Saying things forgot about....

Friday, June 29, 2007

anti-mili rave

Honestly, there is a militarist aspect at all injustice.
That is a puzzling factor,
the militairy option is a political one and as such should be used by the shifts to benefit the people, so why does it keep popping up as the food for the root of evil?

Abuse of powers and militairy representation really are among the closest of relations.

With no exception we agree we promote the human factor, we have a consensus of fighting injustice, and we are even motivated, proud, through it.

However when you zoom in on the warfare aspects, of northern european culture
a thing we dearly mention civilisation, the reality might be less charming then it appears.

Plainly put, the nort-west european culture and her derivates, the colonised continents, are not at all more peacefull in the vertical component of the function,
they are just sinusoid on the horizontal. In other words , we don't fare war as often but we inflict quitte as much damage.

This the european culture tends to mistake for attitude, "a peacefull attitude",
but it is merely the impact of the climate on the european power structures.

Let me elaborate: we don't even need to consider organised warfare (although possibly it was the first thing to shape this psychology) but we can in a thought experiment even analyse the pre-technological aspect.

Most technologically undeveloped (often stone-age) cultures europeans met tend to
have concepts of warfare, or struggle. It is exceptionally hard to proof this is no result of the interaction with technologically more evolved cultures, however in many cases (majorly the americas and the arctic and isolated tropical reserves),
it can be proven some concept of warfare existed, in clan, family or tribal context.

The conclusion drawn from this is that at some point in time population pressure expresses in violent relations, (in the americas eg +- 17k bce)

For the sake of analyses it helps to consider south american cultures as pretechnological, ironworking in this case apparently being sufficiently a limit.
(although the case could be made for the wheel, or the domestication of (working)
bigger animals like , horses, oxen, camels, elephants and cows.) And eventually also for bronze.(i would think they made alloys by accident sometimes, since they worked copper, gold and silver that all mix neatly with tin), anyhow because of the relative scarcity of natural copper they focussed on precious metals.

So having established a major pretechnological setting for the south americas,
let me continue to consider warfare.

The americas are like the total of the continents basicly mostly northern. Inuit occupied all the (northern) arctic climates offwards only 8k bce, so the americas had been greatly isolated over a long period.

There is no strong indication that the initial colonisation of the americas came with much warfare or violence. Also the second wave seems to have peacefully fitted in (correct me if i am wrong i just don't find evidence it was not).

This is very much according to the antropological model in general: People occupy territory that is available, even rather outbound ranges, before settling into conflict.

At some point in time, i am not original in my opinion that this was when the initial waves reach patagonia i think, (so 17k bce), warfare kicks in.

Not all of the americas have known warfare from then on but most has.
islands, remote areas, and generally marginal territory got largely spared.

Logically in an anti mili rave i would have to look there for examples.
So.... here goes: For reasons that will be completely obvious later i will treat this in a north south fashion..

The storys of the very north, tell of a big war when the arctic was invaded by another people of subarctic offspring, the now (asian/russian/mongoloid) inuits
I think they came from the north-east asian coastal and inland regions.
However this conflict was apparently partly fixed in the traditional fashion.
On many places coexistence and mixing are suggested in the storys.However the initial culture("technology" in archeological terms) does not anymore exist.
The now inuits use a larger part of the arctic then the former did.

Apparently when land was scarcer clashes are quitte common.
Story telling from after this period, does not relate much war.
Crime , in the form of criminal raids exists, and there are storys of expeditions,
for loot, revenge or mere hollidays. No storys of war.

Somewhat further south in what is now canada, although the migrations etc. etc.
are complex, (western NS, eastern SN, central NS, WE, NS, and their opposites)
the resettlement of many more southern tribes in colonialist times to canada obviously suggests a culture of greater tolerance.
The storys of what is now the US, are the cowboy and indian storys, and we have many of them. Also because of the better climate and enlightenment era in europe there actually are attempts on scientific anthropological description from the very beginning of the colonisation, it's a huge source now, although the start was much like the graberobbery kind of start of archeology in europe, torturing people for mythical storys of gold eg..

Carefull observation of the material reveals that bar exceptions (like in the glades), most if not all of these cultures were familiar with a concept of ritualised war.
That tended to get greatly aggrevated by the indisparaty of weaponry introduced.
From any native point (also the victims ) point of view it could only be considered 'smart' when someone obtained european weaponry initially.

The traditional (that one always heroic) norm for violence and war, was therefor ruthlessly (a characteristic of heroism) applied in a traditional context.
It soon resulted in massmurder, and most if not all larger scale torture is of suggestively european context.

2 conclusions can be drawn: further south warfare was not any more a family or clan affair, with at most vague animosities on tribal level, It was a clan or tribal affair with indeed vague animositys on a national level.

long story short in even more proliferate climates , yuca eg;), the middle americas and the south, war scales up again, nations and tribes fight nations and tribes and nations and tribes allie nations and tribes.

This system is basically diferent from eurasia in that its axis is north south,
Eurasia naturally has a more chaotic profile.
I am not aware of any socio anthropolocial studys incorporating the possible case of mystification of this event in the tales of the representative populations, but it would be appreciable.

I think i have shown to you that climate at least has a lineair impact on circumstances and perception of war, its shapes and storys, and so i want to pick up the argument.

Europeans that like to think they are peacefull and civilised.
The mojo, the idea is set out in rough lines, so let me now tell you what is really the matter with us.

In fact we are a wary people, the europenars, we have so many wars on our list and so many arms in our hands , we are and have been actually involved in any sizeable violent conflict across the globe. So , we are not very peacefull in fact we are quitte ready to represent our civilisation, our cultures.

So the peacefull bit , as in peacekeeping, might be somewhat of a misconception,
then the civilised bit must be flawed, uhm leading to the line of thought:

That perhaps we are not *more* civilised then others.( only different)
That we have no better hallmark for 'civilisation' then anyone else that tells her own story.

Wich is by the way so obvious i wonder why noone noticed before.

Superficially we come of neatly.. small scale warfare by some inuits, my are we good!
but , the nr of people involved is not the ony measure of the scale of a war.

Firstly more northernly there just happened to be generally less people.
On a usual battlefield the chance to score a hit from a relatively safe position would be smaller. Secondly to consider our current mentality , what we call civilisation, technology comes into play.

However it is not a needed element, to explain what we misunderstand, because what we basically misunderstand is how our natural notion of ethics is much related to our preferred ways of faring war, and not as much with maintaining peace.

What we also mostly miss is that our storys, onwards from our myths, justify just our behaviour. So that we perform in a very selfconfirming way.

In a way all human reasoning here is on a similar nonsensical(egoistic) level, no matter what geographical location, but since we do have a technological capacity,
when we are aware what we are doing it changes more, then levying all the nations.

So let me try to unwrap the relation of our method(s)of war, with our political selfclearance, our posture as a peacefull nation.
(the US climate is somewhat similar to the european).

War apparently takes the form of raids, with inuits, and slightly more south.
In european (written) history this trend is completely obvious.
The vikingera and what was before that everywhere north of the german coast
proofs easily a cold climate rewards only expeditionairy war.

That is easy to explain. Half of the year everything is frozen, moving is a pain,
and food is scarce. So in justice and prowess (theft,adventure), a warlike event had to be thorougly planned and prepared. I would be a all or nothing based calculation,
and the resulting battle is still reknowingly gruesome.

However be carefull not to draw comparisons to south america, the viking era was a representative ironage pre-gunpowder time and not a pre-technological.

Metals provided bigger means for the build up of resources for war, not in the least wooden objects (i would guess this becomes relevant by now;), boats, firewoods, temporary storagerooms eg. then an inca would imagine.

(the inca thinks i'll build a city of that wood btw;)
I think it is important to stress that the trend of the northern cultures to implement expeditionairy warfare is thus as i argued above, of completely ancient origine. Long, long, before even the iron age, people there , would involve in that kind of warfare. Again: for justice, revenge, adventure or profit and otherways for mere survival.

Ofcourse the social acceptance of that age old situation is great. It describes the perimeters of a survivable defence (hence we live), and constitutes much of our emotions about heroism or any other parole. Naturally as it suited survival of the subgroup. Wich indicates how much the profit argument is the initial instigator of most any war, with the premise of a post-cro-magnon like population pressure on the european continent. (>30kbce)

In general terms the english/irish islands are a flattened curve of the northern and coastal technologys in historical and protohistorical times .
Their relative isolation means expedition was even the only means of warfare,
in historical times and so their methods and probably their mentality shape to a slightly more northern pattern then climatologically would be expected 15k years ago.

Anyhow it seems so, because they adapt well into the general north-west european ethical and consensual patterns. Perhaps indeed being less continental.

Time to try to incorporate the forest/steppe model temperate climate zone into the model.(1)

Since continental (from now on) europe is mostly militairy characterised through east<>west militairy movement untill the roman times, partly due to the alpes, balkan (pyrenees less important because of the atlantic frontier) partly due to aforementioned steppes in the east, past 12k years significantly aided by the donau.(2) wich ofcourse also represents a south-north notion, except occasional outposts ,
(pyrenees, lithuanian moors, netherlands), the militairy perceptions rather generalise and in fact blend, on a continental scale. Overall the procedings are invasive but everywhere single examples survive and blend in. (swiss comes to mind)

The resulting mentality is not very geared to conflicts on a tribal level, excempting any outposts, the bigger notion of nations of tribes in movement provides the food for conflict, the resulting wars are of the conqueror kind, much like the less technologically developed just more resourcerich cultures of the southern americas. However still the climate plays a major role in the regulation of the conflict, as harvests have to be made and seasons other then the summer, when the circumstances favour battle, and autumn when the reserves where high, prohibited every major campaigning untill.. i think the firepower argument settled the score.

The idea would be that sufficiently overwhelming firepower would provide you with city's and hence the more nasty aspects of rain and wind etc. could be deterred in a decent defensive position.

Let's hope ww2 was the end point of that development.

Back to the facts, the residue of , over the alps cultures , is very much characterised by seasonal warfare, with the northern and coastal parts still raiding.

People (animal after all) and "cultures" adapt to war when it is a neccesity for survival. As a result north-west europeans have an ethical subset for just their methods of warfare. These are imcomparibly more brutal then north american because of the huge nations involved in the east-west trends and less (?) the permanent negotiation of a similar southeast northwest trend. (italy only gets really significant 2k bce or so.) This last trend is a reflection of the source of agriculture in a similar way as thebes was a reflection of the wealth of the egyptian empire on a smaller scale.

In the end effect the more developed agricultural cultures to the east would profit
from the development of eg. the egyptian or european culture, whence optionally engaging it militairy. (culminating in historical relations of eg. xerxes.)(3)

On with the subset of ethics that motivates northwest european cultures militairy.

At some point in this story i will meet the romans, but before i shed a light on that subject i want to try to aproach the subset of ethics that prevailed in pre-roman times for obvious reasons. (because rome was about to change everything)


(3) pitty for them agriculture comes with desertification or they would have won the war on wood.

hm, i think ill put the donau upstream under mediterenean;)Alexander rules still.
I would think classical greece much minimised the impact of the donau on militairy movements in (c.)europe.

(1)I wonder if the steppification through agriculture and militairy invasion are somehow related now. It's the first time i understand ukraine as a source for agricultural culture in eastern europe.

(some edits made 01-07-2007)

Thursday, June 28, 2007

The art of not to say the right thing

In the ban of the wesk, israelose defaults to palestinase, palestinean territory remain infected or imperfected. Under the umbrella and permanent invading of the warm sun palestinean cultures thrive behind walls, at some place, and they float at others. Noone has a say in it because the dead don't talk. the airraids have proven vocabulairy and barred in the jale faces
The liberty of being nothing you like in no way you want.
Some people live in Gaza, some people live in Israel.
The wall is the same.

Anyhow despite all the vengeance the people from gaza must feel for being starved and imperfected for years on age, i am for a one state solution of all these arabs from tel aviv to karachi.

Friday, June 22, 2007

catastrophical curves in politics


When you are acquainted with catastrophe theory (it's rather complicated but the basics are simple)the whole world looks different.

In that it is like the game of Go (go, wei qi, baduk, goe). The world of the game go is a very orderly one. The conflict between you and the other, the other and her self, is permanent. Every action get's a reaction, and the chain of incidents encompasses the whole 19*19 board.
Sometimes when an opponent makes a wrong move, you actually don't react.
In that, go is better then reality, bad actions don't ask for reactions of catastrophic proportion.
When you play or watch a game of go, since the board is just to big to fit in our mind (actually the board went through a suggestive progression in size) it becomes allegoric. Just like chaos theory and catastrophical curves it tells us something of the interconnectivity of reality, and how courses have their causes.

Every smart move has its results, and so does every error.
With that most is said. People pay for errors (on a social level) with catastrophes.


Sometimes i find it hard to wresttle through the piles of mud, (does the expression throwing mud mean anything to you) in the media and even in personal contacts.
How can it be people are so subinformed, mislead?

However when i project my experience with eventcurves (so how catastrophes came to happen) on this exact feature of our media's , our mind and our worldviews,
i feel alarmed. Apparently it is not yet widely recognised yet that by messing things up you introduce catastrophical curves on a social scale always.

I am thinking over writing an article, "the last pages of real history" or something of the sort. As a sort of vain attempt to provide an anchor. A relativism to the future desinformation. People think perhaps it is not urgent, but actually while we are thinking things can get us into bigger problems, costing us dearly just because we didn't recognise or want to accept their catastrophical consequences.

Often i reflect how truth is the only counter against desinformation. So i want to set up databasis of 'statistical truth'.( and provide it with any sociohistorical function i can imagine for analysation), just like harry seldon.., the character of isaac asimov that founds the socio-historical illegality.
Also it seems essential to describe 'requirements' for grades of truth.


I am now contemplating preventing catastrophical conflict on the planet through standardisation of not only finance etc. but also through setting an objective score for truth.

There are very many subjective kinds of truth, more then humans on the planet on any given moment, usually there is only one real event however, with an unlimited but usually smaller nr. of causes (usually historical) and inflictions (usually of truth). For each of the causes (except the ones we don't think of or deny), it is rather easy to proof or disproof it's relevance.

It gets a bit harder with these inflictions. The usual infliction of truth contains lies, and lies when unnoticed have the same effect on people as truth. Subconsciously people will be motivated to prevent the catastrophical results of the enfolding curves.
As a result whole populations can get biased or malinformed.

I'll give an historical and obviously catastrophical example: Irak.
When whoever (bush and the neocons, the leading oil and weaponindustry, or even the pharmaceutical complex) decided to wage war against Irak, an excellent example of the catastrophical lie was introduced.

I hate to be so meticulously but it seems people won't understand me without,
i am talkin about the WMD argument. The weapons of massdestruction argument.
By abusing it, that argument wich should in fact be considered an essential for the survival of our planet, (logical result of this 'curve' is US will have to abolish nukes as well), lost most if not all validity. We killed 2-3 million people over it,
but it was not true. Now when someone accuses someone of WMD, one will always have to wonder , what does he have to win with that lie. (a country might have wmd , but the argument has been so abused, that you can almost be sure the next implementation of that security measure by the UN will be another hoax, another genocidal lie, and catastrophical theft.)

Unfortunately things have not yet changed for the better, and our international opinions are mostly formed through lies and falsifications of the truth. Wich are just as bad as they purposedly introduce the lie into the individual, with an exact same effect as plain lies.

Even true falsifications of the truth , a thing i am not proficient at but know how to handle, are not ok. They would be ok in a perfectly informed society, but we are the opposite. My interpretation of the eretz (i think purposedly) israelian incident,
in the last article is an example.

It is perfectly true, but it does not tell some other borders have been open at the time they closed eretz, to create a different kind of incident,
(look how mean is hamas: they scare wounded (and armed?) fatah members (that shot them yesterday) instead of helping them.)

Such is true, because it is the result of the curve. retrospectively it is true
because the chain of incidents was under perfect israelian control at that crossing.
(actually i think on day1 already israel has been moving with tanks around these helpless fatahmembers or rather close at least).

Now israel has admitted to help her fatah allies, and i just have to grasp limited medical resources in gaza have been diverted more to the victims of fatah.
(wich makes perfect sense from a people's point of view as fatah was the one having the better arms and the initial opressor(security service) and thus the more efficient killer. )

These are all excellent examples of how media politics influence human catastrophy over the people themselves. Ofcourse there are bigger catastrophys.

For one thing i care about humans and not catastrophys.. and for another israel is so much pushing her prominence in the media that actually (perhaps much against their wish?) it invites analyses and speculation more then many other cases.

To mention an example: i have some understanding of the situation in the darfur region, also as it being of bigger proportion.
However the problem and the history of the nations is not 1/1000th as broadly
underdocumented as the palestinean case.
(i think we could do with much less material if it just was better though)

My impression is the intern darfur discourse is actually hidden from the western, and possibly african arab and asian public, just because they don't want people to have a say in it.

Strangely this is a feeling well known in darfur.....
However it is also true that to a certain extend the public cannot solve the isolated case of darfur (or the larger one of sudan, darfur and the horn of africa).
The Darfur conference has proven that. It has also proven that political awareness is cheaper then aid. And the endresult is that the notion of oil spoiled it all.
So now we have to be working from that point off.

A point the UN does not want to make to it's populaces.
Wich is very much were we stand. The political lie, untruth and purported unknowingness rules the world, and we are divided by the percentage of lies we still or always believe in. Believe me that side-effect is not only recognised by me.
Although hopefully usual "agents" (secret services personel) understood it worse.


To some extend most people have to believe in their own (their medias, their governments) lies to function for that economy/politics. Ofcourse it is a focus , and that besides it is a psychological fact. An easy focus:)
It's somewhat close to how white soldiers called japanese apes etc.
There was a security argument for that but eventually people don't kill without lies.
And that was probably the major cause for this piece of still existant militairy culture, that as far as i have been able to research always has been intrinsical to militairy and paramilitairy action. (with me always last like 20000 years at least, so off the first uniforms and armys).

Before that time the whole diplomatical system was way more irrelevant(less people so a much bigger census eg.) and presumably based on conventions. Sorry if i give to much historical background or provide a perspective, this part of the history of the politically implemented lie i find specifically interesting.

Fight against rasism and hate.

So what am i aiming for? Personally i am all for prevention of catastrophical curves in politics, so i am against the forced poverty to maintain a labour force,
but i am also against discrimination, or (what i think israel did) the creation of a discriminating society.
Now israel is nothing, a spot on the map, but as i already repeated myself, it got a disproportional place in the media. Any discriminating society should be so targeted.
And that is a problem obviously. Since as far as i know all societys know the mechanism of discriminating their neighbouring people, or even the ones slightly more remote. (a better militairy strategy over the centurys)

Usually they do both, discriminate close (our belgians, israelis palestineans) and further (our and israels "muslim fanatics" and "arabs"). I actually think we discriminate everything that is not dutch. Belgians most explicitly, but as we also like them it only states we think worse of the rest.
Even anti-judaism is very close to the surface. I do not completely understand the reasons for it. I tend to relate the nr of jewish communitys through europe somewhat, for the rest? some kings etc. that used them as a black sheep (and bank), early notion of religious paranoia.

But why it boils so close to the surface i really don't understand.
At one point in my writing life i had decided to involve israel, to drag it before the court of truth that i am describing, the result was utterly embarrasing.

Even people that apparently understand my social reasoning immediatly, didn't stand out for antirasism. I am still surprised over the fierceness of anti-judaism.
However i reach a hand, when i pose that messing up the truth does irreversible damage in the person you try to mess it for. Although i don't understand the rasist result, i do understand the anger of the powerless. But why not an anger against palestine, but against jews?

Well honestly i think the media, and the jewish ones between, have more of an interest in antijudaism then in changing the state of palestine.
Otherways i can't explain it. People do forget phrases in 2 or 3 generations, and the criticality against rasism is sufficient that an emancipated media politics would not have this result. I explicitly include arab media before the westerners that will want to (lie) "think otherways".

That is a thing you could generalise: People only think as bad as they are told to.
After that they are just wonderfull, noble, honest, beautifull, valuable, special people. The criminal argument is not apropriate as it got way to much variables to be part of the same curve. And anyone with the nerve to ever meet a 'real' criminal knows these are very human too.
(i tend to blame environmental factors and educational circumstance for 99% of criminality)

There is however in criminality a similar mechanism at work:
As the "labour ethics" <- dunno if that is english, "arbeids ethiek" in dutch,
requires poverty to have readily and willing slaves, it induces criminality.
That is not only empiric, it is also obviously politically true.
For a national government to raise criminality the nr of measures available to do so are innumerable. And since people scare for crime, it is an excellent excuse for more militaristion in our societys. However even that is not the major reason to induce crime in the poor. The major reason is it is much easier to create prejudices against people involved in (so-perceived) crime, then it is to silence a political opponent through other means.

So by marginalising the disagreeing people, you also kill the political opposition before it grows.
This is not meant as a manual for fascism so please use it before powers in the world abuse it on you.

Actually at points i have met people (myself included) that have been implicitly and even explicitly urged by the social security to commit crimes. However according to that would be a mistake. Once a "criminal" on the record; you loose every right you might still think you had, so it only a efficiency measure to kill the poor quicker.

Just that endpoint of the policy of the lie, is that now politics is thinking every unthinkable thing just to eliminate poor (generally unslavish),criminal and other people.
That is not even pure malvolence, it's also just the result of the curve, of that way of believing what you are told.


(could not think of the english word. Wich reminds me how the translations of relevant entrys for manipulation politics have disappeared from dictionairys
examples: verduistering (a form of often highlevel swindle, i went for "purloin" in the end. Or this one: "kwaadaardigheid" it just does not translate in the dictionairys i first find on google).

Anyhow these politics are well aware of what they are doing, and have their excuses ready....
malvolence is not a "nice" word why do i want it???

what a malvolent question! I want it to fight it ofcourse, and i don't know it because it is not *my* way of doing. Give us back our words please.

Monday, June 18, 2007


Poor gazaeans.. poor palestineans, poor we.

After israel secured the security troops still loyal to her and transported 300-500 armed palestineans to the west bank before the border was closed for refugees, there has been revenge on hamas.
Not only that it got thrown out of west bank politics, wich is perhaps not a sine qua non, but definetly justifiable.

Some revenge is not surprising. Despite best attempts to keep calm on both sides, wich perhaps was helped by the 2 months of negotiations, the exchange of power in Gaza, has been with incidents. The death count of the Gaza coup has been 30hamas 90fatah roughly. That is probably partly because westbank militants were not informed of the peacefull surrender, but conceivably partly due to incidents of gaza enthousiasm(and fear). Of this i can't judge more precisely. But apparently there has also been some reprisal, that literally spoken need not be to bad. (i hope gaza reprisalled on ppl with at least a role in the violences).

The death count inside israel remains vaguer. But the overall tone suggests that fatah has eliminated a similar nr of innocent hamas youths (50-100). That perhaps have been defending themselves in the confusion and surprise. I think it is a more clumsy incident then what happened in Gaza but i have no exact figures or facts.
You know the kkk effect on ppl. who think they are more right then others? It has most probably not been a beauty. Anyhow it is hidden. The only suggestion i got was westbank killed a similar nr of hamas .

I take it for granted that westbank means to say hamas has behaved exemplary.
And they will not hold their grudges inside.

Similarly hamas now has to unarm the situation by at least formally and internationally announce their clear intend to hold and create no problems for fellow palestineans that politically disagree.

or rather, why don't westbank and hamas do that unsimilarly.

For now, westbank does not matter. Westbank can lick her fingers at the promises over withheld money to the occupied territorys(1), and distribute political positions what they like, and for Gaza they will be like israel speaking out for palestineans.
People are small.. and westbank has not set a new political measure.

Abbas would have proven greater political value had he eg. only replaced ishmael, or only accorded that one man, with the "good" name that is now connected to the westbank bloodbath incident. It is obvious he is seeking allies , and not to scared to use positions. The result already is not fresh.

Therefore the world should take a better look at what is happening.
We can make the obvious choice between the good(the populace/"terrorists") and corruption.
For an honest eye that choice has always been the one displayed through politics.

Whatever we do to hate the "terrorists" will work. Because they have no rights.
However whatever we do that helps gaza, will complicate our own cause more.
It would proof to the outside world these people are not terrorists but palestineans and it would obviously proof that radical islamism is always still way better then judeochristian "security".((for us all westerners, if we want to change it, the reason is that we lie)

So it is up to us, antagonise them more, and you will eventually antagonise them into terrorist actions perhaps, or at least into ongoing violence around israel,
set up something and you counter the extremer appeal of islam.

up to us, to make war or peace. We have not made the obvious choice in a long time.

(1)newest sick money story, gaza is 'freed' territory, west bank is occupied territory. How does the public eat this rubbish?
Do you know a better way to say i want to spend money in israel? I don't.

Don't tell me it is freed because there is a wall around it, i know the arabs are building walls everywhere to prepare their very own period of the warring states, but that is the israeli wall and not the palestinean.

18 june

It's almost like that when i don't write a blog-entry reality dissolves even faster in a mist of half truths.

For myself i have a very nice set of media on internet to shape my opinions.
So when yesterday i read an overview of some of the events in gaza on al jazeera , the thought there was no notion of the fatah violence in west bank went strong.

As a counterbalance for aljazeera that i would call an opiniator for people with muslim background or pacifist motivation, (the ones that are not muslim but still don't want to kill muslim), i read english wikipedia, wich is obviously a prozionist medium. If something happens in the middle east , i check wiki, wiki writes about it?
then the story is what israel wants to see in the international media. Its a somewhat rude simplification, but it works.(1)

Wiki , being an alternative source of information for (i think that is the point) young people, is also checked by cia etc. That is also very helpfull, if i dont know the complot or background, i can check the commentarys and look where "seemingly respected contributors" (their general positiona and attitude), make bullshit comments that distract from the original storyline.
Perhaps you would think it is not helpfull. But if it goes like , oh bullshitcomment, lies over the true story : secret service is in. It is a very simple and fast check.

I suppose you need to be brighter then the falsificator though? or perhaps it is more a matter of sticking to the facts.(most of such cases have service unwelcome facts, often backgrounds )

Anyway i have 2 big items today, and a small.
The biggest item is gaza. The smaller stalin and the smallest is france.

Because there is some confusion i will recount to you how that conversation between stalin and his psychiatrist went. Do you want me to read stalins mind for you? or will you do it yourself?

Stalin sits in a chair smoking, he can look at the face of the psychiatrist,
that is sitting in a similar chair to his right side, without turning his neck much.
You know stalin? he sits loosely. legs wide, arm over the right hold, and a smoke in his left hand.

So..., he says , doktor, you diagnose me with paranoia?
da , komrad stalin, but every doktor would give you a similar diagnosis.
(a small silence)
Then doktor, how comes no other doktor did?

An awkward silence, the doktor sitting with his back straight and his head bent over a little seems to sit even straighter while he prepares to answer.
Stalin watches him, he is used to see people vocalise or hide their fear so it is always a telling moment.

Well komrad stalin, it is because they fear you, (Stalins face does not change expression while he thinks:" so you don't fear me?")My collegues would confirm my diagnosis if i asked them.
" They don't."
"In a private discussion with me they would definetly come to the same diagnosis."

Stalin knows well the docter will not tell who was in such private discussion with him voluntarily. So he pretends not to understand: "you and your friends would call me paranoia in a private discussion?"

Sir, sorry, komrad, i was only saying a professional doctor would come to the same diagnosis.
Calmly stalin hands him a telephone:"call a doktor to confirm your diagnosis please friend", he says smilingly.

Again it is the physician who pauses, searching for the best match in his collection of friends and collegues, obviously not an easy task. Anyhow he ends up calling a few friends via the operator, after a try or two, actually he manages to get some
vague confirmations.

Stalin meanwhile is not amused. "Listen komrade, if people call me paranoia behind my back people will think i am paranoia. Most people for this reason don't call me paranoia, but you and," he looks at a list that was just brought in, "your jewish friends, call me that, have diagnosed me for that, this will destroy my position."

Ofcourse the doktor got his answer on this one well prepared: "No,no", he says," it is only a diagnosis of a symptom, it is only professional integrity that i mention,
it won't bring people to think you are paranoia".

(you think... stalin thinks.)

Okay that was stalins thought on that dumb psychiatrist.

Ofcourse that is a very bad way to introduce something positive to you,
so on with the bad news, and i'll just post my gaza reporting right on top.

Here is the rest of the lousy stuf, france.
Blackboxvoting struck again, it perceivably confirmed her own appalings.
Anyone surprised?

(1)Any major medium i know including aljazeera is mainstream, regarded like that wikipedia is certainly huge and informing on many many aspects, the idea, concept, is perfect, fine and wonderfull , there is just a small undertone of US-Israel related opiniating in every relevant area. Sometimes dumb and eg. anglocentric, sometimes otherways. Some riddance of censory is still future music. Not surprised anymore.
(i) indymedia is also mainstream, dutch indymedia does not even dare to have an item of gaza. That is not so much a complaint, but it is a constatation.
(ii) Wiki being subjective is not even necessarily bad. After all you want to know where the party's stand. I dislike it for indymedia more, because of the name i think they should always represent every non majority opinion. (gaza eg.)

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Constitutions of europe

A very hot item in europe is the organisational structure, some like covered by the concept of constitution. This item is deeply fascinating, it will not only describe europe's future culture, it may easily be the make or break of the whole planet.

It is nowhere a matter to set aside or simplify. Theoretically a constitution is the basic of justice, and once again; justice is theoretically the mechanism to control power.

Actually constitutions represent that. The wish to control power.
It should be point one, that political power can always be controlled, eg. a decission or position can never get unmutable. (this suggest you manage to underwrite human rights and other accorded true values (like those from constitutions) and still opens the discourse on interpretation.)(1)

The situation is, already the national political arenas loose the more ambitious yet more masked personalitys to european scheming, marginalised purposedly.
Likewise the out of control financial and economical powers represented through the european parlament have lost transparance already. Hugely due to the scale, but there is indication of less obvious transactions, getting stuck in usual circuits,
and pure neglect of issues.

The scale, and size of it all begins to impress and work, and the somewhat plain proto omni european structure seems to prefer to stay behind a curtain, building up huge reserves to spend on security for the ultra-rich.

(the privacy "case", privacy has untill yet always been: that for the rich. Equality is way more essential, or you would not be equal in your privacy and the constitution dumb.)

The european national constitutions excellently provide human values.
Ofcourse a new definition of the privacy concept is welcome, but definetly not in a way that makes it the argument for basicly all injustice.

(telegram style: don't be fooled ppl).

That said over the conceptualisation i don't see why the EU needs a very thick book for constitution. Honestly the EU should try and apply only (not exclusively) international human values, and has no excuse to just mess up things more.

In that case a more proper aproach seems to actually unify the existing constitutions. At least that way we can make sure civilians don't loose essential rights.

In some international cases jurisprudence may become inevitably more commisionairy.
That is no excuse for an acting commitee or several shimmery rooms with power of law.

These positions are also so ambitious they need public consideration.
It is definetly essential the eu stresses the roulation of lawmaking and highest courts of justice positions. I really don't care when my prime minister or anyone else does not want his dirty laundry on the table...(still angry, why do they want that anyway..).

That is another reason not to complicate matters, eg. the early rotations in even parlament will have a hard time adopting. It will predictably lead to inflexibility (practically and publicly) , when they can basicly work from the perspectives they know while the methods change the shock need not be bigger.
(actually i think quitte the opposite: by setting ourselves up with a doubtfull case
we spoil everything and that is my remark to the public, not so much to the politicians because for them it does not matter).

Some real guarantee can only be arranged by a concept close to that of (mh that would be al quada in arab..) democracy of the basis. People should definetly keep working public services on a level they can reach within a scope. (mostly a contemporary nation or region but perhaps a liguistical entity or a more artifical burocratic domain.) If people don't, the slavery will eventually be complete. And circumstances for the human dignity would from now on only worsen.

I must say we seem to do better then worsest, in the view of the last point, but i am serious about being precautious here.

Certainly most of the continents are emancipating and cooperating internally to a larger extend (australia, india and antartica the notable exceptions).
Even the others know industrial development.

stay strong.

(1) For this reason i like the idea of not having a european constitution at all,
the looser and also the less powerfull the centralist aspect of europe is the smaller the chance we get totalitair characteristics. Wich is a severe risk since we also can't have experience with the 'democratic' and undemocratic dynamics of such a big and prosperous (multi)state.(i don't like it much). The endpoint of it is that without the recognition of the authority of the state the whole subject would be moot, thus it is hardly a matter of authority.(things would perhaps speed up a bit when we incorporated our (so-perceived) 'marxist' neccesity's consciously).

Friday, June 15, 2007

In charge

Finally the gaza strip is in the hands of hamas. Finally the popular majority can hold her own reigns. Finally not anymore an alienating security force dominate the street picture? Finally we can guard ourselves in our hunger?

I don't know what has been the spark, but i have noticed the glow of the fire before.
Anyway finally we are governed by someone who oposes israeli airstrikes, finally fatah shows up in the repressed and miserable occupied form of representation where it rili stands. The hopeless situation of the west bank.

(remember i felt like writing how we will finally have a decent organisation in gaza again.)
The point i make above is really what i feel, fatah has surrendered to much of her palestine identity to the circumstance. With best intends , though.

I remember how the al aqsa had to be turned into something we (nato had antagonised them a lot) could handle,
and how the result seemed to much influenced to maintain integrity.
I also remember how i thought arming up palestine security forces was a very unfriendly and not very sane measure. I would almost suspect money to come in at this point for lack of a better excuse. (It was at the task desciption i noticed btw... so i am not to blame(1))

From this vantage point fatah(the echelon esp., it was supposed to be hard but some struck it insane) has stuck to her word. Honestly, i suppose.
This is not an everything is ok message just a relativation on the security forces situation, wich is more specific then needed since the situation can be explained through the context of the gaza populace.

I want to stress the sociological aproach, i don't want to say gaza populace is such and such, or has such and such, but show that such development was rather inevitable for any populace in such a (limited) situation.
Now it has happened, i am not surprised at all.
I am surprised but i absolutely understand the logic behind it.(at least i think you might understand it better after reading this)

There are so many reasons people in gaza would be desperate about their life as a result of the negotiations (and blackmail) with israel. There is so little progress (outside eg. hamas social movement, i suppose this is where the islam solidarity could play a role. Well you have to pay for progress somehow.)
Everyone can and should try to understand how very limited the role of regional solidarity gets if the money can get "frozen" (they usually disappear after, at least i never heard of any of these mysteriously reappearing very much).

On with the subject. How would a situation where the security forces motives got to alienated, or to little control of their own actions, (they killed palestineans in some of the early attempts to surpress hamas on international ordres.) a situation were people have some (or at least something internationally called) control over their surrounds?

I tell you what would happen. It would be a politically motivating situation,
you being allowed politics and nothing else (electricity, water, medicines, school money or safety) would make a certain percentage of ppl inhibit political thought.
An arguably artificial political agravation indeed.

So i don't want to say these are majority opinions, i think we can speak of a situation were the feelings of the majority express though the level of power,
governance, ("souvereignity" perhaps). Since nothing (except unfortunate israeli incidents ) can or is allowed to happen in Gaza, the ppl already involved in political thought would feel a more pronounced responsability to reconsider the motives, targets, methods and strategys.(indeed both fatah and hamas got active almost frenzy at some points)

The situation in gaza has been rather shifty with quitte some violence, i think that is how the idea, to just take over, was born. Think logically, we are the majority, ppl would opt for that unity, and we are utterly(internationally) repressed for being us, our people are not respected. Why not try to arrange those affairs with the political reality internally represented. Why not?

You can see the gaza people got very politicised from this incident if you consider it like this, and people should maybe be hopefull because of that , and not angry.

I can think like hamas, the situation is shit, but we are in charge.
Wich is better then the situation is shit and this is not leading anywhere.

Perhaps hamas is more primitive, dutch would get more primitive if you kept taking out their radical reformist leaders, but it reflects its politico-social reality.

Wouldn't every surpressed people within a confinement attempt to organise it's own (consensual,'democratic')structures and hold them over the official one? (sooner or later.)Don't *you* admire the individual that can?

Gaza people's or the hamas political thought goes like:
let us at least try to arrange our own affairs as the shit for standing up for our peoples rights is apparently unrecoverable.

(also economically a half year ago," the damage is done", you know 'discrimination' : some event of that kind.)

I hope hamas will negotiate a truce with europa and the arab union to just get the chance to live untill the regional situation improves that much setting up something there is not a calculated loss, and when we do that fine seems cheaper. pls think education cus later perhaps there will be jobs or possibilities at some point instead) Zion has always been scared for Tyrus, though, and i think they are in charge.

(1) the really better aproach in such a case is to opportunistically formulate.
a very rare example would have been to actually have had the fatah security army secure palestinean airspace. That is how long i suspect we still stand from solutions in formal ways in general .The example was to striking to go unnoticed somehow..(It would definetly include jetattacks on palestinean civilians. For people persistent in denying that.. i thought i better notice,except ofcourse the palestineans currently in jet-attacks of the israelian populace.
What the israeli's should learn is to make qassam-1s: really hard to stop even by the palestinean security force, walls are forever!

Saturday, June 2, 2007

The life of a dissident

Did you ever wonder how it is to live the life of a dissident?
I suppose not, and that it is why you found this page anyway.

But i am angry, i suppose they made it like that to make me write something about it.
So as to legalise their terrorising, by being able to say that since the victim comprehends no essential harm is done(or similar BS).

For the public... how do you think it feels to be a lifelong victim of such corrupting policys?

I should explain shouldn't I? elaborate on every attempt on my integrity, but unfortunately.
I have no memory of an other situation, there is just to much negativity to even start summing it up.

Forget it, i won't give a frame and report what their hurting and annoying, their
plain theft and exploits do to me.

It's in the wait for the others, even just to hurt me more.
People stop the terror for your own sakes.

Blog Archive



Personally i try not to be rude. However sometimes i screw up. Basically i will remove, discriminating and hate posts. And comments clearly derivant from well prepared 'neocon' (kapitalist) pr or secret service agents. (aivd , fbi, mossad etc.) Dutch language is welcome. English prefered, sorry if that bothers my fellow countryman who always seem to think they know how to handle their languages. Ill edit this some time;)

wanted terrorist: name silencer aka stealotron

wanted terrorist: name silencer aka stealotron
Through lies and fraud this one is managed to rob 1000000s of the fruits of their work and their voice