vendredi 30 juin 2017

Moonlight Sonata, Iannis Rítsos

A spring evening. A large room in an old house. A woman of a certain age, dressed in
black, is speaking to a young man. They have not turned on the lights. Through both
windows the moonlight shines relentlessly. I forgot to mention that the Woman in
Black has published two or three interesting volume of poetry with a religious flavor.
So, the Woman in Black is speaking to the Young Man:


Let me come with you. What a moon there is tonight!
The moon is kind – it won’t show
that my hair turned white. The moon
will turn my hair to gold again. You wouldn’t understand.
Let me come with you.

When there’s a moon the shadows in the house grow larger,
invisible hands draw the curtains,
a ghostly finger writes forgotten words in the dust
on the piano – I don’t want to hear them. Hush.

Let me come with you
a little farther down, as far as the brickyard wall,
to the point where the road turns and the city appears
concrete and airy, whitewashed with moonlight,
so indifferent and insubstantial
so positive, like metaphysics,
that finally you can believe you exist and do not exist,
that you never existed, that time with its destruction never existed.
Let me come with you.

We’ll sit for a little on the low wall, up on the hill,
and as the spring breeze blows around us
perhaps we’ll even imagine that we are flying,
because, often, and now especially, I hear the sound of my own dress
like the sound of two powerful wings opening and closing,
you feel the tight mesh of your throat, your ribs, your flesh,
and when you enclose yourself within the sound of that flight
you feel the tight  mesh of your throat, your birds, your flesh,
and thus constricted amid the muscles of the azure air,
amid the strong nerves of the heavens,
it makes no difference whether you go or return
it makes no difference whether you go or return
and it makes no difference that my hair has turned white
(that is not my sorrow – my sorrow is
that my heart too does not turn white).
Let me come with you.

I know that each one of us travels to love alone,
alone to faith and to death.
I know it. I’ve tried it. It doesn’t help.
Let me come with you.

This house is haunted, it preys on me –
what I mean is, it has aged a great deal, the nails are working loose,
the portraits drop as though plunging into the void,
the plaster falls without a sound
as the dead man’s hat falls from the peg in the dark hallway
as the worn woolen glove falls from the knee of silence
or as moonbeam falls on the old, gutted armchair.

Once it too was new – not the photograph that you are starting at so dubiously –
I mean the armchair, very comfortable, you could sit in it for hours
with your eyes closed and dream whatever came into your head
– a sandy beach, smooth, wet, shining in the moonlight,
shining more than my old patent leather shoes that I send each month to the shoeshine shop on the corner,
or a fishing boat’s sail that sinks to the bottom rocked by its own breathing,
a three-cornered sail like a handkerchief folded slantwise in half only
as though it had nothing to shut up or hold fast
no reason to flutter open in farewell. I have always has a passion for handkerchiefs,
not to keep anything tied in them,
no flower seeds or camomile gathered in the fields at sunset,
nor to tie them with four knots like the caps the workers wear on the construction site across the street,
nor to dab my eyes – I’ve kept my eyesight good;
I’ve never worn glasses. A harmless idiosyncracy, handkerchiefs.

Now I fold them in quarters, in eighths, in sixteenths
to keep my fingers occupied. And now I remember
that this is how I counted the music when I went to the Odeion
with a blue pinafore and a white collar, with two blond braids
  – 8,16,32,64 –
hand in hand with a small friend of mine, peachy, all light and picked flowers,
(forgive me such digressions – a bad habit) – 32, 64 – and my family rested
great hopes on my musical talent. But I was telling you about the armchair –
gutted – the rusted springs are showing, the stuffing –
I thought of sending it next door to the furniture shop,
but where’s the time and the money and the inclination – what to fix first?
I thought of throwing a sheet over it – I was afraid
of a white sheet in so much moonlight. People sat here
who dreamed great dreams, as you do and I too.
and now they rest under earth untroubled by rain or the moon.
Let me come with you.

We’ll pause for a little at the top of St. Nicholas’ marble steps,
and afterward you’ll descend and I will turn back,
having on my left side the warmth from a casual touch of your jacket
and some squares of light, too, from small neighborhood windows
and this pure white mist from the moon, like a great procession of silver swans –
and I do not fear this manifestation, for at another time
on many spring evenings I talked with God who appeared to me
clothed in the haze and glory of such a moonlight –
and many young men, more handsome even than you, I sacrificed to him –
I dissolved, so white, so unapproachable, amid my white flame, in the whiteness of moonlight,
burnt up by men’s vocarious eyes and the tentative rapture of youths,
besieged by splendid bronzed bodies,
strong limbs exercising at the pool, with oars, on the track, at soccer (I pretended not to see them),
foreheads, lips and throats, knees, fingers and eyes,
chests and arms and things (and truly I did not see them)
– you know, sometimes, when you’re entranced, you forget what entranced you, the entrancement alone is enough –
my God, what star-bright eyes, and I was lifted up to an apotheosis of disavowed stars
because, besieged thus from without and from within,
no other road was left me save only the way up or the way down. – No, it is not enough.
Let me come with you.

I know it’s very late. Let me,
because for so many years – days, nights, and crimson noons – I’ve stayed alone,
unyielding, alone and immaculate,
even in my marriage bed immaculate and alone,
writing glorious verses to lay on the knees of God,
verses that, I assure you, will endure as if chiselled in flawless marble
beyond my life and your life, well beyond. It is not enough.
Let me come with you.

This house can’t bear me anymore.
I cannot endure to bear it on my back.
You must always be careful, be careful,
to hold up the wall with the large buffet
to hold up the table with the chairs
to hold up the chairs with your hands
to place your shoulder under the hanging beam.
And the piano, like a closed black coffin. You do not dare to open it.
You have to be so careful, so careful, lest they fall, lest you fall. I cannot bear it.
Let me come with you.

This house, despite all its dead, has no intention of dying.
It insists on living with its dead
on living off its dead
on living off  the certainty of its death
and on still keeping house for its dead, the rotting beds and shelves.
Let me come with you.

Here, however quietly I walk through the mist of evening,
whether in slippers or barefoot,
there will be some sound: a pane of glass cracks or a mirror,
some steps are heard – not my own.
Outside, in the street, perhaps these steps are not heard –
repentance, they say, wears wooden shoes –
and if you look into this or that other mirror,
behind the dust and the cracks,
you discern – darkened and more fragmented – your face,
your face, which all your life you sought only to keep clean and whole.

The lip of the glass gleams in the moonlight
like a round razor – how can I lift it to my lips?
however much I thirst – how can I lift it – Do you see?
I am already in a mood for similes – this at least is left me,
reassuring me still that my wits are not failing.
Let me come with you.

At times, when evening descends, I have the feeling
that outside the window the bear-keeper is going by with his old heavy she-bear,
her fur full of burns and thorns,
stirring dust in the neighborhood street
a desolate cloud of dust that censes the dusk,
and the children have gone home for supper and aren’t allowed outdoors again,
even though behind the walls they divine the old bear’s passing –
and the tired bear passes in the wisdom of her solitude, not knowing wherefore and why –
she’s grown heavy, can no longer dance on her hind legs,
can’t wear her lace cap to amuse the children, the idlers, the importunate,
and all she wants is to lie down on the ground
letting them trample on her belly, playing thus her final game,
showing her dreadful power for resignation,
her indifference to the interest of others, to the rings in her lips, the compulsion of her teeth,
her indifference to the interest of the others, to the rings in her lips, the compulsion of her teeth,
her indifference to pain and to life
with the sure complicity of death – even a slow death –
her final indifference to death with the continuity and knowledge of life
which transcends her enslavement with knowledge and with action.

But who can play this game to the end?
And the bear gets up again and moves on
obedient to her leash, her rings, her teeth,
smiling with torn lips at the pennies the beautiful and unsuspecting children toss
(beautiful precisely because unsuspecting)
and saying thank you. Because bears that have grown old
can say only one thing: thank you; thank you.
Let me come with you.

This house stifles me. The kitchen especially
is like the depths of the sea. The hanging coffeepots gleam
like round, huge eyes of improbable fish,
the plates undulate slowly like medusas,
seaweed and shells catch in my hair – later I can’t pull them loose –
I can’t get back to the surface –
the tray falls silently from my hands – I sink down
and I see the bubbles from my breath rising, rising
and I try to divert myself watching them
and I wonder what someone would say who happened to be above and saw these bubbles,
perhaps that someone was drowning or a diver exploring the depths?

And in fact more than a few times I’ve discovered there, in the depths of drowning,
coral and pearls and treasures of shipwrecked vessels,
unexpected encounters, past, present, and yet to come,
a confirmation almost of eternity,
a certain respite, a certain smile of immortality, as they say,
a happiness, an intoxication, inspiration even,
coral and pearls and sapphires;
only I don’t know how to give them – no, I do give them;
only I don’t know if they can take them – but still, I give them.
Let me come with you.

One moment while I get my jacket.
The way this weather’s so changeable, I must be careful.
It’s damp in the evening, and doesn’t the moon
seem to you, honestly, as if it intensifies the cold?
Let me button your shirt – how strong your chest is
– how strong the moon – the armchair, I mean – and whenever I lift the cup from the table
a hole of silence is left underneath. I place my palm over it at once
so as not to see through it – I put the cup back in its place;
and the moon’s a hole in the skull of the world – don’t look through it,
it’s a magnetic force that draws you – don’t look, don’t any of you look,
listen to what I’m telling you – you’ll fall in. This giddiness,
beautiful, ethereal – you will fall in –
the moon’s marble well,
shadows stir and mute wings, mysterious voices – don’t you hear them?

Deep, deep the fall,
deep, deep the ascent,
the airy statue enmeshed in its open wings,
deep, deep the inexorable benevolence of the silence –
trembling lights on the opposite shore, so that you sway in your own wave,
the breathing of the ocean. Beautiful, ethereal
this giddiness – be careful, you’ll fall. Don’t look at me,
for me my place is this wavering – this splendid vertigo. And so every evening
I have little headache, some dizzy spells.

Often I slip out to the pharmacy across the street for a few aspirin,
but at times I’m too tired and I stay here with my headache
and listen to the hollow sound the pipes make in the walls,
or drink some coffee, and, absentminded as usual,
I forget and make two – who’ll drink the other?
It’s really funny, I leave it on the window-sill to cool
or sometimes drink them both, looking out the window at the bright green globe of the pharmacy
that’s like the green light of a silent train coming to take me away
with my handkerchiefs, my run-down shoes, my black purse, my verses,
but no suitcases – what would one do with them?
Let my come with you.

Oh, are you going? Goodnight. No, I won’t come. Goodnight.
I’ll be going myself in a little. Thank you. Because, in the end, I must
get out of this broken-down house.
I must see a bit of the city – no, not the moon –
the city with its calloused hands, the city of daily work,
the city that swears by bread and by its fist,
the city that bears all of us on its back
with our pettiness, sins, and hatreds,
our ambitions, our ignorance and our senility.
I need to hear the great footsteps of the city,
and no longer to hear your footsteps
or God’s, or my own. Goodnight.

The room grows dark. It looks as though a cloud may have covered the moon. All at
once, as if someone had turned up the radio in the nearby bar, a very familiar musical
phrase can be heard. Then I realize that “The Moonlight Sonata”,  just the first
movement, has been playing very softly through this entire scene. The Young Man will
go down the hill now with an ironic and perhaps sympathetic smile on his finely
chiselled lips and with a feeling of release. Just as he reaches  St. Nicolas, before he
goes down the marble steps, he will laugh – a loud, uncontrollable laugh. His laughter
will not sound at all unseemly beneath the moon. Perhaps the only unseemly thing will
be that nothing is unseemly. Soon the Young Man will fall silent, become serious, and
say: “The decline of an era.” So, thoroughly calm once more, he will unbutton his shirt
again and go on his way. As for the woman in black, I don’t know whether she finally
did get out of the house. The moon is shining again. And in the corners of the room the
shadows intensify with an intolerable regret, almost fury, not so much for the life, as for
the useless confession. Can you hear? The radio plays on:

ATHENS, JUNE 1956

Communist News              www.dpaquet1871.blogspot.com
La Nouvelle Vie Réelle       www.lnvr.blogspot.com
marxistas-leninistas latinas  hojas      www.ma-llh.blogspot.com
Archives:  Pour la KOMINTERN now!      www.pourlakominternnow.blogspot.com

jeudi 29 juin 2017

News Analysis: U.S. brings up chemical attack issue to quell Syrian army progress
Source: Xinhua| 2017-06-29 03:25:16|Editor: Mu Xuequan

By Hummam Sheikh Ali


Communist News                                             www.dpaquet1871.blogspot.com
La Nouvelle Vie Réelle                                    www.lnvr.blogspot.com
marxistas-leninistas latinas hojas                      www.ma-llh.blogspot.com
Archives: Pour la KOMINTERN now!             www.pourlakominternnow.blogspot.com


DAMASCUS, June 28 (Xinhua) -- The United States has brought up the chemical weapons issue in Syria, by suggesting that the Syrian government forces are up to launch a chemical attack against rebels, warning retribution against the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that the United States had detected evidence of preparations for a chemical attack, similar to the preparations that occurred before an attack in April when the U.S. accused the government forces of carrying out a chemical attack against the Khan Sheikhoun town in Idlib.
At the time, the Syrian government denied the accusations and demanded a probe into the incident, accusing the rebels of staging the attack to draw in foreign retribution.
Government officials said then that the Syrian army was in a good position and making huge progress, and that there was no need to resort to such attacks.
They also completely denied any possession of such weapons.
However, no investigation was made and without waiting for any probe, the U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk missiles on the Shuairat airbase in central Syria, saying the chemical attack was prepared in that facility.
Then, analysts said the incident was reminiscent of what the United States did in 2003 when it invaded Iraq over unsubstantiated allegations of chemical weapons possession, which had later been proven wrong.
The strike in April was deemed as a message to the Syrian side that the U.S. is here and there will be red lines with retaliation if crossed.
Two months later, Washington started waving this wild card again, but why now?
The U.S. now has special forces in the Syrian desert, and the countryside of Aleppo, as well as in the Kurdish-controlled areas in northern Syria.
Washington is now throwing a big support behind the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to capture the city of Raqqa from the Islamic State (IS) group.
It's also supporting other rebel groups in southern Syria, in the desert, near the Iraqi borders.
Washington is also aiding rebel groups fighting near the Jordanian borders, with local reports speaking of military preparations on the Jordanian side of the borders.
The United States is now working to draw areas of its influence in Syria and doesn't want to be disrupted, but the advance made by the Russian-backed Syrian army is apparently raising the ire of Washington.
Since last month, the Syrian army captured thousands of square kilometers of territories in the sprawling Syrian desert from IS, reaching the Iraqi borders for the first time since 2014.
In the process of this progress and the aim to reach the Syrian-Iraqi borders, pro-government Syrian forces were struck twice by the U.S. on May 18 and June 6 near Tanf border crossing, where the U.S. and Britain have military bases.
Pan-Arab al-Mayadeen TV said in a recent report that timing of the Syrian operation to liberate the eastern desert from IS is to secure the supply route between Iran and Syria through the Iraqi territories and also to the Lebanese territories.
Such goal is what pushed the U.S. to strike the Syrian military convoy near Tanf, as the U.S. and its allies don't want any Iranian sway on the borders, particularly after the visit of Iraq's national security adviser, Faleh al-Fayad, to Syria on May 18, during which he discussed with President Bashar al-Assad ways to commence joint military operations between the Syrian and Iraqi military forces on the Iraqi-Syrian borders.
The Al-Mayadeen report said the U.S. desire to expand its sway in eastern Syria, mainly in Deir al-Zour province and the Syrian desert at the triangle between Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, is to prevent Iran and its allies from connecting in Syria and Lebanon.
So the main aim is to weaken the Shiite influence in Syria by trying to hinder any border connection between Syria, Iran through Iraq, and that's why the Syrian army and its allies of the Lebanese Hezbollah group and other Shiite fighters are fighting to thwart the American plan in Syria.
Abdul-Bari Atwan, a London-based journalist and editor in chief of the Rai Alyoum newspaper said in an article Tuesday that administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is uncomfortable with the big progress made by the Syrian army in the provinces of Aleppo, Homs, Hama, the countryside of Damascus as well as near the Iraqi borders.
"This is why they (Americans) want to explode the situation again in Syria because they don't want for this war to be over in any way," he said.
He added that the stage seems ready for another "chemical play" in Syria.
However, the Russian stance this time toward the U.S. threats feels stronger than that of last April.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday that his country will respond with dignity and proportionately if the United States takes pre-emptive measures against Syrian government forces.
Lavrov said he hoped that the United States was not preparing to use its intelligence assessments about the Syrian government's intentions as a pretext to mount a "provocation" in Syria.
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement Wednesday that Moscow perceives allegations made by the White House that Syria could be preparing a chemical attack as an "invitation" for terrorists to launch a provocation using chemical weapons.
"We consider these new insinuations on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, in the worst traditions of 2003 NATO intervention in Iraq, to be nothing less than an invitation for terrorists, extremists and armed opposition in Syria to fabricate another mass provocation using chemical weapons," the statement said.
Maher Ihsan, a Syrian political expert and a journalist, told Xinhua that the new move by the U.S. is a response to the Syrian army progress and a message that the Syrian army should abide by the U.S. rules.
He noted, however, that the general atmosphere in Syria doesn't give the sentiment that the Syrian side will be scared off that easy.
Following the strikes near Tanf, and the downing of the Syrian warplane near Raqqa earlier this week, the Syrian side continued to make progress on several fronts, and President Assad made a visit to the Russian-run base in Latakia to give a message of a strong alliance between Moscow and Damascus.
Ihsan pointed out that this time it will not be easy for the U.S. to carry out pre-emptive attacks on the Syrian army as that will put it into a possible direct confrontation with Russia.
He noted, however, that some rebels could stage an attack to inflame the situation, as warned by Russia, and in that way, the repercussions of such escalation will only complicate the prospects of solutions to the long-running conflict, because the U.S.-Russian tension will heighten and the language of weapons will be the most heard.
Trotsky’s Lies - What They Are, and What They Mean


Communist News                          www.dpaquet1871.blogspot.com
La Nouvelle Vie Réelle                 www.lnvr.blogspot.com
marxistas-leninistas latinas hojas   www.ma-llh.blogspot.com
Archives: Pour la KOMINTERN now! www.pourlakominternnow.blogspot.com
 
Trotsky’s Lies - What They Are, and What They Mean

The personality and the writings of Leon Trotsky have long been a rallying point for anticommunists throughout the world. But during the 1930s Trotsky deliberately lied in his writings about Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. My new book, Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’, discusses some of Trotsky’s lies that have fooled people, and demoralized honest communists, for decades. 

In January 1980 the Trotsky Archive at Harvard University was opened to researchers. Within a few days Pierre Broué, the foremost Trotskyist historian of his time, discovered that Trotsky had lied. Trotsky had always denied that any clandestine “bloc of oppositionists” including Trotskyists, existed in the Soviet Union. Trotsky called this an “amalgam,” meaning a fabrication by Stalin. This “bloc” was the main focus of the second and third Moscow Trials of January 1937 and March 1938. Broué showed, from letters in the Trotsky Archive by Trotsky and by his son Leon Sedov, that the bloc did exist.

In 1985 American historian Arch Getty discovered that the Harvard Trotsky Archive had been purged of incriminating materials, but purged imperfectly. Getty also found evidence that Trotsky had indeed remained in contact with some of his former supporters inside the Soviet Union. Trotsky always strenuously denied this, claiming that he cut off all ties to those who “capitulated” to Stalin and publicly renounced their Trotskyist views. Again, Trotsky was lying. In 2010 Swedish researcher Sven-Eric Holmström published an article on the “Hotel Bristol” question in the First Moscow Trial of August 1936. In it Holmström proves that Trotsky was lying here too. 

In 2005 I began to systematically study all the accusations against Stalin and Beria that Nikita Khrushchev made in his infamous “Secret Speech.” I discovered that not a single one of Khrushchev’s so-called “revelations” can be supported from the evidence. But during the 1930s Trotsky had made the same kind of accusations against Stalin that Khrushchev later did. The fact that Khrushchev did nothing but lie suggested that Trotsky might have lied as well. Thanks to Broué and Getty I already knew that Trotsky had lied about some very important matters. Any detective, in any mystery story, knows that if a suspect has lied about some important matters, he should ask himself: What else is this person lying about?

I set about studying his writings in order to determine which of Trotsky’s statements could be tested. Wherever I had independent evidence to check the veracity of any accusation that Trotsky levelled against Stalin, I found that Trotsky was lying -- again. Today I have so much evidence that even a whole book does not come close to holding it all. So there will be two more volumes concerning Trotsky’s lies. The second volume will be published in early 2017. 

Between September 2010 and January 2013 I researched and wrote a book on the assassination on December 1, 1934 of Sergei Mironovich Kirov, First Secretary of the Leningrad Party. That book, The Murder of Sergei Kirov, was published in June 2013. The Kirov murder is the key to the Soviet high politics of the rest of the 1930s: the three public Moscow Trials of August 1936, January 1937, and March 1938, often called “Show Trials;” the Military Purge or “Tukhachevsky Affair” of May and June 1937; and the Ezhovshchina of July 1937 to October 1938, which anticommunist scholars call the “Great Terror,” after a dishonest book by Robert Conquest. 

Trotsky too wrote about the Kirov murder investigation. He identified the articles in the French communist and Soviet press that he read. I discovered that Trotsky lied about what these articles on the Kirov murder investigation said. Trotsky fabricated a story that Stalin and his men were responsible for Kirov’s death. Once again, Trotsky lied about what the articles he read in the French communist newspaper Humanité and in Russian-language Soviet papers, to which Trotsky had access within only a couple of days of their publication in Moscow. 

Trotsky’s lies would have been immediately apparent to anybody who set Trotsky’s articles side by side with the French and Russian newspaper articles that he had read and which he claimed he was closely studying and analyzing. It appears that no one ever did that – until now. The result was that Trotsky’s falsified version of the Kirov assassination – that Stalin and the NKVD had killed Kirov – was taken up not only by Trotsky’s followers, but by Nikita Khrushchev. 

In his completely fraudulent “Secret Speech” Khrushchev gave additional credibility to the “Stalin killed Kirov” story. Khrushchev and his speechwriters probably took this directly from Trotsky. Trotsky’s tale that “Stalin had Kirov killed” passed from Khrushchev to the professional anticommunist scholar-propagandists like Robert Conquest and many others. In the late 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev’s men tried and failed to find evidence in the Soviet archives to support this story. 

Aleksandr Iakovlev, Gorbachev’s chief man for ideology, sent them back to the archives to try again. Once again, the Politburo research team filed to find any evidence to even suggest that Stalin had had Kirov killed. The history of the “Stalin had Kirov killed” fabrication is a good example of how a number of Trotsky’s deliberate lies were taken up by Soviet anticommunists like Khrushchev and Gorbachev, and by pro-capitalist anticommunists in the West. In my new book Trotsky’s “Amalgams” I uncover and discuss a number of other deliberate lies by Trotsky about Stalin and the USSR. All of them have been adopted by anticommunists and by Trotskyists. In the second and third volumes of this work I will discuss Trotsky’s conspiracies with saboteurs and fascists inside the USSR, and with the Nazis and the Japanese militarists. 

In early 1937 Trotsky succeeded in persuading John Dewey, the famous educator, and a number of others, to hold hearings, supposedly to determine whether the charges leveled against Trotsky in the August 1936 and January 1937 Moscow Show Trials were true. The Commission duly concluded that Trotsky was innocent and the Moscow Trials were all a frame-up. I carefully studied the 1,000 pages of the Dewey Commission materials. I discovered that the Commission was dishonest and shockingly incompetent. It made error after error in logical reasoning. Of most interest is the fact that Trotsky lied to the Dewey Commission many times. The Dewey Commission could not possibly have declared Trotsky “Not Guilty” if the Commission members had known that Trotsky was lying to them. I wish to briefly mention two more sections of my book. They are: my project to verify – that is, to check -- the Moscow Trials testimony; and my examination of the errors that most readers of Soviet history make, errors which make them unable to understand the significance of the evidence we now have. 

The testimony of the defendants in the three public Moscow Trials is universally declared to be false, forced from innocent men by the prosecution, the NKVD, “Stalin.” There has never been a shred of evidence to support this notion. Nevertheless, it is staunchly affirmed by ALL specialists in Soviet history, as well as by all Trotskyists. Thanks to years of identifying, searching for, locating, obtaining, and studying primary sources, I realized that there now exists enough evidence to test many of the statements made by the Moscow Trials defendants. I devote the first twelve chapters of Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’ to a careful verification of many of the statements by the Moscow Trials defendants. I found that, whenever we can double-check a fact-claim made by a Moscow Trials defendant against independent evidence now available, it turns out that the Moscow Trials defendant was telling the truth. Trotsky, Khrushchev and his men, Cold-War Soviet “experts,” 

Gorbachev and his men, and today’s academic scholars in Soviet studies, all claimed or claim that the Trials are frame-ups. I prove from the evidence that they are wrong. The Moscow Trials testimony is what it claims to be: statements that the defendants chose to make. I verify this with a great deal of evidence from outside the Trials themselves and even outside the Soviet Union. This is an important conclusion. This result in itself disproves the “anti-Stalin paradigm” of Soviet history. It also contributes to disproving Trotsky’s version of Soviet history, a version that the Trotskyist movement worldwide continues to believe and to propagate today. Those of us -- researchers, activists, and others -- who wish to find the truth about Soviet history of the Stalin period, and not merely attempt to confirm our preconceived ideas about it – we are in possession of a number of results that completely overturn the convention anti-Stalin paradigm of Soviet history. These include the following: 

* the fact that Nikita Khrushchev lied about every accusation he made against Stalin (and Lavrentii Beria) in his world-shaking “Secret Speech” to the XX Party Congress of the CPSU in February 1956. This clearly means that Khrushchev’s researchers could not find any true “crimes” that Stalin – or Beria – had committed, and so were reduced to fabrication. 

* the fact that, despite a very thorough and time-consuming search of the archives in 1962-1964, Khrushchev’s “Shvernik Commission” could find no evidence at all to suggest that either the Moscow Trials defendants or the “Tukhachevsky Affair” defendants were victims of a “frame-up” or had lied in their confessions in any way. 

* the fact that neither Gorbachev’s and Eltsin’s researchers, nor the anticommunist researchers since that time, who have had wide access to the former Soviet archives, have been able to find any evidence at all to challenge the conclusions in the Kirov Assassination, the Moscow Trials, or the Military Purges. 

* the fact that the testimony at the Moscow Trials was, in the main, truthful. 

* the fact that Ezhov and Ezhov alone, not Stalin and his supporters in the Soviet leadership, were responsible for the mass murders of July 1938 to November 1939 known to scholars as the “Ezhovshchina” and to anticommunist propagandists as “the Great Terror.” 

* the fact that, in his writings about the USSR during the period after the Kirov murder, Trotsky lied repeatedly in order to cover up his conspiracies. 

* the fact that most of today’s scholars of the Stalin period in the USSR lie in order to deceive their readers. But they do so in a way that can only be discovered by a very close, detailed study of their sources. 

Trotskyist scholarship is consistently parasitical on mainstream anticommunist scholarship. Here is one example. In a recent review on the Trotskyist, and ferociously anti-Stalin World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org) of Princeton University historian Stephen Kotkin’s book Stalin, a Trotskyist reviewer refers approvingly to the anti-Stalin statements of Oleg Khlevniuk, who is called the respected Russian historian Oleg Khlevniuk. - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/04/kot4-j04.html 

Khlevniuk is a fanatical anticommunist and also a very blatant liar, in all his writings. Khlevniuk is anti-Stalin; WSWS.ORG, the Trotskyist publication, is anti-Stalin; therefore the Trotskyists “trust” the foremost anticommunist liar in the world today! Meanwhile, mainstream anticommunist scholarship has been drawing upon the writings of Trotsky himself for decades. Trotsky, of course, knew that he was lying: 

* about the “bloc of Rights, Trotskyists, Zinovievites, and other Oppositionists;” 

* about his own involvement in the assassination of Sergei Kirov in December 1934; 

* about his conspiring with the “Tukhachevsky Affair” military conspirators for a coup d’état against the Stalin government and to stab the Red Army in the back during an invasion by Germany or Japan; 

* about his conspiring with the Nazis and the Japanese militarists; 

* about conspiring with fascists and his own followers within the USSR to sabotage industry, transportation, and mines. 

* about the charges against, and the confessions by, the defendants in the Moscow trials, which Trotsky knew were true. 

Trotsky knew that he lied, repeatedly, over and over again, in his Bulletin of the Opposition. Trotsky knew that he repeated these lies to the Dewey Commission. 

The Spanish Civil War 

And Trotsky knew that he lied to his own followers, including his closest followers like Andres Nin, Erwin Wolf, and Kurt Landau. Nin had been one of Trotsky’s closest political assistants. Nin is supposed to have broken with Trotsky in 1931. But in 1930 Nin wrote, in a Trotskyist journal, that Trotsky’s Soviet-based followers who had retracted their Trotskyist views and pledged loyalty to the Communist Party’s line, had done so dishonestly. They had done so in order to remain within the Party so they could continue to recruit others to their secret conspiracies. Therefore, though Nin openly broke with the Trotskyist movement in an organizational sense, his actions in Spain suggest that this was a cover for maintaining a secret connection with Trotsky. 

The Spanish communists and the Soviet NKVD in Spain suspected this too. Nin became one of the leaders of the POUM, an anti-Soviet and antiStalin party that was very friendly to Trotsky. Erwin Wolf went to Spain as Trotsky’s political representative. He did so in order to lead a “revolution” against the Spanish Republic – right in the middle of a war with the Spanish fascists, who were aided by Hitler and Mussolini. Nin and Wolf ran these risks because they believed that Trotsky was innocent of the charges that were made against him in the Moscow Trials. They thought that Trotsky, not Stalin, was the true communist and true revolutionary. Consequently, they thought that they were going to Spain to do what Lenin would have wanted done. 

In May 1937 a revolt against the Spanish Republican government broke out in Barcelona. POUM and the Spanish Trotskyists enthusiastically participated in this revolt. It appears that Nin, Wolf, and Landau thought this might be the beginning of a Bolshevik-style revolution, with themselves as Lenin, the POUM as the Bolsheviks, the Republican government as the capitalists, and the Spanish and Soviet communists as the phony socialists like Alexander Kerensky! The “Barcelona May Days Revolt,” was a vicious stab in the back against the Republic during wartime. It was suppressed in less than a week. After that, the Spanish police and Soviet NKVD hunted down the Trotskyists and the POUM leadership. Andres Nin was certainly kidnapped, interrogated, and then murdered by the Soviets and Spanish police. The same thing probably happened to Landau and Wolf. 

The Soviets knew then what we know today: that Trotsky was conspiring with the Germans, the Japanese, and the “Tukhachevsky Affair’ military men. But Nin and Wolf certainly did not know this. They believed Trotsky’s professions of innocence. If Andres Nin, Erwin Wolf, and Kurt Landau had known what Trotsky knew, and what we now know, would they have gone to Spain to try to carry out Trotsky’s instructions? Impossible! Therefore, Trotsky sent these men into an extremely dangerous situation by means of lying to them about his own activities and aims, and about what Stalin was doing. And it cost them their lives. The same is true for all the Trotskyists who were executed in the Soviet Union itself. Evidently, there were hundreds of them. They all supported Trotsky because they believed his version of Soviet history, and had been convinced by Trotsky’s writings that Stalin was lying, that the Moscow Trials were a frame-up, and that the Stalin regime had abandoned the goal of worldwide socialist revolution. These men and women would not have followed Trotsky if he had not lied to them. 

In the first chapter of Trotsky’s “Amalgams” I examine the errors that most students of Soviet history, including academic professionals, make when faced with primary source evidence. The truth is that very few people, including professional historians, know how to examine historical evidence. Very few Marxists know what a materialist examination of evidence looks like, or are capable of recognizing or critiquing an idealist argument when they are confronted with one. These errors are not only errors of “denial” by persons who do not wish to have their proTrotsky or anti-Stalin preconceptions disproven. Most or all of these same errors are made by pro-Stalin, anti-revisionist people. Anticommunist arguments have been so overwhelming, not only in Cold War pro-capitalist form but especially in supposedly procommunist but in reality anticommunist Khrushchev- and Gorbachev-era writings, that it has degraded the thinking of all of us. 

The lies of Trotsky’s that Pierre Broué and Arch Getty discovered 30 years ago have been ignored. This fact itself deserves explanation. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Broué continued to find, and write about, more lies by Trotsky. But all the while he continued to deny that these lies were of any importance. Broué also ignored Getty’s two discoveries. First, that the Trotsky Archive had been “purged” of incriminating materials. Second, that Trotsky had indeed remained in contact with oppositionists like Radek with whom he swore he had broken all ties. Vadim Rogovin, the leading Trotskyist historian of the Stalin-era Soviet Union, went along with Broué’s cover-up and also introduced some lies of his own. Trotskyists and Cold Warriors continue either to ignore Broué’s discoveries altogether or to echo Broué’s claim that these lies were of little significance. We can understand why they do this. 

The fact that Trotsky lied dismantles what I call the “anti-Stalin paradigm”: the Trotskyist and the Cold War anticommunist versions of Soviet history. Trotsky, of course, had to lie. He was running a serious conspiracy to get rid of Stalin, in conjunction with many supporters inside the Soviet Union and the Bolshevik Party and in collusion with Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, England and France. A conspiracy requires secrecy and lying. But who, above all, was Trotsky fooling? Not Stalin and the Soviet government. They knew he was lying. The conclusion is inescapable: Trotsky was lying in order to fool his own supporters! They were the only people who believed whatever Trotsky wrote. 

They believed Trotsky was the true, principled Leninist that he claimed to be, and that Stalin was the liar. This cost the lives of most of his supporters inside the Soviet Union, when Trotskyism was outlawed as treason to the Soviet state because of Trotsky’s conspiracy with Germany and Japan. It has led Trotsky’s followers outside the Soviet Union to spend their lives in cult-like devotion to a man who was, in fact, doing just what the Soviet prosecutor and the Moscow Trials defendants claimed he was doing. 

The figure of Leon Trotsky casts a giant shadow over the history of the Soviet Union, and therefore over the history of the world in the 20th century. Trotsky was the most significant – in fact, the only outstanding – Opposition figure in the factional disputes that shook the Bolshevik Party during the 1920s. It was during the 20s that Trotsky attracted to himself the group of persons who formed the United Opposition and whose conspiracies did so much irreparable harm to the Party, the Comintern, and the world communist movement. 

Conclusions 

What does the fact that Trotsky lied, that Khrushchev lied, and that these facts were ignored for so long, mean? 

What does it mean for the main question that faces us, and billions of working people in the world, today? I mean the question of why the wonderful international communist movement of the 20th century collapsed, the movement that 70 years ago, triumphant in World War 2, in the Chinese communist revolution, in the anti-colonial movements around the world, seemed to be poised to bring about an end to capitalism and the victory of world socialism? 

How do we convince workers, students, and others that we know why the old communist movement failed and that we have learned what we have to do differently to avoid repeating those failures in the future? We must study this question. We also need to discuss it – to entertain and debate different, informed viewpoints. 

Therefore we have to defend the legacy of the international communist movement during Lenin’s and, especially, during Stalin’s time. At the same time we must be fearlessly critical of it, so we discover what errors they made and so not make the same errors again. In my judgment – and I hope that it is yours as well – discovering the reasons for the collapse of the magnificent international communist movement of the 20th century is the most important historical and theoretical question for all exploited people today, the vast majority of humankind. To have any hope of solving it, we must think boldly, “go where no one has gone before.” If we pretend that “Marx and Engels had all the answers,” or “Lenin had all the answers” (many Trotskyists, of course, believe that “Trotsky had all the answers”) -- if we believe that, then we are guaranteed, AT BEST, to fall far short of what they achieved. Marx said that great historical events occur twice “the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” 

The tragedy of the international communist movement of the 20th century was that, ultimately, it failed. Unless we figure out where they went wrong then we are doomed to be the “farce.” And that would be a political crime -- OUR crime. So we have to look with a critical eye at ALL of our legacy. Marx's favorite saying was: “De omnibus dubitandum” -- “Question everything.” Marx would be the last person in the world to exclude himself from this questioning. 

History can’t teach lessons directly. And history isn’t political theory. But if we ask the right questions, history can help us answer them. Meanwhile, we should all publicize everywhere and in every way we can that, like Khrushchev and Gorbachev, Trotsky lied – provably, demonstrably lied – and, what’s more, that all the anti-Stalin, anticommunist “experts” anointed by capitalist universities and research institutes are lying too. 

We need to point out that the only way forward is to build a new communist movement to get rid of capitalism. And that to do that, we need to learn from the heroic successes, as well as from the tragic errors, of the Bolsheviks during the period when the Soviet Union was led by Joseph Stalin. My hope and my goal is to contribute, through my research, to this project which is so vital for the future of working people everywhere. Thank you.

* Professor, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043 USA. The above is a Presentation at the 7th World Socialism Forum, World Socialism Research Center, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), October 22, 2016.

mercredi 28 juin 2017

German CP, Nuke base blocked [En, De]



Communist News     www.dpaquet1871.blogspot.com
La Nouvelle Vie Réelle      www.lnvr.blogspot.com
marxistas-leninistas latinas hojas www.ma-llh.blogspot.com
Archives: Pour la KOMINTERN now!  www.pourlakominternnow.blogspot.com
                             
Nuke base blocked [En, De]

Friday morning, members of the German Communist Party (DKP) blocked the access roads to the Buechel air force base und thus largely paralyzed the activities in the base.
The activity was part of a long-term campaign of the peace movement against the ongoing stockpiling of some ten to twenty nuclear arms ready for deployment.
DKP chairman Patrik Koebele declared in situ: “We demand this hellish stuff be moved off immediately.” The Federal government must finally engage in the United Nations’ negotiations on a global ban of nuclear arms instead of continuously insisting on persistent possession of these weapons of mass destruction, together with the US and other NATO members. Koebele: “During the electoral campaign the social democratic, conservative and green parties will present themselves as parties of peace once more. We judge them by their deeds—nuclear arms in Buechel, deployments of the military all over the world, and increasing arms exports.”
The communists’ activity commenced at 6 a.m. and were maintained for two hours. Police could disband the blockade only after hundreds of vehicles had already formed kilometres of tailbacks on the base’s access roads.
Koebele announced: “Those responsible in Buechel and in other places can be sure: we will be back!” The DKP made another manifestation on Saturday at the main access gate to the base in which members of communist parties from Luxemburg and the Netherlands participated.



Kommunisten machten Atomwaffen-Stützpunkt dicht
 
Mitglieder der Deutschen Kommunistischen Partei (DKP) haben am Freitagmorgen die Zufahrten des Fliegerhorstes Büchel in Rheinland-Pfalz blockiert und damit den Betrieb des Stützpunktes weitgehend lahmgelegt.
Die Aktion war Teil einer langfristigen Kampagne der Friedensbewegung, die sich dagegen richtet, dass in Büchel noch immer zehn bis 20 einsatzfähige Atomwaffen lagern.
»Wir fordern, dass das Teufelszeug sofort aus Deutschland verschwindet«, erklärte der DKP-Vorsitzende Patrik Köbele in Büchel. Die Bundesregierung müsse sich außerdem endlich an den Verhandlungen der Vereinten Nationen für ein weltweites Verbot aller Atomwaffen beteiligen, statt zusammen mit den USA und anderen NATO-Staaten weiter auf den Besitz dieser Massenvernichtungswaffen zu beharren. »Im Wahlkampf werden sich SPD, CDU/CSU und Grüne wieder als Friedensparteien präsentieren. Wir messen sie an ihren Taten: Atomwaffen in Büchel, Bundeswehreinsätze weltweit und immer mehr Rüstungsexporte«, so Köbele.
Die Aktion der Kommunisten begann gegen 6 Uhr morgens und konnte rund zwei Stunden aufrechterhalten werden. Die Polizei konnte die Blocke erst auflösen, nachdem sich bereits kilometerlange Staus von Hunderten Fahrzeugen an den Zufahrtswegen zum Stützpunkt gebildet hatten.
»Die Verantwortlichen in Büchel und anderswo können sich sicher sein: Wir kommen wieder!«, kündigte Köbele an. Am Samstag fand eine weitere Kundgebung am Haupttor des Fliegerhorstes an. Daran beteiligten sich auch Mitglieder kommunistischer Parteien aus Luxemburg und den Niederlanden.

mardi 27 juin 2017

Joseph Stalin is the "most outstanding" world figure according to the Russian people


Despite years of severe anticommunist-antisoviet bourgeois propaganda, a significant number of the Russian people express admiration and respect for the great Bolshevik leader.
Source: Russia Today.
Communist News       www.dpaquet1871.blogspot.com
La Nouvelle Vie Réelle    www.lnvr.blogspot.com
marxistas-leninistas latinas hoyas   www.ma-llh.blogspot.com

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin has once again been named the most oustanding world figure by Russians. Vladimir Putin shared second place with poet Alexander Pushkin. Among non-Russians, Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton made the top 20.
Stalin, Putin, Pushkin, and Vladimir Lenin took the top three positions in a Levada Center poll which asked Russians to name the “most outstanding people of all times and peoples.” The poll results were published on Monday.
The poll surveyed 1,600 people in 137 places across Russia and was in free form – respondents weren’t given any suggestions for answers.
Stalin, who has been in the top three in similar polls since 1999, got 38 percent of the votes. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Alexander Pushkin tied for second, with 34 percent each. Lenin came in third with 32 percent.
While Stalin, Pushkin, and Lenin have been getting top scores for years, it was the first time the incumbent Russian president made the top three.
Peter the Great, Russia’s first emperor and medieval state reformer, came in fourth place with 29 percent of the votes, ranking higher than the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin.
Two prominent Russian scientists – Mikhail Lomonosov, one of the founders of Moscow State University, and Dmitri Mendeleev, creator of the periodic table of elements – also made the top 20.
Only three non-Russians made the top 20. French leader Napoleon Bonaparte garnered nine percent, followed by Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, each receiving seven percent. The list closes with the first and only president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, who got six percent of the votes.
Russian public opinion of Stalin has been improving over the past few years, earlier research from the Levada Center indicates.

lundi 26 juin 2017

Canada and the Looting of ‘Africa’s Last Colony’

A ship full of phosphates is scheduled to unload in North Van; an African nation says they are stolen.


By Mitchell Anderson 22 Jun 2017 | TheTyee.ca Mitchell Anderson is a freelance writer based in Vancouver and a frequent contributor to The Tyee. Find his previous articles for The Tyee here.
Communist News                                 www.dpaquet1871.blogspot.com
La Nouvelle Vie Réelle                        www.lnvr.blogspot.com
marxistas-leninistas latinas hojas          www.ma-llh.blogspot.com
Archives: Pour la KOMINTERN now! www.pourlakominternnow.blogspot.com

Five lucky Tyee readers will take home this compilation of essays by celebrated writers.
  • CONTEST: Hack Your Urban Homestead with Great Reads from New Society PublishersCONTEST: Hack Your Urban Homestead with Great Reads from New Society Publishers
  • Always wanted to try homesteading? Enter to win a three-book prize pack!
    End of story? Not quite.
    This otherwise innocuous delivery of industrial minerals also involves almost 300,000 displaced Indigenous people from Africa’s last colony and Canadian complicity in a decades-long refugee crisis.
    The bulk carrier MV Ultra Innovation is carrying minerals from the disputed territories of Western Sahara, which Morocco annexed by a military invasion in 1975.
    Some 120,000 Sahrawi people continue to exist in refugee camps 40 years later, while a similar number have endured military occupation behind a 2,700-kilometre berm — the longest fortified structure in the world, bristling with an estimated five million land mines.
    Join us and grow independent media in Canada The Polisario Front, seeking to create an independent Sahrawi state, fought the Moroccan invasion. A negotiated ceasefire in 1991 included a commitment to a UN-mediated referendum on self-determination. But no such vote has taken place.
    Canada does not recognize the government of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which claims sovereignty over their ancestral homeland.
    However, some 80 other nations, and the African Union, have recognized the government. Refugees from the conflict swelter in wretched conditions. They watch as the mineral wealth of their homeland is sold to companies in countries willing to do business under such morally compromised conditions — including Canada.
    Canada has a laudable record of international leadership on issues like land mines, ozone-depleting chemicals and apartheid.
    But when it comes to the festering situation in Western Sahara, Canada is silent.
    Nations like Norway and the U.S. have specifically excluded resources and products from the disputed territories of Western Sahara from free-trade agreements with Morocco. Canada is conspicuously silent on the matter as negotiations proceed toward a Free Trade Agreement with the country whose army continues to occupy the region.
    In 2010 the national pension plan of Norway divested its investments in companies like Canada’s PotashCorp over the human rights implications of buying phosphate from Western Sahara. Another Norwegian pension fund, KLP, pulled funds from Agrium in 2014 for the same reason, stating such purchases are “deemed to represent an unacceptable risk of contributing to violations of basic ethical norms.”
    The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board seems indifferent to such “ethical norms,” investing some $200 million of taxpayers’ money in Agrium and Potash Corp.
    Further soiling Canada’s reputation is the fact that companies importing phosphate from Western Sahara also enjoy the support of Export Development Canada (EDC), a Crown corporation.
    Potash Corp and Agrium have received more than $200 million in loans, despite EDC’s vague one-page statement on human rights.
    The Crown corporation also hosts a webpage promoting its activities in Morocco, including a map that, despite a cryptic dotted line, shows Western Sahara as part of Moroccan territory where Canadian companies can profit with EDC assistance.
    As other nations cease doing business with Western Sahara, Canadian companies are filling the void. According to a 2016 report from Western Sahara Resource Watch, Agrium and Potash Corp now account for approximately 65 per cent of all phosphorus exports from the disputed territories.
    Moral issues have obviously not restrained Canadian trade with Western Sahara, but other developments may soon intervene. Several international legal cases challenge the ownership of phosphate cargos being shipped from Western Sahara.
    A South African court recently impounded the bulk carrier NM Cherry Blossom, bound for New Zealand, when it stopped to refuel in Port Elizabeth. After 45 days of detention (and counting) a three-judge panel ruled on June 15 at preliminary hearing that:
    “Morocco has no claim to sovereignty over Western Sahara... Furthermore, it acquired the territory by force... We conclude that howsoever Morocco’s presence in Western Sahara may be described, it does not exercise sovereignty over the territory.” The judges also noted that the Moroccan state mining company OCP Group “do not claim to have mined the phosphate in Western Sahara with the consent of the people of the territory. They do not and cannot claim to do so on behalf of its people." Most significantly, the judgment found that the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and the Polisario Front had “established on a prima facie basis that... the people of Western Sahara own the cargo.”
    The case now proceeds to a full trial in South Africa while the vessel remains at anchor costing the owners $10,000 per day.
    The MV Ultra Innovation bound for Vancouver was also detained while passing through the Panama Canal due to a similar court challenge. It was released on bond while the case is appealed to a higher Panamanian court.
    No similar case could be brought in Canada because the government does not recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which therefore has no legal standing.
    However in business, risk and time cost money. Legal challenges in other countries are making the business case for buying plundered minerals less timely and more risky.
    The SADR raised the stakes for companies like Agrium this week, releasing a statement that puts ship owners and phosphate buyers on notice that they can expect future court actions on cargo in transit.
    “The SADR government declares that it will more actively pursue ships, ship owners, and ship charterers by legal measures in liability for the carriage of Western Sahara’s resources… ships which carry the valuable commodity of phosphate rock from occupied Western Sahara will be pursued on a standing basis for legal action,” the statement said.
    In a separate statement, spokesperson Emhamed Khadad said “the Saharawi people have patiently supported the commitment of the United Nations to a self-determination process in Africa’s last colony. They could no longer give themselves to such a process while remaining indifferent to the rule of law in the international order.”
    Recent legal challenges build on an important ruling from the European Union in December 2016 that any free trade agreement with Morocco cannot include the disputed territories of Western Sahara. Morocco responded by threatening to cut trades ties with Europe.
    Will Canada risk the ire of Morocco to defend the rights of displaced indigenous peoples in Western Sahara? Ottawa’s silence on Western Sahara during Moroccan free trade negotiations speaks volumes.
    Ottawa has expressed a commitment to aboriginal self-determination. Meanwhile the mineral birthright of the Saharawi people is about to be unloaded in the traditional territory of the Squamish First Nation in North Vancouver.
    Are these our “sunny ways,” Mr. Trudeau?  [Tyee]