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.

Learn not to keep your big mouth shut

How many languages would feature this expression?

I am so bored with world politics, so much bullshitting and so little progress.
It would be rather easy it seems, to set a number of humanitarian values and to stick to that. Like when a paper would not say unarmed civilians are kidnapped without mentioning real numbers of victimised civilians in afghanistan.

However not much is left to be real. My 'real world picture' is not especially what i call precise. The monetarian world moves its own ways, with what are presumably gross lies over incomes expenses and especially book keeping.

That way the mass is quitte desperate and thinks there are no options, wich reinstitutes rasism on an all but subconscious plan.

sometimes, i said it, i can be really bored, with what we are supposed to call politics.

superficial observations.

With the many hot-items i try to cover some things keep slipping out of my consciounce and i miss chances to post them.

Most of these things are of minor importance, but the load of them, shapes my thoughts and sometimes when i wrote something i realise that it may not be all that clear for someone who does not follow any news at all, or radically different sources from me.

Well anyway: an example is "the princess" a parisean lady who lived on the streets for years, sitting on a pile of money. I am under the impression some african people even knew of her wealth, but i don't assume many white people did. She still had it after all.

Here my reasoning may be different from most peoples reasoning, but it is the reasoning of the street.

Let me tell you the story in words from the papers, newsreals:
A homeless parisean lady got evicted to a dormatory or even interment, for reasons of old age, and i would guess to give her a general "face-lift". Wash, feed, medically check, whatever.
Basically a good excuse to rid her from the street.
Or perhaps tho, she hadn't been doing well lately. News does not explicitly state so.

When she refused to dump her belongings they got into the general cleansing procedure: Spare nokia's generally getting distributed among social workers etc.

You get the picture? Noone wants to secure piles of trash for people that will probably never again have a house of their own.(definately a decent argument, do not think i am only complaining)
I just want to point out how common it is for homeless to wander about with either trash or more usefull stuf in between it.

This lady apparently collected money.
Now hear......:!
The first (ANP) newsreel i read, said the counting of coins took several people 2 days, mounted to 20000 euros and the paper money counting was still to begin..
and the total was estimated to be 40k or more.

Well i have done some work in bars, and a usual person can easily count 1000 euro in small coin an hour, actually way more i think, if they use a decent system.
(the most usual system is to make piles of whole euros of same coins, pile them into 10's and just turve the nr of 10 piles u collect into 100 piles. and leave it at that for the final check.

So it is not hard. However, these people started with the coins.
Thats unique, i never heard of people starting with coins to count a big sum of money. (Why didn't they just bring it to a bank? and say they wanted to watch for rare coins?).

So ANP went on to tell another 20000 in paper money was expected.
Counting 20000 euro in paper money doesn't take an hour.
IF they really counted the coins first it must have been because there were a similar number of notes. So i see at least two opportunitys for grosse theft in these ANP storys.

I was puzzled, how do they get away with such ridiculous story's?

Now, today, i read another instance of the issue in wich a policeman states that the paper money only mounted to at least 40000 at first.(note *first*)
Not coincedentually the 2 informations confirm in only 1 thing, a total number,
of a random something put at about 40000. .. So the rest gets stolen.

I wonder when the newsoutlets and authoritys find the courage to tell how much exactly they managed to abstract from this old lady.
They must be assuming that most people that understand what is going on, have enough money to think it is a good laugh to rip the disabled.

And in that way a funny item only gets used for the creation of a rotten atmosphere.

Means bussiness..

Likewise in politics, i publish, but i don't have an overview of what goes where, what gets where, and what is kept somewhere out of view. Straight out censory is an
item (mangling with my plaintexts eg.), and it's structural, i must assume it is also applied in eg. my private emails.

Half of my ideas get corrupted before they start to work, and so have been published only to contribute to the pre-existing criminal trend. But i can't help that.

People themselves are to check what is done with my stuf and intends.
I can feel when half of pakistan is unhappy, but i have no clue to the individual cases, and worse, the possible injustice resulting or behind it.

Likewise i have no insight into the exact measure in what a specific government or another is corrupt(1). That should also be registered better, it is quite a sufficient indication for who will and who won't contribute to development of a nation.

Sighs.. do you you already see the implications of that?

It means that in 90% percent of the cases i have no means to judge if something should be considered development and profit, or theft and loss.
I find that a very unworkable situation and advise people for their own sake to work at it. Among other things because even european governments (that i consider among the more advanced systems) suffer from this.

Something may seem a housing project, but be a huge land-fraud for starters.. etc.
who gets the money for the land?, whom did it belong?, how are the contractys distributed among possible candidates?, its details, but together they define if something good is happening or something evil.

And it is just a very simple example.
That besides the list is near endless.

Well ofcourse i have a solution to that, like i tend to have a solution to all
things that needlesly smokescreen situations.
My suggestion was to start mondially standardised digital accountancy registration.

Very soon even a fraud of 100k would proof impossible through mere statistics.
It is actually 100 percent suspect this has not yet happened.

Only the upper class profits (and largely) from that.
Also without international accounting development is essentially not possible.
(developing nations only creating collaborating classes of corrupt elitarists instead of development)

No matter if it concerns housing in europe or internet in africa.
Or anything else.

Apparently the capitalists are worried by this idea (it's their significant reaction on every constructive aproach ofcourse, capitalism being destructive for social justice), Because they simple reason: without a difference in price theirs is no profit. Now i ask you how wonderfully productive would that be?
(answer is: 0% added value, multiplied costs, but destructive it would indeed remain)

Therefore the answer is in accounting and bookkeeping. If a profit-overhead in cases proofs necessarily it can be set at a fixed productive ratio.
I don't think it is needed myself: Everyone should have an income, salary , wich should be internationally acccounted for, as long as that is not the matter the system is intrinsically corrupt. And the actual status of the problem (politic.systems) is corruption through desorganisation covered by a destructive system and hidden accounting.

The same lack of insightfull and open international accountancy had created a perfect situation for the cliques to continue their elitarist thoughts,
we have not moved up much since animal farm.

vive la revolution

(1) repression basically a capitalist feature of corruption (it's cheaper then happiness).