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.)

Constitutions of europe

A very hot item in europe is the organisational structure, some like covered by the concept of constitution. This item is deeply fascinating, it will not only describe europe's future culture, it may easily be the make or break of the whole planet.

It is nowhere a matter to set aside or simplify. Theoretically a constitution is the basic of justice, and once again; justice is theoretically the mechanism to control power.

Actually constitutions represent that. The wish to control power.
It should be point one, that political power can always be controlled, eg. a decission or position can never get unmutable. (this suggest you manage to underwrite human rights and other accorded true values (like those from constitutions) and still opens the discourse on interpretation.)(1)

The situation is, already the national political arenas loose the more ambitious yet more masked personalitys to european scheming, marginalised purposedly.
Likewise the out of control financial and economical powers represented through the european parlament have lost transparance already. Hugely due to the scale, but there is indication of less obvious transactions, getting stuck in usual circuits,
and pure neglect of issues.

The scale, and size of it all begins to impress and work, and the somewhat plain proto omni european structure seems to prefer to stay behind a curtain, building up huge reserves to spend on security for the ultra-rich.

(the privacy "case", privacy has untill yet always been: that for the rich. Equality is way more essential, or you would not be equal in your privacy and the constitution dumb.)

The european national constitutions excellently provide human values.
Ofcourse a new definition of the privacy concept is welcome, but definetly not in a way that makes it the argument for basicly all injustice.

(telegram style: don't be fooled ppl).


That said over the conceptualisation i don't see why the EU needs a very thick book for constitution. Honestly the EU should try and apply only (not exclusively) international human values, and has no excuse to just mess up things more.

In that case a more proper aproach seems to actually unify the existing constitutions. At least that way we can make sure civilians don't loose essential rights.

In some international cases jurisprudence may become inevitably more commisionairy.
That is no excuse for an acting commitee or several shimmery rooms with power of law.

These positions are also so ambitious they need public consideration.
It is definetly essential the eu stresses the roulation of lawmaking and highest courts of justice positions. I really don't care when my prime minister or anyone else does not want his dirty laundry on the table...(still angry, why do they want that anyway..).

That is another reason not to complicate matters, eg. the early rotations in even parlament will have a hard time adopting. It will predictably lead to inflexibility (practically and publicly) , when they can basicly work from the perspectives they know while the methods change the shock need not be bigger.
(actually i think quitte the opposite: by setting ourselves up with a doubtfull case
we spoil everything and that is my remark to the public, not so much to the politicians because for them it does not matter).

Some real guarantee can only be arranged by a concept close to that of (mh that would be al quada in arab..) democracy of the basis. People should definetly keep working public services on a level they can reach within a scope. (mostly a contemporary nation or region but perhaps a liguistical entity or a more artifical burocratic domain.) If people don't, the slavery will eventually be complete. And circumstances for the human dignity would from now on only worsen.

I must say we seem to do better then worsest, in the view of the last point, but i am serious about being precautious here.

Certainly most of the continents are emancipating and cooperating internally to a larger extend (australia, india and antartica the notable exceptions).
Even the others know industrial development.

stay strong.

(1) For this reason i like the idea of not having a european constitution at all,
the looser and also the less powerfull the centralist aspect of europe is the smaller the chance we get totalitair characteristics. Wich is a severe risk since we also can't have experience with the 'democratic' and undemocratic dynamics of such a big and prosperous (multi)state.(i don't like it much). The endpoint of it is that without the recognition of the authority of the state the whole subject would be moot, thus it is hardly a matter of authority.(things would perhaps speed up a bit when we incorporated our (so-perceived) 'marxist' neccesity's consciously).

In charge

Finally the gaza strip is in the hands of hamas. Finally the popular majority can hold her own reigns. Finally not anymore an alienating security force dominate the street picture? Finally we can guard ourselves in our hunger?

I don't know what has been the spark, but i have noticed the glow of the fire before.
Anyway finally we are governed by someone who oposes israeli airstrikes, finally fatah shows up in the repressed and miserable occupied form of representation where it rili stands. The hopeless situation of the west bank.

(remember i felt like writing how we will finally have a decent organisation in gaza again.)
The point i make above is really what i feel, fatah has surrendered to much of her palestine identity to the circumstance. With best intends , though.

I remember how the al aqsa had to be turned into something we (nato had antagonised them a lot) could handle,
and how the result seemed to much influenced to maintain integrity.
I also remember how i thought arming up palestine security forces was a very unfriendly and not very sane measure. I would almost suspect money to come in at this point for lack of a better excuse. (It was at the task desciption i noticed btw... so i am not to blame(1))

From this vantage point fatah(the echelon esp., it was supposed to be hard but some struck it insane) has stuck to her word. Honestly, i suppose.
This is not an everything is ok message just a relativation on the security forces situation, wich is more specific then needed since the situation can be explained through the context of the gaza populace.

I want to stress the sociological aproach, i don't want to say gaza populace is such and such, or has such and such, but show that such development was rather inevitable for any populace in such a (limited) situation.
Now it has happened, i am not surprised at all.
I am surprised but i absolutely understand the logic behind it.(at least i think you might understand it better after reading this)

There are so many reasons people in gaza would be desperate about their life as a result of the negotiations (and blackmail) with israel. There is so little progress (outside eg. hamas social movement, i suppose this is where the islam solidarity could play a role. Well you have to pay for progress somehow.)
Everyone can and should try to understand how very limited the role of regional solidarity gets if the money can get "frozen" (they usually disappear after, at least i never heard of any of these mysteriously reappearing very much).

On with the subject. How would a situation where the security forces motives got to alienated, or to little control of their own actions, (they killed palestineans in some of the early attempts to surpress hamas on international ordres.) a situation were people have some (or at least something internationally called) control over their surrounds?

I tell you what would happen. It would be a politically motivating situation,
you being allowed politics and nothing else (electricity, water, medicines, school money or safety) would make a certain percentage of ppl inhibit political thought.
An arguably artificial political agravation indeed.

So i don't want to say these are majority opinions, i think we can speak of a situation were the feelings of the majority express though the level of power,
governance, ("souvereignity" perhaps). Since nothing (except unfortunate israeli incidents ) can or is allowed to happen in Gaza, the ppl already involved in political thought would feel a more pronounced responsability to reconsider the motives, targets, methods and strategys.(indeed both fatah and hamas got active almost frenzy at some points)

The situation in gaza has been rather shifty with quitte some violence, i think that is how the idea, to just take over, was born. Think logically, we are the majority, ppl would opt for that unity, and we are utterly(internationally) repressed for being us, our people are not respected. Why not try to arrange those affairs with the political reality internally represented. Why not?

You can see the gaza people got very politicised from this incident if you consider it like this, and people should maybe be hopefull because of that , and not angry.

I can think like hamas, the situation is shit, but we are in charge.
Wich is better then the situation is shit and this is not leading anywhere.

Perhaps hamas is more primitive, dutch would get more primitive if you kept taking out their radical reformist leaders, but it reflects its politico-social reality.

Wouldn't every surpressed people within a confinement attempt to organise it's own (consensual,'democratic')structures and hold them over the official one? (sooner or later.)Don't *you* admire the individual that can?

Gaza people's or the hamas political thought goes like:
let us at least try to arrange our own affairs as the shit for standing up for our peoples rights is apparently unrecoverable.

(also economically a half year ago," the damage is done", you know 'discrimination' : some event of that kind.)

I hope hamas will negotiate a truce with europa and the arab union to just get the chance to live untill the regional situation improves that much setting up something there is not a calculated loss, and when we do that fine seems cheaper. pls think education cus later perhaps there will be jobs or possibilities at some point instead) Zion has always been scared for Tyrus, though, and i think they are in charge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the really better aproach in such a case is to opportunistically formulate.
a very rare example would have been to actually have had the fatah security army secure palestinean airspace. That is how long i suspect we still stand from solutions in formal ways in general .The example was to striking to go unnoticed somehow..(It would definetly include jetattacks on palestinean civilians. For people persistent in denying that.. i thought i better notice,except ofcourse the palestineans currently in jet-attacks of the israelian populace.
What the israeli's should learn is to make qassam-1s: really hard to stop even by the palestinean security force, walls are forever!

The life of a dissident

Did you ever wonder how it is to live the life of a dissident?
I suppose not, and that it is why you found this page anyway.

But i am angry, i suppose they made it like that to make me write something about it.
So as to legalise their terrorising, by being able to say that since the victim comprehends no essential harm is done(or similar BS).

For the public... how do you think it feels to be a lifelong victim of such corrupting policys?

I should explain shouldn't I? elaborate on every attempt on my integrity, but unfortunately.
I have no memory of an other situation, there is just to much negativity to even start summing it up.

Forget it, i won't give a frame and report what their hurting and annoying, their
plain theft and exploits do to me.

It's in the wait for the others, even just to hurt me more.
People stop the terror for your own sakes.

historical mistakes

Part of the fun of blogs is that u can get personal, i suppose.
Well i made a historical mistake.

For years now i have been thinking syria had no acces to the mediteranean,
but it does. I don't know why i thought that, perhaps because serbia was denied one, irak is hardly left any, and so on. Basically the whole anti russia politics of before was one of denying them harbours and acces to certain seas.

So when recently turkey anounced they would move help into lebanon, i assumed that meant, directly, over land. But i don't know if that is where i got it.

Obviously damascus is situated antiquely, it's not on the better spot for a capital city. So historically, and probably practically still, beirut has indeed been syria's harbour. But what made me think they had no acces to the mediterenean?
perhaps it once was? else i don't know, certainly these coastal states, lebanon palestine, croatia have suggestive shapes and places on the coastlines.

Still it's a huge mistake of mine, i might sympatise with irak over shath el arab or kuweit, i may understand the cultural meaning of dubrovnik for the serb feeling of souvereignety, get faint of admirance for a russia that left all the krim but sebastopol to kiev, romantice wladiwostok, organise trainstrips through african countrys, and vocally support likewise palestinean rail projects to jordan,
but how could i err here?

it does mean that i tend to think that every country that is rudely insulted and attacked up to with military means , has no acces to sea.. i must take care not to admit to that mistake again (darfur kongo somalia anyone..).


Culture (not necessarily of Jordan)

Another historical mistake of mine that strikes me every now and then, is how i completely misjudge my capacity to understand other culture, it is not necessarily in the negative, but especially what i recently read about jordan in a blog:

http://ejectiraqikkk.blogspot.com/, wich i would call my best resource for culture in irak and jordan. I am personally not the kind of person to agree with each and everything, so i just enjoy the attitude and read what it tells me next. It made me think deeply.

This culture is so different from ours.
Actually not because it looks so much different, it's got a few harsh sides, but it is not for looks. It's readily appreciable Jordan would look different from netherlands, it is what i already mentioned, a cultural difference.

Culture is the chemical restproduct of historical mistakes, and it is always easier to point at the mistakes made by an other.

So what touched me from Jordan culture, is that it is so recent. It is alive, old fashioned partly, really circumstantial at matters, but above all it is recent.

There is a deep resource of ancient culture, or perhaps habits, but all the rest is tuned to the needs of the current era. These happen to be not completely sympathic to me in jordan, for example because i hold the antitotalitarian principle and therefore am an antimonarchist. However it is striking that all these recent elements perform pronounced in jordan culture.

Meanwhile it would be pretentious to say we have a grip on our people in jordan.
Here in europe, there is no war around, yes we do fight wars, but we don't admit to it, we call it fighting peaces.

And culture is such that the average person bears it, not knowing what we do around the world. It is not the insider, agent or idealist that bears the culture in any sense. We try to have relations to our cultures, and perhaps contribute positively to them, but the bearer is always the passive. The receiver tells us how they appreciate the symbolics with and around their existence.

So that is a definite about jordan culture as well. Anyhow this is not about jordan. It is about how we cannot get the cultures to work for us. Because i am very sure we have to be carefull with jordan if we want it not to meet horrible times of her own.

What i am saying is: despite that i don't think the usual jordanian would ever perceive things like this, we can still spare them from disaster and violence.

Actually.

Now Jordan isn't very much in the focus of the west fortunately, but the receipe is awfull. Jordans are sunnites, and sunnites are the victim of the day.
What are they supposed to think. If someone starts killing all the flemish, the dutch will not feel extra comfortable.

Ofcourse jordan are very much influenced by the usual al qauida hypes etc. They have either: "the only wrong religion", with evil intends and disturbing geopolitical inhumane qualitys, (wich are actually traits i think all religions share) , or they have innocent victims amongst their brethren.

It's quitte plain, the western mind, about that.
It harbours an exciting fear over an abstract terrorist complex, and seeing anything outside that as culture is almost prohibited. So unfortunately the jordanians had to be introduced to the western paranoia to. It may sound strange, but it is so. Think over it, you need to prepare your populace in unwarranted terms over things that happen around them, when they happen so unwarranted.

And there you have the usual jordanian pov.. so it is not a conspiracy, it is just the natural effect of getting into terms with what happens around you.

I am a very modern person. So i don't like jordan, but it doesn't count, there is hardly a nation i like, that should actually be the subject of my next post.
how this amazing multiplexity of authoritys delivers only crap evrywhere,
named politics, and substantiate each and every of them.

Sympathy against any government

People might think i sympathise with any government, just because i sometimes think the dissidents are crap as well for example. Things are more complex then that.

I sympathise with chavez for shutting up CNN, i dont sympathise with his government for having no better relation with the local yuppys of the private broadcasting companys. Then again, CNN is a very powerfull concept in the mind of many yups in television sets.

Where lies Myanmar? bhutan or some such peculiar small place i would guess.
Isn't it evil, how the UN acknowledges the farce of letting her out of her house once? it's all for tourism or some even worse colonialist trait. Then again,
what does the lady want, what kind of liberty's .. the generals looked very distinguished in their uniform uniforms without bunches of medals.

She got a nobel peace price, and she is shut up and noone cares.
What does it mean? The generals are leftish, and she is expendable. The west can think of a cheaper capitalist president, in the end.(..)

For her personal notion, i would judge they still consider the attention to her person a rewarding source of unrest in her nation. I don't know.., is it such an awfull place? Keeping in mind that i would still write a post about what is against so many of the systems:)? The problem is that even one year of housearrest would turn you into a rather severe case, but from my remote perpective it means auth. didn't hand you over to for example psychiatrics and that you had a western education.

People say she is a true person, although they pray for her.
(part of the next post is how praying isn't a sincere argument at all)

I hope her government gives her freedom or a foreign asylum and the money to live,
if they don't like her and what she can still do.
17 years of (house) arrest is a ridiculous precedent when actually they should be proud that she is a woman (historically).

111 ways to slow down climate change

,or live with it.

Its obvious that a proces that capitalist science has been denying for 120 years now;
(global warming), cannot be expected to be halted within a foreseeable future.

The actual structure of the scheme is mathematically like a parabole.

Wich translates into, that changes slowly add up to accellerate the phenomenon.
Apart from that, like every natural factor that is completely beyond direct human control (its actually happening on a supra-animal level), the formula is obviously catastrophic. Wich means that at certain points of the course of events the effects become inpredictable and of enormous magnitude.

That beside the to be expected events are (and have always so been recognised) impredictable. Wich remains the main personal concern. After all it is not known if this is similarly to how Mars blew her atmosphere into space for example.

A detail in that would be how the atmosphere seems weakened. I saw the moon as a globe yesterday, i never seen it like that, its always just been the moon,
the 'disk' and not the globe. I dont have very good eyes, and my friend with me, also appreciated the effect. It didn't last , a minute later i just saw the disk again.

Im not sure about that but i have been wondering where all the water vapor, that obviously results from the huge warming of the oceans, and of the smelting of the poles, went. Europe has actually mostly met droughts. Wich is not yet explained.
(it is a global trend besides.)

As such it suits to illustrate the inpredictability of the effect of changes though.
I think that the tenfold increase in hurricanes finally triggered awareness in security counsel and world bank and other US-organisations.

sad and sentimental but true.


Usually to counter a problem you would first want to identify it, and in this case we cannot exactly.
There is a scala of changes, the one even seemingly lesser significant then the other, and a scala of causes of similar property.

Nature by the way points us optimistically in the temperate and cold climate zones
to the possibillitys of natural adaptions. When the dinosaurs died out , although that is a bad example , they had no humans to ship them over the planet to more bearable circumstances. (Exotic) plants and cash crops sometimes do exctremely well , pending the droughts though..in these climates.

Droughts in tropical africa however appear to be a different quality. Wich is easy to imagine as the suns heat can be almost painfull here.
(and definetly to much to sit or walk around in it a lot.

Well i think i have my point made. We should counter climate change, try to slow it down, revert it, and adapt as much as possible in a reconstructive way.

Fortunately i have been occupied with the subject before, and some projects have been underway. I will once again sum them up, to stress their importance.

Firstly and thirstly we have to settle water resources.
That can be done in a few ways, open resources, structural resources and additional resources. Wich means: fresh water surface typically "wetlands", groundwaterlevel and
potentially ice and desalification.

It is never predictable what will work, we have no geotypical evidence of anything, however a few of my gambles have already been extremely rewarding so it seems that the planetary tends to take the logical courses. And countermeasures to the effects tend to work when they have this logical "potential" or quality.

In other words, although some foreseeable countermeasures won't work or fizzle, generally they tend to reward more then you would expect.

The best example here being the wetlands case, but reforestation has alredi proven rewarding energetically, hydrologically and possibly even regulatory.

In that context the worldwide hype and economical misfit of tourism would have better served when approached as renaturalisation, reforestation and generally the reconstruction of a flourishing nature (of any kind).

In countering climate change and disaster you cannot expect a profit technology to do the job. Wetlands for example, however much one of the most rewarding scenerys to look at, tend to be decent places for cows meadows.

It is a trade off in that sense, if you want the peculiar looks of it: cows actually fed on leaves in nature, not on grass and as a result they suffer a permanent diarhea.
So , the more ekological aproach of recontructing a natural quality of the landscape
is selfevident in even the greatest bullshit.

I don't have to continue as i alredi mentioned far over a billion ways to possitively induce climate regulation but anyhow i will try.

One thing i apreciated is that since we are talking about major features of the landscape you may actually use your imagination to adapt features you would in not other context consider. Albeit it would not be much use under other circumstances...:) Just don't consider it human inspiration let alone effort for such. Thats just excuses, some art of revisionism.

As i argued before, the climate tends to stick to logical consequences, the extra wetlands and watersurfaces have serviced neatly to counter effects of droughts,
adaptional agriculture and microclimatisation have their rewards as well.

Regulating fishery would instantly replenish fish resources in a few years, and possibly even alredi does, at some places,(that has not much to do with climate though). However we may have to pay attention to different species of edible fish and take care they migrate at sufficient speed.

(that is where they geologically and specifically tend to fail and extinguish)
It may be that we have to take care for plants in that sense as well.
Especially traditional barreers for species, would be unbridgeable still. Examples of these are many , but plain: australia, madagascar, the middle american landbridge.

It is probably better to reforest anything with adaptional vegetation then with nothing at all and every insulated species will be mostly limited in alternative range and acutely endangered.

Im talking plants now, not animals they are a slightly different case. However one point can be made, in many places you cannot waste much of the original ecology since it is alredi been infested with the more proliferate species of exotics.

And although that may be more of a direct concern for small islands etc. whole continents like australia seem equally affected.

(as kangaroos tend to die out all over australia you hardly have to be scared to punish your local nature by introducing them instead of the other way around)

That would serve to remain a basis of diversification, wich might in its turn serve to create ecological niches in that 'post-apocalyptical' era.

Those are considered 'resources' for human substanance. I forgot what endpoint in a science lines that represents :)

Anyhow this is all pointing at the alternative, because it is so obvious we need something on hands when we basically find alternative bussiness for pollution and exploit.

Reading over it i notice i could have stressed one point more,
the need to take care it rains. There are an endless amount of reasons to put every effort for that, and it is my major worry at the moment, what is happening to the water, why are the clouds so high, however, if we will at all be able to manage the receipe is clear. Water surface, and vegetation, general humidity factors and not the drenching and draining of rain will be able to turn the tide if anything will.

It would actually regulate hurricane- ike effects ofcourse, but that is another esoteric point yet to proof its natural consequence.

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.