The Censor of The Fire

The Human-Shield

 

The success of the human-corridors is today the only logistic condition for a dialogue, once it vanishes any and every capacity of resistance of Ukraine: it was the key-element in a war-strategy composed by the occident's intelligence, and the only pacific solution, in the latu sensu that it would avoid a disaster even bigger, in the latu sensu of human lives, for both sides, independently of how much this would affect the result, in the demand of the involved ones. The Ukrainian government should have given an answer today to the Russian government, and didn't give, and it's improbable that it gives some: so, I think so those who defends the end of the conflict should charge from the EU/OTAN/US and from Ukraine better explanations than simply accusing Russia of intransigence: because it is unfit, towards the exposed, that Russia has indeed some interest in not solving this matter: é desafiar a logística de qualquer racionalidade possível, é abusar da desinformação [pt].  

This was an answer given at Quora Brazil [x]:

'Oi João,

“o inimigo”: Não cabe o entendimento de “inimigo”, por se tratar do mesmo grupo étnico e cultural, com direitos constitucionais extremamente relativos: a constituição da Ucrânia é similar a da Rússia, em Garantias Fundamentais; boa parte da população Ucraniana é Russa, mais ainda, são famílias:  Russos têm famílias na Ucrânia e Ucranianos têm famílias na Rússia. Mais ainda, são vizinhos, dividem quase o mesmo quarto, não cabendo outro entendimento geopolítico, os laços emocionais são historicamente bem-conhecidos, e até por isso, uma guerra impossível, que jamais aconteceria se não houvesse a OTAN/EU/USA.

Em uma entrevista aqui no Brasil, em uma emissora bem conhecida – a Globonews, a representante informativa da OTAN/EU/USA aqui no Brasil, uma que deve ser parecida com a sua no seu país, essas, coordenadas pelo vaticano –, um artista plástico Brasileiro-Ucraniano, Volodymyr Borodin, que se encontra refém na Ucrânia na mão de ucranianos, com 52 anos, o qual é portador de insuficiência renal e sem um rim, com a saúde completamente destruída, foi barrado em uma barreira ucraniana de fronteira, não podendo deixar o país com sua família [mulher e criança de colo], por ser obrigado a servir o exército ucraniano – milhões nas mesmas condições, os quais suas vontades não foram humanitariamente respeitadas –: quando perguntado pelo repórter sobre qual o seu entendimento sobre a relação entre Russos e Ucranianos, ele respondeu o seguinte: “Russos e Ucranianos se tratam como irmãos.”

Não é uma luta entre “mulçumanos e cristãos”, nem “Russo contra Alemão”, ou qualquer grupo relacionável à palavra em questão: não cabe outro entendimento: não se trata de inimigos: e a guerra jamais aconteceria se Zelensky tivesse seguido o entendimento de uma passagem Bíblica de Rei Salomão: a mãe que entregou seu próprio filho, para não vê-lo dividido: como fez Viktor Yanukovich, em 2014: preferiu entregar o governo, do que ver seu povo destruído, e não exatamente fugiu – diferente daquele que quis ficar, por pura vaidade, ou, por estar sujeito às mesmas condições de imposição da OTAN, na condição de supressão, como um álibi para uma invasão do ocidente.

O governo de Zelensky já não era mais popular, menos de 30%, era improvável uma reeleição, tamanha a corrupção, a prostituição e o tráfico de mulheres e crianças, assim como guerras civis que nunca deixaram de existir naquele país, desde que a OTAN se moveu em seu entendimento de expansão [X].

De modo que, “inimigo” não pode ser tão bem-resumido, não é uma palavra explicativa para o que está acontecendo: é o que se está discutindo, qual o seu nexo-causal explicativo, da forma como você explicou o seu entendimento logístico da invasão, e naquilo que foi perguntado, “por que o corredor humano fracassou na mesa da negociação?”

O  “adversário”, faz mais sentido  na lógica dos sentidos, não “o inimigo”: o “inimigo” faz sentido na lógica do “agressor”, do ódio induzido pela OTAN: Russos-e-Ucranianos historicamente nunca se trataram assim, nem mesmo na independência, a qual foi pacífica e tranquila, e assim existiram durante 20 anos, como dois irmãos. Se o despropósito existiu, e destruiu a amizade, foi porque o ocidente trouxe uma estranha plantação, porque viu na Ucrânia uma oportunidade de pão, não foram os Russos que semearam a discórdia nem a separação.

Desde 2014, a história mudou na Ucrânia, então eu cotei uma fonte confiável, de uma repórter Francesa, presente na região, Anne-Laure Bonnel, que explica melhor como ‘o inimigo’ apareceu:

“Repórter 1 [inglês] –uma jornalista francesa tem sido criticada for clamar que residentes na região de Donbas estão sendo alvos do Governo Ucraniano. Anne-Laure Bonnel veio filmando a área do leste Ucraniano desde 2015 e falou sobre a experiência dela, ao ar na França.

Anne-Laure Bonnel –divididos e feridos, eu os filmo todos os dias, eu tiro fotos todos os dias para nos salvar provas, eu não tenho nenhuma mensagem política para expressar, mas para que você saiba, este conflito foi amplamente discutido por uma semana, mas ele já perdeu 8 anos e custou a morte de 17 mil pessoas. As pessoas estão devastadas, todas elas são Ucranianas, e elas estão extremamente surpresas que a Europa agora está ciente da situação, todo este “shelling”, e se escondendo e vivendo em porões, artilharias pesadas em todo lugar. Eu estava filmando isso em 2015, mas eu repito, isso vem acontecendo desde 2014.

Repórter 2 [francês] –desculpe-me interromper, nem todos nós sabemos da situação tanto quanto você sabe, uma vez que você veio acompanhando isso há tantos anos. Algo que você disse me surpreendeu: você disse que todas estas pessoas são Ucranianas, e que o “shelling” também está sendo conduzido por Ucranianos?

Anne-Laure Bonnel –definitivamente. Isso é algo realmente importante, e de alguma forma, está sendo ignorado. O presidente de Dombas começou a ser mirado pelo seu próprio governo em 2014. Cidadãos que falam russo se sentem vítimas do “shelling” do governo de Kiev, é verdade, eu tenho provas, eu posso mostrá-las assim que eu voltar pra França, eu tenho um documentário completo, é inegável.

Repórter 2 [francês] –mas hoje o “shelling” está sendo conduzido por Russos ou Ucranianos?

Anne-Laure Bonnel –os Ucranianos estão fazendo “shelling” onde eu estou agora. O governo Ucraniano bombardeou cidadãos, crianças estão vivendo em porões por meses, o filme que eu fiz em 2015 tem provas destes crimes contra a humanidade. Eu tomo responsabilidade pelas minhas palavras, é -[palavra intraduzível]- de assistir: no outro dia eu estava na escola, e dois professores foram acertados pela explosão, os corpos deles foram cortados em dois. Eu carreguei estas fotos no facebook, eu conheci mulheres anciãs que não podiam sair desta área, os civis estão caindo vítimas de artilharia pesada, “crock rocket launchers”, eu não sou muito boa com armas, mas eu posso confirmar que aqui em Donbas e na parte que fala russo regiões residenciais estão sendo atiradas ainda hoje, ontem o “netst” foi bombardeado.

Repórter 2 [francês] –você acha que estes bombardeios estão sendo conduzidos pelas autoridades essencialmente ucranianas?

Anne-Laure Bonnel –sim. ”

 “O Ministério de Defesa Russo aponta que nenhuma condição para criar corredores humanitários foi aceito pela parte Ucraniana, que os nacionalistas ucranianos não estão deixando os civis saírem pelos corredores humanitários, sob ameaça de violência física; que na noite do dia 6 para 7 de março, enquanto partindo de Kharkiv em uma direção sudeste a direção de Merefa, uma unidade de nacionalistas atirou em um “point-blank range” um ônibus de refugiados que haviam sido organizados com a assistência da AFU, e que aproximadamente 30 civis foram mortos, incluindo 7 crianças.”[X]

Qual é a estrutura lógica de um pensamento que afirma que os Russos teriam algum tipo de interesse em matar reféns, no sentido de civis, os quais eles mesmos após ‘dominar’ solicitaram que saíssem dali? Por que eles não mataram antes, quando tiveram a oportunidade? Por que se dariam o trabalho de matá-los em um processo de travessia, de transporte humanitário para fora da localidade, já dominado, correndo risco de serem flagrados, ou ainda, perderem tempo em deslocamento, e correndo risco ainda de serem alvo fácil para uma ofensiva de ucranianos fortemente armados que ainda estariam pela periferia do local durante o trajeto? Não existem fontes que afirmem maus-tratos humanitários, nem contra o próprio exército ucraniano nem contra civis, no latu sensu daqueles que não ofereceram nenhuma resistência: por que eles fariam isso com civis desarmados, além do mais, quando se trata de seu próprio povo? Em algumas cidades, os Russos tiveram alta tolerância, em ainda aceitar protestos da própria população local, protestos estes que eles não aceitaram nem em seu próprio país: e em todos os vídeos que foram divulgados, os próprios manifestantes russos, aqueles que não estavam revoltosos, foram apenas encaminhados lado-a-lado com a polícia, e os mais idosos foram convidados a se retirar do local, não foi registrado traços de violência por parte do exército russo fardado, nem na ucrânia nem em seu país, diferente do acontece com frequência aqui em meu país, ou como na França, em que a polícia já chega atirando ou nocauteando manifestantes. A outra coisa era se os russos sequer precisariam ter cuidado com os reféns, porque eles simplesmente poderiam evitar o problema e sair bombardeando tudo, tipo assim, igual a Hiroshima ou Vietnam, jogar napalm, ou bombardear, como a tropa da OTAN fez na Sérvia[x/x], ou, na Líbia [x/x]...: aonde a OTAN foi humanitária algum dia, em suas ofensivas militares, de acordo com o entendimento do ICC – o Estatuto Romano?

De modo que os Russos não precisavam nem botar em risco seus próprios militares, era só apertar o botão e sair explodindo: nunca, até o presente momento, se viu uma invasão de tal magnitude em uma grande cidade, com tão poucas perdas civis, preocupação COMPROVADAMENTE partindo do exército Russo.

O ocidente argumenta que o “fairplay” Russo é “devido às pressões humanitárias”, mas isso pelo desentendimento do ‘inimigo’, e não exatamente porque “o russo está lutando contra o seu próprio povo”, no latu sensu de irmão: não se sabe quantos no exército ucraniano são de fato não só nacionalistas, mas tropas disfarçadas da OTAN, ou tropas especiais americanas.

A primeira-ministra da ucrânia, Iryna Vereshchuk, falou que: “Nosso povo não sairá de Kiev para a Bielorrússia em ordem a voar via aérea para a Federação Russa”. [X]: e mesmo tendo recebido quase 300.000 requests  de civis pedindo para evacuar a cidade de Mariupol [X], até o presente momento, os corredores ainda estão fechados. Uma cidade que tem 400 mil civis.

Isso só de uma cidade, daquilo onde se tem uma documentação, porque não se sabe o número de requests de fato, se é milhares ou milhões, porque mais de 2 milhões já deixaram o país: qual a explicação para os corredores humanitários, se “não há vontade de sair”? você tem alguma, de que os ucranianos não foram presos em seu próprio país? Este é o conceito de liberdade de Zelensky, ou, o da OTAN, ou mais ainda, o da Democracia? Qual é o nome dessa ideologia?

Não há nada que afirme que a transferência para qualquer localidade seja algum fator impeditivo de vontade, sobre aquele que está sob uma exaustão, uma vez que o entendimento de “inimigo” não está afinado com qualquer logística de preocupação:  É ilógico e descabível o entendimento de Zelensky,  de que os corredores humanitários - dos sete postos em disponibilidade, os 5 sendo com procedência para a Rússia ou Bielorrússia - seriam “um gesto de vaidade de Putin”: parece mais um gesto de vaidade Zelensky, ou de covardia, em usar sua própria população como escudo, porque existe um ator, que igualmente, está às voltas com um roteiro que carrega em mãos, achando que seu filme será a imagem do ocidente. Cadê as provas de Zelensky, a não ser esses vídeos que ele faz e publica nas mídias sociais? Como se fosse um herói, um salvador, e sobretudo, se aquilo que ele acredita e pratica é de fato o amor: se algum dia de fato ele amou a ucrânia, se algum dia ele foi um Estadista, ou foi apenas um impostor. Penso que isso tudo será esclarecido, vamos ver se sem os corredores humanos ele vai ficar para lutar e morrer por aquilo que ele segue e acredita ser ou não o seu personagem, a imagem que ele criou, um grande ator.

Enquanto escrevo este artigo, vi no noticiário que até as 9hrs [horário local] de hoje, Kiev deveria dar uma proposta alternativa de um corredor humanitário, na condição de cessar-fogo: e até o presente momento em que escrevo esta resposta, Kiev não mandou. Sob um cessar-fogo, a travessia em um corredor humanitário seria filmada e documentada por órgãos e jornalistas internacionais:  então, por que o governo de Zelensky não aceita fazer um corredor humanitário sob um cessar-fogo? Você tem uma resposta pra isso? Ela resolve o entendimento da questão, isso esclareceria tudo, independentemente de qualquer localidade que fosse, porque seria a vontade dos civis, independentemente das condições: é o direito de ir-e-vir: diferente daquele que não tem condição nenhuma, está sujeito a lei que foi colocada logo no primeiro dia da invasão, nos quais homens entre 18 a 60 anos estão proibidos de sair, sem maiores explicações:

“O serviço de guarda de fronteira do Estado da Ucrânia anunciou na última quinta-feira que todos os homens de idade entre 18 a 60 anos estão proibidos de sair do país. Em uma declaração postada no facebook, o serviço de guarda de fronteira disse que a regra se aplicará pelo período da lei marcial. Não proveu mais detalhes quanto ao porquê. Muitas pessoas que vem tentando deixar o país desesperaram-se para encontrar um caminho para a fronteira mais próxima. Alisa Rodionova, 20, disse que ela está em Kiev com a mãe dela: “Nós não temos transporte para nos mover para nenhum lugar”, disse ela através do app Telegram. Zelensky impôs a lei marcial na quinta-feira de manhã, pouco tempo após a invasão Russa da Ucrânia. Nenhuma data final foi dada” [X].

A partir daí a coisa tomou outro caminho, de uma manobra rápida para uma “guerra de exaustão”: e até por isso a estratégia passou a ser outra: é estranho que o entendimento do ocidente não é de covardia, mas de “inteligência”.

Existe um porquê os Russos não querem que os corredores sejam feitos dentro da própria ucrânia: porque isso não seria exatamente deixar os país, mas uma forma de migração, onde os residentes continuariam presos dentro do país e sujeitos a novas travessias, sem mudar sua condição de reféns, e dando ao governo ucraniano novas garantias, o que não seria uma preocupação daquele que quer proteger a vida dos civis de fato, mas ao contrário, continuar a fazer dos civis sua forma de garantia, e isso explica a proibição ucraniana, de os civis não poderem deixar o país, e não qualquer outro tipo de servidão.

Em um vídeo de Putin, datado de três dias atrás, que está no Youtube, ele diz o seguinte:

“Putin –e o que é mais, e eles tratam cidadãos em terra até pior, eles estão se escondendo atrás das nossas costas, usando-os como escudo humano. Olhe para Mariupol, isso está acontecendo conforme nós falamos, exatamente agora. Eu recebi um telefonema do governo de Kiev, nossos militares, abrindo corredores para nossos cidadãos saírem, nossos militares reagiram na hora, nós paramos a hostilidade imediatamente, então nós estamos apenas absorvendo o que está acontecendo, mas eles não estão deixando ninguém sair, ninguém é permitido sair. Eles estão se escondendo atrás das nossas costas usando eles como escudo humano, então, do que você pode chamar tais pessoas? Neo-nazistas, obviamente”[X].

Sobre o destino Bielorrúsia/Rússia, uma refugiada ucraniana falou o seguinte:

“Nenhuma forma de sair, todos levam tiros: refugiados dizem que as forças Ucranianas usam violência contra civis: As forças Ucranianas estão atirando em civis que tentam sair de Mariupol, disse uma residente que conseguiu escapar da cidade, para a mídia Russa: “Na direção das forças Ucranianas, não há nenhum lugar para ir. Todos levam tiros ali”, disse a mulher, “havia até um comboio que foi evacuado, havia um corredor e ônibus foram evacuados de Volnovakha para Mariupol. Eles viajaram aproximadamente 10km e tomaram tiros, e é isso”, adicionou a refugiada. A mulher disse que não experienciou problemas em viajar pelas áreas controladas pelas forças Russas e da República do Povo de Donetsk: “nós nos aproximamos deles e dissemos, ‘podemos sair?’, eles disseram, ‘sim’. Nós dirigimos para Donskoye, onde pegamos algumas coisas. Nós dissemos às avós que estamos indo, de lá nós fomos para o próximo assentamento, nos foi permitido passar por todo lugar”, ela indicou.” [X].

Eu penso que o testemunho acima é encerrativo, assim como toda a exposição logística. Entendo e respeito a sua opinião, mas é apenas uma declaração independente, isso não é um entendimento imparcial, no latu sensu de um compromisso com a verdade. Então, se você tiver outro entendimento logístico, eu gostaria que você fizesse outra exposição.

Eu penso que o corredor-humano é o elementar, praquilo que se quer no momento: se ele não ocorrer, não é por intransigência Russa, mas ucraniana.

Obrigado por responder,

Abraços.'

The 15th Hour

 

[Image taken from The Improcedence posting, published in Oct 26, 2021. By that time, it didn’t exist war, neither invasion, it was an image that I saw ten years ago, and bigger details is reading previous postings.]

I’ve had an insight about this, that something would happen in the 15th day in Ukraine - or in the world, I don’t know for certain because the visions aren’t clear, are involved with many things, and I’m limited to talk about these things.

So, a couple hours ago I was invited to answer to an interesting question of someone who finds himself in Ukraine, in an academic website of discussions, usually I’m requested to answer questions by scholars of the entire world, and almost always I answer like this, “one-shot”. So, the text to which I was called to comment was “The Natural evidence of the reality of the Third Fatima’s Secret.”: I don’t know the author, neither lesser yet the mentioned prophecies in his paper, I’ve stayed knowing about them now, but it’s a methodological and scientific structure very interesting, with studies and evidences, which I’d like to repost it here - but is thing that I don’t do, for matters of privacy, publicity, it was a personal request, and I also didn’t obtain answer of the author yet because these answers in this kind of discussions are very slow, and in this kind of things, the own authors don’t like to comment their works, and usually are short answers, few explicative, there exists an intelligence in not discussing the relevant points, and I’ve found opportune and valid making this publishing in a “tempestive way”: the misinformation exists and the information at the moment it’s crossed, there are different informations for the same events, and the tendency it’s worsening up, so if something can still be done is in the before.

My understanding is different, in many aspects, of a normative standard, I’m not a total discordant of the human’s constitutive middles, in the latu sensu of the “contrary”: but I also reject the proposal of an adjustment, and the understanding of these things it’s lined up with another thing, the Neutral State, and I’m not updated enough on what’s happening in the world, because I’m involved with another things, and my disciplinary sense doesn’t allow me going more beyond. I think so the silence is valid, until a certain point, to not worsen things up, but I also think that the occident is being bad-guided in its informations, in part due to the previous knowledge accumulated and in part by the reciprocal interests, in that where the stability angled itself as a fixed, as if something’s permanence were the guarantee of something, as well, and the inertia in this sense can be one of the fundamental principles of the human moral where “not doing anything can mean something”: I don’t follow this principle, in the same mode, I cannot be understood as a revolutionary, but as someone who believes that the information should be impartial to all the angles, even more in that what refers to the movement’s antagonism, this stationary state of the mind, of wanting to go back to the before when the fact already happened. The temporalities of the events always follows this understanding of front, and the front is tendentious to want to go back to the beginning, in the latu sensu of wanting to look backwards, and therefore, the coherence and the logistic are not indeed parameters of an emotional: because the fear has always a reactive impact, and the changing in this sense can have a figurative representation of the threat. I think so if something can be done is now, as much as I think that ones aren’t doing the right thing: in cases of war, when one thinks about the “right thing”, the minimalist mental attitude cannot be exactly ‘not doing anything’: because the nothing cannot coexist with the misunderstanding of saving lives: all the necessary effort has to be in this sense, saving lives. The Russians accuse the Ukrainians of being utilizing themselves of human corridors to make military offensives: and makes sense that this be happening indeed, so it’s interesting talking about Prophecies, because, the predictability of anything are always anchored in a determinism, that moves itself in the mechanism of proofs, in the sense that ‘such thing happens’ be the co-validation of a truth previously existent, because ‘someday someone talked something about this’.

There isn’t how to affirm that Putin, “after Ukraine will march towards the European east, Poland, Germany, Finland - and by there goes on -, until arriving to the USA, for wanting to be the world’s owner for motives inherent to his Marxist/Stalinist/Nazi personality, or even, Christian”: Putin felt threatened by something, period, and he reacted in an explosive way, and for this, "the war happened", or, the military maneuvre: but the analysis of these things cannot follow a sequential rite explicative of a causeless occurrence, even though in the own understanding of Putin doesn’t be a justifiable explanation: there exists indeed an incapacity of the Russian government in contextualizing and explaining its motives, in the occident's understanding, but I think so it be a problem of rationality and linguistical defect, which’s involved with something racial, cultural and temperamental, the Russian emotional is indeed strange, so this deserves better explanation, but, is as I’ve said before, this is staying arrested to the past.

In my personal understanding, the occident should deliver Ukraine for him, without bigger problems and restrictions, and stopping advancing over the orient: this would be the guarantee of peace.

In my visions, on level of Prophecy, I didn’t see an explosion in that what could be angled as a tsunami or an eruption such as Sodom and Gomorra, a destruction coming from God’s work neither from His counterparts, before 2025. So, the Prophecies I’ve quoted ten years ago – where the third one it’s involved with the sixth one, happened really fast, and I think so if what’s happening now it’s related with the Prophecy, it’s out of its time: In the same mode, it doesn’t step away the understanding that what’s happening now may be a mechanism of lock, for the understanding of the Gods, and not exactly Putin’s, that this would calm down Russia, in that where its demands are pessimally bad explained, but very well related to the European advance: because it’s known by all that OTAN’s interest is conquering the biggest number of countries as a tactic of approximation in the Russian frontiers, not only as a "form of defense", but also as a form of expansion: and makes sense Putin’s understanding that this what he’s doing now with Ukraine, OTAN could be doing in two years in his territory, in St Petersburg, without Russia was able to defend itself, as well.

And if we think more ahead about the understanding of ‘the coward’ or of ‘that who attacks from behind’, it also doesn’t make sense, because, whether Putting hadn’t given a date, he left clear that he was going to invade, that he was going to do something, because he had made a request and was completely ignored by OTAN: from there on, he movemented himself towards the frontier: there exists a lot of documentation that since 2014 he sought for the dialogue, for a solution regarding the presence of weapons and an ostensive military American presence without there being a better explanation for it: it’s not known for certain the how much occurred along this time the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. There are reports of nuclear depositary in Japan, for example.  Putin accuses a substantial changing of posture of the American government after Biden’s election: posture this that was not detected or seen during Trump’s government. So, Putin indeed isn’t clear in explaining his preoccupations, in that what he detected as possible threat, that something indeed was being built in Ukraine, neither that OTAN would stop in its expansive process over the Orient, the how much it was interested in the Russian’s oil and gas, for being the European continent conditioned to a dependency, neither what kind of alliances were happening in the new American government, lined up with the European understanding:

So, yes, the ‘analogy of the coward’, in such conditions, could make sense in the disexplicative latu sensu of how the sanctions are being applied now, “we mustn’t close all Putin’s doors, because, if not, he may want to be a coward and press the button. Putin today still has many options of scape, not only China, as many Asian countries that didn’t define their positions in the grid, countries these that are important for the fracking’s production, necessary for combustibles of nuclear dams, the European continent’s only possible route of an energetic solution of short term”, differently from a fatalist scenario that in the next three years all these countries today involved in the geopolitical crisis were tied with OTAN, and Putin didn’t have another alternative except pressing the button: so, even today, under a complex understanding of what’s happening, Ukraine in Russia’s hands has the capacity of stabilizing a worldwide crisis of undefined results. In other words, it’s better that this be happening now, where the involved parts have conditions of solutions for their conflicts, even though it be like this, by the half, ones would be avoiding something that certainly would happen more ahead, be it for the will of one or for the will of the other. I reject the thesis that “Ukraine would be predestined to be in a route unavoidably explosive”, in the latu sensu of it having been chosen for a sacrifice, as ‘a humanitarian price paid for everything that it’s wrong and needs to be changed’.

I stop a little, as if a bomb had been launched over me, as well.. .. the answers disappears as clouds, I too will charge explanations from the Gods, if couldn’t it be different… and from there on, I return to the humanitarian system, in that by where the violation tramita [pt], and I reject completely the explanation of the miserable-one, in the angle of the mercy, in the latu sensu of the “pays the fair-one for the sinner”: ones already have visuality about the events, if the diplomacy failed, if it doesn’t exist an international institutional police-power, it’s because the judiciary it’s wrong, and the form as the international organizations were mounted, was to privilege unilateral structures. OTAN can follow misunderstanding all this, and thinking that follow ahead with its understanding makes sense, but I think so it will face itself with something way worst, the nature won’t accept, and it’s basically about this that I subscribe, about that what reached to an end, and that needs of another understanding.

In my linear understanding about the Putin-emotional, the last thing he would do would be invading Ukraine, for emotional matters as well: but the occident didn’t understand the matter this way, and can disconsider completely this entire narrative, for understanding as “object of a factiousness”, and follow ahead with another understanding, because something’s hegemony is the angular-stone over the table, isn’t the nature.

So, all this narrative and reconstitutive rhetoric’s of the events haven’t other substantiality except informative, for that ones can have total clearing up on everything, and even in that where the rationality doesn’t reach.

I think so the human being has two to three years to think about all that what he learned and is learning, that in all these techniques and mechanisms of exclusion and isolation of groups as a technique of standard-threat, the occident showed how the supremacy happened, how this technique of results is efficient, but which’s something completely structured in a violation contrary to its own understanding of humanity: it is something vicious, behaviorally false, structurally illegal, corruptible, turning indeed the ideology questionable to all the angles, in the latu sensu of a neutrality, more yet, What of good can come from this? That what turned possible the human growth equally destructed its emotional, and from there on is the understanding of the Gods, for being something contrary to a flowering, and therefore, contrary to the love and to the natural.

So, I quote bellow my participation in the topic, and the question I’ve made to the author:

“There’s a quite big misunderstanding about Marx, in the concept of the State-without-God, where right and left deposited its beliefs. Marx is understood as an atheist. The atheism in itself isn’t the absence of Christianity. The Christianism is understood as the philosophy of the occident, and it’s correct this interpretation. I’ve also studied Economy, so Marx was someone I’ve studied, even the biography and his personal life, out of the understanding of his masterpiece The Capital. Marx wasn’t a scientist, as Adam Smith, but a prophet: I say this because Marx was worried in orienting and manipulating the result of his masterpiece, that was basically a critics to Adam Smith’s work, the Richness of the Nations, and his understanding of the Capitalism, was of “something resultant of the sinful human nature”: the capitalism is the image of the man, in blessing and in grace. It’s a Pauline understanding. And therefore, Adam Smith’s understanding was a protestant’s understanding, different from Marx’s, who was a catholic understanding closer to the orthodoxy, closer to Christ’s understanding: and even for this, an apocalyptic understanding.

What’s known of Paul is that he was the first redactor of the Gospels, and lined up John’s understanding with the understanding of the Rebatement, the dead’s resurrection: and many things could be said about this: the how much the Christianism influenced the Scotch/French/English and German Illuminism: in nothing the Cult of Reason steps away the Pauline understanding: because what was discussed during 300 years in the entire ‘crençologia’ [pt] that followed in the occident, was involved not with matters of justice, in the latu sensu of an equality, but of another thing: the configuration of the freedom in denial of commands previously established in Biblical terms: what inviabilizou [pt] the formation of a State with a standard ideology: because indeed, the democracy never evolved from an autocracy: such a thing never existed, a Laic State. So, this matter, involved today in Secularism, it’s also false because the organizational structure of the State, just as a Jurisdictional Court turned to defend the functional structure of the occident, created a theological rational conjuncture turned to class interests, as well. Marx’s understanding was overwritten in various poetic terms, post-renaissance, where a taxonomy defined angular words, structural, as if it was the resumed base of something’s understanding: example: Democracy. And any author or any scientist that didn’t use these terms morphologically lined up in a literary syntaxis of words’ overwriting, wouldn’t be considered as a valid literary work, or, one of a few knowledge, subjected to censor and discrimination: And this induced intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, to adopt this methodological system of language, as if the interpretative structure had indeed an explanative power of an honest and harmonic lining up with the truth of its meanings. Usually, I don’t use these words because they’re not truly, they haven’t the explicative capacity indeed, because all the sciences were configured and conditioned to an ontological interpretation, as if this was indeed the understanding of the natural. “Prophecies”, for example, is a word that is subjected to a taxonomy: “prophecies”, which are no more than a prediction, can only be accepted if they have a formal and material procedence: it has to be through a prophet, legally accepted under a theological structure, and a materialness: a constitutional procedence lined up with some Biblical text, if not, the prophecy cannot be considered valid. Nostradamus himself isn’t considered a prophet, are only accepted the frames that have a lining up with the Scriptures and the else were invalidated. Ora, the three kids of Fatima they weren’t exactly in the profile of “prophets”; Joana Dark as well was had as a heretic; Giordano Bruno was burned alive because he saw something that wasn’t to be seen.

So, the process of something’s understanding, where Marx it’s involved, which is the transition of a mercantilist system to a capitalist one, in the conditions of a Liberal State, where the freedom was involved in belief, and not exactly in a philosophic understanding, would be erroneous talking that the liberalism occurred indeed under a natural system: In the same mode as Marx’s determinism weren’t conditioned to a Biblical final. The Marxist model of central planification doesn’t discard the Capitalism as a functional stage, in that what he resulted as “the humanity’s history being the fight of classes”: if the State has a predominance over the factors of production, it is “of left”, for defending the collective interests of the masses: and will be “of right” if the system is organized by the private initiative, turned to the interests of the dominant classes, and a minor participation of the State: This isn’t exactly Marx’s understanding, but of Adam Smith, who understood that the Capitalism, for the good functioning, should be subjected to the laissez faire, where the invisible hand couldn’t be the State: Thus, understanding was substantially altered by Keynes’s understanding, after the Depression of 30. It’s innocuous thinking that, for a State needing necessarily of a coordinative center with the capacity of intervening in a crisis moment, be a Marxist understanding. And other economical denominations followed, “center-right”, “extremist-left”, “democrats and republicans”, lined ups with this kind of passional understanding with variations of sides too few explicative for the presence of a Theological State: because the existence of a strong State as the Communism can also be understood as God’s presence, and in this case, OTAN can also be understood as Marxist. The Communism itself can assume so many interpretative devices that it doesn’t explain the juridical lining up, neither economic, of what is a State, in the latu sensu of a Hegemony, in the current frames, simply for part of the Nations of the planet don’t agree with this understanding of hegemony being called “Communists”: the current Russia, in this sense, it’s more liberal than the United States. Oligarchies don’t explain the Communism, explain the otherwise, the Capitalism, which was always monopoly, oligopoly, and for long ceased to be a perfect concurrence, in the good Marxist standards. Marx wrote, in the latu sensu of a prediction, of a prophecy, that the communism ‘would firstly happen in England’, and not in Russia nor Germany, as followed. The freedom was always involved with the problems of censor, submission, and control of the Religion: if there exists a communist indeed, in such interpretation, it’s the own Vatican, because it is the head of OTAN. About the own president Trump, in recent declarations through someone he fired, was said that he had the will (if he was elected in a second term) in taking the United State off OTAN, for understanding that the European nations were involved with a kind of ostensiveness, and strange desires involved with beliefs that were beyond the economic comprehension.

I’m just like yourself, in the expectations and wanting these things to solve soon, and knowing that we’re very close to a third war, but I think so, in this sense, the second prophecy of Fatima it’s lined up with another thing, not exactly Russia, but with the Occident: And I’d like, in this sense, to make a personal question, for you that is there: if you could give me an explanation that is of substantial importance for the information that it’s arriving here in the occident:

Is it correct affirming that the president Zelensky prohibited civilians from leaving Ukraine, were men between 18 and 60 were prohibited from leaving the country, independently from their wills and beliefs? Not just them, but everyone residents in Ukraine, independently of their nationalities? Because, from all the Brazilians who’ve regressed to Brazil, they’ve confirmed that it was a decision of the Ukrainian Government, and that they were extremely bad treated by the own Ukrainians who couldn’t leave the country, and many of them had to pay propine for the own guards: these declarations were made in national network, CNN Brazil.

It doesn’t seem me justifiable, by the Russians’ part, that they are creating “barriers” or “impediments” to the human corridors: it would be a logical countersense, once that for Russia would be much better - not only from the military but also humanitarian point of view – once it defends the concept of ‘military maneuver’ and not ‘war’, that the human corridors were respected. It’s innocuous thinking the otherwise, and completely illogical, in all the senses: The most rational, in such conditions, would be admitting that the imprisonment of civilians departed from the own Ukrainian government as a tactics of guaranteeing its own protection, using civilians as a shield: I’d like you to comment this, because talking about these things are being avoided by the mass media in the occident, the own Pope Francis was omissive in questioning the understanding of these things correctly, and I also ask myself why. Ora, ones wants to avoid a bigger catastrophe, the first thing that should be thought by the occident was creating the human corridors, for the primordial that the democracy defends: the protection of life: and not the proliferation of weaponry, of sending of military troops disguised as other nationalities, to guarantee a resistance very few explicative of the peace. Ora, a stronger army invaded, the normal in a war is the other one giving himself in, and not scarifying his own population to prove something with this: "Russia was already judged, was internationally blocked in all the possible ways, and the consequences will come in time, in the economic and financial latu sensu" - this is the occident's understanding, following its criteria of "justice".

In my understanding is unjustifiable ones wanting to guarantee a war in this inhumane way, very few explicative of the peace: 'one error doesn’t justify the other' - it's what says the common-sense. And is as I’ve said, I think so this is also dangerous, because the war will follow for more time and will force the Russian government to be more ostensive and increase the number of dead ones substantially: And what seems me is that OTAN is wanting a pretext to elongate this war for longer, knowing that it already lost, simply by faith, and involving the entire European continent in a war without precedents, without ones knowing indeed, for the understanding that an Ukraine’s defeating is a victory of “the evil over the good”, without this being necessarily truth, and without explaining correctly on which side the communism seen and interpreted by Fatima’s children is lined up with some prophecy. One of the Russian armory is a bomb, it’s a military artifact, called Poseidon that has a capacity of generating a 500meters radioactive tsunami, this came out on the medias, recently, and confirmed in the occident that the Russians have this technology: if launched for example in the US coast, and it can be made through a hypersonic rocket, it would sink the entire New York: the entire occident together today hasn’t how to fight against Russia alone: it would take less than 10 minutes to end up with Europe and United States even before suffering any damage. And it already has this power it’s been more than 10 years, and didn’t do it and neither use against Ukraine, on the otherwise, sacrificed its own army, more than 11 thousand Russian soldiers died in an invasion of which it didn’t even need to lose a single life, it was just pressing the button.  So, OTAN, indeed it’s practicing a dangerous game and inducing the Russian to an error, for vanity and faith much more than economic interests, in that where I’ve angled my questioning: what’s the importance of the Ukrainian lives for OTAN indeed, if the own OTAN didn’t place the president Zelensky as a ‘hostage’, offering him false guarantees, because will he has already shown wanting to talk with Putin to end up with the war.

So, today, any independent country that it’s involved geopolitically with the matter it’s thinking what is worse for itself, ‘not accepting an OTAN’s proposal or being invaded by the Russians’.

The occident cannot be excluded from the evil, neither disrelated from the Communism, in Fatima’s prophecy, simply for a Marxist misunderstanding, which is much more economic than political and very few theological in the latu sensu of a State without God: Because Putin himself is an orthodox Christian, and more than 40% of the Russian population is catholic, so, it’s plane that it’s about an occident’s vanity in maintaining itself ahead with its hegemony, for matters of vanity and faith, and not exactly a preoccupation with human lives.

So, I’ve written in a too resumed way and I didn’t contextualize the matter with all its devices as I’d like to, but I understand God in many ways, and He certainly isn’t satisfied, and a unilateral vision cannot and doesn’t even fit such understanding that “there exists one unique guilty in the table”, and the occident, in my understanding, did should do something about this, because it will certainly be the most prejudicado [pt] one, even more than Russia, for the energetic dependency and of supplying. Because the answer was already given to the Russian government, in the limit of the sanctions, and if the occident still insists, it will not only be buying the war as also creating the worst solutions possible for a pacific solution: yes.

In my country, and I think so in other nations of the world, ones are arriving in this understanding: that the Russians were the ones to blame for the war, but that the occident it’s being the guilty of the peace: and the interpretative history of the events can take other devices, and in that where Russia could be alone, take an inversion of short-term, as well, by account of the carnificina [pt] that will follow if the occident doesn’t respect the corridors of the peace as it comes doing. There exists an informative lie, and it is being perceived now, so, I’d like you to give me a better explanation of what is happening there indeed, independently of the result and of our logistical interests and that something happens in this middle time, that we may continue talking,

Thanks for calling,

Big hug.

Obs.: I wrote this in one-shot, I hadn’t time to make corrections, and many orthographic errors must be, because of the typing, I hope so what I’ve written can be of comprehension.”

The Green Box - The Hegemony

 

La Muralha de Kiev

 

The Neutral State - Subpart I - The Police-Power