social housing (5), censoring of the day

weird, i wonder as if that is supposed to be a warning that i got a request for a google pw after i was still signed on, at least so to see.

today i replied on an article in alJ, that was in the stretch of it quite positive about economical reforms, but took quite the standard apologetic aproach and rather consistently mixed up prioritys even with perhapses.

now that is a way to censor things, you say : ok we do economical reforms, and they be.....
(some sequence in some ordre).

but if the elements of the sequence are inconsistent (eg. pensions that depends social housing),
and the ordre is wrong, people will usually start with the first element they see to remember and in their naivety to 'promote change'.

so that article *needed* to be critisised over its application of psychological repression in a propagandical way, but it didnt post.

annoyed as i was i read it all, after all assuming 'good faith' thoroughly sceptical,
and what stood out is the man prioritised the standard hit the poor, capitalist gains, and economic reform ended a remote fourth.

they allways do, the rich and settled. and the trick to mix priorities with distractions is a standard receipe. (actually the raison d'etre of conservative ada. (Also Disguised As) liberals.)

so about social housing.

the idea is that when housing is cheap, sustainable and a right plenty of the effects of crisii (nr's of crisis), can be prevailed and more easily dealt with.

housing has traditionally been a thing to span generations and it still should. a house is not an investment it is a necessity for life, so

fundamentally according to the constitutions (and damn them who don't) we have a right on life.
furthermore housing and also ground transactions are not what they used. the former aristocratical distribution of rewards for soils and parcels that was obviously also another historical case of subsidising the rich through taxing the poor, and how it transformed into a similarly lukewarm system has been wittingly changed even a few years ago, after long campaigning.

in the , lets label it "neocon" altho the 'neo' is rather superfluous, the conn allways been that,
decades of profiteering privateering called privatisation, (the with any means obfuscating ownership of anything belonging to others so as to make it appear yours only is one of that words definitions)

in that lethal killing and robbery spree of the rich, social housing has been further transformed to a farce.

even very old, very cheap, very payed off, very strong, social housing projects have formal rents that are absolutely unwarranted (actually comparing to eg big private houses).

since many people are still poor, poorer then ever even, ofcourse they cannot pay such rents.
(in the 1980s the realist precarity free (so over poverty level) acceptable rent was about 10% of a minimum income. overhere it never got closer then some 20-25, and in many cases, due to cloudy regulation , and exploits much worse.

but these high rents are for the most part artificial and partly , partly in another way that has allways been, partly a huge fraud.

the rich took everything for about nothing (privatisation), they destroyed it's workings and integrity, and worse of all, they pay themselves for it amounts we cannot even imagine.

while: regulations and purposed marginalisation of the lower classes mean the formal level of rent (pre- subsidy) is ridiculous, nevertheless the already high prices in this era of foreclosure is only intended (so far had been only so intended) to rise.

and it did, for every poor housed a corrupt rich get's the same and moreof income the township gets to maintain and (if they still ever did) perform social housing.

actually they destroyed a lot of it and replaced much of it with short term habitational complexes meant to last only 30 years (and at least 4 times to high expense for housing that mounts up to.)

so social housing and also the housing function for the poor of inner citys btw., was destroyed, fake prices were formally set, the rich payed through the taxes generally raised from the poor.

such a goose with golden eggs the capitalists (ada liberals etc etc) do not want to let go of,

rather they stare at it's arse and pretend to be decent.

collective resource (4b)

restructuring earths wastefull economy. destruction of a capitalist and elitist system.

the juridical plan i keep unpublished for now, alltho perhaps i will need to expose more if the legal proceedings don't take some quick turns for the better. just in case.. for now i will rely on the oral tradition.

so.. just today the usian 1 percent admitted to be taxed, to actually say the least.. because to get back to a situation where taxation was in the high 90 percents for them... as opposed to the opposite at the moment...(that's herstory)

a nice start. what definitily has to change, and is more fundamental than how we fill in the exact circumstance of individuality and merit, is to abolish the right of inheritance.
-----------------------------
'largely abolish the right of inheritance'


similarly land ownership is a doubtfull one. but when starting out trying to reward still iniative but to no further expense in social circumstance, wellbeing or overall chances and prosperity,
so not in terms of 'austerity for the poor', it was striking to meet a friend that pointed out that simple point.

the standard of inheritance must be abolished. because if there is merit in accumulation of capital, as opposed to perhaps literature, or ideas, or even friendship and an occasional helping hand (..)

it would be an individual. next to the wacky royalty's and other despotes, the class of "have's" has throughout history persistently rewarded and protected only it's own claims, to the greatest misery of mankind (the have-not's).

in a world with equal rights for any none need to be feared and the merit would be in anyone's hands. obstructing the realisation of a sustainable and sustaining world by taking and keeping the bulk of the wealth and resource in few hands is definitily senseless, but worse, dangerous by now.

however little i sympathise with ideas about investments, resources need to be applied, and the collective reserve not only recaptured, but be selfexplanatory.

the huge administrative overload or, overhead, the juridical wiggling for bits and more , enough to corrupt the legal and administrative system, not to mention burden it with ambiguity, will be gladly missed.

corporations would be submitted to legal , taxing, insured (don't let them steal it through a new hoax of ww2 compensation eg., cus it is hard to maintain with the current predation by the privats) and scientifically valid. no backward produce for poor regions, but just up to date undertaking.

it is a crying shame how for example a national bank with 5b in unclaimed contos could be 'bought', in some stocks ofcourse, for 1b. and it went like that on countless occassions in netherlands, like with eg. transportation and energy and communication networks including the media.

so for the sort of services we need an international standard, not so hard, people have a right of water, roofing and food, by extension they have a right on information and education.

internet and computers offer the most comprehensive of those technology's and it must be rapidly provided, allthough at better energy expense than is now the case. it must be considered a right for all purposes, after children to start with prisons btw. the most dramatic expression of 'education'.

people also have a right on heating and other general needs, however for that perhaps we need to try to find more collective ways to provide, watching tv with more then a few people for example is a weirdly rewarding expense of energy compared to a flatscreen each.

thats all getting a bit sideways.
------------------

'cap wealth'


theoretically politics is supposed to equal philosophy, and philosophy equals the highest a human can obtain, 'spiritual' and social development.

so it makes sense to regard merit and reward in such terms. you could measure funds , developments , sales and trends as a function of personal functionality, if you could guarantee objectivity and reason, wich we cannot from here.

psychological factors and the predatory trend owing to recent neocon and older capitalism, forms of corporate imperialism, is much in the way of a clear analyses of real merits.

so my idea is to cap personal wealth. at say 1million euro , in cash and 1 million in property.

after all if you cannot spend it at your random will the use of accumulating it in heaps is less of a personal satisfaction.

that would leave the average dentist or other stressed group all the room to enjoy life, provide education and support for the kids, live in a nice place and have great hollidays, and so it would for everyone doing a respectable job.

i suppose i will freeze inflation one of these days to make sure the nrs remain simple;)
anyway..

since the greedy bastards pose such would be no incentive at all to perform, alltho i wonder if they would not for a medal;) besides dedicating corporate reserves to 'branded' provision,
and the reward of claiming science ofcourse.. we surely need more medals there;)

actually it is not hard to think of a system that such income overflows (automatically referred to destined 'funds/reserves/liabilitys' ofcourse in a transparant manner, how about people that perform overaverage get a say in the respect of their professional activity or personal interesse?

like a set percentage to a dedicated (relative to their 'work') project, or social projects that they, probably or actually hopefully with some 'intelligent' reason think worth managing.

assuming financial control and scientific approach, there is plenty lobbied that is not scientifically relevant, like eg. gun laws, or security industry etc., etc., people would actually be in a position to mean more for what they know and enact. despite, contributing largely to a wider and more social development.

all in all there is some juridical detail;) as usually and it can be an interesting testcase.

there is huge problem in the current legislature, here in usia and everywhere, in that it is strongly biased towards the interests of the proprietary class. the mechanisms through wich this performs are elitist and arrogant in nature, the focus on the intention of the law 'to protect',

is confused with an intention of the law "to manipulate", and the drawback is we do not at the moment have a valid legal check, except a dissident system within international and criminal legal representation.

for now this seems like enough ideas, obviously from this point on a lot needs to be reviewed anyhow, and allthough the difficulties with the legal systems partiality and partisan bias, for example seen how easily ridiculous arguments have industry's escape responsability's in economical as well as criminal law (bp, nigeria, gentech, bigpharm, hormonemeat, tobacco etc, etc, etc)

for now it is impossible to trust the courts and judges. our supposed representation, lawyers and jurist is usually bought, persee held to defend the prerogative, or actually the status quo, dependend of the will or unwill of the magistrates, depending likes, and not in the least part and parcel in the upper middleclass and upperclass abundance,

especially for a just legal system and justice we will have to work hard, take nothing for granted, and actually even.. start from scratch.

as a servant of the people, what the strong arm is trying to beat into our autonomous brains is not another message at all.. may it suffice.


note: it is interesting to reflect what the right of housing would amass with the no inheritance thing, you see that?

note 2: i think stocks should be abolished. attracting investment can be based on merit, need and science. stocks are another burocratic, criminally opportune, and pretty expensive overhead.

collective resource (4a)

the moment is there.. didn't we see the endlessly repeated request to #occupy world to 'formulate *that* list of measures, a program, and probably a request to be compromised, institutionalised and marginalised?

yes we did. that the occupy is exactly about thinking for your own, questioning things from there, about what is obvious and natural in emancipation?

predictable that the gunnery laws now play the ins and outs with the (tea) party line overthere.

it is a good moment to admire usia, the people there do more than people elsewhere. start to think of their own and organise the future that has been so far denied to the majority of earthlings.

thrilling, and guess what.. the reaction is there. not only brainless request, but the abuse of law,
occupying a sidewalk.. omg. cars that pollute us and the environment way more then nicotine manages to do, even with the extra toxics mixed into the tobacco, roam freely.

drunk, or with even only a good smoke one is supposed to be a danger, yet the population drugged on pharmaceutics, noradrenaline , sleeping pills, whatever, races about unhindered.

being environmentally neutral results in one being an unwanted pedestrian.. more unwanted then pedestrian, as english law betrays it.

the usian have decided to try for health, unsurprising in a populace that has 50% taking psychiatric drugs while getting licensed to drive cars at a record young age, freezing the meek is considered health by the degenerate , lawfuck called a judge.

insult upon injury, injure civil rights, harm law, in harming freedom, expression and people.
and weirder then that a day before that mayor said he would allow the protest, like did the english.

it's humiliating how slimy and rantfully gossippy (criminalisation) the dutch media tries to unnoticedly draw back on concerned townships statements overhere. oh well let alone they did that to law in denying the first place occupied to maintain the protest in that , unfreezing, healthy manner(1).

enough about it, people of the world need to roll back the privatisations that robbed our common funds and rights, and more. when we supply the basics and allow for education what is the worry?

that we don't enjoy? there is music for that and other recreation. that we don't get the 1% richer with making hollidays? life is so simple.

(1)and keeping of the radar, since when are public actions unnewsworthy? since.. 1932??

theorems

the past few days a new scope all to familiar pops up in the international politics. alarming,
as much as being disalarming.

cussioning.. ahmedinajaadh said 3 things basically. we would not be making 2 nuclear bombs against your 20000, it will be a monotheist state. it is about a stolen laptop from 2004, to wich they already responded in 117 pages and wich they do not hold for very reliable.

ofcourse i agree they probably would not do such a thing, curious what we will hear about the sources now, if anything ..

but that theism rubbish? monotheism is just as odd as any other kind. odder perhaps. there is plenty that goes far beyond the reach of any human's powers, the energetic content of a sun or the centre of the milkyway for example. fysically it has the looks that beyond the milkyway the next could already have a slightly different set of parameters, or at least that somewhere in the universe parameters behaved differently. wich would tell that the law of nature, this apparently supposed expression of deity behaved differently overthere, i suppose in the middle-ages they called it manifold for that.

anyway in such cases it looks more like two deity's than like one. monotheism is as wacky as the rest of the religions except for one point, it's not as risky or expensive as having sects for plenty powers that would anyhow do what they think suit. so the purpose of monotheism is the destruction of 'theisms' or it serves no purpose at all.

that is actually more probable, if it was not manufacturing advances had imposed variety's of 'authoritys', we could still do without every expression of 'beneficial ' uniformity.

as a result monotheism is only sublimate politics.

despotism.

a witch (natural human) hunt for fascism (class society).