vote green!

last election the dutch massively embraced being a 'zwever' (a treehugger)

nevertheless the only option to voice a protest in usia is basically to vote green.

due the grande style of escalating corporate profits managed to spirit away a few zero's after the facts,

indeed one might consider the bald fringe is in the riot, the rest of the world == a bolshevik conspiracy.


so that goes for netherlands the same, there is fringe, conspiracy and green.

there is also pseudo green, (perhaps it ain't and it can go for greener green, however there is the childish factor.

politics is not really childish, ok it is in many respects not in content, it is done very childish but the point is, it is a bad sign.

so after 50% of the people really turned treehugger on the last two days before elections, they didnt vote green.

well didn't, my estimate of seats not rewarded to green hoovers around 10% of populace usually, but there was something of a trend.

for the same reason the lots of talk about "d66" can't be trusted.

people are kind of done with the 'social-democrats' and the everlasting liaisson with the 'not-so-social not-so-democrats.

they fit the profile, ever they did not manage to claim their '66 win. (unrewarded and not substantially claimed tho anecdotical in the 70's still.)

green , it did not manage to bring across the message was actually carried widely.

thats why everyone and their sister voted "sp".

wich means 'social party', in wich the crapitalists suspect enough of a comaprison with 'social democrats'

typical how at-least-pseudo-greener exactly like the bold fringe needs to parasite even the social democrats abb. for credibility, that between.

so people could have voted green. but they do not see a treehugger where there is one, and hugged on.

ofcourse in the most enfuriated anti-sp campaign that was called 'election time', green snowed under.

i don't know, perhaps it is they allow theirselves to be duivendakked?

perhaps it is over afghanistan, where is that P from pacifist?

perhaps it is because 'we' the 'not so very upperclass' people that much supported them tend to make louder, clearer and harder claims?

or because we suffer trying to keep our nation a place worth living in?

nevertheless these are old complaints and have nothing to do with current people so much, nothing even with their calm but somewhat distant campaign.

it feels closer to a life and death experience as to an civilised game over not-so-very-much-pointscoring.
elections like the one of obama made it that relevant.

and what is the afterthought?

apparently our cartoonists and columnnists , and the redactions all lack the talent to get beyond taking personal aims at the women that represented green.

that it is the liberal joy of taking it out on a more righteous policy escapes the public.

had in mind writing about that for days, can't take dutch politics and elections very seriously.

look at it this way, if a multinational like greenpeace is the figurehead of the social democrats, and works together with the 'briberals'(lieberous), at least the whales should not have much to suffer in their quests for employment.

2012 and spending

it is a very interesting moment indeed to write a bit about the dutch.

the ghastly combination of extreme and extremer wrongs that topped the projected statistics is done with for now.
that doesn't mean to say we are done with them. but i suppose it offers some room for change, or perhaps it does not really, in that case it offers room to notice fraud.

whoppingly that same the capitalists cry for spending as they cry for cuts.

now what is basically hiding behind those unobvious attitudes is quite simple. it is something like this:

rich people can only make substantially more money if new schemes of robbery are implemented. just enhancing on the old schemes is not a carreer option. the handouts even are already destined.

so the 1% is saying: we need growth. what does it mean this presumption of 'growth'?
if i am not mistaken it is calculated in corporate fees. growth is: when fewer people get more money easily and the rest has to suffer for it. be it through hunger, underemployment, underpay or environmental damage.

not surprisingly then that the consumers carefull attitude did not support much of such growth.

it is important, actually imperative, we do something with this knowledge, so let me scetch the current economical situation.

living in what is becoming a postcolonialist era, (let alone the anthropocene), the old adagio of growth, get the resources, shape them into products and punish people into needing them has reached it's limits. the whole climate needed to collapse to make this scheme inviable, and so it did.

however the 'old-school' (actually 'old-clique') economists that rule the day ofcourse see no other option but to perpetrate more injustice on the masses and planet. be it in terms of investment schemes, deforestation, inequality they do not come up with anything that might be helpfull. instead it is :more overconsumption that is the creed.

since that only allowed pyramid schemes to be stacked on housing, finances and resources alike people realised a few years ago spending like teh rich wanted you to, eg. taking credits, was not doing any good. just like the exploit of housing and the degradation of human rights amongst other things in that context, had not been helpfull to the great majority that is only paying maximum summs to a minimal lot (of people).

this meant that whilst teh rich took a further inroad to the collective funds, people did not help their own disempowerment by spending to such iniatives. so much so that the past 2,3 years the consumers saved a respectable surplus of investment power, no matter attempts on that opportunity by employers and governments.

by now people in some cases started spending again, yet in these cases they try to rationalise, things that sell well tend to be urgent expenses, computers for work or study eg., a cheaper and more efficient car, better food, and perhaps here and there a more wholesome hollidays.

since none of that is wastefull, the capitalists hate it.  since most of it supports the wealth (if you can call it that) of the upper lower classes what we notice is new attempts on wages, etc. (rent, housing prices, housing stock, health, etc.) meanwhile the rent is brought down to near zero. the least the rich can go for is inflate the money of the poor.

now this leads to a conclusion, having already sanitised a lot of the spending bottom up, people will now have to sanitise their economys 'bottom up'. to that end what the lower and middle classes need, is investment projects that contribute substantially to their sustenance and health. not the kind of projects the capitalists like.

it seems such iniatives are somewhat rare. about the only thorough road to sane investment is by using green banks, and allthough that will facilitate a better ecology and food production it is not immediatly going to render immense profits. so what i suggest is people need to develop ideas for investment that benefit the lower classes specifically. one advantage to that is that what is essential to maintain the poor or poorer, is also essential to maintain any kind of populace. for an example , if we spend on fruits that are not exotic, even if we spend weird great summs, we improve the food situation in the long run.

unfortunately most of us are not in a position to spend so luxuriously on elementary needs, or perhaps it is just better to put the financial resource to a still more usefull end. if the people and the green banks, companys, develop such iniatives it won't be to the capitalists like, because without any 'growth' (that is often best measured in units of pollution) people can still improve a lot on the lifecircumstances and food and ecological security of everyone, and nature.

what that means is we could develop , in the socalled developed(..) world for ages without any 'growth'.

i think indeed we should. to call a weird example of 'economic growth' : if many very old people buzz about a lot in cars, because a social company is not near to be found, that would be a great formula of capitalist growth, extra cars, extra petrol, and extra what not (ambulances and hospitals eg.) , however if we just consider it useless, it is cleaner, cheaper, and apparently also more social.

the point is that the growth of the wealth of the poor equals the diminishing of the wealth of the rich even mechanically. something economical theory never even got at.

Afghanistan

In fact this covers some conflict in pakistan as well, nowadays.

Afghanistan is a country struck by death and destruction through the past 60 or so years. dictators, occupations, absolutism, occupation.

Meanwhile it is hard to figure out what exactly would justify the occupations. The sovjet one was the typical sovjet one, with attention to social services etc. but it also remained a period of, partly civil, war.

At one point, i for me still don't quite get why, i think it were the budha's,
the propaganda that emphasized the harsh circumstance for women, and the absolutist , 'undemocratical', aspects of the Taliban rule was quite succesfull once again to start a bush instigated war, as if he hadn't had his revenge ahead in irak.

Basically reason would be to await quite some incidents before a thus violent war.
Try to adopt measures in between etc. but not feature the 'reichstag promise'.

I forgot the incidents, but i once saw a list of how almost every usian war was preceded by suspect incident, so perhaps a better name is "9-11-syndrome".

These are well known and ancient tactic anyway, false flag operations, provocations, false accusations and complicity. Usia is not the only one guilty, and probably also not in historical times. In kongo for example, the accusation of provocation was/is mutual. Things in danger of escalation, would rightly or wrongly usually happen after something concerned a provocation, but it's a distraction, in a way, in congo there are more villages and the people are more unsettled.

So what happened is Nato bombed afghanistan. The fear to be considered inhumane by the usian public (i figure for eternity or for military reasons) and the fine promises that made the dutch politicians smile, or perhaps the engagement with suffrage and women's right's , the fear for a future where women wouldn't have tehse rights in some or many parts of the world, whatever.

My most severe problem in completely opposing any argument is that i think a free future is the place to be for any human. dress requirements don't even fit free here,
and we are a 100 year of of the puritan kind of dress requirements we had, wich weren't necessarilly quite as bad.

Anyway, war is an unpleasant thing. The afghans well realised they stood no real chance (much better then saddam), and tried to negotiate untill the end.

Instead of countering an offensive directly, they actually fled most of the time, trying to stay alive. The (complete once again) air superiority destroyed any kind of troops they could have had, and after a few days thus, the socalled war was won.

Colums made it into Kabul, undoubtedly meeting brave and quite utterly vain resistance at some points. I am not sure of there was something of elections, it was bush2 after all. I think Karzai got installed, similar to maliki (irak).

Afghanistan is a very rough landscape so quite some resistance apparently had escaped to certain regions and the usians decided to persecute "al kwaida" and "the taliban". It translates into: the popular resistance and the people, so you can imagine it was quite indiscriminate.

Nato tried to adapt (mh, i spoke 'peace' soldiers, their head was full of crap),
the military requires an attitude that is neither consistent with human dignity , nor
allowing itself to adapt it's policy's different from the propaganda as it presents the case to the (western) public.

That's: it is functionally dependend from ordres higher up in the hierarchy and for netherlands eg. depends on a mandate that a certain harry potter aka Balkenende rewarded after hiding up the reports that might have made the parliament think quite differently.

perhaps because he is a "christian" , raised a christian, litterally pumped quite full of the crap. Christians do have an instinctive , and when i was a kid, explicit hate against islam. When you meet it, it is like their second instinct, ooh islam,
well kill them, attack them, bomb them, it's a good idea, is how a christian feels deep inside.

problem here ofcourse, for an atheist, islam does exactly the same to its people, and is thus equally scary. It's less scary in the sense that it is badly armed, and a 100 year backward at least, or so it seems, but it is more scary since they/islam are very much more commited to the notion of belief.

in my world, the european world, religion is sometimes ok, sometimes second-rate, sometimes not necessary. Wherever u go, russia, england, norway, italy, any european nation, there are mainstream representations of non-believers.

Ofcourse i observe religion is still used as an excuse for political control, as an asset of conservatism, but i also know, the usual 'believer' wouldn't understand this, or think about such things (and actually prefer not to 'belief' it).

Anyway, this reasoning apparently turned the afghani in devote muslims, and they were making a biggest clownery of nationwide proportions, embarrassing the former colonialist who once had all the time tried not to show such was the source of their contempt.

What happened after this is hard to grab. First mistake of the nato was to choose several groups over the others. that started of at karzai ofcourse, and in a sense it so couldn't be helped. Anyhow, that allowed for a messy situation for a year or more, then the taliban united, (that was a peace effort) and started negotiating karzai, but it was still not ok. So , i think you will agree, the nr of high profile atatcks rose, one of them i think was ridiculous, a failed bomb attempt on a 100% unharmed parlementarian, it reminded me of reichstag promise. Brutal.

So that's not obvious, anyhow, by now the nato could have left afghanistan on her own, but they don't. instead they trained 100000s of soldiers. Also they maintained operations against groups of people perceived taliban, or otherways allied with anything not allied to usia.

it is many months later now, the above thing is somewhat to expanding, but for most of it i think it is still usefull that it is said. I tried to compile a description of afghanistan atthe time i started this article, one that would hint at the option to seek security not in armament, and to seek our subjective safety in afghanistan not rhough police forces.

however, obama changed that all, he took the notion that as karzai was not able to keep to a woman friendly politics, the whole of afghanistan was still in dire need of education, and perhaps he thought of that usian soldier that said: "i don't think this will work for this generation of afghans, but maybe it will for the next".

he got a lot of roundabout support for that step, a green future, equal development, it stands and falls among other things with 51% of the population that is woman.

geopolitically there is a downside to this story, but at the moment i don't really care, generally spoken it is a matter of money towards facility , and most can be bought that way. also the general trend, in particular cases, and in the wider picture is one of exchange over mere trade limitation, at least bottom up. the rich nations should really provide that green exchange to offset the unbalance.

i myself am maybe even worse, eg. if i basically believed it was environmentally proficient and lucrative, i suggest pipelines can be build evrywhere, altho with the current status quo limitations to acces might be necessary, and dealt with beforeheand.

if for some reason that trajectory serves only the opposite use, to exclude the environmental routes to monopolise efforts, likewise i consider them unnegotiable.

there is one more very important thing about afghanistan, and that is pakistan. 10000 and more pakistani have died fighting the war for terror, and the pakistani situation is completely escalated.

the pashtun and northern alliances have been outlawed to an even greater extend, and their likewise reaction is one of (well targetted usually) attacks.

i don't believe isi plays a big role in these. Allthough pakistan as a whole is much served with targetted attacks over random and desperate suicide explosions, etc.
in that sense perhaps isi has different operational motives from cia.

the problem in the decision to occupy afghanistan untill the situation for woman is settled foregood, is not in afghanistan, the current protocol is btw not sufficient, it seems to me, accidently with this scale events you would want to offer people an opportunity to develop such different visions, and bombing for opium , continual observation and the surrounding capitalists eyeing afghanistans mineral resources,
if anything that comes of the ground, nobody there is really very much impressed.

the soldiers would perhaps be better prepared for their task, when they could think of taliban as a football(or baseball) club, that for lack of grass defends rocks with guns. not like some evil enemy, not like an anonimous ideology.

just like western kids stick to their coca cola and hardcore, inhabitants of deserts cling to prayer ( for rain), and householdslaves.

before they will want to hold onto something else it should be obvious it must be a generous offer. some miners, and heaps of police and army are not the kind of freedom pashtun have allways have to fight for, and chances they will accept violent methods for real are nill.

with an open mind you really only have to look at irak, to see how right they are.

that tehse people have a moral and customs we perceive as at least a century backward, does not mean they are stupid, when they are preserving their identity in this, it should be valuable for all, and not be a reason to be at war.