@JohannesM86 Mä luulen että pilkkireissu tulee venähtämään kun kerrankin tarjoutuu mahdollisuus niinkin eksoottiseen lajiin.. pahuskal Juu nou hätä, ei tässä mitään kriisiä ole. Puhuttiin vaan siitä miten sitä on paljon herkempi näin vanhempana 😊 @m1ltsiYes, 225 is under there! No lines, get ready for a slow ride to work Denver!
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."La 1.2. klo 10.41 Helsingistä lähtevä Z-juna on muodostumassa Pride-junaksi, mahtavaa! #hlbti #junassaontunnelmaa #lahtiMonopoly power-in our system, crony capitalism & its partner, the neofeudal state-enables theft on a systemic scale.Ei menny sentään munat kattilaan! #pilkki #made pic.twitter.com/SkKVzOLUVW
Vastaa Uudelleentwiittaa Suosikki Lisää Näytä kuva
Leo Pikkusaari @LPikkusaari 1 t
@Syntti Muistatko oliko sulla millanen pilkki siiman päässä millanen siima ja oliks joku halpa pieni pilkkikela vai joku isompi värkki?
Vastaa Uudelleentwiittaa Suosikki Lisää Laajenna
Antti 2.0 @Syntti 34 min
@LPikkusaari Kauheet vehkeet ja iso vanha pilkki punasella kumimadolla ja tuoksutahnaa. Muut kävi vaan härnäämässä ja katkaravut kelpas
Vastaa Uudelleentwiittaa Suosikki Lisää Laajenna
Leo Pikkusaari @LPikkusaari 20 min
@Syntti No aattelinkin et täytyy olla isommat pelit kun tollanen kala. Katkaravuillako tuon vedit?
Vastaa Uudelleentwiittaa Suosikki Lisää Laajenna
Antti 2.0 @Syntti 4 min
@LPikkusaari eiku kumimato ja tahnaa. Katkaeavuilla saa yleensä ahvenia mut nyt ei natsannu. Syötit vaan hävis
Mielestäni Aleksanteri-instituutin analyysi Putinista tsaarina, jonka valta on sen verran vakaa, että se voi armahtaa ihmisiä, on väärä. ->First morning in months when I didn't need to turn on the lights on the bike! Spring!@Rouva_K @MHannaI @Harvinainen Rakkautta on pitää lapsen jalat lämpiminä (vaikka sukan koko onkin jo 45) #hihSuomalaisia ei voi enää kouluttaa kuin koiria
The World Political Forum (also called Istanbul Forum) is a non-profit foundation, based in Turkey, best known for its annual meeting in Istanbul. The forum takes place with the participation of statesmen, CEOs, opinion leaders, bureaucrats and the business elite as well as renowned figures from reputable universities
Seattle was an indeed an important crossroads in the history of the mass movement. Over 50,000 people from diverse backgrounds, civil society organizations, human rights, labor unions, environmentalists had come together in a common pursuit. Their goal was to forecefully dismantle the neoliberal agenda including its institutional base.
But Seattle also marked a major reversal. With mounting dissent from all sectors of society, the official WTO Summit desperately needed the token participation of civil society leaders “on the inside”, to give the appearance of being “democratic” “on the outside”.
While thousands of people had converged on Seattle, what occurred behind the scenes was a de facto victory for neoliberalism. A handful of civil society organizations, formally opposed the WTO had contributed to legitimizing the WTO’s global trading architecture. Instead of challenging the WTO as an an illegal intergovernmental body, they agreed to a pre-summit dialogue with the WTO and Western governments. “Accredited NGO participants were invited to mingle in a friendly environment with ambassadors, trade ministers and Wall Street tycoons at several of the official events including the numerous cocktail parties and receptions.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Seattle and Beyond: Disarming the New World Order , Covert Action Quarterly, November 1999, See Ten Years Ago: “Manufacturing Dissent” in Seattle).
The hidden agenda was to weaken and divide the protest movement and orient the anti-globalization movement into areas that would not directly threaten the interests of the business establishment.
Funded by private foundations (including Ford, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers, Charles Stewart Mott, The Foundation for Deep Ecology), these “accredited” civil society organizations had positioned themselves as lobby groups, acting formally on behalf of the people’s movement. Led by prominent and committed activists, their hands were tied. They ultimately contributed (unwittingly) to weakening the anti-globalization movement by accepting the legitimacy of what was essentially an illegal organization. (The 1994 Marrakech Summit agreement which led to the creation of the WTO on January 1, 1995). (Ibid)
The NGO leaders were fully aware as to where the money was coming from. Yet within the US and European NGO community, the foundations and charities are considered to be independent philanthropic bodies, separate from the corporations; namely the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, for instance, is considered to be separate and distinct from the Rockefeller family empire of banks and oil companies.
With salaries and operating expenses depending on private foundations, it became an accepted routine: In a twisted logic, the battle against corporate capitalism was to be fought using the funds from the tax exempt foundations owned by corporate capitalism.
The NGOs were caught in a straightjacket; their very existence depended on the foundations. Their activities were closely monitored. In a twisted logic, the very nature of anti-capitalist activism was indirectly controlled by the capitalists through their independent foundations.
In this evolving saga, the corporate elites –whose interests are duly served by the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO– will readily fund (through their various foundations and charities) organizations which are at the forefront of the protest movement against the WTO and the Washington based international financial institutions.
Supported by foundation money, various “watchdogs” were set up by the NGOs to monitor the implementation of neoliberal policies, without however raising the broader issue of how the Bretton Woods twins and the WTO, through their policies, had contributed to the impoverishment of millions of people.
The Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Network (SAPRIN) was established by Development Gap, a USAID and World Bank funded NGO based in Washington DC.
Amply documented, the imposition of the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) on developing countries constitutes a blatant form of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states on behalf of creditor institutions.
Instead of challenging the legitimacy of the IMF-World Bank’s “deadly economic medicine”, SAPRIN’s core organization sought to establish a participatory role for the NGOs, working hand in glove with USAID and the World Bank. The objective was to give a “human face” to the neoliberal policy agenda, rather than reject the IMF-World Bank policy framework outright:
“SAPRIN is the global civil-society network that took its name from the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI), which it launched with the World Bank and its president, Jim Wolfensohn, in 1997.
SAPRI is designed as a tripartite exercise to bring together organizations of civil society, their governments and the World Bank in a joint review of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) and an exploration of new policy options. It is legitimizing an active role for civil society in economic decision-making, as it is designed to indicate areas in which changes in economic policies and in the economic-policymaking process are required. ( http://www.saprin.org/overview.htm SAPRIN website, emphasis added)
Similarly, The Trade Observatory (formerly WTO Watch), operating out of Geneva, is a project of the Minneapolis based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), which is generously funded by Ford, Rockefeller, Charles Stewart Mott among others. (see Table 1 below).
The Trade Observatory has a mandate to monitor the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). (IATP, About Trade Observatory, accessed September 2010).
The Trade Observatory is also to develop data and information as well as foster “governance” and “accountability”. Accountability to the victims of WTO policies or accountability to the protagonists of neoliberal reforms?
diaspora grek ハイレベル英単語 @1980Bot nyt - Maailman talousfoorumi ei todennäköisesti käsittele äärimmäisen rikkauden poistamista vuoteen 2025 mennessä,
uptrend【上昇傾向；a situation in which business performance improves over period time】…The economy is on a continued uptrend.http://www.manifestajournal.org/issues Collectivism is a basic element of human culture that exists independently of any one political system and has existed since the founding of human society ten thousand years ago. It is a feature that all societies use to some degree or another and therefore an inherent feature of human nature. For example, monarchical societies often had a system of "social ranks" which were collectivist because the social rank one had or did not have was more important than his or her individual will, and the specific rank in question could only be overridden in very limited cases. An example of collectivism in more modern times are the police and fire departments. All individuals (except in rare cases) are expected to pay taxes to these organizations and their will has been overridden in making them do so under law, thus they are collectivist institutions. We also see, that in regards to a police department, an individual can be detained whether he or she wishes to or not, overriding their will as an example of collectivism.mmmmmmmmmmmmHigh-context culture and the contrasting low-context culture are terms presented by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his 1976 book Beyond Culture. It refers to a culture's tendency to use high-context messages over low-context messages in routine communication.fex The terms used to define Greekness have varied throughout history but were never limited or completely identified with membership to a Greek state. By Western standards, the term Greeks has traditionally referred trad grek flaagProxemics is a subcategory of the study of nonverbal communication along with haptics (touch), kinesics (body movement), vocalics (paralanguage), and chronemics (structure of time). Proxemics can be defined as "the interrelated observations and theories of man's use of space as a specialized elaboration of cultureA geodesic dome is a spherical or partial-spherical shell structure or lattice shell based on a network of great circles (geodesics) on the surface of a sphere. The geodesics intersect to form triangular elements that have local triangular rigidity and also distribute the stress across the structure. When completed to form a complete sphere, it is a geodesic sphere. A dome is enclosed, unlike open geodesic structures such as playground climbers.
Typically a geodesic dome design begins with an icosahedron inscribed in a hypothetical sphere, tiling each triangular face with smaller triangles, then projecting the vertices of each tile to the sphere. The endpoints of the links of the completed sphere are the projected endpoints on the sphere's surface. If this is done exactly, sub-triangle edge lengths take on many different values, requiring links of many sizes. To minimize this, simplifications are made. The result is a compromise of triangles with their vertices lying approximately on the sphere. The edges of the triangles form approximate geodesic paths over the surface of the dome.
Geodesic designs can be used to form any curved, enclosed space. Standard designs tend to be used because unusual configurations may require complex, expensive custom design of each strut, vertex and panel.Propaganda of the deed (or propaganda by the deed, from the French propagande par le fait) is specific political action meant to be exemplary to others. It is associated mainly with violent political actions but it can also have non-violent interpretations.
1 Anarchist origins
1.1 Various definitions
1.3 Relationship to revolution
2 Regicides and other assassinations
2.1 Timeline of historical actions
3 Later developments
3.1 The abandonment of bombings
3.2 Urban guerrillas and the autonomist movement
3.3 Timeline of modern actions
5 See also
8 External links
One of the first individuals to conceptualise propaganda by the deed was the Italian revolutionary Carlo Pisacane (1818–57), who wrote in his "Political Testament" (1857) that "ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around." Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), in his "Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis" (1870) stated that "we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda." The concept, in a broader setting, has a rich heritage, as the words of Francis of Assisi reveal: "Let them show their love by the works they do for each other, according as the Apostle says: 'let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.'"
Some anarchists, such as Johann Most, advocated publicizing violent acts of retaliation against counter-revolutionaries because "we preach not only action in and for itself, but also action as propaganda." Most was an early influence on American anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. Berkman attempted propaganda by the deed when he tried in 1892 to kill industrialist Henry Clay Frick following the deaths by shooting of several striking workers.
By the 1880s, the slogan propaganda of the deed had begun to be used both within and outside of the anarchist movement to refer to individual bombings, regicides and tyrannicides. In 1886, French anarchist Clément Duval achieved a form of propaganda of the deed, stealing 15,000 francs from the mansion of a Parisian socialite, before accidentally setting the house on fire. Caught two weeks later, he was dragged from the court crying "Long live anarchy!", and condemned to death. Duval's sentence was later commuted to hard labor on Devil's Island, French Guiana. In the anarchist paper Révolte, Duval famously declared that, "Theft exists only through the exploitation of man by man... when Society refuses you the right to exist, you must take it... the policeman arrested me in the name of the Law, I struck him in the name of Liberty".
As early as 1887, a few important figures in the anarchist movement had begun to distance themselves from individual acts of violence. Peter Kropotkin thus wrote that year in Le Révolté that "a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite". A variety of anarchists advocated the abandonment of these sorts of tactics in favor of collective revolutionary action, for example through the trade union movement. The anarcho-syndicalist, Fernand Pelloutier, argued in 1895 for renewed anarchist involvement in the labor movement on the basis that anarchism could do very well without "the individual dynamiter."
State repression (including the infamous 1894 French lois scélérates) of the anarchist and labor movements following the few successful bombings and assassinations may have contributed to the abandonment of these kinds of tactics, although reciprocally state repression, in the first place, may have played a role in these isolated acts. The dismemberment of the French socialist movement, into many groups and, following the suppression of the 1871 Paris Commune, the execution and exile of many communards to penal colonies, favored individualist political expression and acts.
Anarchist historian Max Nettlau provided a more complex concept of propaganda when he said that,
Every person is likely to be open to a different kind of argument, so propaganda cannot be diversified enough if we want to touch all. We want it to pervade and penetrate all the utterances of life, social and political, domestic and artistic, educational and recreational. There should be propaganda by word and action, the platform and the press, the street corner, the workshop, and the domestic circle, acts of revolt, and the example of our own lives as free men. Those who agree with each other may co-operate; otherwise they should prefer to work each on his own lines to trying to persuade one the other of the superiority of his own method.
Later anarchist authors advocating propaganda of the deed included the German anarchist Gustav Landauer, and the Italians Errico Malatesta and Luigi Galleani. For Gustav Landauer, "propaganda of the deed" meant the creation of libertarian social forms and communities that would inspire others to transform society. In "Weak Statesmen, Weaker People," he wrote that the state is not something "that one can smash in order to destroy. The state is a relationship between human beings... one destroys it by entering into other relationships."
In contrast, Errico Malatesta described "propaganda by the deed" as violent communal insurrections that were meant to ignite the imminent revolution. However, Malatesta himself denounced the use of terrorism and violent physical force, stating in one of his essays:
Violence (physical force) used to another's hurt, which is the most brutal form of struggle between men can assume, is eminently corrupting. It tends, by its very nature, to suffocate the best sentiments of man, and to develop all the antisocial qualities, ferocity, hatred, revenge, the spirit of domination and tyranny, contempt of the weak, servility towards the strong. And this harmful tendency arises also when violence is used for a good end. ... Anarchists who rebel against every sort of oppression and struggle for the integral liberty of each and who ought thus to shrink instinctively from all acts of violence which cease to be mere resistance to oppression and become oppressive in their turn are also liable to fall into the abyss of brutal force. ... The excitement caused by some recent explosions and the admiration for the courage with which the bomb-throwers faced death, suffices to cause many anarchists to forget their program, and to enter on a path which is the most absolute negation of all anarchist ideas and sentiments.
At the other extreme, the anarchist Luigi Galleani, perhaps the most vocal proponent of propaganda by the deed from the turn of the century through the end of the First World War, took undisguised pride in describing himself as a subversive, a revolutionary propagandist and advocate of the violent overthrow of established government and institutions through the use of 'direct action', i.e., bombings and assassinations. Galleani heartily embraced physical violence and terrorism, not only against symbols of the government and the capitalist system, such as courthouses and factories, but also through direct assassination of 'enemies of the people': capitalists, industrialists, politicians, judges, and policemen. He had a particular interest in the use of bombs, going so far as to include a formula for the explosive nitroglycerine in one of his pamphlets advertised through his monthly magazine, Cronaca Sovversiva. By all accounts, Galleani was an extremely effective speaker and advocate of his policy of violent action, attracting a number of devoted Italian-American anarchist followers who called themselves Galleanists. Carlo Buda, the brother of Galleanist
He who would trade liberty for security deserves great customer service ha. leaning on what. private, don buy apples. might mistake. se kaunis leski hymyili mulle
onkohan ylökerassa mukavaa
eihä tääl o kauppaakaa
mikis miksi vertailla
The recent Occupy and Indignados movements around the world have shown the extent of the backlash against the injustice generated by the ongoing crisis of capitalism and the difficulty in articulating a co-ordinated alternative, and as such have been a source of abundant political commentary.
One rarely commented-upon aspect is the way intellectuals have responded to them. During the Zucotti Park occupation in New York in autumn 2011, acclaimed critical intellectuals – among them Slavoj Žižek, Judith Butler and Cornel West – came to support the occupiers, and to give speeches in front of them, aired through the "human microphone". A weird law in New York forbids the use of electric microphones in public space so the only way for the speaker's voices to get through was for the front rows of the crowd to loudly repeat each of their sentences. The resulting litany resembled a kind of postmodern ritual. These speeches were then rapidly posted on YouTube.
This of course is not the first time committed intellectuals have spoken in support of a movement of occupation. The Zucotti Park scene recalls a famous speech given by French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre at the Renault automobile plant, at Boulogne-Billancourt near Paris, in 1970. Perched on a cask, Sartre addresses the workers on strike, and tells them that the alliance between intellectuals and the working class that once existed should be rebuilt. These were times of revolutionary upheaval, in France and elsewhere, and intellectuals were urged to take sides.
Despite visual similarities, these two scenes, separated by more than 40 years, are in fact very different. For one thing, Sartre used an electric microphone – modernity had not yet become postmodernity. Sartre also wore a fur coat that only militant hipsters would dare to wear these days.
More seriously though: Sartre spoke in front of automobile, ie industrial, workers, whereas Žižek, Butler and West addressed a more indeterminate audience. The exact sociology of the current global movements is still up for debate. A more "middle class" recruitment than the worker's movement of the 19th and 20th century, with higher "cultural capital", seems indisputable, though important sectors of the working classes are also involved. Žižek, Butler and West, moreover, spoke not in front of an occupied factory, as Sartre did, but in a public place. The occupation of public places is a trademark of these new movements, and the difference is crucial. If occupying public spaces is a matter of "reclaiming the street", or of demanding a "right to the city", then it is simultaneously a symptom of their not knowing what else to occupy.
There is a second crucial difference between the two scenes. Sartre was never actually a member of a working class organisation but his political and intellectual universe was organised around their existence, and they structured the political field in which he spoke when he addressed the workers. What about Žižek, Butler and West? It may be a good thing or not, but today's critical intellectuals, no matter how committed they may be, are "free-floating" and not organically linked to any kind of organisation.
A final difference between these two scenes is that Sartre was not an academic. He was so distrustful of bourgeois institutions that he refused the Nobel prize for literature in 1964 (as Guy Debord said at the time, refusing the Nobel prize is nothing, the problem is having deserved it). Sartre was very successful as a novelist and a philosopher, which permitted such "aristocratic" dismissal of all things vulgarly bourgeois. Žižek, Butler and West, on the other hand, are academics, as are most, if not all, critical thinkers today. Exceptions may be found, such as Bolivian vice-president Alvaro Garcia Linera, who is one of Latin America's finest philosophers and sociologists. But today, the production of influential critical ideas is more and more the monopoly of academics.
Universities have changed considerably since the end of the 19th century, transformed from small, elitist institutions to mass learning ones. However, the political and intellectual fields have grown more and more apart since the second part of the 20th century, to the point that non-academic intellectuals (even among fiction writers) are a species virtually extinct.
For the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, the purpose of a political party of the working classes is not only to organise collective action, but also to organise collective thought and knowledge. And such serious thinking takes time. It requires permanent organisation, and not only "temporary autonomous zones", to quote a widespread slogan in today's movements. It also requires "mediating" institutions that permit theory and political practice to interact. What else has been the purpose of the worker's daily paper, the cadre training school, the radical publishing house, or the theoretical journal?
Each epoch comes up with its own forms of collective intellectuality, its own original mediating institutions. What will these look like in the 21st century? This is a question of utmost strategic importance. In the nascent field of so-called "distance education", universities have a considerable advantage, but the international left has to catch up. However deep the current crisis of capitalism, the majority of the people will not be convinced to participate in grand-scale social transformation processes unless the "where next?" question is answered – and these mediating institutions are precisely the place where it should be tackled.
One should start by acknowledging that, despite all the fuss about the internet, Facebook, Twitter, and "horizontality", all recent interesting ideas coming from the left have been elaborated in rather old-fashioned journals, such The New Left Review, the Socialist Register, Historical Materialism and their equivalents in other countries. These now come with websites and social media accounts. But this has in no way altered the content and style (for instance, the length) of their articles. The same can be said about books written by critical thinkers. Alain Badiou, Butler, Žižek, Antonio Negri, Leo Panitch or Donna Haraway write books that are no less substantial than the ones published by previous generations of critical intellectuals.
This doesn't mean that the left shouldn't use new media, of course. These were abundantly taken advantage of, for instance during the Arab spring, to mobilise and organise. But when it comes to elaborating relevant ideas by way of the new media, much remains to be done. One pioneering initiative has been that of David Harvey, the British radical geographer based in New York, who recorded his classes about Marx's Capital and posted them on his website, where they have been seen by thousands around the world. More of this is needed.
This is not to say that the teaching only goes one way. The ongoing social movements have produced and will produce in the years to come innovative knowledge and political knowhow. One striking example is the question of "gratuity" – the claim for free access to public services, such as parks in Turkey or public transportation in Brazil, has been central to these movements. Yet there exists no serious theory of gratuity in critical theories today, which would provide a history of this demand, or analyse its anti-capitalist potential. Hence, more than ever, intellectuals should learn from the movements from below. This means not only supporting them "from outside" once they have occurred, as many have done, but conceiving of one's intellectual activity as part and parcel of a collective intellectuality. Only then will the monopoly of academics on the production of influential critical theories be broken.