L'isle France

The french don't realise that they are relevant really.
Perhaps that is why saying they need to prove that, still achieves something.

After all our world, the world of europe, to keep it manageable, is the direct product of the french revolution and nothing else. Although france exterminated all their protestants, just before that, the civil revolution that enabled emancipation throughout the divided christian world started in France,

The first country to really make a difference. (The dutch and several other remote european tribes did still better in ancient or proliferate ways but were no match in significance.)
Unfortunately that revolution came to early to make the difference for colonialism.
And ofcourse that could be exactly the problem we still need to cope, to achieve a somewhat pristine mentality.

It is remarkable how france through the priciples of the revolution remained a somewhat populair oppressor through colonialist times. Une esprit intriquE.

Yet the french have to cope with their minority complexes. Somehow they don't understand that when napolean or the medieval fleets made a striking impression,
neversomuch did the struggle with germany over continental priority , and most probably a more equal distribution of wealth through the continent..(ahem),
lead to impressive scores.

Typically the pre-revolutionaire times, had the roman worldpicture. Romanism being a thing that elevated even some of the succesfull northern classes. It was however intrisically devoluted in the northern direction, and part of our current struggle over language, and more probably the struggle of the french over theirs, derives from these times. It seems it is not to well understood.
The whole story is incredibly romantic from the dutch pov. But it is too long and fascinating to introduce here.

This may be inconceiling but the real problem is yet to be discoursed.
Btw. i have the impression i am still not persevering my political motives in what i write.

France in her richess has been a very fortunate country for her once total rulers.
As a result of that, even partly through the narrowmindedness of catholisism, and through the centralist character, the difference between a this area or region, and the different citys have been bigger then in germany or netherlands throughout the 19th century. It's not reconceiling but my father once ought it necessary how he perceived this as something having to do with the treatment of the genetic pool.

So i cannot be completly unbiased about the situation, france once lost a techer-war.
They have a strange garrisonment of gendarme through the country. The traditional attitude of the police used to be very distantiated, harsh even. And the internal justitial situation is not very clear, or overly safe partly through that.

France had rather negative name for battling down eg. squatters demos in huge innercity's as an example of institutional intolerance. As a result of this, many young french were willing to battle the police for their right of expression.
(It was a mystifying experience.)

I have no knowledge except a profoundly negative attitude in paris upto a few years ago, against africans. It is a fact known to me for 30 years or so, that africans in paris are controlled. Intimidated and held, in controversial ways at strange places and awfull moments, by the metropolitan police.

This has always been, although i expect it got some better after the lessons of the riots that shook the suburbs 2 or 3 years ago. This event was considered in a very amiable way in many circles inside (and even outside) france.

Wich a.a.m.o.f. points us to the relevance of germany in this all discussion.
Hence, the period of the vichy regime, and the gaullist attitude after do have a function in the french conscience. Not in the least in the sence of a minority complex. One starts wondering if they did things to algeria thinking: we are not that good people. (on est pas trop mal)

Algeria is a perfect example of how a (perhaps romancatholic) culture can't settle with a postcolonialist reality. As if the dust of the desert must save france, they have been believing of the relevance of the algerian situation for whatever imaginairy safety or sustaining of france.
(This is relevant for the current moment but i think it is true without that).

France is a country with a halfdecent social situation and a country with extreme differences between rich and poor. I remember lanes and villages of empty villas of the rich that were residing in some other villas or houses of them most of the time.
We camped in one garden without fear for discretion because of the vastness of the empty areas around us, excellent pancakes, the milk may have to do with it.

I heard even horror storys happening in such places, without anyone ever noticing.
Perhaps things changed. This is twenty years ago. Satelites should make a difference,
although it is generally the rich that need the kicks.

So france is not an every way safe place. On the other hand, like i just mentioned,
housing arangements are half decent, people stand a chance to live an even artistic or alternative life to some extent. Some areas in france can be excitingly "red" and
many feature beautifull traditions, I personally witnessed how all of france could bother over the nationalist value of flagging, with le pen around in the media spectacle.

That mind, and the possibility to broadly respect the immigrants when they had really had their bellys full of all the discrimination. Plus my personal impression that most of the french have actually now and then considered the value of the french revolution, and her values (including tolerance in fact), have convinced me at least that the great majority of french, do demonstrate human values, not in the least equality of humans. So dear red workers of the nations, and masses of malcontents in precarity it is up to you to have your say.

All the rest is (part of the) show.

I believe in red and wrong, and that wrong is when the people are not red, quitte naturally. The side effects of enlightened despotism for me serve only to proof
how the "red" is the only thing that can rule the wrong.

Peace plans

One of my iraki friends remarked, everyone should start blogging peace plans.
So here is my take. Beforehand i tell you i was trying to compose a post on al jazeera on " what will the future bring to irak and what will stabilise it".

Not a simple post but i had a nice answer: always discontinuing a occupation stabilised a region.

After that it got tricky though. Because after that future will bring irak corruption and partiality. Bias and neglect most probably. Next to that
the same patriotism that the usians so much admire, would turn the now supposed terrorists in perfect buddys for the regular usian.
So you might wonder if having nationalists from US and UK fight nationalists from Irak is a bad thing. They will probably start hurting other people worse when they quit harrasing another.

That is all very lightly thought, i admit, the thought of innocent victims is very strong when i write a thing like this. Why innocent victims? It can ofcourse be an excuse, but else? I thought this: Basicly when usian nationalist fight iraki fanatics (nationalists) both partys end up frustrated. They have their racist kicks but that besides they are shooting their buddys. Their fellow-genocidals, fellow-patriots, fellow-fanatics, fellow-nationalists.

I think this causes part of the targetting of innocents. I don't get to the peace plan part much. But it could be essential to first understand what is actually going on, what is actually invoking the violence.

So actually the whole world wide dillema of nationalism and xenofobism is intertwined in the iraki situation? And there can never be peace before the world learns it's lesson? Perhaps.. it does seem so. It is either that or the oil running out.

This is why i find it so hard to say anything about peace in irak, to have a proposal. It all seems moot, irrealist. People pulling the ropes don't have the spiritual qualitys to achieve such a thing. You can't ask the irakis to press forward their work under humiliation, exploit.

I very much think US should leave, the sooner the better. Being prepared for war, is being prepared for genocide. No militairy procedure can change that.
If violence between irakis need be so gross, wich i doubt, let them genocide another, no reason to start genocide yourself.

Obviously the west will be to blame for the forthcoming crisis, it sparked it after all. But somehow i have the strange suspicion that the more provocating and attrocious ,'big booms' , events will quickly halt as soon as the US army leaves. Perhaps then that is why regions stabilise after an occupation leaves. It would not surprise me.

But is this realist? Me, i don't know. When this was all just plan and saddam was still in charge in irak (a situation of btw. rather nightmarish proportion for eg. shias in the south) i already suspected the US would go to stay. I even found out the vietnam oil was gone when the US left. Started looking from some suspect rhetorics.

No it was a biggest worry, and i have vocalised (perhaps written in some now censored place) my doubts about the intend to leave afterwards. Ofcourse in the face of total neglicence i have been asked what the iraki would think of it, and i told people they would not like to be occupied. That after you don't lift your militairy presence you perform an occupation, from the others point of view.

So the question arises, if not all that i say and write may lead to nothing.
I may tell and predict this now, but have people been wanting to see what was the reality before? So what will truth help now?
Tell me if you know.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have also written a beautifull story, I'll post it, but my mum said it should include "she's" from the first line, and the guys in the first line were all bad guys;) so i have a problem.

Talking about bad guys i read one of the plays of this guy cheung. It is not very amusing or a very interesting story, but it describes a complex and unsolvable problem for the main person. With a bad end.
theoretically the guy must have had a some experience at around 12-13 that made him feel irreversibly betrayed, it may have been a usual trauma, or just discrimination.

Another thing that is obscure is there are no transcripts of his most recent writings, just some cretology lifted out of context. That he is unsatisfied with the standards on the school eg. is obvious but the why's are kept out of view.
(probs. discrimination innit?)

Lastly there are efforts to keep his use of 'anti-depressivica' out of the picture.
An unreasonable statue since his expression is obviously so doped that he must have been under strong influence of these medicines, that make you much more vague and inhuman then natural drugs.