leakage

it's crude, it got published, my mum said clinton did not enjoy her transparancy role. dunno about that, i mean if you don't like to be as corrupt as to do sth you rather just not do it isn't;)

'higher' diplomacy ..

that's all very fine and i know little less. in the personal my impressions are not implausible, that's also helpfull. It's weird with ideas, like a famous russian neonazi explained, a jewish mum helps, and blessings and curses work for 7 generations do they?

bugger, people will stop reading, nah that is biases for, to autocensure the biased. as the saying goes, they allways say it themselves;)

funny again intelligence tried that, to have their covers better under by being informed, but it trended to turn the coppers, so they are more easy to catch again.

whats it to be a slave of a system, of any of the intrinsically corrupt policeapparatus, eg.

like hillary, instead of saying the republicans in congress i fear, she plays the masculin hero calling for rudeness and vengeance. the "bad man" to everyones robin.

obama was down for signing (his first? yes i guess) deathpenalty, or so the story goes.
got used to it i guess. in the stronger terms. the clichee, the things you find in dispatches.

okay should i explain what makes a secretary state compromise on her feelings? except money i mean? maybe, but i am not gonna. not interested.

it's not i am gay or sth? you cant be carefull enough with the witchhunt on blowers of every tune. Odinga did that today, and it was enough to tell uganda is seeking that witchhunt as well. go figure what bloodlet is left in the education they lusted. oh well they are in usian peacearmy now so its allright.

it's not the topic, tho, just making a game out of it.

topic is feminism. hillary suits as an intro.

i have been a feminist for as long as i can remember.

i don't know if i have to thank my father for it, he used to shout unreasonably about me, and so did he about feminists (not even sure he did, he did about plenty of people) maybe it wasnt that, but for the idea, so i thought, , hey this is the unreasonable thing. they must as much as me be right to be the target of such rude abuses.

maybe it wsnt it, but maybe it was, my mum was sorttoff a latent feminist for all her life, she went on to be really emancipated, but in familys with jewish roots afaik that is nothing unusual, or at least, she needn't be a feminist for me to be a functional adult in the centre of our cosmosses.

i don't think she sympathised with feminism loudly, but i guess somewhiles she contradicted the big bad dad on the subject, so i knew what it was at. i am not sure, i have no clear emmory on any of this, perhaps i could read before they used the word, in wich case i probably read it in the paper when i was 6, 7 maybe. 6 i bet, i remember the 69 war from the papers.. (the 6 day war in israel, heh i talked about cairo with people, didn't know noone understood that yet. wonder what they thought:D. i understood it:) (believe it or not most people these days probs dont have an idea the two relate or have anything to do with no matter what, dutch politics adults would not usually understand when i was a kid, at home they would, dad to get angry:D)

you see this hasnt much to do with feminism atm, that is because it is a difficult subject.
on that question i'd answer yes, i guess yes i thought my mum needed heaps of it, quite that rather emancipated.

then again i was on her side as a matter of cause wasn't i? i think i told him oncw i agreed with feminism, anyhow i was like that, if i disagreed i made it known in a substantiated perhaps even poetical way to the dad thing, it might hurt me, well i just didn't like injustice.

i flatter myself when i think about what followed, changed the whole parential concept for the freaking world:p

when i was a child, woman had as little to say about a child as in kosovo, fortress hillary kosovo ..
thats usefull to know, in the 1960s the civil codex for parential care was at the level of the sharia.
lol

yes i flatter myself about that. (picasso himself hints he gave away the paintings btw, and if he knew them so well he wouldnt have complained of missing them, screw you rich guys, hand the man his 300 million euro it is worth at least. (i guess tehy'd shoot him shortly after ..)

anyhow picasso tells us somewhere in a interview that he has a surprise waiting, in the sense of paintings of his, still after his death, that it would be good for a laugh:) except that i remember that, it shows i liked art and was apt at ebcoming sth like picasso (good sales, not to much of a job)

ended up i thought other things more relevant and that ended with being a critics and a freewheeling 'analyst'. so what with feminism.

i dont really think as a child i had a the feminist problem much, later it has been very important for me, and allthough my relations with girls were not splendid (wearing glasses being quite a nerd and uhm, i think my mums relgious persevrance of the antisexuality perhaps found fertile ground in the innocent child? my father wouldn't have been to much of a help, so what is callerd in netherlands "het gereformeerden syndroom". i guess, maybe it was even different.

after all i was quite right children dont have that great differences.
my first feminist memory that has made a great impression on me i was perhaps 10 or so, maybe a bit older, even 14, i never hurried in getting old, so i don't know for sure,

i used to sit sometimes in the village in public places, crowded places, in front of the supermarket eg. watching the people go by, it interested me, they knew i liked to do it i think, some asked me why i sat there and looked, i explained, everything was ok. being a boy and having what some boys have i payed some extra attention to girls, can't help it, sometimes i did. not very consciously i think, i just remember them more easily, one day

guess it wasn't the first time i recognised people i had seen before, i recognised the mothers with children, i must have been sitting there for a year :o not allways ofcourse.

they were the girls from past year, i was completely surprised, not that girls got babys, but that it went so quickly, i was shocked actually.

last year they were pretty fine young girls , really young and often really pretty, blond usually, bleeched i know now, some were really pretty, that i could easily remember them for a year.

and now, they were mothers. i wasn't against mothers, but there was a difference, girls had small noses, mothers big. quite a few such differences i had allways seen between girls and mothers,

i don't want to mention them, it would be a row. as i had observed there was nothing positive for the girls to become a mother, not for the girls that. but i had allways assumed it went slowly,
that it would take 6 maybe 10 years, the girls thought of me, i went home, thought of them, thought it exciting they thought of me. still don't know my age at the time 10-13 i think.

i spend time that time watching the people, i spend more time then ever paying attention to young mothers, after i was sure i went, i don't think i ever watched people in the same way again, hardly on the places, in no great amount.

for me it has allways been a part of my feminist inspiration, the idea that that was wrong, that pretty charming happy positive girls in one year were forced to get big noses.

they were not treated right, there really wasn't a way to achieve that without giving someone hardship, an incredible burden to girls wholly unprepared, and no very well treatment besides.

so much was medically obvious.

(i can be a bit quick with my judgements)

perhaps you think it has not been my inspiration but i have never forgotten it.


so when we got that in school it was old news anyway, i think it was mainly treated in the secondairy, 'feminism' i s'pose with it's functional applications it is now more often called emancipation in the compendium, and got changed over to history, that what we don't know about. can know but most don't.

it was in social education. maybe there is a term more close, social history. it told people that you can vote etc. why u can vote, who invented the voting, ofcourse that in netherlands you ended up with really little to say, and the history of that. usefull stuf allthough there is hardly a student , let alone a nut like me, waiting for an extra study.

i liked it. the teacher smelled, allways, someone else must have written that, he allways did.
nice guy btw, i really think i tried to support the ordre in his class, what will he have thought:S.

i stop here or i will become indiscrete. there is not much about that. and i doubt he would mind, i wonder what great job he is smelly at now, if at a school they must have either got him married or cleaned up another way? does it still exist? i wonder, teachers that really smell?

good way to get rid of a dumb job anyhow.
crazy, never thought about what forced him to do this kind of labour, or what allowed him so.

i think i once heard he's a history teacher now, but i am a terrorist you know, he was part of the authoritarian clique, idiots with syndromes like my fathers.

when i asked after him i may even have thought i was politically challenged (quite that),

i wonder whats his syndrome, i thought at some time perhaps korea, he never told, i think he said he hadn't.
i was so small i asked, also not once?

he would buy that kind of stuff you know.

i think perhaps he had'nt been personally active, he said so it correlated with stuff, he kept his uniform, oh i was a child and he explained how mostly for the russians there, he didn't like it, allthough it shaped his life, well it symbolised his failure as a scientist perhaps, because of poverty.

he disliked perhaps even hated weapons, i think he *didn't* carry a weapon. went through the war and all that.

oh yes i realise, his was a child abuse syndrome probably.

k terrible, my post about feminism will still have to wait for some time, will it?

gl so far,

hillary and obama should use the usual facistoid nice pictures a bit more for some reason, or is it to credible to have a crisis as a democrat.(time to do some real bad pictures else bush 'll win the next elections for the reps)

really the only recent nice picture was when the two looked so nice together in the sweet role of wonderfull coordination. glad to see you team yourself better then i do.

saw that picture? the two really being really togetherish over their governing role? hard to explain, obama is quite a great man with knowledge almost like a usual man.

nothing new about the us personal intelligence prop still being for the us personal really is it?

wikileaks

for me intelligence is surprisingly simple often. it goes like this, something is happening in the world, at one or more places (most often one) i publish an opinion about the case.

if it meets the criteria of the secret services it is published.
these criteria are diverse, making some errors helps. not telling the truth outright may help, saying things that suit nato usia or israel works great. in actual cases of emergency i take pains to please those powers and still get a message out.

when the better opinion of the case is not a secret but not the peoples one, and it happens to be my perception, chances it gets through are great.

if on the other hand i say something they don't want known, or that hits a mark most people didn't even know was painted on them, i tend to get censored.

then my original idea turns into a case of reverse engineering, what is the thing that is not meant for you, the public.

my relation with media in general is similar the past so many years (ups and downs, but basically it got a tad worse over the whole and a tad less agressive in the personal).

not much perhaps. its not like i think it got better over the past 1o years or so at all, with freedom of expression or freedom of conviction.

the paranoia is also growing, there is some sort of imperialisation on ideas going on, that turns ideas that before say 5 years were all but unspeakable into newly made secrets.

the mechanics and intentions of this censoring, mediastrategy, control, you name it, seem to fertily breed new fears, so over the whole i think it is getting worse. it can be a tad misleading that wikileaks really means a thing to the secrecy circles on the planet, yet it is bound to happen on neigh every subject, so that is doubtfull.

Now that i feel the need to post, means intrinsically i have been censored in expressing my opinions and insights, wich in turn means i have something to think about, being :what is it that others are not supposed to know.

don't worry if you are an interested reader, it happens quite a lot.

very often it happens when it concerns actual mediatopics of the current moment, especially the ones that are made to be trending about 'terrorism'.

the reason for this is so much is secret about them. and the reason for that is that we are fed with what is mostly bullshit for an analyst result on a daily bases.

so it is strikingly common for me to find inconsistency's and propaganda items in current affairs. and it is as common to be made aware of the limit to what the public is allowed to know.

i think what explains my ease in collecting the impressions that are bound to be target of censoring is that i have a long history of critical research and observation of politics in the wider sense. (in actuality but also in theory, in practice, in experimental ways, pure facts, scientific analyses and on more social levels i am strongly interested , and have allways tried to stay somewhat up to date.)

personally i experience that as a historical interesse, because history repeats so many of the features but also because more often then not for what is going on now there are a lot of interesting historical examples. so wether i am right or not i experience it as historical work.

i take some time getting to the point, but the crude message that it is very hard to get opinions out, let alone get the opinions you want out, even as historical data, or objective sidenotes and observations must be made clear.

doubts are the sanest thing for everyone to have with the news we are fed.

so quite contrary to the last two times i delved a bit into the newest wikileaks,
militairy reports tend to be boring and superficial, mostly in abreviations, and many people studied the first two leaks with more interesse then me (it was all not very new to me).

also i had the idea that if great revelations ( as opposed to finetuned precise comparisons and statistical analyses) were in they would tend to be the focus for enough researchers without me.
people with way better (imo statistic) tools to extract some more information from the pile of rather raw data.

i also felt it was incomplete, as an example the team and unit involved with shooting the reuter reporter appeared to be both absent and prominent in ways that are only and best explained by interference.

nevertheless i had the idea the bulk of data was indeed what it said raw relatively undoctored data. reasoning there is just to much of it to just cook it all up i assumed the real catalogue would be the base for the release, no matter to what extend it would be (eg. mechanically by random generation) doctored.

that means i think atm, it was partly doctored partly screened, but still opened up data for interpretation, and unfortunately mostly for statistical analyses for wich i do have a talent even without the tools, but lack the inspiration to set out on so great a task.

however i read about what researchers and journalists found there when i could and for what i met. counting that as my statistical sample.

maybe i am cynical, because i tend to inform myself decently in as far as i can, and for many people it was the great eyeopener in some way, but for me it was hardly.

so with the new release upcoming i was still a bit sceptic. what now, well i can tell you there is every attempt to make it seem i take the stuf serious, wich i do only less as a result of that ofcourse.

i think of them in a similar way, an incomplete and interfered resource.
most probably taken from at least partly original files however and with the need to reflect actual diplomatic activitys and circumstance , for someone as suspicious as me, that is still more then the military files a trove indeed.

and even if for me acces to wikileaks is still blocked it was interesting to read what the great (and very loyal) newspapers published as their impressions.
especially the guardians raw documents be they few and select, i read with fascination, the ones i did. i was to convinced i was also fed information through their absolute say in my choice and its limitations to want to go through all, or more then i feel like at the whim.

i guess i think that whenever i am fed information it is unwise to absorb to much propaganda, and i think that is wiser also. this feels better, to reflect on the credibility before even giving statistic credibility for my appreciation of them.

so what do i think.

i dont have enough data to judge yet, from what i seen and read, i doubt slightly this is the real thing. otoh it is somewhat to complete in some aspects to be fully doctored and made up.
at least that seems the case to me atm. that beside a lot of the dispatches are historically interesting (typically like when mandela was released) wich would work fine to sweeten the case for the media and provide the right kind of interesting storys to grab peoples attention over some period and to be convincingly paralel to a history we know, so as to remain convincing.

so i am not interested in such cables (their virtue is mostly that nothing new can essentially be in so they form some rudimentairy check on the real setup of such diplomacy).

i am in no way connected sufficiently to the heap of documents to say anything definite about that unfortunately. (i try to find them all not for no reason, it is enough that i could get a long way in analysing quite some recent history perhaps to a point i could not before.

and its great for laughs:D. like predictable they all have their own agendas , the diplomats, and all of them evade the truths what they can. one example, bruns i think he is named, a vice to clinton produces fine reads that are food for thought because he is very reluctant to do much more then listen eg.

since if one thing is clear it is that there is a limit to the integrity of the documents (else there wouldn't have been a need for censoring me) i will now give you the most rational and secret reason why the documents are doctored.

these documents are taken from a network for loyal usian citizens, everyone with some security clearing (there are many different kinds and levels) had acces to them (at least theoretically).
that means they had been doctored to confirm the biases and wanted opinions of a innercircle of "secret bearers" that ofcourse need to stick close to the regimes policy's for security reasons.

i think that is one prime reason why these documents confirm most aspects of usian foreign politics so clearly. and i think it is the bigger secret (because it is a good thing to know when you work with the data) that had me censored.

i think ill get back to the topic soonish. but eh.. like you are not supposed to... keep in mind they were preaching for their own parish in publishing exactly (perhaps) that what we now all read

you wont find a positive report about ahmedinajaadh for example on sirpnet or a moderate opinion on northkorea, they just dont need their lower level officials to think that nuanced.

kind regards, hope to been of help