shoring up Afghan war support in europe

as a result of a leaked video i looked into the wikileaks website once again. (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/cia-afghanistan.pdf)

i read a couple more and the publicity is about a helicopter attack on iraqi civilians and reuters journalists. the radio communications tell there are armed persons, but i actually didnt really see any. even if some were armed, that was really it, most weren't.

the video is revealing because it shows the deliberate killing of the journalists, or at least that is the impression i am stuck with. it is also revealing in that it shows you can get killed for picking up dead and wounded. the killing of the journalists is not explicit altho the pleasure in killing is.

all in all i would say the pictures are not to damaging for the usia forces. it might be easy (i am not sure of that) to make a point about the rules of engagement, they were with a group, a few of them were carrying something (camera's) its rather similar to some of the machismo youtube helicopter films i saw a year ago, when i was looking what of that kind of material could be found.

so you could say it is the kind of views you'd expect.

typical is that there is no mention of the cameras, that are pretty visible, but there is of guns, that i havent positively confirmed. also typical is it appears the journalists are specifically targetted, and killed. its not a nice thing to look at, and i dont feel like going over it and the radiomessages 10 times in the hopes of digging up an indication that they consciously target journalists. a peculiar detail is that the helicopters actions and presence don't seem to induce a reaction in the people moving about on the street. unsuspecting is the word, for the aftermath the same goes, the helicopter being there doesnt stop people from trying to pick up the wounded.
wich gets them shot. so it should have stopped them. how i interprete it is that the activity they were undertaking wasnt expected to invite fire, the recuers that appear aware of the journalists status before they are getting shot form no exception in this hard to understand show of naivety.

it makes me think the group of man was actually doing something they expected to turn into no harm, well perhaps one should wonder if that is weird, it might just have been they were accompanying the journalists to an interview, and i assume you can walk even through baghdad without being shot from the skies usually.

so its a bit of a puzzle but i expect it not to greatly support reuters or anyone in making claims about undue violence, no matter that it is just what the camera registered.

now for getting to the subject of how to influence european opinions, i must tell i first read the 'confidential' informations on the icelandic politicians. except for that the cia wants them to start a homedefence (or something) militia, that is not a very revaling document. if anything it is the focus with general anti-violent attitudes that is telling. it is almost as if they don't matter what people do as long they support usian wars and military violence. funny is the detail how one advisor covered for the usian 'diplomatical' effort to keep things out of the public icelandic domain.
good to know that kind of attitudes can be expected from european politicians and are more the rule then the exception..

so on with the topic.

my first remark is i am not absolutely the report is genuine, it's a bit to easy on the topic or sth.
a bit to much out to pose certainty's that need not be imposed on the official classified agents to have acces to them.

furthermore i'd guess its a genuine ofshoot of a more explicit report and intended if not for wikileaks, for some european readers, like perhaps eg. merkel, and sarkozy.

what i learned from the report is obama apparently can be made to say anything the cia wants to "shore up support" for war in afghanistan. at least it treats his statements as a token.
it is somewhat typical that such happens in a context of woman liberation (in afghanistan) wich is supposed to make an impression on the french but, surprisingly, not on the germans. perhaps because they tend to watch television with less sexual preference's , or otherways because they assume that for some reason (some information or way of looking into the matter) the germans can't be 'turned' that way.

so what it has in mind for the germans is national pride.
in making a comment about that i can end my treating of the matter, the germans will be turned by positively contrasting them with nations (the dutch) that make no such nato effort.

so thats next to expect, a whiny uncle sam that is ranting about the dutch in an effort to acces more german and french soldiers. of that indeed we have seen a shortlived example when usia started saying the dutch are an actually very discriminating (against muslims) society.

we do have the rightwingers supported by the media, but on the whole in the streets the atmosphere is still relaxed. that is not to say incidents dont happen, or the anti constitutional attitudes of the dutch parlementarians are not to blame for that, just that explicit discrimination is less a trait of 70-80 percent of the dutch underclass then it ever was.

the discrimination we witness is caused through the anticonstitutional attitudes of parliament and for the rest typical rightwingers tapping in to their cruelty, prejudice and latent xenophobia as it exists evrywhere.

nevertheless i think usia was right in so far the atmosphere has been significantly worsened through the rulingclass efforts (of selfenrichment). their most serious followers generally belong to the category hopeless, and did even in nazism not find a job outside deathsquads etc.

then again, usia is just the same, where we sink boats with refugees they dehydrate them in mexican deserts, wich is also deadly.

longterm repression effects

For the moment i am in france, apart from the azerty keyboard i found worse annoyances to cope with,
you name it, guess what happens when you control people, that once crossed streets, identycard's year after year? They get completely confined to the pavement....it will also convince the people police interference has nothing to do with their lives.

well great, as if i hadnt seen that happening in netherlands. It is a bit disencouraging even embarrasing to see people so unprepared to repression they witness all day, get so mad they rather die then take a sane decision.

well maybe it is better that way, at least they will end up doing something even if it is exactly what the cops want. as if that is something revolutionairy new.
abandon your newcomers in the movement, alienating the populace or whatever other macho decissions need to be made to impress on the girls, like talking all day about the favourit fascist propaganda item of the (own) security, as if it matters with a couple of thousand cops constantly patrolling the area.

thats it, i rather wrote about anarchism, yet that subject i feel is hard for me to conclusively cover. i wouldn't want to err with the only political strategy i think promises progress.
i am preparing something tho. look forward to the good news.

what a sad police state this is. people with none of their own time on their own hands won't stand much chance to change their society's . right that dear slaves, is why they have all these job requirements , these restrictions so ready for you, be like the french, walk the pavement shivering over the next time some bunches of bullys go for your identy cards.

mistrust anyone that thinks there are better things to do then banging your head against the walls especially put there to give you that chance. poor cops in the france of sarkotski? no way... they will feel even greater macho's after.

Maybe the next thing i get to hear is that it would be so french, well.. if you never went outside france, yes it is pretty french indeed.

Integrity (truth-content)

Very often, when i read a bit about what is going on, and try to collect impressions to shape my observations i feel like fleeing to this place, a personal blog.

I am rather proud of it's name. "Uncensored" and i have seen there is an uncensored in english for almost every language now. A partly shamefull affair.
The israelian uncensored eg ,is mere bigotry, and apparently 100000 people need that charicature to maintain their zionist convulsiveness.

Yes, i reach the conclusion that after the initial invention of the uncensored concept, censors claimed the remaining spaces, blogspots. (this could still be relevant at some point in future).

Anyhow at the israeli uncensored i applied selfcensorship. I am pretty fed up with israelis propagating genocide in response to my having a non-zionist opinion.

That what they do and done to palestineans has all the looks of genocide is a second, and their allies being genocidal state-entity's does not help much either.

Well, i think i can be this direct in this context because of the utter lie in that israeli "uncensored". Uncensored is not the same as promoting a more shizoid approach as your respective governments capitalist interests allow.
That is: "censored".

Still, it is just a notion of integrity so i continue my rant over the falselihood of demologics.

Demologics, the art of providing thought concepts to people to make them believe what is ultimately beneficial for your party, is very much on my mind today.

The fuz over pakistan and irak being the main causes, but the confrontation is everywhere (eg. in the anti-russian spy and other propaganda cases, when the western companys suggest we should trust some capitalist corrupt tax-evader to decide over the future of russians).

Then the french, as having to comply to a blackbox populist like sarkozy.
Europeans have never really been impressed by the french brightness, we don't need this joke to destabilise our friendly relations in europe.

So it is a complot? (yes), that leads to destruction? (yes). Because when this can be done to the french, it can be done to anyone.

I can't even think of a more destructive thought.

A coca-cola puppet, no, that is what we need, just wait and he will start victimising palestineans as a matter of disney-puppet habits.
An ultimate propaganda item is president, someone supporting every egoist, greedy, eurocentric, judeochristian bias, yahoo. Wait and see him rant on everyone else we might possibly still militairy engage in the future.

It gets me sick to think that the people of the world are hussled with this way.
So let's make a move and start looking at say.. irak.

Irak is perfect proof that (always surprising me) people have no opinions of their own.
They don't even have a self definition of theirselves. After you blast the hell out of iraki's they are ready to accept each other as enemys. Not only that, if you tell them they kill another for aforementioned non-ratio, they will do precisely so.

This is so blatantly senseless we have to assume , you , the rest of the world , are just ready to succumb to similar mechanisms. Hence we look onward, and focus our satelite view on pakistan.

A lively political arena. Now do the pakistanis in general have a trend to a similar useless direction as say the '33r4ki' or french?

Firstly lets state this clear: there is not a single valid reason why basically democracy would work different anywhere in the world then it would in france or the netherlands. So some random figureheads will be awarded for their capitalist loyaltys by safe and influential positions that earn them well enough to keep them in keeping.
We must observe two things,
a) what will pakistanis be manipulated into believing?
b) who do the capitalists behind it want to kill because of this opportunity?

Ofcourse experience in irak has proven islam is so utterly naive you can make it's followers belief anything. Perhaps not coincedentually the muslim identity of pakistan is much underlined these days. (It's quitte a narrowminded focus on religion as is) . Psychologically it gets easier to understand that intrinsic naivety when you realise islam incorporates you from birth. All your live you will be complying to an ordre that is only natural because you had not even an alternative as a baby. This is what makes it hard to have questions to things authorical situations cause.

Apart from this, there is the illiterate syndrome: when people don't read very well we can lie to them on paper. Since they can't even read what lies are commonplace about them, they are not rewarded the authority to react concerning themselves.
So Pakistani illiteracy is a feature that will be promoted in the western mind.
At least even most french can spell their names, so we could get the impression we know better as a side effect.

In the meanwhile in the west, because obviously we cannot honestly speak over situations ourselves, disrupting as it would be for our indoctination,
we forgot people can speak. Let me explain, : you don't need paper to use words.

Conclusion : it is all a matter of desinformation or else we'd know.

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.)

L'isle France

The french don't realise that they are relevant really.
Perhaps that is why saying they need to prove that, still achieves something.

After all our world, the world of europe, to keep it manageable, is the direct product of the french revolution and nothing else. Although france exterminated all their protestants, just before that, the civil revolution that enabled emancipation throughout the divided christian world started in France,

The first country to really make a difference. (The dutch and several other remote european tribes did still better in ancient or proliferate ways but were no match in significance.)
Unfortunately that revolution came to early to make the difference for colonialism.
And ofcourse that could be exactly the problem we still need to cope, to achieve a somewhat pristine mentality.

It is remarkable how france through the priciples of the revolution remained a somewhat populair oppressor through colonialist times. Une esprit intriquE.

Yet the french have to cope with their minority complexes. Somehow they don't understand that when napolean or the medieval fleets made a striking impression,
neversomuch did the struggle with germany over continental priority , and most probably a more equal distribution of wealth through the continent..(ahem),
lead to impressive scores.

Typically the pre-revolutionaire times, had the roman worldpicture. Romanism being a thing that elevated even some of the succesfull northern classes. It was however intrisically devoluted in the northern direction, and part of our current struggle over language, and more probably the struggle of the french over theirs, derives from these times. It seems it is not to well understood.
The whole story is incredibly romantic from the dutch pov. But it is too long and fascinating to introduce here.

This may be inconceiling but the real problem is yet to be discoursed.
Btw. i have the impression i am still not persevering my political motives in what i write.

France in her richess has been a very fortunate country for her once total rulers.
As a result of that, even partly through the narrowmindedness of catholisism, and through the centralist character, the difference between a this area or region, and the different citys have been bigger then in germany or netherlands throughout the 19th century. It's not reconceiling but my father once ought it necessary how he perceived this as something having to do with the treatment of the genetic pool.

So i cannot be completly unbiased about the situation, france once lost a techer-war.
They have a strange garrisonment of gendarme through the country. The traditional attitude of the police used to be very distantiated, harsh even. And the internal justitial situation is not very clear, or overly safe partly through that.

France had rather negative name for battling down eg. squatters demos in huge innercity's as an example of institutional intolerance. As a result of this, many young french were willing to battle the police for their right of expression.
(It was a mystifying experience.)

I have no knowledge except a profoundly negative attitude in paris upto a few years ago, against africans. It is a fact known to me for 30 years or so, that africans in paris are controlled. Intimidated and held, in controversial ways at strange places and awfull moments, by the metropolitan police.

This has always been, although i expect it got some better after the lessons of the riots that shook the suburbs 2 or 3 years ago. This event was considered in a very amiable way in many circles inside (and even outside) france.

Wich a.a.m.o.f. points us to the relevance of germany in this all discussion.
Hence, the period of the vichy regime, and the gaullist attitude after do have a function in the french conscience. Not in the least in the sence of a minority complex. One starts wondering if they did things to algeria thinking: we are not that good people. (on est pas trop mal)

Algeria is a perfect example of how a (perhaps romancatholic) culture can't settle with a postcolonialist reality. As if the dust of the desert must save france, they have been believing of the relevance of the algerian situation for whatever imaginairy safety or sustaining of france.
(This is relevant for the current moment but i think it is true without that).

France is a country with a halfdecent social situation and a country with extreme differences between rich and poor. I remember lanes and villages of empty villas of the rich that were residing in some other villas or houses of them most of the time.
We camped in one garden without fear for discretion because of the vastness of the empty areas around us, excellent pancakes, the milk may have to do with it.

I heard even horror storys happening in such places, without anyone ever noticing.
Perhaps things changed. This is twenty years ago. Satelites should make a difference,
although it is generally the rich that need the kicks.

So france is not an every way safe place. On the other hand, like i just mentioned,
housing arangements are half decent, people stand a chance to live an even artistic or alternative life to some extent. Some areas in france can be excitingly "red" and
many feature beautifull traditions, I personally witnessed how all of france could bother over the nationalist value of flagging, with le pen around in the media spectacle.

That mind, and the possibility to broadly respect the immigrants when they had really had their bellys full of all the discrimination. Plus my personal impression that most of the french have actually now and then considered the value of the french revolution, and her values (including tolerance in fact), have convinced me at least that the great majority of french, do demonstrate human values, not in the least equality of humans. So dear red workers of the nations, and masses of malcontents in precarity it is up to you to have your say.

All the rest is (part of the) show.

I believe in red and wrong, and that wrong is when the people are not red, quitte naturally. The side effects of enlightened despotism for me serve only to proof
how the "red" is the only thing that can rule the wrong.