ideological struggle and house occupations

the ideological struggle is much impeeded. the new blog interface lags like mad, impeded.
even the word struggle is ideologically incorrect, not a coincedence.

in netherlands at the moment occupying a house is not easy.
that is to say.. it has been a while since i was with a group that would not mix pragmatism with housing struggle.

moreso in a point of time like this, after a decade long criminalisation campaign, that ofcourse had it's effects.

that wasn't even hard, marginalisation and infrinchments on rights sufficed to make the usual situation so precarious i often saw no other option but a criminal for sustenance myself.

..

a history of legal disenfranchisement of the civilian i a formal struggle with the system over a basic right: housing,

the nazis love to do anything against housing, the capitalist you might say, but nazi is their product and favourit. disempowerement disenfranchisement, illegalisation their hallmarks,

if it is about a single group, a social phenomenon or the result of cneturys of struggle for emancipation.

..

in my opinion and for my person, now it is not possible to occupy houses at the moment 'just for living'

even if the people need the house unfortunately.

just like it used to be btw. the occupying of houses must be done seriously, consciously aware it is a political action and it is an exemplary action.

probably it would be best to focus on a few big projects besides emergency housing. everyone their own 'legalised' sttus is also distracting and doing the cause for the whole not much good.

once that is done people 'settle', and often 'settle with it'. also the majority of even political people cannot withstand the temptation to try and get 'individual property-like rights' of their own only corrupting the situation more. if we could arrange a few bigger places to house the people that do need the political and free context but cannot on their own fight every institution and prejudice it would be great. i suppose not everyone has to be consciously aware of every ideological implication.

anyhow for me it does not work to compromise. i am looking for a group with a definite target and 'mission', like we used to have, for an individual the pressure is usually to big.

this 'mission' also has to be communicated between ourselves. it is better to loose a house than to haggle with the principles and rights that people have.

the basic method of occupying houses has allways been demonstrative action. usually with groups of people or sympathisers.

through demonstrative action housing will allways stay possible, not immediatly but even when they succesfully imprison the people that dare to stand up the better at some point the system will allways give in tp the pressure of populace and media.

perhaps they intend to won't, and sniggle over that in the pluche but the individual township and major also has to answer, and usually sooner rather than later it would result in a roof over the head that needs it.

for that it is important not to isolate the people that have the ideological perspective still more.
and if for that reason only, occupying houses should be a spacy affair.

rdprcially because it will need to be doe with a ideologically motivated group. housing is an ideological right, non ideological housing struggle, strange compromises, vague contracts etc., it is pragmatically easier than no roof at all, but it has nothing to do with real housing struggle, the occupation of unused and speculative property.

a property that is the hypocrit crisis pyramid scheme to defraud us all from sensible living circumstances and individual and collective rights.

so very damn ideological that i do not want to work for individuals, that need the house even desperately. yes i will try but i find it hard to function it is the ideological bases, and it is a dutch one unfortunately, that allowed the housing movement to change a whole lot against homelessness.

like with every emancipation the establishment is torturing hard to turn about every psoitive social impact because it does not serve their pyramid schemes.

only one answer, struggle back and struggle that ideological struggle ideologically.

the action is quite simple, and quite possibly the person i think about most at the moment will succeed when they get bored with evicting them time after time. not for the first time they try and play like that.
no of the measures are 'new' they all been tried and failed before.

if he was with a group and everything was ideologically motivated it would be that much easier.
he doesn't even err. he just does not take the ideologically pragmatical course, to continue the project with the half empty neighbourhood (that well actually yet discriminated him) plenty good reasons for that, but every other project is more complicated.

for these small houses every aspect of the speculation is clear, the only reason it failed last time was because the homeless person had so much pleasure in destroying the house, so that he was not 'ideologically fit' for the action. he still needed a roof over his head ofcourse, if i had no house it would be more simple, i would just make the action creatively untill i could live somewhere.

ofcourse you need to be creative, in case for example a few attempts in the aforementioned neighbourhood would fail because of infringments of the authoritys, i would surely squat the former post office or some other high profile target to make the point.

also that is ideological, not to be satisfied before you have what you need, but not to allways opt for more than that.

for a bigger project, the first you need is more people, only after that a person  with ideological background can legaly represent the point that is thus made.

to represent cases for ideological reasons implies another thing,
no matter what, the house and the people in it should stay reasonably whole.

if you need to destroy some building for a living, it cannot be that we do it under the guise of housing.
either you need to make the ideological struggle to occupy for demolition, and it would be a story with an end, because the establishment likes demolition well, or you have to destroy a building that you are not using under an ideological and thus legal pretence.




PS.
most people cannot make the ideological struggle for two simple reasons
egoism and fear
and: not being fair.

once you manipulate someone(s) to make them help you it is not anymore ideological,
within certain limits (can you help me is ok), since the ideology is allways for a 'true cause'.

 it is not possible to reach the ideal situation (good and facilitating housing) simply if the intentions will not be clear and reliable.

that is for me or any other politically engaged person, but it is even more so in the struggle against the establishment, because one way or another that fight is allways won in and as a legal case.

the pretence of the legal system that it donns justice is utterly farfetched, but actually that they are an excuse means you should not give them one.

the powers that be (cops, sneaky services, establishment, the rich) will create the mishaps themselves, brief informers and pressure the lonely to destroy iniatives, nevertheless we need to win our cases.

oh we can be pragmatical, but only in ideology, not in practice.

about being fair, if people are not fair i will consider them unreliable, for good reason or not,
that not being fair is so often pragmatical ('perhaps it works this way') is one good reason to put fear first and the resulting lack of openness and dishonesty only second.

an extreme example is once someone approached me and said,

oh that was the owner, but i dealt with it..

how??

i told him we would leave..

what???

well, we will just not leave, but he will think so and go away.

now i am so much older i wonder if he actually asked and got money with that trick,

glad i don't remember who or when or if it even really exactly happened, i guess it is a compilation of several memorys.

obviously telling an owner you will leave when you have no such intention or plans is a good example of how it is rewarding to be ideologically consequent. the best that guy can think about the people he just met and discussed with (or so we hope he could have) is they are idiots, wich would be close to the truth in the case, but he can also get scared for lies and cheats.

well since i think he was a damn rich nutter serves him well he swallowed it and probably , i think now, payed no small amount, to the persons standards

but at the moment, now we need good cases,  they well now, i think they thoughtfully conspired, planned and even planted to have the earlier action fail.

it would result in a rich fellow whining to his well positioned mates, and they would aptly and illegally have the police serve and slave with malicious violence and conspiracy to hold the iniative.

that is how it is if you are under a regime without any respect for fundamental rights 'in practice'.
the weak spot is they have their excuse still, and allways, pragmatically.

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.

censory and wikipedia

well it took a while, but it worked. wikipedia is now completely a censoring tool.
it used to be that by virtue of unlimited personal edits and and a fringe of fanatical deleters and ' experienced editors' (some kind of mods with allways noncontroversial opinions), to maintain the status quo.

factual truth has been the first victim. but well.. wiki was still a lot of reading material. and soemwhat interesting at times even in more sensitive subjects.

i think now it is a thing of the past. recent events get protected, even the talk page is not anymore available to post links or raise questions. i was looking at the toulouse case, for no special reason but to check what censored story would be history's fraud.

so i noticed the article states the school was attended by ppl 11-17 yrs old, but all the victims were a lot under that age. i even know what will be the next argument, that a lot of kids (yeah like the kids of the headteacher in the middle of the day) use it as a busstop. nevertheless, even if that is so, wich it ain't , it would be preferable if you could also describe why the kids got hurt.

next the dead 'perp' so the guy the police shot dead, in the media was hit 'by twenty bullets'. in wiki he was just shot with a headshot. it cant all be right and the 20 bullets are apparently unwanted history,

okay i think, they succeeded in setting up a wiki censoring infrastructure, turning wikipedia into an instrument against truth. and since there is nothing i can do about it, without endlessly involving with this specific species of nauseating censoring agents, i won't.

i'll just read the selfindulgent reasonings of the like a couple more time untill i know how and where to skip them. just give up wikipedia will essentially be a bearer of knowledge. only an accomplished censoring tool.

bit like mali, nowhere an open discussion about the topic but surely the wests clients started up a military threat etc. actually what the mali military wants is peace.
with the tuareg. seems they are not allowed, only allowed to die for a fake peace.

it's similar.

(like we are not supposed to know the headteacher and rabbi were actually (apparently) a targetted attack, we are not supposed to know the mali take-over is one for peace in the first place, like we are not supposed to know the police rather wanted the attacker dead, we are not supposed to know a mali soldier's or tuareg life isn't worth a penny, and each result to be gotten through censoring. and all 'protected' against more honest comments.)

syria unhappy aniversary

its been a year, since the protests started, and a year since i saw the eager hawks eyes fall on syria, it annoyed me to no end then and now. ghadaffi starting a military campaign, provoked the armed response the nato had for many years been anticipating..

in alternative circles the question was if i could not prevent ghadaffis fall and promote assads.

i wouldn't, basically because syria is more geostrategically relevant for peace in the world,
but ofcourse i could not speak my mind in that, so i explained that whatever the lack of difference between ghadaffi and assad, ghadaffi was not actually improving a lot and went to side with the the elites of the west and nato, and assad no matter he also had to leave at least did better than his dad.

really speaking my mind i could not, i know by now they are allways listening, what i really thought was : libya is to attractive for the corps, all that oil, and to easy. 3 million people.

syria would be a damned bit more massacrous, and not as much in the eye of the vultures.

but now i said that after all, and see it worked. noone is seriously convinced even the syrian uprising would perform any better than say badr in irak ( a terror campaign), or the loose contraption in libya. a show of backwardness.

that was a serious worry ofcourse also because even if it was kept of the screens i was well aware assad garnered 100000s of militant supporters. quite probably more than ghadaffi because tribal struggle is hardly comparable with the bitterness of religious vengeance.

so i was acting for waht i could, and did not want to show, against intervention in syria where the deathtoll would probably not stay under 2 million. or like in libya 200k.

not that i think syria would be worth 200000 dead. but had i believed it had worked at that unimaginable cost, i might not have protested so much.

not only is assad of the dynastic throne seater kind, syria does have a rather lousy name of reaction and repression. now that is partly due the bias of western monitoring, we don't hear the same about saudi arabia eg. allthough that can be said, but it is still annoying.

so all the year i have been hoping with all my heart he would wisen up and at least leave.
he didnt. actually he instigated a military offensive against the restive populace.
with terror campaign, arrests, torture, disappearings, revenge taking on familys and family homes, but

in the fog of war and nato interests not so much was said about arrests, i am quite sure they try to keep that tool of repression unblamished as much as they can.

what is perhaps worse is not much was said (after the first 3 months) about people disappearing after arrests.

only now, yesterday i read the nr of 50000 ppl arrested and disappeared. why no stress on that in our media? unfortunately it is simple, it is what they still have in mind for us. and like assad, if people get killed in the proces in a visible place, they would call us, the populace, terrorists.

because in between the considerations about arming groups, foreign influence and the people disappeared in israel, (or at least i dont understand what happened to all those arrested there, i once checked and since 1969 when they had some 70k official prisoners every year 3-5k were added, ending a tally of i think 9000 in 2011. so that was to weird for words, and appears to show the missing persons problem is regionally compounded)

that is what happened start off, and clichee as ever, the opposition were called 'terrorists'. wich they were not, only after many arrests, many people tortured, many disappeared, and many shot, they took up arms and at first started to, carefully, react.

that does not show the resistance is peacefull, according the gandhi's myth. neither was india. the peacefull take was a convenient ending basically. see we gave them what they want when they asked it how we want it to be asked.

they would never hand us aything for asking it peacefully. i have my experiences with activism, and socalled democracys have one excruciatingly exercised answer to it: repression.

including allways torture. usually in the light form of ' common' police harrasment and violence
but really the limit i have not seen. maiming 500 dutch or so was when i stopped counting the ill will of the repression against peacefull activity.

so i dont believe in that. i think the english left india because they got killed. by the hindu followers of kali, (the deity of occcupied populations) or by the sicks or just by their own indian housekeeperslaves.

but they don't want us to know, that you can only beat terror on equal footing. rather they have you believe a myth of peacefull resistance and whack on you for all the time still to come.

and so it is the same for assad in syria. just like turkey blames the kurds, spain the basques, and russia the chechnyans, usia the afghans in short everyone the civilians they like to kill, assad called the citizens: terrorists.

scary. normal.

but what is the realist outlook? for one thing the allawites and shias and the settled minority in charge of the reeling of the syrian republic, do fear the religious zealotry of the generally sunni resistance. that also explains why so many arab nations want to invade or arm the syrians. they are sunni if not in majority then at least as a ruling class. iran and nowadays irak, and syria are the exceptions.

it reminds me for no reason at all at the week before the european union became a transbordering reality, the week before we became one nation : european.
in the accolades about teh development guess what, we were served a logo , and guess what was in: (not in europe but in the logo) israel.

hadnt even been a signatory of teh treaty, so i raised great alarm, i dont want any arabs in my european federation, and that besides they are not in europe and not even bordering it.

so i realised it was to put up europeans against palestinians in that way facilitating those new arms industry markets of genociding muslims.

to my untold surprise it worked. hesitatingly european officials admitted israel had never been in the eu. had never signed a thing, and they would know of no great excuse, except that they like to feel the people of europe, to tell.

in hindsight i assume the treshold of hidden anti-semitism worked for me there. but i was so sick of the israeli manipulations of the day it didn't occur at that point. with so much they let pass how was i to assume antisemitism was a real thing in them.

it was a great surprise, but the logo was done with, changed, and israel became admittedly not a member. i also wish they'd never asked me about my opinion about turkey's joing the eu.

my opinion was : it was not in europe, and provocative, it was culturally alien (except perhaps the army) and seemed much ado with the western corps encrouchment of the middle eastern oil.

again in hindsight i wonder if i should have taken the risk and allowed the great landwar to happen. it is not that much different now.

what does it tell about syria?
well it tells in what i sympathise with assad, that the ones that shouted the most against him are quite ready and apt to cheat everyone and each (except me that is not as easily fooled) in europe.

a lonely position.

what else do i now think about syria? two things that are still important. the first is (and how heroic are the initial advanced guards?) that the resitance is willing to abolished armed struggle the moment assad leaves,(we dont hear that to often, maybe it is not the corps planning) the second, that the regime is not willing (well just like ours but on some scale these days) to give up violent repression and control. oh yes and that 50000 people went missing with indications of torture, for some reason islam apparently promotes torture. it is a very common thing in every theatre in the muslim world. irak , post war, i associate it with torture, mubarak? torture. ben ali? torture. ghadaffi , same, the new libya? torture.

oh i think locking women up and veiling them consists torture, so it simple to see how islamic folklores (aka sharia) promote torture and dehumanising treatment, they get it with the breastfeed so to say.

it is easy to understand. start or mid april there are supposed to be elections in syria. i would not hold my breath for surprises, it is not what elections are for.

you know what is the weirdest in this whole story? that when my main concern was geopolitical, and peace, and the end to perpetrating an ongoing attrocity of cold war with china and russia, and also to set free the yemenites, bahreinis, maroccans , saudis and other clients of the west, not only the ones not as cosy with capitalist theft and extortion through speculation and misinformation, would really chnange regime.

well they didnt, and maybe that is what keeps syria in limbo. set them free!
astarting with bradley manning. all my kind regards, and thx for the amazing influence wittingly or unwittingly attached to my thought.

cheer up syria, if the elections (need the time come) don't show a thing it is allways a good moment to rise again...

keep in mind, we are the borg , all your bases belong to us.

that will allways be with the military fighting a populace, no matter if it is internal or the nato doing the mudering.

the revolution will live, assad will leave, only... not yesterday ..



oh yes talking about unhappy, this made me cry, no words for it, and i would love to do to bush what he did to the forestpeople.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2012/03/201231483446653151.html

(in case of broken link the title is: Green: Death of the Forest.)

what moves us in afghanistan.

it got rili silly. after the afghanis went on a rampage, over the alledged burning of korans, being shot by police or i don't know what, with 17 dead, to the great discomfort and exercise of laughing muscles of the rest of the world, some bloke went nuts, sneaked out in the night and started killing the family of an elder of the village that had so long and bloodily fought with the taliban, with 17 dead.

sad. ofcourse, certainly for the people involved, all these 34 dead, a suicide attack.

will he be the first usian to stand trial under afghan standards of truth finding?

perhaps he thought he dealt with a human shield once again. they don't let ppl. that first conquer a town like that occupy it for years to come do they?

maybe they do, that would be soooo stupid, i would not be surprised.

but i feel guilty a bit, the day before i wrote i would get mad if someone started shouting their religious fixes and lording from the towers and loudspeakers, and 'as their justice(?) representative said': these people still live in 1600s (as an excuse for extradition)(1).

i beg your pardon? no loudspeakers in 1600. not going to hand out a costy soldier to a barbarian that don't know theres no loudspeakers in the 16th century..;)

and since i am quite sure about it would drive me rather mad, probably that works for other people the same.

not that it is good, but it is similar to putting a bomb on a market, you'd wonder what contrary afghan justice actually sees.

or like he put it "still very much an eye for an eye", forgetting the shakesperean addition: "gets everyone blind", ofcourse.

i pitty that soldier;

tasked with the impossible, to achieve peace and maintaining a foothold on the open front of corporate war on any and all, the killing, the industry, the human shields, the escaping culprits, the lax punishment of battlestress, the lowly standard of a private, the infeasibility to burn a good koran now and then, the burning of schools but not churches, the people that never get out of the house and are probably preparing ied's, (they can be everywhere and must come from some). the feeling of an enemy allways on their necks, the mean officers that insult every and each starting with the afghans, 'smelly bearded hypocrite homosexual adultrists that they are',

the deathpenalty on someone that abolished koran, the endless hoovering of drones, and the ghastly laughter of their remote operators in your headphones, the rewarding of evil and punishment of bradley manning, the piss-on-you mentality of the marines, those admired super-soldiers, the security services allways watching your every step, do you have an identity card for the grocery?! the supermarket?! the street?! the coffee?! the camp?! the neighbours?!, the bus?!
the roadblock?! every other person officered and uniform?!

and all the harrasment by the soldiers fellow machos.. no really, i hope they get him back home soon, cure him (weapons are legal in usia) and publish a book.

(1) or a freak joke, not a very progressive one.

2012 and the policestate (1)

we live in a policestate, for those of you that never involved in political activitys, and never voiced the opinion unwanted by the elites and their industrys it may not be so obvious, so let me tell you about yesterday, the story may get a little dense, the abuse of law and police comes with a lot of detail and i tend to be serious about law and justice so i have a lot to tell on the topic, that besides the example is slightly complex even if it is actually rather plain. law should serve equality, and serve justice, not arbitrarity and corruption.

but it has never yet happened, so far in history the policestate allways served the criminals, the polluters, the overpriviliged, the greedy, the ones in the big well payed chairs, the ones that actually think they are better and deserve better then others.

for that, first an example. in netherlands refugees are forced to do a 'dutchness test'. i am against it, the natural flow of integration is good enough for me, in my experience just talking to people in dutch made every difference, the only reason i saw people did not integrate was in the distance people kept for racial reasons, reasons of fear, and reasons of discrimination.

so just as it came as a xenophobiac idea of the reactionairy (self declared liberals), that needed a bigger share of the election pie to explain their total rule against equality and environment and came up with the all-old fraude (fake elections) under a more fascistoid and expressly discriminating covert, ofcourse the idea was suspect for starters.

like i said , being an anti-racist i never had any problem with anyone not originally from here, all i met were quite eager to learn dutch, communicate and be friends.

nevertheless under the pretence of unwill (instead of the valid argument that the discrimination and segregation caused a discrepancy among foreign born or culturally differently raised), these people were forced to do a course.

the fascists (calling themselves the opposite ofcourse) the elitarist mainstream of netherlands saw an opportunity for indoctrination , and so it went.(1)

when i was young, you had these diehard reactionairys insisting on authoritarian speach, instead of "je" or "jij" they wanted to be called "u". people that had that trait invariably disappointed when it it was about content (justice, rights, compassion), for them it was only about position.

well they thought, now we have an opportunity to force these differently colored people all to adapt "u". the sharia word for you. and unsurprisingly but pukable, so it went.

the colored people, the muslims, they were forced to say 'u'. all my life i had practised the emancipatory, and it was succesfull, before this event i met noone in their right mind that still insisted on this archaic fossil of a class-society seriously. yet.. colored people failed their dutchness tests if they didnt accept this antiquated value.

what a waste of emancipation. surprised with this anti-equality result of a xenophobiac project? ofcourse not, but it remains a sticky "sick" to encounter all to frequent.

that is an example of how the powers that be are actually an elitist clique that want to pervert justice into still more class justice for their personal gains and priviliges. not shunning to create anti egalitarian and fascistoid laws to have the means.



--------


so when i was a child, i observed much of this, injustice, the destruction of nature, the culpable and scary power of the nuclear industry, the pharmaceutic industry and the tool, not anymore a achievement, of law. i thought: i will be a lawyer and represent the disadvantaged, try to make it matter.

as a result i scanned the papers for legal incident, procedure and precedent, why not? obviously i would need to be rather 'good', proficient, so much wrong, so many wronged.

then, not many years later, when i was 11 (i think, 1974), so 4 -6 years later, there was some benchmark proces, i do not remember anymore about what it was, probably it had a do with either labour rights(2) or corporate responsability for pollution because the lawyer involved, that surprisingly made and won the case was one that had once worked for 'shell' the oilcompany, or perhaps it was philips, i dont remember the actual detail anymore.

however i had seen a few similar procedures, quitte incomprehensibly lost over the past few years, so i went through it all really thoroughly to see what made this lawyer, or actually jurist, win the case, one that made some sense.

i discovered that his virtue was acclaimed by the oil industry, he had been working his whole life for the big industrys, oh i could guess, made them millions, billions perhaps, to the cost of lives of poor, labourers, underdeveloped nations, etc., etc. that was obvious, i was rather into the job, and had no high estimate of the procedings in economic justice, actually i researched that even, what and when a lawyer could win an even slightly controversial case, because i realised defending the poor and disadvantaged would allways be that, controversial.

well it was a great disappointment. the comments showed he won that case because of his celebrity as a jurist for a multinational, also he was already somewhat older, nearing a pension, and for reasons of fraternality apparently the judges , and by extension (wrong-wing) politics decided to have him ('us') win for once. i "worked" at the case, opiniated, made my opinion known (and (usually) 'count').

so much for my carreer as a jurist, a lawyer, i was not going to slave for a polluter, a representative of the classsystem all my life contrary to ethics, contrary to nature, contrary to humans. no way. end of file.

i never had an idea of a future again, never respected any 'paper', in the sense of certificate anymore. not that i much had, but it was the absolute deathstroke. what a farce.

and that in what i considered the only chance, the only most essential aspect of society, justice.

ofcourse i was right, malpractice, abuse, and utter contempt of law have been my and our daily due, not only before but very much since.

there is not one single fundamental law, (constitutional paragraph) i have seen respected. upheld.

i also lost all interesse, i saw no professional future, if it was not possible to achieve justice within the system, i would try without. and so i did.

my life has been one rich in experience, and poor due injustice as a result.

it is the daily characteristic of my life and (not only my) problems still.


tbc.



(1)in few cases usefull changes to that curriculum have been made, like informing about administrative procedures, however i wonder to what end, probably selfrighteous ones, the administrative systems in netherlands surely do not stand the test for unbiasedness or objectivity, let alone lawfull exercise of human rights, however i write about the whole of the project and the whole of the politics and not about the peculiar details of improvement i and my fellows of (color) other roots achieved notwithstanding, another one being that the complaint about lousy translators has been taken (dunno if that is still, i hardly believe that) somewhat serious at (at least) one moment in time.
(2) a subject i stringently followed

2012 and the euro

rather had it been 2012 and people, but what attention would that draw, rather the kind of thing to schedule for the summer or a special occasion.

in principle i am a proponent of unified monetary systems. have been that, so much so that i would not feel ashamed to say for the euro you have me to blame, i guess it means my opinion matters.

the reason for that is given transparance the more simple and less diverse administrative functions like money are organised the less it costs, and more important, the less opportunity for fraude there is. especially on macrofinancial scales.

that is given transparance.

however this transparance that would basically disallow immense personal profits, to the benefit of a future, a future climate, a future food production, and a future 'society' in a way to the benefit of us all and all our children is not yet there.

as such the euro is an abusive toy in the hands of the elite that get their power and wealth from such macro'economical' and macrofinancial abuse.

people like a republican in the states that says, we have to have the rich pay even less, wich would mean someone earning a million would get about 250k more,

some people like the todays gossip from london, i dont even know what the pr office (really they "call" financial rating buro ), the instrument of the banks name. wich means i hardly ever heard of it before, and that in turn tells us (me at least) it is a pr stunt,

it said euronations needed to be 'downgraded', ok no news there , it is what the pr of the rich says, but why exactly? oh the overall problems everywhere (usias problems that),

and 'the high labour cost'.

well for us common people we can be pretty simple about it.

what we want is a juster world, a cleaner , not a doomed, and a pleasant to live in.

that means , no greater gaps between rich and poor, not making more poor.

it used to be when people would start working in there early 20s rather quickly they build up a decent wage. not anymore, people go untill their 30s under stressfull requirements and laborous manipulations to keep them poor.

it did never really help, because the story has been the same all these decades

the rich want more, wich they tell by shouting less tax and cheaper labour.

if we get our act together we learn to recognise this standard assortment of excuses to inflict damage on society as a whole and the majority of people in general.

as soon as romeny shouts: less tax for the rich, you know where he is at.

he wants to destroy us and the environment for money.

soon as an institute says that, you can also be sure the people there are rich, and will be even more priviliged even more in a position of abuse, if the other get poorer.

so actually what you hear for 'news', it's only propaganda.

the masses of people that are the victim, probably know well they can also not trust tehirselves,

i can't really trust them, try crossing a street, people tend to be nice in many ways, but on the road, or in the going of the ways of society, they can't really.

still, if we, the masses of disadvantaged, the poor, disabled, the labourers, even the poorer midclass, don't get our act together nothing is going to work.

it will keep on becoming a worse police state.
more of our public space and institutions will be scavenged,
the differences will only grow,
poverty will become really painfull in large parts of the world,
pollution will be incredible,
and the earth will rather sooner than later have to give up the struggle to have us survive.

and all that, we can change, through transparance .. we could.
the other thing we need is actually called trust.

makes reason doesnt it, don't we think of trust when we think of why we cannot easily be friendly with another? like on the street or somewhere else?

that trust is in simple things for the rest,

less tax for the rich is bad.
trust in companys and corporations is dumb, they are for the rich
state is (could be(1)) good , government can be bad, police is usually mediocre, but state itself, tax, roads, insurances, housing, water. electricity, all these together things, are ok or good

it depends what you do with it, but it is good for the majority of us. that is why taxes are good.
small taxes for the small, big for the big. good!

smaller wages is bad.
its allways bad, richer is more powerfull rich.

smaller wages for labourers is a bad tool and it means to hate your fellows.
never believe anyone that calls for smaller wages for the labourer
its simple but it works.

smaller wages for the rich is good. good for us, and very good for planet earth, we can do something usefull with the money.

thats all really,
bout the euro.

to survive it, the mass will have to learn to stick together. one way would be through real transparance, wheres the money, whats the money, wheres it go, all of it. privacy is a pr tool of thr rich and an utter farce. because the good part of it is so dear that we(the masses) defend the bad idea that was made out of it.

wonder.. if this text will be rewritten by self ..
wonders..

glad to be of service

(1) obviously state can also be bad, as an anarchist i would not want to call it 'state' when we get it working. it is mere proffesional organisation. also the association with authority is to strong, the state should in fact not be an authorical one but rather like a cooperative network, otoh as long as we stick to monetary systems , might as well keep a tax based public institutions and probably in a way, people are really to dumb in general to have a system working without a 'state' riot of here. since a huge part of the problem is in the ways we are made to mistrust one another and get brainwashed with endless rubbish from all kind of rich people that want to tell they or people like them are great, or so, sometimes it escapes me, what would they really have to tell, such empty pr. nobody is perfectly happy, not a poor, not a surgeon, not a millionaire.
no amount of money can change all of that. egoism is typically not a very constructive habit for the rest of the people, that is very wrong with todays values in capitalism.
rather simply cause and effect. capitalism is bad.