|
|  |
Pim Fortuyn, its dying and leftwing reaction
X - 03.06.2002 19:26
Equal to beginning I want to note that I feel
political murder in the momentary phase in Central
Europe for not helping and also generally think, that
the the liquidation of high office-holders in politics
or economics does not lead necessarily to an extension
of free spaces for emancipatory policy, but is rather
counter productive.However, this approach is from a
tactical or better strategic approach, because I think
radically left-wing fighting is in the moment in an
absolute defensive position and from this point has to
be concluded that a movement can not withstand
repression-technically the following repression of
political liquidation. This does not mean however the
fact that a radical left one on eternity on means as
also can do without to the armed fight.
And here we are exactly by the reactions on Pim´s
death: Pim was liquidated neither from a political
consideration, nor there was a behind it-standing
group; there was a single actor, who liquidate Pim,
for what reasons ever. So far so badly...
Pim´s dying surely opened no areas for a left one, but
rather locked. But, why this enormous moral
proclamation? There a racist died, so what. How many
immigrants inside European countries died in the last
decade?
Responsible for this are formulations, to which
Fortuyn surely contributed.
Which surprised me above all is the moral proclamation
and this is for a left-wing movement naive who wants
to sweep-away once the dominant conditions. Who or
which believes that this will run off without force
and also death is naively. and surely it distinguishes
us in contrast for reaction that we should always
respect that we keep our humanity. but we will surely
resist, that the dominant ones will have historically
and also up-to-date, e.g. in Genova be never enough
hesitated the to pull their guns.
With each action it should be always respected that
one behind the mask to of rascists or capitalist they
are still are humans. In the moment however, where
they exercises force or power their function carriers
of force conditions, which will not only have to be
fallen peacefully but evenly also by force.
|
| aanvullingen | | | waar gaaaaaaaat dit over???? | Jan Willem - 03.06.2002 21:03
onleesbare kul. Schrijf gewoon in het de nederlandse taal of vraag iemand anders het voor je te vertalen.
| | Vertaalcomputer | Wilbert van Leijen - 03.06.2002 22:02
Vrijwel zeker is dit het resultaat van een Quick & Dirty vertaalprogramma. Denk maar aan Babelfish.
Let op dat geen enkel woord foutief is gespeld. Als je nonsensicaal schrijft (en het bovenstaande is inderdaad kletsica waar Poet Piet jaloers op zou zijn), dan ligt het voor de hand dat je ook niet kunt spellen.
Geinig om te zien hoe je een pseudo-intellectueel betoog dat je kunt samenvatten als "de moord op Pim lost niets op" effectief kunt omtoveren tot delirisch gelul met behulp van een programmaatje.
| | Translationcomputer | Wilbert from Leijen - 03.06.2002 22:07
Pretty much undoubtedly is this the result with one Quickstep Dirty translator. Think about solely upon Babelfish. Lett worn who nobody verb wrong is clasp. When yours nonsensical written language ( and the the above is indeed twaddle worthy Swag Piet jealous worn would be one´s ), then is situated the until the handshake who yours nothing can spell. Humour to see the yours one pseudonymous - intellectual argument who yours can take together when " the murder worn Pim unloading time nothing worn " real can transform by magic until delirium tolling with obliging with one programmaatje.
| | Waardevol | Paul de Groot - 03.06.2002 23:48
Zowel dit artikel als de reacties erop hebben mij nu echt overtuigd; een medium als Indy media is werkelijk onombeerlijk als eerlijke en open bron van nieuws in deze krypto kapitalistische samenleving met neo imperialistische trekken. Dank jullie hartelijk, waar kan ik mij aanmelden voor de eerst volgende actie/aktie of aksie? Eindelijk een politiek correcte site met echte inhoudelijke informatie.
| | je bedoelt | com.tort - 04.06.2002 00:43
"Onontbeerlijk", zal je zeker bedoelen, meneer de Groot? Het blijft fascinerend dat een aantal jongetjes zich geroepen voelt om voortdurend een soort uiterst rechts commentaar te leveren op berichten die hier gepost worden. Gelukkig is het verloop ook groot. De vraag blijft; waar gaan die mennekes vervolgens heen met hun frustraties? Ik stel dat vanaf de Internet-Spycholoog (IS) erop losgelaten wordt en de digitale uitbraaksels van genieen als Cash, Bob en dat nieuwe licht uit London wetenschappelijk ge-evalueerd worden.
| | Onontbeerlijk, ja dank u wel | Paul de Groot - 04.06.2002 01:20
Zowel dit artikel als de reacties erop hebben mij nu echt overtuigd; een medium als Indy media is werkelijk onontbeerlijk als eerlijke en open bron van nieuws in deze krypto kapitalistische samenleving met neo imperialistische trekken. Dank jullie hartelijk, waar kan ik mij aanmelden voor de eerst volgende actie/aktie of aksie? Eindelijk een politiek correcte site met echte inhoudelijke informatie.
| | belachelijk | lisa - 04.06.2002 09:51
wat belachelijk ik vind dat iedereen zijn eigen mening mag zeggen en als dat niet kan dan zie je wat er gebeurd.
En als het zo doorgaat vallen er nog meer dooie!!!!!!!!!!!!
en is dat de bedoeling kdenkt nie he.
| | politiek correct | gaia - 04.06.2002 10:12
De Groot houdt dus van politiek correct?
Ik dacht dat Fortuyn dat taboe had doorbroken. Dat sierde hem juist zo.
Maar is het lekker, om op dit medium genadebrood te eten?
| | Parels voor de zwijnen waarschijnlijk | piet - 04.06.2002 11:17
Wilbertje schreef: Let op dat geen enkel woord foutief is gespeld. Als je nonsensicaal schrijft (en het bovenstaande is inderdaad kletsica waar Poet Piet jaloers op zou zijn), dan ligt het voor de hand dat je ook niet kunt spellen.
Hee zeg, ik dacht wel beter onderkend te zijn geworden geweest; ik krijg een vieze smaak van computertaal (behalve een citaat uit een hoofdstuk genaamd ´the human computer´ ((gaat eigenlijk over kaart´spelletjes´))wat ik gister ´transposteerde´ van chanceandchoice.com) die opweg naar inhoud bij de vorm blijft steken wat in dit geval echter, maar goed is ook want als de maker (wat zou z´n moedertaal zijn?) probeert te zeggen wat ik denk dat hij probeert te zeggen is dat het soort inhoud dat bij mij alles tussen vieze gezichten en braakneigingen opwekt.
En daarom, in een poging om dit ´nieuwsweier eitum´ nog wat ´redeeming qualities´ mee te geven (ook al omdat het onder engelse vlag zzz eilt (ijlt?) voeg ik bij deze iets volgens mij wel waardevols toe:
184168
RICH SHALL EAT THEMSELVES (english)
Kevin Phillips, Judas of the GOP 8:40pm Mon Jun 3 ´02 (Modified on 11:16pm Mon Jun 3 ´02)
address: book review by Theodore Roszak, SF Chronicle article#184168
Far from signing on with the liberals, Phillips has pitched his camp deep in progressive-populist territory. Incensed by "two decades of glorifying markets, consumption and self-interest," he is ready to entertain reforms every bit as sweeping as those advocated by Ralph Nader, among them soak-the- rich taxation, sharing the wealth through increased entitlements, a federal takeover of corporate charters and economic nationalism to save jobs and raise wages.
Judas of the GOP lashes out at corporate greed
Reviewed by Theodore Roszak
Sunday, June 2, 2002
 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/06/02/RV207386.DTL
Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich
By Kevin Phillips
BROADWAY; 472 PAGES; $29.95
--------------------------------------------------
It´s unlikely Kevin Phillips will be lunching at the White House anytime soon. Once Richard Nixon´s chief campaign adviser and author of the cheerleading "The Emerging Republican Majority," he has now produced a run of books (among them, "Boiling Point" and "The Politics of Rich and Poor") castigating "the forces of avarice" that have captured the Republican Party.
In "Wealth and Democracy" he shows no sign of relenting. Rather, he adopts a more strident tone and extends his indictment to include the runaway "financialization" of American business, meaning the sleazy manipulation that turned the dot-com boom into a bust. Worse than a maverick, Phillips has become the Judas of the GOP.
Not that he has gone over to the enemy. When it comes to chastising the sins of "the money power," he finds plenty of blame to go around. Remember Bill Clinton´s quip in the 1992 elections? "The rich got the gold mine and the middle class got the shaft"? Phillips endorses that as a neat summary of the last decade, but sees only a difference of degree between the major parties when it comes to toadying up to big business by way of corporate bailouts, rescues, welfare demolition, deregulation and the globalization of investment. Even so, he aims his heaviest artillery at the right-wing ideologues and "market Darwinists" who have ushered the last three GOP presidents into office.
The only Republican president besides Lincoln who earns his praise is trust- busting Teddy Roosevelt.
Far from signing on with the liberals, Phillips has pitched his camp deep in progressive-populist territory. Incensed by "two decades of glorifying markets, consumption and self-interest," he is ready to entertain reforms every bit as sweeping as those advocated by Ralph Nader, among them soak-the- rich taxation, sharing the wealth through increased entitlements, a federal takeover of corporate charters and economic nationalism to save jobs and raise wages. His views are based on a number of historical parallels, including the ruthless Dutch and British plutocracies of an earlier period. But more cogently, he compares the United States today with two previous Republican eras: the Gilded Age of the robber barons and the Harding-to-Hoover Roaring Twenties -- sordid times when raw corporate power ruled the land and "get-rich- quick" was the reigning social ethic.
In Phillips´ eyes, those periods of "market idolatry" pale in comparison to the
way wealth has concentrated since the Reagan presidency. Here´s one eye- opening example. If you´re lucky enough to make $100,000 a year, you place in the most prosperous one-fifth of U.S. households. Not bad, you may think. But in 1999, 90 percent of all the wealth gained by that upper fifth went to the top 1 percent, which means there´s as much of a dollar distance between you and the nation´s ultra-rich above you as between you and the struggling poverty-line families down below.
"As the new millennium unfolded," Phillips observes, "the United States, long shed of its revolutionary outlook, . . . had become home to greater economic inequality than any other Western nation." In our day, CEOs who bankrupted their companies, cheated their stockholders and burned their employees make 400 times more than production workers. And since money talks, income disparity of that magnitude easily translates into power.
As aggravating as Phillips finds this "morphing of politics into a marketplace," he is more concerned that the corporate elite makes most of its money off finance, tax avoidance and shifty speculation, adding little to the true wealth of the nation. "Market theology and unelected leadership," he concludes, "have been displacing politics and elections. Either democracy must be renewed, with politics brought back to life, or wealth is likely to cement a new and less democratic regime -- plutocracy by some other name."
The "free" market, as he makes clear, has never been free of the services and favors the rich can afford to buy from government. The very status of corporations is a political artifact guarded by laws and courts. Trading in the tax-funded government debt has been one of the shortest roads to riches. Even shorter has been owning influence in the state house, the Congress, the courts, the Fed and the White House.
As Phillips observes, the hottest investment in the land is legislation. Money spent buying political candidates can yield returns (by way of tax breaks, contracts, corporate welfare, friendly regulatory decisions) of up to 100,000 percent. In the current year alone, lobbyists have bought steel and soft-wood tariffs and the fattest farm subsidies on record. Conservatives quibble about Phillips´ statistics, but his analysis of our deepening "democratic deficit" is hard to fault. Unfettered self-interest makes a mockery of markets. In "Wealth and Democracy," Phillips may be raking the same pile of muck over again, but his message bears as much repetition as any Pepsi commercial: Mr. and Mrs. America, you´re getting screwed.
I came away from this fine and principled book enraged and instructed but with a sense of abiding despair. There´s not much here about lying, cheating and stealing in high places that hasn´t been front-page news. Greed parades itself brazenly across the media. So how do the rich get away with it? How does a president succeed in engineering a crippling tax cut for his pals and come right back with an encore? Why wasn´t the Enron-Anderson scandal sufficient to bring down the whole corroded corporate structure?
True, we´ve had dissenting political movements: Ross Perot, Nader. But a century ago when Teddy Roosevelt lambasted "malefactors of great wealth," he spoke for massed ranks of furious Populists and crusading Progressives. Roosevelt feared that revolution was at hand. Who would fear that today when even on PBS "Antiques Roadshow" and Suze Orman crowd "Frontline" exposes out of prime time? Why do so many acquiesce in their own indignity? Maybe it´s something in the water.
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/... ==========
I predict GOP ´populism´ for elections (english)
Zorro 11:16pm Mon Jun 3 ´02 comment#184192
Or else they´ll be butchered, even tho they cheat
| | ´t kan nie op; goed en slecht bij(t) elkaar | piet - 04.06.2002 11:58
http://www.centerforbookculture.org/context/no3/powers.html
Being and Seeming: the Technology of Representation
Richard Powers
If I had to name the preeminent art form of the pre-informational era, I would go with architecture. It is at once the most durable, representative, and comprehensive of our available artistic utterances. Buildings embody our most profound, ambitious, and capital-intensive attempts to overhaul the conditions of existence. More than any other aesthetic instrument, monuments stand metonymically for whole cultures and eras. Old chestnut definitions for the field attest to how it incorporates the expressive capabilities of the other arts. Cathedrals are the bible in stone. The exterior of a classical faade sounds as frozen music in the mind. Archaic spaces are said to open onto pure theater, infinity made imaginable. The architect Mulciber was one of the first to be cast out of heaven. Writers, painters, and musicians had to take a number and get in line behind him. And this demonic creators masterpiece, the city of Pandemonium, has stood the test of time, outlasting all other created works except, perhaps, the first.
Because our idea of art is still grounded in the Romantic myth of individual achievement, we often try to tell the history of architecture as we do the other arts, in a litany of names like Phidias, Sinan, Wren, and Wright. But Architecture has always been a profoundly collective enterprise. It exists in that unique interface between individual, aesthetic impulse and public, material necessity. The problems of form and function will yield only to a joint solution that makes the ingenuities of the most ambitious novel writing seem like a five-finger exercise. From the Temple of Nike Apteros to the Guggenheim Bilbao, architecture takes on the massive--and massively social--challenge of assembling a thing that is at once useable, beautiful, and sound.
But I single it out above the other arts for another reason altogether, one that seems more profoundly strange the longer I reflect on it. Where painting and writing and even music represent things, architecture is one of our few pre-information age arts whose products are the things they stand for.
Now if I were to go out on a not-so-daring limb and predict the preeminent medium of the new age that we are just now in the process of bringing about, I would say, without a hesitation, that the great art of the future will be the data structure. Like a good stone monument, the data structure lays claim to comprehensiveness, sweeping all the other arts up into its compass. The bitmap file promises to encode the full arsenal of visual expression. The MIDI file--written in the selfsame binary medium--provides for all the elements of music that can be formalized, every would-be composers Esterhazy in a box. Hypertext markup represents a kind of superset of the syntax of prose, making simple linear fiction a kind of zero-case boundary condition of a more daring, far-flung toolset. And while they do not yet command the required specificity and resolution for us to fully credit them, V-CAD (Virtual Computer-Assisted Design) and VR promise to port even architecture into the realm of what the digital Platonist might call the universally-deformable Forms.
Here, then, is the motive of worldwide digitization: to render every impulse, whether aesthetic or utilitarian, in the same, fully-transformable panglossary. And like architecture, the target medium of this world-wide conversion blurs the line between representing and being. The digitals great source of peculiar leverage lies in its rendering equivalent the operand and the operator. When data and the commands that operate upon that data are made of the same, indistinguishable stuff, the way is clear for recursive feats of representational manipulation heretofore unseen outside the human brain. Strings of binary digits are totally fungible. You cannot tell, upon cursory inspection of an array of memory, whether youre looking at an account or at a behavior, at data or at an algorithm. Even upon program execution, that old distinction gains a new kind of protean permeability. A MIDI file might also be a self-performing score. A bitmap image can become a set of encoded commands made to drive an analog painting machine.
the whole thing is about 13 times as long
Found via:
 Website: http://www.robotwisdom.com
| | kletsica en kolder te kust en keur | piet - 04.06.2002 12:19
Ook hier ben ik niet jaloers op
om hoofd in (de) hand te laten werken dan wel zakken in het vervolg een beetje beter uit elkaar te kunnen houden
First draft, August 1923:
...genesis of Humphrey Coxon´s agnomen the most authentic version has it that like Cincinnatus he was one day at his plough when royalty was announced on the highroad. Forgetful of all but his fealty he hastened out on to the road, holding aloft a long perch atop of which a flowerpot was affixed. On his majesty, who was rather longsighted from early youth, inquiring whether he had been engaged in lobstertrapping Humphrey bluntly answered ´No, my liege, I was only a cotching of them bluggy earwigs´. The King upon this smiled heartily and, giving way to that none too genial humour which he had inherited from his great aunt Sophy, turned to two of his retinue the lord of Offaly and the mayor of Waterford (the syndic of Drogheda according to a later version) remarking ´How our brother of Burgundy would fume did he know that he have this trusty vassal a turnpiker who is also an earwicker´. True facts as this legend may be it is certain that from that date all documents initialled by Humphrey bear the sigla H.C.E. and whether he was always Coxon for his cronies and good duke Humphrey for the ragged tiny folk of Lucalizod it was certainly a a pleasant turn of the populace which gave him as sense of those initials the nickname ´Here Comes Everything´. Imposing enough indeed he looked and worthy of that title as he sat on gala nights in the royal booth with wardrobepanelled coat thrown back from a shirt wellnamed a swallowall far outstarching the laundered lordies and marbletopped highboys of the pit. A baser meaning has been read into these letters, the literal sense of which decency can but touch. It has been suggested that he suffered from a vile disease. To such a suggestion the only selfrespecting answer is to affirm that there are certain statements which ought not to be, and one would like to be able to add, ought not to be allowed to be made. Nor have his detractors mended their case by insinuating that he was at one time under the imputation of annoying soldiers in the park. To anyone who knew and loved H - C - E -- the suggestion is preposterous. Slander, let it do its worst, has never been able to convict that good and great man of any greater misdemeanour that that of an incautious exposure (and partial at that) in the presence of certain nursemaids whose testimony is, if not dubious, at any rate slightly divergent.
via een lijst van voorlopige en ruwe schetsen voor uiteindelijk gepubliceerde boeken van James Joyce
Website: http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/newgame.html
| | blaat schaap | Bob - 05.06.2002 16:21
"Onontbeerlijk", zal je zeker bedoelen, meneer de Groot? Het blijft fascinerend dat een aantal jongetjes zich geroepen voelt om voortdurend een soort uiterst rechts commentaar te leveren op berichten die hier gepost worden. Gelukkig is het verloop ook groot. De vraag blijft; waar gaan die mennekes vervolgens heen met hun frustraties? Ik stel dat vanaf de Internet-Spycholoog (IS) erop losgelaten wordt en de digitale uitbraaksels van genieen als Cash, Bob en dat nieuwe licht uit London wetenschappelijk ge-evalueerd worden.
I´m a Bob, are you a Fred?
Ik weet niet wat voor ruzie jij zoekt en met wie precies, maar is dit nou nodig? Overigens is de definitie van extreem rechts een beetje vergankelijk, ik ken iemand die de PVDA extreem rechts noemt.
| |
| aanvullingen | |
