solomon's seal (3), transigience

really i am serious about that i will write about what we need to start with a change for the better with the future of earth, and us.

it is a tough job, if i forget a thing, will people just forget about it?
if i say something in careless way, open for lousy interpretation, will it be grabbed and hammered with like all to often?

will it be taken out of context and abused , even for years? will people with a positive approach also be misleaded in such a case? it all happened before.

next i am not even (alltho there is some trauma) capable of doing my own formality's certainly not in the senseless and repetive manner that is obligatory in the policy they call "bullying policy"

wich it is.. enjoying their powers to scr.w with the individual.. stress people untill they are vulnerable and start hurting..

these things and the broad and vast material make it hard to dare to speak out.

----------------------

transigience is an example. since evryone is dependend of laws for safety and freedom, and after all to have, shape or voice an opinion, to change the world into a sustainable system we need something like laws.

very much so, in the detail with environment, and the rights of the person.

a person has rights, logical, human rights translate into civil and individual rights.

for now i stick with the word 'rights' an alternative could be guarantees, or even accomplishments;)

however since i am expressing what could be and should be right, i am talking (1) about rights that are "real", not exactly the ones we know now to be abusive and hypocrit, but theoretical ones that would apply in an effective not in a class justice way,

transigience is only one such detail i could forget, we humans have rights 'as a person',

but.. bloodless entity's want the same rights (under the capitalist circumstance of wich their 'rights' would "massively" prevail) and they want extras if they can,

denying the inherent difference between pain and cash, the corps and institutes want to be 'persons before the law'.

we will find people ready to debate that history had it's use, you find people for everything.. if money is in the picture,
but doubt it, i think the use it had was to overtake the rights on individual (and collective of) people all the way.

so we have to get rid of such false definitions, just like violence in the law is violence persee,

violence against living beings, (well it is not yet but rumpey anounced even eu was ready to change the treaty's) a person is a person persee.


we hope some day we can freely be 'persons responsible for the law', and responsability to the law is ofcourse also inherent(2) to corporations etc.

however they are not 'person', because that is a misleading term and an inroad to abuse, abuse of people , animal, groups, nations and most pronouncedly the environment,

also in legal proceeding from transigients (those entitys before the law that cannot be a person , so the ones with no 'human' rights,) towards persons a lot needs to be changed, foremostly that the principle(s like) of proportionality and force majeur apply for every individual, far and far over any transigients, (3)

(allthough that would not so much work out between transigience's , so in the (opposite of) the laws against cartels and trusts, in the negotiations between transigients they would ofcourse tend to weigh equal (unless human causes are involved and people are represented through institutions alltho that logically follows from that in fact judges should weigh the human rights under all circumstance.)

so without much further elaboration.

there are persons. humans responsible before the law,

and transigients , institutions before the law, allowing me to end this paragraph on a note,

in fact by way of joke they are also responsible to the tax office;) so it easily follows how they so often became intransigient.

ok for today? maybe i try for more, later.
thx for all the interesse and response (even if i have not learned to fully trust the kind of it),

it will get better, more radical , more gamechanging perhaps, for the masses, and worse to need to notion for the elites. i hope it serves as an example of the legalistic nightmare i move through (here and now) and into(trying to change it), and how we need to learn, learn to apply, and actually 'live' 'good faith'.

i know it is not concise,(it's just one point and not even one of the very major perhaps_ for me it feels like an okay start, so it must be like this. that's my offhandedness with formality allover,
if it don't work like it feels good for me i just don't get myself to work.

thx. please do.

(1) in these numbered articles.
(2) is iminent a word? noone ever uses it much for this.

(3)into the detail transigents should ofcourse be dictated similarly for proportionality among another, and force majeur should be restricted to cases where 'force' has a practical meaning.
like floods (uncaused and not effected by transigients), but not like industrial accidents.
applying force majeur to eg. a board of directors would signal intransigience, they are the 'force' of a company, easy to see i do not want to deal with every detail and that things must be interpreted 'radically' because change is relatively 'radical' , and btw. because so am i, i am not trying for halfhearted compromises with any lobby or 'power that be'. i am not trying to formulate any, so don't try to find them in what i write.

i will touch on organising the judicial system in another post. alltho there is observably much wrong , justice will be 'what is just', and allthough judges are not that 'just', (actually a bunch of elitist morons but we will change that) they can for now continue and try to decide in reason,

when somewhat more of the concepts are in a 'working at' state, and probably it is essential that i first write on the plans concerning justice, it is early enough to 're educate' them judges.

a bit of an exageration, and concerning the mentalitys in transigients (a court would be one),
even optimist, my hope is systems will work out and judges will at least be willing to try for a more obvious and transparant system, go figure.. we need to free 100000s of prisoners , if even experimentally , as a test, in cases. would they like that? not if the context of 'justice' is unclear,

wich they will hold against 'it' (me) the very second they can probably, because that is what elites do, find excuse.

gl.

conspiring the death of ghadaffi

surely in such an obvious case as the elimination of an unwanted government through also foreign means the whole idea of any sort of conspiracy is outrageous.

utterly farfetched. who would ever associate getting rid of despots with conspiracy's.
completely beyond me there are people that see conspiracy's everywhere.

let alone in such a case where the icc is fullfledgedly involved and hung to the next civic catastrophe, serajevo or sirte, what is the point to be made?

can we distract you?

so there is something uncanny about his death, it looks like an extrajudicial killing , a collector of gold guns on the run, targetted by nato, goated into the sewers, and apprehended by the next nearest unit in control.

anyway,

i don't know, habit or instinct, but as the news emerged i tried to understand what had happened,

there was no more anything tenable in the position in sirte, not for gold guns, and 75 vehicles
tried a break out, that is plausible, there have been enough desperate counteroffensives, and sirte was no exception.

it was a bit weird also the last time, where would you really break out to? the other thing would have been more or less to wait and die. the breakout initially went largely succesfull.

5km onward from the narrow frontline the nr of vehicles mentioned is still 75. allthough burned out carwrecks on tv now suggested another message.

that's a somewhat interesting detail. there is just that much suspicion. it would be a bit hard to get 75 running cars in an all out manouvre on the supposed square mile or less.

it also follows that to stay closest to the original story, 75 cars and the firepower was enough to make some impression, and a group, or unit of the ntc started to chase.

somehow it's already a bit of a strange affair, but perhaps reality was more confusing, and there were actually a few more things going on.

you could also interprete it that they broke through easily, and were not followed in another fashion then in coordination with nato , it's plane and drone.

it has been repeatedly reported to the media there were such or such advances in the coordination with ntc's forces,

especially in the kind of mixed action for example, and that most of the time past weeks nato had a presence over sirte. also that they struck on occasions.

with all that there is a continual and planned thing going on for a month. i would say nato knew what unit would follow.

actually they know much more then we think or they admit.

after the airplane struck, it "struck again against the eleven vehicles in one of wich was ghadaffi."
not against the others.

surviving the impact of that ghadaffi and still rather some of his men ran, apparently through some trees, to their last stand. the possibly so calculated irony of history.

running through trees is the one thing people like when they have just been shot at through the sky. and the cars did no more function, or perhaps even, they did no more dare to drive them.

anyway it took ages, when ntc arrived in the hot chase bridging the 3 mile gap in within 6 hours,
they located the refugees.

after some searching, nato appears to have been privvy about these sewer pipes. what does all the graffiti on them say i wonder?.
things about sewers and rats would be my first guess.

so they trim the anti aircraft guns, no that is not possible on a toyota, they train the antiaircraft guns and start firing, perhaps not in the general direction of the sewer pipes because it had no effect at all.

it's interesting to wonder what kind of effect they had been waiting for. you cant really surrender when people are firing anti aircraft guns in your general direction.

at least you would be a hero for trying. anyhow, whatever effect they expected, it failed to occur.

perhaps the ntc military was describing it's role in a slightly to positive light.

they had just been firing aircraft guns not in any direction at all. it is certain that nato nor anyone would allow for any of their embeddeds on the scene.

in that case i wonder why they stopped firing them, after all it had no effect.

next the man infiltrate.. oops i do it again,
i guess they didn't. they just got closer, not so hard i suppose when you have some 20 or 30 people in two sewer pipes and aircraft guns.

the story after this lacks depth, it allways does, you never hear the real story of the real heroes.

what he did tell was someone got out to call for surrender, that upon seeing his face (..)
started shooting at him.

thats also somehow weird, did he know his face?, but i gues it's lost in translation, the face of me or so.

what to think of that?

it's much like a clichee honestly, then again, could be, it was rather a suicidal affair all in all.

it's also the foremost excuse that applies for shooting potential prisoners on the frontline, so already news had come certain institutions were not quite happy without the live version of intolerance.

there is something about it, if it is really such a common affair, why is it the single incident singled out in the run of that story told,

beyond that, apparently the same man (the one that had dared to come out i suppose) said he had his boss muamar there and wanted to surrender.

in principle that is interesting if you want to know what has happened because it implies some interaction, on the other hand, it is also quite symbolic, it is not really a detail, 'the capture of muamar' is why the man is interviewed.

but symbolically it again need not be true, the guy that survived having started shooting in the face of an armed unit with antiaircraft guns, surrendered now for his boss.

whoever surrendered in what way, muamar was apparently seated, or more presumably lie down, wich suggests that the surrender was actually the kind of 'we inside the tube surrender to you outside the tube' and that they went in to enjoy the privilige of arrest.

(because he had a gun 'under him') so perhaps by that point indeed the ntc knew about muamar and had indeed started inspecting the (therefore wounded at his legs) prisoner.

a bit weird, since all the 24 body guards were killed.
somewhere along that way. he wasnt the last they got at, or the only, in fact mutassim has supposedly been filmed alive after that point. (couldnt tell if it is him eg.)

the really painfull point what happened with the other persons apparent is not the 'clean base for the future libya' we are talking about.

it's about killing someone from the elite, instead of a unit of common soldiers.

a warcrime.

oh yeah next? they beat him up a bit, and he dies, you can see him touch his head to get his hands in blood and watch it, how bad is it? seems.

so looks like they shot him by there, or let's say he shot his? someone shot him? maybe he was even hit in some last desperate shoot-out of the guards being 'no clean base for a future libya', and in the proces of being killed.

whatever. not what jabil or whatever his name said, if you feel it counts.
that they were shot at when they went army and all in pickups toward misrata.

because, the film that he is dead and dragged about bits so to see is at the same location where he is still alive. in the story after all next he is (dead i suppose), but in an ambulance, underway to misrata. where he is 'put in the morgue'. so no dancing on his corpse in that town.

that was all completely obvious. what was not obvious is what happened to the others,

in that context icc or nato and foreign ministry's don't impress me very much with their 'clean base for libya'. let's say that part has perhaps started after him being killed in the way so many that fought for him were.

why would a president or other member of the elite not become the same sort of warcasualty as the rest? suddenly be a warcrime?

it would be laughable if it wasn't so painfull.

what it is is exactly why we can be glad our time will not be wasted by endless verdicts on khadaffi, classjustice is a big fake and a cheat.

what a great time to set a wrong example badly. i really think they try to make up for that lost opportunity at icc.

for whatever reason and perhaps it is pretty mainstream, the usian voices appear to repeat a unified 'dictator' mantra, i suppose it doesn't really matter in the case, but how much of a fertile soil for propaganda of the kind that allows warfare through polarisation is usia still?

with that in mind there would be serious stuf to add.
mexico? iran? somehow they are out of their minds.

filtration

why do i need to voice this?

it is because i know it is. you cannot change reality you do not witness.

whence this is not about things i like, and not an easy thing to write.

---------------------

there need not be no excuses, the filtration of political expression is to longstanding for that.
state's interesses through political file, it all exists from the days of your nations first parlementarian and long before.

who knows the freemasons are really the ones to inherit the greek scala of secret registration of possible enemy's of the elite.

don't even know if this is btw part of the array of usual or unusual transpirations on the topic, never heard it before myself.

anyway's, to call an example, the "french revolution"'s revolutionarys got thoroughly registered, followed, bribed, etc.

to give it a context.

-------------------------

what get's me suspicious.

you could say there have been two moments in dutch politics that have influenced my thought on it most.
in weighing the moral consequence of international politics that would be the former yugoslavia debacle, and in the personal life-style kind of way, having to do with activism indeed,

it was perhaps, 'encapsulation'.

"encapsulation" is a great word in dutch translation, sufficiently descriptive to be explained, i hope it is for english.

otherways it is more confusing to make a difference with 'institutionalisation', wich is only one way filtrage expresses.

encapsulation is closer to the infamous phenomenon of infiltration, the infiltrated organisation will become shielded from the outside world, and may end up completely institutionalised.

weird as it is, with it's 'market' (a wide assortiment of discontent and solidarity),
profitable in many cases. obviously not necessarilly because things "are what they seem".

how very profitable get's clear when you realise the investment in for example the line of well indoctrinated 'educated' 'workers', is actually made to get a grip on movements that might change the status quo.
----------------------------------------

since that is how smart people be, i recognise the all to often institutional infiltrate usually through that. a hesistance to like change of status quo,

but there are rather a few more indications.

selfishly i like to be creative in activism, it's quite a pretence ofcourse, but you often see the attitude not to be open for alternative (and that is where peacefull comes into the action comparison) action, more direct action, that has consumer impact eg., sometimes even the rather visible publicitary aspect, in longstanding organisations.

some of them may function in their parts, but basically they are 'institutionalised',
for example the dutch 'socialists' had a complete agreeal with the capitalist elite about organisation.

normally you would not be made known, that such was already explicitly standing out in the 1920s.

anarchists do know. for no other reason then the fear of the power of the idea, whole police and army divisions were mobilised against a meeting on that political expression.

a lot of the people institutionalised would not even consciously know they are actually preserving the status quo,

for some odd reason undercover police often are not psychologically capable of denying their uniformist admiration of authority.

it will allways stay odd, the whole group of uniformed employed has thorough psychological sensitivities with authoritive inception.

the usual freudian expression with such a symptom is 'a inferiority complex'.

that besides they feel proud at it.

otoh. they possibly also give some of these open reactions because 'they know me' (and that there is not much i can do about it). also i figure they feel still safe.

not much of a madman, perhaps i just make an acutely sane impression, but i often hint notice,
wich they do not typically psychologically receive, allthough almost allways register.

---------------------------------

so what is the situation? i think in usia .. like here, every 'organisation', every staged event,
would be as 'depoliticised' as here.

the other way around it also works, the most politicised groups, like marxists, are indeed the ones to tell a serious thing, because they will be the more ideologically correct to take it serious.

i suppose it is like being branch oriented, oftentimes organisations in a field perform admirably but all to often only for what their limited context allows them.

the illusion of power is also a great tool, in keeping people 'occupied',

so the receipe is the same, occupy yourself and stay self-occupied.

it's never been comfortable that clichees don't matter.

--------------------------------------------

on the side of gossip.. i had the first thought at the first moment it perspired 'the occupy protests' and so far they have ofcourse been, were there 'to stay', it was a damn pitty we were so close to winter.

it is also a comforting sign of obama's engagement with civil action, notwithstanding flatter would still seem baseless.

it is a wonderfull thing so many people will be thinking such great things over such important things. would it be realist and netsavvy to work at that the southern hemisphere that is unfortunately less important, for now offers the best prospects for manifestations of direct action?

or are people going to set the record straight for housing rights? it's quite possible that with the usual speculation and foreclosures and ecological tipping points (the crisis), there is plenty room,
if you have great places warm cloths help a lot for activism in winter.
------------------

conclusion, i do not think it is possible to organise a bigger movement unobserved.
tolerance for one anothers activism, hopes aspirations and dreaming is what does the trick best.

really be a bit principled about things also helps a lot.

if something 'should actually be okay'. (for damage it is proportional), it should just be okay.
hampering political expressions, and delegation of tasks are the primary instruments of institutionalised infiltration.

it has been really painfull, many people hardly know what they do, but in how they communicate, and the attitude towards people they need to make their compromise with a more resolute integrity against (for), you immediatly notice the 'attitude'.

it is not exaactly, exactly police infiltration, but institutionalisation, typically 'educating' (brainwashing) people for the job, is surprisingly related.

one respect in what police actually does not try to limit the impact of events, is the scale of the escalation. having the arms , the tools, and the repressive instrument to win all those battles, the more typical infiltrant attitude is to push for violence against persons, and actual misplaced excess against goods i would think. instigating violence is more their point.

but that would be a bit hard to judge, for a beginner and even after a while, people do have particular trauma's and experiences of their own, and by far nar not all are allways ready to
express anything very thoughtfully,

it's often the difference between 'i hate the pigs' (with not uncommonly some of all the good reason), and: let's bloodthirstily escalate.

as allways with psychology it is as much of their projection as it is the desire.

all that said. cops can 'turn'. it's a much feared thing in the establishment. it is rare, and not many are that good at it, but it is nice to respect that all humans do try for a human aspect.

forgive me the lightheartedness, but it is also funny that for example when i see these students, student cop's really quite often i think, but.. etc. etc. , conformism rewards already for students,

and i notice how relatively violent they think, it is also possible to take it serious, perhaps really violence is how a cop think would be the best way if a 'turned' person (they forget we are not like them) wanted to do something about injustice.

typical, it's really quite lighthearted, makes me think that the fbi didn't like that ambassador:)
well, thought of that immediatly:)

occupy

a friend of mine is strongly interrested in the occupy protests worldwide. taken worldwide, apparent worldwide, talking on the matter with him is very enjoyable.

he liked it back so i was for my doing moderately flattered.

whence that comes first, i like it like mad.

----------------------

over the years i have allways been thinking the way change would one day allways come to be is when people unite over a goal that is not limited but diverse and that they have to carry it "themselves" a lot more then you would somehow expect or understand even in a few years.

burn out is a word, that does not fit the load. not only because it is worse, and ideological problems can be a superhuman burden, also because it is different, what change needs is the engagement of plenty, and not a great few can get/keep it organised through dedication.

action, and grassroots 'power-building', needs an informed and interested critical lot. ' a critical mass' in some theory, but is more about the numbers than about a limited weight.

they need to engage for something that is within their understanding and strangely, probably within their reach. a limited target like "peace", or a definite and often specific environmental, human rights or animal rights complaint seem not enough to have the people unite.

in the case of war and peace, this is psychological, but it is also that people appear to regard many things as out of reach. so indeed, the old (and classically anarchist) idea of fighting poverty, and the fighting the structure for poverty in society , wich perhaps too is general of the movements against the further distribution of wealth to the few, is the kind of handhold that might do.

it is hard to be definite, i get insecure of great events with a positive approach and intention. people are powerfull, but also powerless often.

ideally the people come up with all the ideas they need, but in describing events i reason from my own experiences, i am not really such a common person it feels like there can be 'the critical mass' of people similar to me.

somehow it all seems so relevant. it is so desperately relevant to be positive, whilst there is actually so and so very much to be rather edgy.


so i take an excursion into occupation.
scr.w neoconomics, and neocology will have to wait a bit more.


activism and strangely also anarchism wich is the way i politically analyse events and weigh relations (in the sense of in actuality foremostly but sometimes in the personal), have a charming dynamics of their own.

that is more intuitively for me in anarchism. but that is only subjective, activism itself generates similar associative strength.

however anarchism is to what i test the human value and quality of judgement (a very 'ethical' quality) so for you it can be activism (or in a more symbolic way of speaking 'activity', a psychality), but i would like to refer to everything within terms with anarchism.

the dynamic in activism is often absolute. it is not anyone's special thing, it works for all and everything. for example the word occupy.

keep bussy.., don't be vacant.. weird associations with a tool imperialised,

the occupied nations , and used to be people.

but within activism (and considering housing and non-housing basic rights is about the most feasible thing in anarchism), occupation is something still entirely different.

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

terms with a vast impact tend to get obfuscated, confused through the application of different meanings..

there is a reason you can say : are you not occupied? are you occupied with that you are not preoccupied? or are you in fact the opposite?

because 'occupation' is an ancient, age old and powerfull tool of emancipation, that naturally and anarchistically follow to be basic freedoms of people, ancient dispositions.

it has been 'obfuscated' purposedly obscured from clear insights.

that does not mean it is no good as a tool. no, even the worst of the machiavellian (occupy every other) thinking ofcourse respects how occupation is a superefficient direct action.

we actually seen it this year, each and every side has their bias and preoccupations with the events, but that 'occupying' squares did have enough of a impact and visible aspect to change destinys is typical.

(thinks ok.. so that is where at least the definite association is from, had been wondering)

but really it is historical, the olympus is about the first sinai to been occupied, and so have symbols of power been all through the century's , from the fora to the bath houses to the roofs, and even the whole homes of the rich with the romans.

probably more burocratical institutions have been occupied then one nation singly features (said the optimist, well, reasoning there should be less institutions than people for me at least it is true).

in any case the pavements before more then any of these institutions have been occupied for plenty of the day. a usual 'capital' features usually tenfolds of protests and demonstrations, routinely ignored on windy corners of motorways, just as often on the pavement and with nearly allways some police seemingly keeping possible public at a distance.

it is a nice idea to a place like washington or brussels, (and both probably have the policys in place to prohibit) to join in a wide range and variety of protests in an organised fashion whilst you are at it in occupying the metropoles.

anyhow it is getting cold and i will get back on that, because the southern hemisphere is actually warming up.

to judge whether you can publicly as a movement or symbol of your own can join in the oftentimes specialist and remote requests of the various protests i would merely look at principle.

it is predictable that any organisation, even perhaps the small political foreign platforms, with the dear naivety to consider protest an option on a once per year or whatever base, is charmingly naive and often limited but somehow the ground cause is within a bigger concept..

for justice, against corporative power, for political freedom..

unless there is complete disagreeal with a case perhaps you do not need to be as informed or concerned as the protest , to just join in because protests actually lack power.

activism is or at least has been for me, to explore protest and action, to find new things to 'occupy' for example, to find new ways to give voice.

so that is all very absorbed, how i lived it. but somehow it is what turns in the anarchist idea, so perhaps it is just as true for activism.


i look forward to some more philosophy on the subject, more then explaining what meritocratical let alone corporate securitys would perhaps not doom the people of this planet to utter insignificance or slavery, risking being misinterpreted or face straight forward abuse.

-----------

tomorrow it will be about the negative side of todays activism, the police infiltration, the punishment or lifelong file to unfollowedly still to fool you fully, personalness and whatever.

today it suffices to remark:

anarchism is without borders, and activism is not to stick to many limits.

you can occupy a house but you can occupy a huge place to keep warm and protest.

you can occupy the police and not keep them occupied, but you can also occupy yourself and stay occupied.

don quichotte (2)

in scared anticipation of the contination of the releases on neocology and necronomy, the capitalist marketing in our realms of perception begs for deeper crisis and more injections while we wait.

it would suit for intermezzo.

possibly it is a play into the game. after all the perspective of necronomical crises lives a life of it's own, and.. actually.. the climate is pretty f.u.

more probably it is the usual blackmail, perform so we can make a profit or we doom the poor fellows you do it for..

since concepts can be misused, and intentions hyacked, what if we'd derive an eternal motive, and who we do that for? perhaps best is to just make the straight proposals.

well-being is a distribution of wealth. it is slightly more, a distribution of what you might call pleasure or happyness, but it has been researched, if needlessly, that even in the groups with the most minimal incomes money is necessary to undertake those things that fill in the needs to be happy.

the matter is one of distribution. distribution of powers as in small scale democratical involvement and in moral obligation as dedicated through a herstory of conceptualisation of what we must call 'human rights' , or fundamental principles of justice.

not differently to be accountable.

so in a political as much as financial sense we are talking transparance.

=============

to apply what human resource extra offers, and even within constraints natural to a financial system domesticating privilige, wealth needs to be distributed.

the weirdest of all problems, 'overpopulation', is a matter of financial privilige, birth control is a financial privilige. it is fascinating to wonder how much active birthcontrol did to facilitate the necronomical spurts in china and india, and how with no means tools of the wealthy were handed to the have-nots.

in fact that active family planning is one of the advantages of the ones 'well off', before a few decades was still largely taboo.(1) researched but 'climate scepticked', so to say.

_____________________________________

the opposite is also true, there is so far no limit to contempt.

-----------------------------------------------------

k the google interface is deleting for clipboarding once more.
need to break, or the interrupted flow get's to easily corruptable.
ltr.


(1) one didn't tell poor and or uneducated people they were stupid for allowing their lives to be stressed through plenty kids, nor defend how chanceless children like that would stay.