is it possible to give a baby everything he asks for? I give freedom - but in moderate doses. Try to give a baby a hot mince pie and you will kill him.

It was then that Roosevelt uttered his famous phrase:

Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch.

Somoza tried to look like a democrat and organized presidential elections in 1947. At his request, 70-year-old seriously ill Leonardo Arguello became the country's president, a man whose path to presidential power was blocked by Somoza in 1936 by staging a rebellion.

To Somoza's amazement, Arguello did not want to be a puppet. He delved into government affairs, was amazed at corruption and lawlessness, and removed several of Somoza’s relatives from a number of positions. The latter immediately surrounded the presidential palace with tanks and overthrew the obstinate old man. Arguello served as president for only 25 days.

Somoza appointed a new president, Benjamino Lacayo, his own uncle. But the dictator was not satisfied with something. And three months later, Somoza convened the Constituent Assembly, thanks to which the country received its next president, Victor Manuel Roman y Reyes. The latter combined the advantages of the previous two: like Arguello, he was dying (80 years old) and, like Lacayo, he was Somoza’s uncle. This time the experiment was a brilliant success - Roman y Reyes remained a puppet for three years and died. Satisfied, Somoza re-elected himself as president.

Anastasio Somoza cannot be called “the nation’s favorite leader.” Under him, 150 thousand Nicaraguans became victims of government terror - a monstrous figure when the country's population in 1940 was only 800 thousand. But, despite the terror, there were people who opposed the Somoza dictatorship.

Death of Anastasio

In 1956, a group of young poets formed a conspiracy. They intended to kill Somoza during a ball in his honor, which was organized by the “yellow” trade unions, and to start an uprising. The young poet Rigoberto Lopez Perez was supposed to carry out the dictator's sentence. Rigoberto took a slow-acting poison, so that if something happened, he would not betray anyone under torture, and went to the ball. Having invited one of the ladies to a paso doble, in the crowd of dancers he approached Somoza and pulled out a pistol. The dictator's security did not have time to react. Before Rigoberto fell, riddled with bullets, he managed to fire six shots - three of them reached the target. Losing consciousness amid the screams and panic, Perez realized that Somoza was alive and fired one last time. This bullet turned out to be fatal.

The dictator was taken by helicopter to the Panama Canal Zone, where the best American surgeons, including President Eisenhower’s personal physician, fought for the life of “our son of a bitch” for eight days. However, on September 29, 1956, Anastasio Somoza passed away to a better world.

Sons of Somoza

The armed uprising that the young poets were counting on did not happen. The sons took the place of the father. Luis Somoza Debayle became president and immediately appointed his brother Anastasio Somoza Debayle as commander of the National Guard. Repressions began in the country - they were looking for conspirators. The future leaders of the Sandinista revolution, Carlos Fonseca and Tomas Borge, were imprisoned.

In 1963, brothers Luis and Anastasio could not agree on which of them should be president. They decided that no one would, and appointed a puppet named Rene Chic to the post. Poor Rene, forced to obey two people at once, aged ten years in three years and turned into a complete neurasthenic. In August 1966, Rene Chic, not knowing how to carry out two crazy orders at the same time, and afraid to object to his crazy brothers, died of a broken heart...

On an early spring morning in 1967, the phone rang in Luis Somoza's bedroom. Drunk Anastasio shouted into the phone:

There is a communist takeover in the USA!

Perhaps he had delirium tremens. The result of this trick was amazing - Luis Somoza fell dead by the phone.

After burying his brother, Anastasio Somoza became president in May 1967. The dynasty ended there.

On July 19, 1979, partisans of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), commanded by Daniel Ortega Saavedra, entered the capital of Nicaragua, Managua. Anastasio Somoza Debayle fled the country, taking all the cash and even the coffins of his clan. Life in the USA did not suit him, and he moved to Paraguay, where dictator General Alfredo Stroessner ruled. It was here that retribution overtook him.

On September 17, 1980, in the very center of Asuncion, the roof of Somoza’s armored limousine was demolished from a grenade launcher, and machine gun fire completed the job. This is how the ex-dictator of Nicaragua, Anastasio Somoza, died, the last in the dynasty.

Vadim KUDINCHENKO

Our son of a bitch

Our son of a bitch

To begin with, let me give you an anecdote that has recently been circulating on the Internet:

“- Somoza, of course, is a son of a bitch, but whose son of a bitch? - said President Nixon. - Our son of a bitch!..
30 years have passed.
“I looked into the eyes of my friend Vladimir,” said President Bush, “and I saw in them a democrat, a true democrat in the spirit of George Washington and the Founding Fathers.”
“Political correctness is a great thing,” thought Kissinger, who wrote both speeches.”

Of course, Kissinger did not write speeches for Bush Jr., nor, indeed, for Nixon. And Nixon didn't say anything like that. It is sometimes claimed that US Secretary of State Cordell Hull (in reference to the dictator of the Dominican Republic Rafael Trujillo) or Secretary of State Dean Acheson (in reference to the leader of communist Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito) was the first to speak about “our son of a bitch”. There are other versions. But it is still generally believed that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first to say this phrase, and it referred to the President of Nicaragua, Anastasio Somoza Sr.

On May 5, 1939, Somoza and his wife got off the train at Union Station, a train station in Washington. He was met by Roosevelt and his wife, the almost full Cabinet of Ministers and the leaders of Congress. Along the entire route of the motorcade there were troops dressed in full dress uniform and a lot of military equipment, including thirty tanks. A month later, the English King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were greeted in the same way, and no one had been greeted like this in Washington before. At the White House, Somoza presented Roosevelt with a complete collection of Nicaraguan stamps and proposed digging a new inter-oceanic canal through Nicaragua, for the sake of greater security for the continent.

Three days later, Somoza addressed Congress. Congressmen were less friendly, and Republican Hon Schafer even called the guest of honor a “South American dictator.” It was rumored that on the eve of the visit, Roosevelt's adviser Sumner Wells presented the president with a report in which Somoza was portrayed in an extremely unsavory manner. After carefully reading the report, Roosevelt noted: “AS A NICARAGUAAN WOULD SAY, HE IS A SON OF A BITCH, BUT OURS.”

But who reported these words and when? They were reported by Time Weekly in an unsigned article about Somoza, “I Am a Champion,” published in November 1948, ten years after Somoza’s visit and four years after the death of F.D. Roosevelt. To this day, no evidence has been found that he actually said this.

But they discovered that this is exactly what they said about him. F.D.R. was nominated for president in July 1932 at the Chicago Democratic Convention. His candidacy passed with a significant majority, but not all party bosses were happy with it. One of Roosevelt's most persistent opponents, General Hugh Johnson, was asked how he viewed the results of the vote. Instead of answering, the general told an “old joke” about the provincial Democratic convention. When the delegates elected a dubious candidate, one of the participants exclaimed in their hearts: “Damn everything! It was impossible to allow such a scoundrel to be elected!” The other paused, sighed and replied: “After all, he’s not so bad: after all, he’s our scoundrel.”

The “old joke” had really grown a beard by that time: it appeared in print in 1868 and since then, with various variations, has been walking through the pages of American newspapers. He was often associated with the name of Thaddeus Stevens (1792-1868), an ally of Lincoln; During the Civil War, he was the leader of the left wing of the Republicans. It was said that once, when choosing a person for a position, Stevens asked his colleagues which of the two applicants was better. “Both are big rascals,” they answered him. “YES, BUT WHICH ONE OF THEM IS OUR SLAYER?” — Stevens clarified his question.

I foresee another question: what and when did Bush Jr. say about V.V.P.’s eyes? At a joint press conference with him in Ljubljana, Slovenia, on January 16, 2001, Bush said: “I looked this man in the eye. I think this is a very straightforward and trustworthy person. (...) I understood his soul, the soul of a man devoted to his country and the interests of his country.”

But phrases from jokes much more often end up in history.

Konstantin Dushenko.

Western support for the Uzbek regime demonstrates a dangerous trend - reliance on tyrants and despots

Let's call this the foreign policy tradition of "relying on sons of bitches." The story goes that Franklin Roosevelt was asked how to deal with the numerous atrocities of his ally, Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza. The President replied: “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”

Today, 60 years later, this phrase is perfectly suited to define the policy of the United States, and therefore Britain, towards the Tashkent tyrant Islam Karimov, who has ruled the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan since the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

The fact that Karimov is a son of a bitch is an indisputable fact. Like many of his despot predecessors, he borrows the most brutal methods of suppressing dissent from the dark times of the Middle Ages. As a result, a cauldron of boiling water appeared in his arsenal of torture: in 2002, Karimov boiled two of his critics alive. The number of political prisoners in Uzbekistan is 6,000, independent economic activity is suppressed, religious freedom is severely limited, a free press does not exist, and the Internet is censored. On December 26, when the whole world admired the Ukrainian “Orange Revolution,” Karimov held elections, the outcome of which was clear in advance - after all, he banned all opposition parties.

But what does “some human rights violations” mean when we are talking about a friend? And Karimov is undoubtedly our friend. Shortly after the events of September 11, he allowed the United States to establish a military base in Khanabad, thereby making a useful contribution to the preparations for war against Afghanistan. Since then, he has enjoyed playing the role of a reliable guarantor of oil and gas supplies from Central Asia, so coveted by the United States, which is seeking to reduce oil dependence on the Persian Gulf countries. In addition, he readily agreed to provide his services for what is embarrassingly called “transfer”: persons suspected of involvement in terrorism are taken for interrogation to countries where torture is less scrupulous than Britain or the United States.

It was because of this that (Craig Murray), the former British Ambassador in Tashkent, fell out of favor with his superiors: this brave man argued that England was “selling its soul to the devil” using information obtained in such a disgusting way.

Having brushed off Murray's doubts, London and Washington remain grateful to Karimov. High-ranking officials from the Bush administration flocked to Tashkent to thank the dictator for his services. Donald Rumsfeld - apparently not content with being photographed with Saddam Hussein in 1983 - praised Karimov for his "excellent cooperation", while former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill Neill expressed admiration for the autocrat's "powerful intellect" and his "passionate desire" to improve the lives of ordinary Uzbeks.

However, this blatant example of “relying on sons of bitches” would have gone virtually unnoticed if not for the events of recent days. After all, you can only make friends with disgusting characters when others are not looking too closely at your friend - and this week the whole world saw the Karimov regime in action. When his opponents took to the streets last Friday, the dictator ordered troops to shoot demonstrators. Uzbek official sources say 169 dead; human rights organizations estimate the number of victims at 500-750 people: the majority of them were unarmed people.

Americans welcomed mass demonstrations in Lebanon, Georgia and Ukraine as a manifestation of the “will of the people.” However, they reacted differently to the bold popular uprising in Uzbekistan. Washington called on both sides for “restraint,” thereby putting peaceful protesters on the same level as those who shot them. True, over the past two days, Washington's tone has changed slightly. Now the State Department is demanding that Tashkent “carry out real reforms” and solve “human rights problems.” At the very least, we cannot exclude the possibility that Washington will soon decide: Karimov has become too odious a figure and should be replaced with another, more “digestible” - but no less reliable - leader. In other words, to be the same “ours”, but not such a son of a bitch.

"Relying on sons of bitches" has always caused some inconvenience, even in Roosevelt's time; it, of course, does not fit well with America’s self-perception as a kind of “ray of light in a dark kingdom.” But today this contradiction - some would call it hypocrisy - is greater than ever. After all, this is happening in the Bush era, and the main postulate of the Bush doctrine is the spread of democracy and the “unstoppable flame of freedom” everywhere, right up to the farthest corners of the planet. Such rhetoric is difficult to reconcile with practice - for example, financing a dictator who cooks his enemies alive.

Maybe Bush should break with the traditions of the past and conduct his fight for democracy using pure, democratic methods? But this option scares him. If free elections are allowed to take place in countries that are now considered reliable allies of the United States - for example, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco - who can guarantee the consequences? Washington is afraid that its dubious friends will be replaced by irreconcilable enemies: Islamist radicals, who will most likely emerge victorious from any democratic competition in many countries of the Arab world.

The question is, of course, complex. Nevertheless, many arguments can be made in favor of America, and indeed Britain, not just talking about democracy, but also behaving like democrats - and not only of an idealistic, but also a pragmatic nature.

First, despots are unreliable allies: they too often turn from friends into enemies. Let us recall two people who once played the role of “our sons of bitches” for America. In the 1980s, the United States supported Saddam in the war with Iran and Osama bin Laden in the fight against the USSR. It was the United States that supplied them with weapons, which they ultimately turned against America itself.

Secondly, pragmatic “deals with the devil” are essentially ineffective. The fact is that by oppressing their own people, tyrannical regimes do not suppress, but provoke terrorism. Moreover, such deals, made in the name of democracy, tarnish the very purpose they are intended to serve. This is why it is so difficult for liberal reformers in the Middle East today to convince Arab peoples who suspect that the word “democracy” actually means American occupation, cheap oil sales and torture at Abu Ghraib.

Third, if democracy, as the Bush Doctrine claims, is truly a panacea for all ills, then why not let it work its magic? In other words, a government (whatever its political coloring) that truly represents the people cannot fail to bring its country the freedom and stability that Washington so dreams of. Perhaps Western leaders should be reassured by at least this fact: in the Middle East, even the democrats themselves are not calling for an immediate revolution - they understand that under authoritarian regimes, the only space for public activity in their countries, besides the state, is the mosque. That is why, if free elections are held tomorrow in Egypt, the Islamist group “Muslim Brotherhood” will certainly win.

But if the West were to tie the enormous financial and military aid it is providing to these regimes to, say, the implementation of a three-year program of gradual liberalization - the repeal of emergency laws, the lifting of bans on the normal financing of political parties - then the public space will soon expand, and this new "territory “It will not be despots or mullahs who will occupy it, but completely different forces. Various parties and movements will be able to begin preparing for future elections, in which they will now have a real chance of success.

From the point of view of spreading democracy, such a policy undoubtedly seems more logical and consistent than the current contradictory course of “relying on tyrants.” And it may well prove its effectiveness - even in such a gloomy place as Uzbekistan.

____________________________________________________________

Special archive InoSMI.Ru

(The Guardian, UK)

(The Independent, UK)

(The Times, UK)

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

Why this name? They say that when US President Franklin Roosevelt decided to hint to Nicaraguan President Somoza that life in his country was too too undemocratic, Somoza responded to Roosevelt: “Democracy in my country is a child, but is it possible to give a baby everything he asks for? I give freedom - but in moderate doses. Try to give a baby a hot mince pie and you will kill him.”. Somewhat later, while discussing Somoza’s pro-American policy in Washington, Franklin Roosevelt uttered a phrase that became famous: “Somoza, of course, is a son of a bitch, but this is our son of a bitch!” .

In this publication I have included two topics that are directly related to today's events in Ukraine and not too democratic the policies of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Part 1:

Letter from my friend from Ukraine

"HOW IT WAS".

What started here! Even ardent opponents of rapprochement with the EU suddenly began to actively declare their “desire” to sign an Association with the EU. Here is a chronicle of those events:

On November 21, 2013, students came to Independence Square in Kyiv (hereinafter referred to as Maidan) in support of the course towards European integration. There was some kind of euphoria among the majority: well, we finally made up our minds!!!

On November 24, at the Summit, which took place in Vilnius, the President of Ukraine suddenly decided to refuse to sign the Association with the EU. Disappointment ensued among the deceived Ukrainians and Europeans. Maidan turned into a peaceful protest: from “We were bred like kittens!” before “Ukraine is a European country!”

After a few days, it became clear to everyone that a little more and the protest would die out: Europe “doesn’t have a chance” for us yet... And suddenly, when on the evening of November 29, several hundred persistent students (mostly) remained on the Maidan, at night (!) The sleeping young people were attacked by Berkut officers (a police unit for fighting terrorists) and, brutally beating them with batons, began to force them out of the Maidan. (Of course, this was not a personal initiative of Berkut employees. These people always do everything only on orders from above. Comment - A.B.) The students ran away in all directions, but they were caught up and beaten. Many of the young people then managed to run to the nearby Orthodox cathedral; the gates were opened for them and closed in front of the Berkut.

As a result: after the Berkut dispersed the peaceful protest action, forty people were hospitalized. This was later reported by all official Ukrainian media. The subsequent event was predictable. On the morning of November 30, 2013, a crowd of people (mainly parents and relatives of the beaten students) gathered in the square near the cathedral, outraged by the brutal beating. Then the decision was made to go to the Maidan. From that moment on, Maidan turned into a peaceful center of resistance lawlessness of power. But the authorities behaved as if nothing had happened, and the Maidan was somewhere in Uganda.

And on December 1, 2013, something happened that no one could comprehend at the time. The Ukrainian police suddenly turned literally into quiet sheep, as if sentenced to slaughter, and at the same time some extremists appeared who began to beat and maim (sacrifice) these policemen! Moreover, the extremists did this with complete impunity!!!

There was only one way to explain this monstrous scene: the Ukrainian authorities, having watched the video chronicle of the events on the Maidan on November 29, 2013, suddenly realized that they had gone too far (by authorizing the brutal beating of civilians and students). Frightened by responsibility, Yanukovych decided to resort to new meanness in order to new crime disguise previous.

So, on December 1, 2013, all news TV channels around the world covered the story of “peaceful students” brutally beating “unarmed Ukrainian police officers.” The policemen were indeed unarmed, and the “students” were not at all peaceful. True, they were not students either. (Who, most likely, they were, we learn from the second part of the article. - A.B.)

One more look at how it happened. Tatiana Taran: “Here is a speech from one of the Berkut soldiers (a colleague of my friend). He visited the hell that happened on the Maidan. “... All generals are either on vacation or on sick leave. There is no one to command. Every asshole is afraid for his seat. On Bankovaya, when the bandits were tearing up the conscripts, we stood 500 meters away in the courtyard of the Treasury. For an hour and a half they didn’t give us the command “front”. These guys are just there sacrifice was made. At first they were even forbidden to take shields. And the command was given to them only to hold the position and not to use any measures of physical force. Because here, as it turns out, we are not eliminating riots, but ensuring public safety at a peaceful rally! And on TV they say that we are beating peaceful students here. If this had happened in the USA, these oppositionists would have already been declared terrorists and everyone would have been shot with machine guns! There are only traitors at the top! And the special forces are being made into scapegoats..."

On December 10, 2013, there was another attempt to disperse people on Independence Square by the Berkut special forces. But by this time, Maidan had organized itself (without the help of opposition politicians this time, as from the very beginning) and managed to repel the attack.

Politicians from opposition parties rented a podium and sound equipment on the Maidan and tried to somehow influence the situation from it. But other than gathering more people on the Maidan on Sundays and shouting “Get out of the gang!”, they didn’t have the intelligence to do anything more. They loudly declared their desire to change at least something in the Verkhovna Rada, but this had zero results.

On January 16, 2014, the Verkhovna Rada, with gross violations of the Rules of Procedure, adopted literally in 5 minutes a package of “laws” copied from Russian laws (which took 5 years to be adopted in Russia!):

Driving in convoys of more than 5 cars - confiscation of license and car for 2 years;
- activities of news agencies without government. registration - confiscation of equipment and products + large fine;
- violators of the order of peaceful assemblies are identified within 24 hours;
- participation in peaceful assemblies in a helmet, uniform, with fire - arrest for up to 10 days;
- installation of tents, stage or even sound without police permission - arrest for up to 15 days;
- contempt of court - 15 days;
- failure to comply with the requirement to restrict access to the Internet - a fine of 6800 UAH. (~$820);
- failure to comply with the “legal requirements” of the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) - a fine of more than 2000 UAH. (~$240);
- protocol about admin. the offense may no longer be served on the person who is considered the violator (a “witness” is sufficient);
- confirmation of delivery of the summons to the person is not necessary;
- blocking access to a citizen’s home - prison for 6 years;
- slander - 2 years;
- distribution of extremist materials - 3 years;
- group violation of public order - 2 years;
- mass protests - 10-15 years;
- collection of information about a judge or Berkut officer - 3 years;
- threat to a police officer - 7 years;
- public organizations that are financed by foreign funds must register as “foreign agents” and pay tax on “profits”;
- public organizations and churches cannot engage in extremist activities;
- the state may decide to PROHIBIT ACCESS TO THE INTERNET;
- financing of “political activities” of public organizations requires mandatory permission from the state;
- a person can be sued in absentia, i.e. without his presence at trial and for many years in prison;
- it is not the driver, but the owner of the car who can be held liable for violating an accident;
- a people’s deputy can be deprived of untouchability and consent to arrest at a plenary meeting of the Verkhovna Rada according to a simplified procedure;
- Berkut members and officials who are involved in crimes against Maidan activists are exempt from liability;
(This is not the entire list of measures urgently taken by the Ukrainian authorities; for those interested, details are on the website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.)

After THIS (!), the media space of Ukraine exploded with indignation: GOT IT!!! The people on the Maidan realized that with these “laws” they would be stupidly jailed tomorrow. And politicians are not helping them.

In addition to people standing peacefully on the Maidan, Automaidan was active. People in their own cars gathered in columns and, at first, with Ukrainian flags, simply drove around Kyiv in support of the protesters on the Maidan. Then they started coming to the houses of the highest-ranking officials, honking and chanting like “Get the gang out!”. The big mistake of the organizers of Automaidan was announcing their next action from the Maidan rostrum, that is, voicing plans for what they were going to do in the near future. As a result, the Ukrainian authorities managed to block roads and highways in the right direction with traffic police officers and KamAZ trucks. Then the drivers from Automaidan were caught by car numbers and pressed using various methods: cars were burned, reports were drawn up, their licenses were deprived, they were beaten and even cut (sometimes by stingrays, sometimes by the driver).

And so the next AutoMaidan action was supposed to be a trip to the Verkhovna Rada building (which is located on Grushevsky Street): stand, honk the horn, shout “Get out of the gang!” This was announced from the Maidan podium. It was Sunday, January 19, 2014. There was no one in the building of the Verkhovna Rada: the parliamentarians left after their “righteous labors” until the next session in February. The Automaidan column moved along Grushevsky Street towards the Verkhovna Rada. However, as one would expect, their road was blocked by a wall of internal troops (conscripts), behind which stood the Berkut army. The VV soldiers were wearing helmets and shields. Berkut - in full equipment to fight terrorists. The AutoMaidanovites tried to persuade them to let the cars through to the Verkhovna Rada. The answer is ominous silence.

At this time, people came from the Maidan to support the AutoMaidanov protest. However, mysterious extremists reappeared and the situation became explosive again. Specially trained to carry out terrorist acts, organized into a real army, armed with a large supply of Molotov cocktails, these young people, numbering several hundred, came to the forefront of the protesters, pushed back the Automaidan cars and began their dirty “work.” The rest can be seen on YOUTUBE:

Let me sum up my thoughts.

Firstly, here I am not assessing the prospects for Ukraine signing an Association with the EU, we will leave that to you summer scribes (I hate the words IS TOP II, IS TOP IKI and others like them, since the root of the word is present here - TOP A (which means “Jewish law” and “Jewish teaching”). The Slavs have a good word SUMMER WRITING, that’s what I prefer to use!

Secondly, the chronological order of events convincingly shows the ORIGINS, REASONS and culprits of the events in Ukraine both on Independence Square and on Grushevsky Street. As soon as the protests began to “decline”, someone very cleverly added “fuel to the fire” and led the situation to AGGRAVATE.

Thirdly, today, January 22, 2014, there are already several killed protesters who died from firearms (which was also recognized by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine). The death of people in the current egregious situation could easily serve as a reason for inciting a civil war in Ukraine. Moreover, there is a third party that is interested in this war.

Part 2:

They operate openly in Ukraine

"JEWISH COMBAT ORGANIZATION"

and the "leftists" from Israel

Now, after such clarification of the essence of the word VOLUNTEER, we read the text of the original article:

First of all, we must understand that for now we can see allies in the police, army and government agencies! Try to interact (at least now) with government agencies. The people sitting there are not blind people and they understand that Ukraine is on the brink of civil war. According to any legislation, the people have the right to protection.

Our principle is that the CHILDREN OF OUR ENEMIES WILL NEVER BE THE OWNERS OF OUR CHILDREN AGAIN! This is what we need to start from.

In this entire situation, we must understand that the dispersal of fascist and declassed elements on the Maidan may not have a positive, but the opposite effect: i.e. a huge organized group, which is now being restrained at one point by the efforts of internal troops and police, will simply “dissolve” throughout Ukraine and in each region several similar “Maidans” will arise, operating on the principle of Afghan Mujahideen or “Palestinian” militants. The task of such “units” will be not so much to take power as to destabilize the situation in the country in order to bring the “revolutionary situation to a military one.” Syria started out the same way.

Ukraine has an excellent school of insurgent-terrorist warfare already at the present time, and not from the “depths of the twentieth century,” and a new war has been prepared for 20 years by neo-Nazi and nationalist organizations. Militant camps operated openly under the guise of "military sports camps for youth", the headquarters of the organizations "Trident" named after Stepan Bandera, UNA-UNSO, a number of organizations of the "Ukrainian Cossacks" (in several radical manifestations that broke away from the genuine Cossacks), and so a number of political parties (KUN, OUN (r)), etc. Currently, several aggressive nationalist movements have appeared: “Social-National Assembly”, “Right Sector”, “Patriot of Ukraine”, “Svoboda”.

Don’t be mistaken about the anti-Maidan either. Some forces represented at the anti-Maidan are deeply hostile to the Jewish people. These are ultra-Orthodox organizations of the type: “Union of the Russian People”, pseudo-Cossack organizations, the Union of Orthodox Citizens, “White Cause”, etc., which have little to do with the declared names.

You can get real help These organizations are the complete opposite of the “left” from Israel and take traditionalist and patriotic positions. In any case, they have historically proven their friendliness towards Jews.

1. Main mistake In current situation - is to accept one of the opposing sides. We do not take other people's positions. We can be (at heart) sincerely sympathetic to either side. But - HAVE YOUR PATRIOTISM! BE PATRIOTS OF YOUR PEOPLE! We are on our own side and understand that each of those sides is now, to one degree or another, ready to attack us with their “anger” on the principle of “the Jews muzzled the elephant.”

Our task is to prevent any anti-Jewish antics on the part of both the Maidan and anti-Maidan.

3. Current situation:

b). Volunteer recruitment(any of those who intend not to sit idly by, but to act and build a defense). Don't look at age. For a person, this can sometimes be the only hope for salvation and a sense of security. Political and personal beliefs also do not play any role. Many people are disappointed in the “Maidans” and their “leaders”, coming from the enemy camp. People may not have any specialization, so try to attract military, medical, Ministry of Emergency Situations, etc. specialists.

We are patriots too. But for us, Ukraine is not the Maidan with its Tyagnibok and neo-Nazis, and not the anti-Maidan with its Black Hundreds. For us, Ukraine is our children, our parents, our people. When Jewish blood is shed, we have no right to profess any other patriotism other than the defense of our families.

4. Possible situations:

We don’t panic, we don’t relax and we don’t rush from side to side in search of protection. We will be forced to defend ourselves. We continue to work and interact with international organizations on evacuation issues.

Jewish Fighting Organization. .

As we can see, there is nothing particularly extremist in this message with a very interesting title. With the exception, perhaps, of the phrase: "D THE ETHIES OF OUR ENEMIES WILL NEVER BE THE MASTER OF OUR CHILDREN AGAIN!"

What do Jews call today "children of our (their) enemies"?

This question became interesting to me after reading another article , which tells about atrocities of the Jews on the territory of Ukraine in the 30s of the twentieth century.

If the children of those Ukrainians killed by Jews now living in Ukraine are "children of our enemies", then this is, of course, very bad! Otherwise, this publication contains information about the desire of Jews living in Ukraine to live quite peacefully on this land. As I understand it, they don’t need a civil war in Ukraine at all!

What impressed me most about this publication were the following words: "Dyou can get real help(but that doesn't mean we'll get it)mainly from pro-state organizations and the so-called “Ukrainian left”(communists, progressive socialists, Workers' Union, anti-fascists, stanitsa Cossacks, pro-Russian scout organizations (not to be confused with Plast!)). These organizations are the exact opposite "left" from Israel and take traditionalist and patriotic positions. In any case, they have historically proven their Jewish friendliness..."

That is, the above Ukrainian organizations(who occupy traditionalist and patriotic positions) are friendly to Jews living in Ukraine (and this is good), but "leftists" from Israel , also currently present in Ukraine, are, as they say, their “complete opposite” (and this is very bad!).

It turns out these "leftists" from Israel and there are those same notorious EXTREMISTS that some people are using to ACHIEVE the situation in Ukraine???

Post scriptum

Meanwhile, the Russian media spread the news:

Presumably, participation"leftists" from Israel in the events in Ukraine so impressed leaders of Russian security forces that they decided, without delay, to sign with Israel "protocol on cooperation". In the fight against the spread of " radical ideas" and other things...it's really best to rely on experience Andhelp friends from Israel which with one hand are fighting with terrorism, with the other hand - hisorganize and sent for export!

All this would probably be unprovable if the Jews themselves did not prove it!

Stop ZIONISM and there will be PEACE! - says the poster in the hands of this Israeli.

To belong to TO THE ZIONISTS and need to check ALL most ACTIVE participants of the Ukrainian Maidan! And the fact that this topic is completely hushed up in Ukraine speaks volumes. Therefore, I consider this title of my publication quite justified: “Yanukovych, of course, is a son of a bitch! But this is our son of a bitch!”

Anastasio Somoza Garcia(Spanish) Anastasio Somoza Garcia ; February 1 - September 29) - Nicaraguan military and statesman, de facto head of Nicaragua from 1936 to 1956.

As the head of the National Guard, he organized the assassination attempt on the revolutionary Augusto Sandino, who led the fight against the American occupation forces in 1927-1933.

On September 21, 1956, the poet Rigoberto Lopez Perez attempted to assassinate Somoza, wounding him in the chest with a pistol shot. Lopez was shot by security on the spot, and Somoza died 8 days later in an American hospital in Panama, after which his son Luis Somoza Debayle became the head of Nicaragua.

Somoza regime

Under Somoza, a strict authoritarian regime was established in Nicaragua. The Guard became the arbiter of destinies in Nicaragua [ style] . She controlled the trade in weapons, alcoholic beverages, drugs, and medicines in the country. Organized prostitution, gambling houses, radio and television, tax collection and rural justice were also under her jurisdiction. Anastasio Somoza himself was considered already in the mid-1940s one of the richest people in all of Mesoamerica. He was an extreme anti-communist (in particular, surrealism was banned in any form as “communist art”), patronized fascist and Nazi organizations, and showed open sympathy for Hitler before the start of World War II. However, on December 8, 1941 he declared war on Germany.

"Our son of a bitch"

Despite his authoritarianism, the anti-communist Somoza enjoyed political support from the United States. Franklin Roosevelt is credited with saying in 1939: “Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” As historian David Schmitz points out, a study of the archives of Franklin Roosevelt's presidential library found no evidence to support this statement. The phrase first appeared in the November 15, 1948 issue of Time magazine; On March 17, 1960, it was mentioned in the CBS broadcast Trujillo: Portrait of a Dictator as being said in reference to Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. Thus, the authorship and object of this statement remain doubtful.

see also

Write a review of the article "Somoza Garcia, Anastasio"

Links

• Alexander Tarasov
• InoSMI.ru:
• (Spanish)
• (English)

Excerpt characterizing Somoza Garcia, Anastasio