Gerizekalilar icin Kemalizm Vol.4

Bildigimiz gibi bir fikrin, fikir olarak gorulmesi ve kabul edilebilmesi icin oncelikle bu fikrin sistem tarafindan kabul edilip edilmemesi toplumun da bu fikri daha onceden biliyor olmasini gerekmektedir. Bir dusunurun en onemli gorevide toplumun ve sistemin paylastigi, konustugu gorusleri halka, halk icin papagan gibi anlatmaktir. Surekli sistemin goruslerini sisteme tasimaktir. Bir kisi ne kadar sisteme iner ve onun fikir ve dusuncelerini paylasirsa o kadar dusunur olur, dogru vatandasliktan beklenen de budur.

Insanlarin dusunce uretip bunu dile getirmeden once, toplumun cogunlugunun goruslerine ve sisteme uyup uymadigina dikkat etmesi gerekir. Senede ortalama 5 sayfa kitap okuyan, 4,5 yil ortalama egitim suresine malik ortalama vatandasin, kahvede ogrenip dillendirdigi o harika fikirlere uymadigi takdirde one surdugun fikir , bir fikir degil olsa olsa '' sacmalik'', ihanet hiyanet dalalet olacaktir.

Bu konudaki en super ornekte yine her konuda oldugu gibi Ataturk :=))

Ataturk bildigimiz gibi 1923te toplumun nerdeyse tamami tarafindan bilinen ve paylasilan aydinlanmaci felsefeyi sular seller gibi ogrenmis, montesquieu'dan egemenlik kurami Stuart Mill ve Paine'den kendi kendini yoneten toplum doktrinii Jean Jacques Rousseau'dan Halkcilik ideallerini bir guzel ogrenmis, kahvehanelerde bunlarin uzun uzun kritigini yapmis olduklarindan Ataturkun yuceligi daha on plana cikmistir.

1920 lerde bizim halk dunya standartlarinin cok ilerisinde bir fikirsel kimlige sahiptir :=) O vakitlerde toplum ''cumhuriyetcilik, laiklik, milliyetcilik, devletcilik, devrimcilik, halkcilik'' diye bilinen Ataturk ilkelerini kalplerinde tasiyorlar surekli bu ilkeleri kendi kendiler soyluyorlar ve bu ilkelere gore yasiyorlardi.

Ataturk bu buyuk dusunce adami kimligiyle toplumun zaten kalbinde beyninde olan toplumun cogunun paylastigi ve dusundugu bu fikirleri birden soylemis, toplumda '' hah iste lan bizde adini bulamiyorduk yahu'' diyerek bu fikirlere koskoca oylar vererek hayata gecmelerini saglamislardir.

Bizse bugun habire sistem karsiti gorusler one surenlerle ugrasiyoruz. O zaman ne diyelim yahu : Yazik!

Read rest of entry

Anarchist Education

I think it would be hard to argue against the fact that the state of education in the "United States," and the Western world in general, has gone in a downward direction since the last century. In Separating School and State, Sheldon Richman points out that in 1850, before enforced education, the literacy rate in Massachusetts was 98%: now it is 91%. All throughout history, voluntaryist education systems have consistently shown better results than coercive systems.

According to the book Market Education, four factors account for this: choice and financial responsibility for parents, and freedom and market incentives for educators. The issue is simple, and follows the principles which all Anarchists know by heart: whatever the State takes over, it invariably controls and manipulates for its own interests. Wherever power settles, it corrupts. This is an iron law of politics.

The role of the "education system" in a democratic society is a key one: it serves as a vital part of the indoctrination process (the notorious triumvirate of family-media-education), necessary to maintain collectivist belief and homogeneity. It is pretty clear why public education arose so early in the history of American democracy: without mass indoctrination, the expansion of the State would be very difficult indeed. A democratic State must indoctrinate its subjects in basic collectivism (obedience to authority figures, grading systems, school pride), nationalism (through skewed "history" classes), "proper" sexuality (heterosexuality, "safe sex") and (depending on the society) religion, in order to flourish.

So the basic role of schools is not as much to educate as it is to prevent education. Its most important tool in that regard is the imposition of a standard curriculum. They give more jobs to unionized teachers, they burden the mind with useless courses, and promote rote learning. Who can possibly relate to, or use in his life, the vast majority of what he "learned" in primary and high school?

Parents pride themselves in how well their children learn collections of facts which, for the most part, they will forget or never need again, while contestants on Family Feud can't even name one "country" that starts with "A." That's not an issue of sleeping in geography class, that's just plain illiteracy or close-mindedness.

As for university, I hope I don't have to discuss all the nonsense going on there as regards to academic speech. Those interested in the topic would do well to watch the Bullshit! episode "College" (in fact, if you haven't yet, rent every single disk of that series, it's just brillant).

Control over education also serves another important role: it gives the State an opportunity to physically control children: restrict what they can eat or drink, what they wear or say, and most importantly give them drugs. In fact, the Bush administration is already administrating massive quantities of drugs to schoolchildren in order to further the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.

And why wouldn't they? They have a literally captive audience, and they have strong corporate interests ready to exploit it. It's a marriage made in Hell. They have the perfect excuse: people are now so brainwashed that every time a problem is brought up about children, the school system is automatically petitioned to provide the solution. And as we know, once anything is in the hands of the State, it will be used for immoral purposes.

The "education" they propose is a system of rote learning, where one's worth is solely based on grades, which are often calculated in rather dubious ways. It is rather ironic that a supposed Capitalist Republican government has brought us the most Communist idea in the history of American education: the No Child Left Behind Act, which turns schools into grade factories, manufacturing grades en masse in order to make quota.

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention that public schools have created the biggest joke with the most depressing punchline: so-called "gun-free zones," which are only "gun-free" until a criminal comes in, and then becomes "corpse-filled." The way the State gambles with the lives of our children is expected, but the way the general population eats it up is downright revolting.

It is clear that the democratic State has obliterated education. Can the elimination of the State revivify it? With the elimination of standardized ways of doing things, I think we would see a renewal of education. It seems to me that people would rather see their children educated in topics they will use later in life, than topics they will not use at all. Therefore, insofar as we have to tolerate parenting as a social phenomenon, it seems that it would be a positive influence in education.

Certainly public schools would still exist (religious schools, despite their appellation "private schools," are "public" in the Anarchist sense of "financed by non-users"), but they would be far less uniform than they are today. As such, progress in education would not be a matter of one segment of the population resisting against another, but would be something sought by all parties involved. The Internet has opened a great door in that respect, and the future of a market system seems rosier than ever, if only we can get rid of the State.

God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board.
Mark Twain

Read rest of entry

The Good Germans

In 1977 I was attending the University of Lethbridge. That summer there was the release of three movies dealing with WWII; A Bridge Too Far, The Eagle Has Landed,and cross of iron

Of the three the Cross of Iron was subject to the most critical attacks and vilifications by film critics. And it was not only the best war film of the three it is also one of the best anti-war films to depict WWII.

I am also partial to the anti-war film; Kelly's Hero's as well, however that was farce and a good tongue in cheek depiction of American values (using the war as an excuse to profit by stealing gold from a bank) , this is deafeningly realistic as only Sam Peckinpah can do.

Through out the movie the Russian howitzers continually boom in the background, the only blessed silence is when Steiner is injured and is sent to recover. When I walked out of the theatre my ears were still ringing.

Mired in controversy some critics accused this Anglo-German co-production of attempting to belittle the importance of the holocaust to the war , which the movie does not address since it is about the Russian Front, by portraying German soldiers as unwilling participants in the Nazi's war.

Which many were. A good friend of mines father survived the Russian front, he was drafted his choice a concentration camp or the Russian front, for he was an active trade unionist. After the war he remained a committed anti-Nazi and anti-fascist.

There were good germans forced to fight in Hitlers war. Just as there were Russians and Ukrainians who fought not for Stalin but for their homelands and in the case of the Ukraine many were not members of Ukrainian fascist patriot groups like upa

This movie is about working class German soldiers drafted to fight in the Russian Front, and all they care about is each other and survival. They are cynical and both antiNazi and anti wehr macht the officer corps they know they are just meat for bullets.

James Coburn plays Steiner whose reconnaissance team faces the Russians daily and know they have a limited life span. He refuses to differentiate himself from his men, comrades all, when offered a commission as a Sargent. Shades of the Spanish Civil War.

There is a great deal of tenderness shown amongst the men in Steiners unit, especially when they capture a young boy who is a Russian soldier. They keep him alive and protect him from the Nazi political officer assigned to them and from their military commanders. When the Russians launch a counter assault he is killed trying to return to his lines.

Amongst the men in the unit there is a strong undercurrent of homoeroticism unusual for peckinpah in the relationships of this group of dead men walking. They not only rely on each other for their mutual survival they love each other as well. It is the brotherhood of war

There is a telling scene where they capture a group of Soviet fighters who are women. The Nazi political officer assigned to Steiners unit, whom they all hate "spell my name right I would hate to see someone else's family die for my remarks," says one of Steiner's men, demands one of the captured women give him a blow job. Steiner and his unit leave him with the captive women as the Nazi has his dick bitten off and the women attack and kill him. Justice, Peckinpah style.

Steiner and his commander are the last men left standing at the end of the movie, and Coburn's laughter at the absurdity of his aristocratic foe stumbling to load his gun, sums up the black humour of war and its absurdity even today.



Set in 1943 when the germans had to retreat from their crushing defeat on the russian front, this is a considered and intelligent look at the way soldiers react to warfare.

The story plays out over a constant barrage of soviet artillery, punctuated by several brutal bloody attacks on the increasingly vulnerable german positions. While the violence seems tame in the wake of saving private ryan, it was shockingly graphic for the time. Dozens of men die onscreen in true peckinpah style, collapsing in slow motion, spurting blood from any number of wounds.

The central figure in the action is sergeant steiner a man who is a legend among german soldiers. He fights hard but hates fanatics, and loves the men in his squad.

Steiner has no respect for authority - even for his understanding colonel played by James Mason - and a newly arrived aristocratic officer rubs him up the wrong way and starts a deadly personal war.

Bleak unpleasant and ugly look at men in combat that was almost universally panned by the mainstream press upon its initial release. Its complex and vivid portrayal of the absurdity of war however, prompted none other than orson Welles to write peckinpah and proclaim it the finest antiwar film he had ever seen.

We follow corporal Coburn (in what may be his best performance), a german soldier (not a Nazi)who "hates this uniform and everything it stands for." Loyal only to his men a tight-knit group of soldiers fighting for their survival, Coburn finds his nemesis in his new commander captain schell an arrogant narcissistic prussian aristocrat who desperately wants to come home with an iron cross germanys highest honor for bravery but who is terrified of battle. Since coburn comes highly recommended by other commanders and has already been awarded the iron cross himself, Schell promotes him to sergeant in the hope of winning an ally. After a siege on their compound in which many brave men die while schell cowers in his bunker, coburn learns that the captain has filed a false report claiming that he led the counterattack a deed certain to earn an iron cross. When coburn refuses to confirm schells claims (he also resists calling him a liar which would indicate reverence for a medal he considers worthless) Schell plots to dispose of the troublesome sergeant and his men.

Cross of iron is an angry film that ends with a bitter quote from bertolt brecht: "Do not rejoice in his defeat you men. for though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard the bitch that bore him is in heat again."

Read rest of entry

Anarchism

“Anarchism” is a social philosophy that rejects authoritarian government and maintains that voluntary institutions are best suited to express mans natural social tendencies. Historically the word anarchist which derives from the Greek an archos, meaning “no government” appears first to have been used pejoratively to indicate one who denies all law and wishes to promote chaos. It was used in this sense against the Levelers during the english civil war and during the french revolution by most parties in criticizing those who stood to the left of them along the political spectrum. The first use of the word as an approbatory description of a positive philosophy appears to have been by pierre joseph proudhon when in his Qu’est-ce-que la propriete? (What is property?Paris 1840) he described himself as an anarchist because he believed that political organization based on authority should be replaced by social and economic organization based on voluntary contractual agreement.

Nevertheless the two uses of the word have survived together and have caused confusion in discussing anarchism, which to some has appeared a doctrine of destruction and to others a benevolent doctrine based on a faith in the innate goodness of man. There has been further confusion through the association of anarchism with nihilism and terrorism. In fact anarchism which is based on faith in natural law and justice stands at the opposite pole to nihilism which denies all moral laws. Similarly there is no necessary connection between anarchism which is a social philosophy and terrorism which is a political means occasionally used by individual anarchists but also by actionists belonging to a wide variety of movements that have nothing in common with anarchism.

Anarchism aims at the utmost possible freedom compatible with social life in the belief that voluntary cooperation by responsible individuals is not merely more just and equitable but is also in the long run more harmonious and ordered in its effects than authoritarian government. Anarchist philosophy has taken many forms none of which can be defined as an orthodoxy and its exponents have deliberately cultivated the idea that it is an open and mutable doctrine. However all its variants combine a criticism of existing governmental societies a vision of a future libertarian society that might replace them, and a projected way of attaining this society by means outside normal political practice. Anarchism in general rejects the state. It denies the value of democratic procedures because they are based on majority rule and on the delegation of the responsibility that the individual should retain. It criticizes utopian philosophies because they aim at a static “ideal” society. It inclines toward internationalism and federalism and while the views of anarchists on questions of economic organization vary greatly it may be said that all of them reject what william godwin called accumulated property.

Attempts have been made by anarchist apologists to trace the origins of their point of view in primitive nongovernmental societies. There has also been a tendency to detect anarchist pioneers among a wide variety of teachers and writers who for various religious or philosophical reasons, have criticized the institution of government, have rejected political activity or have placed a great value on individual freedom. In this way such varied ancestors have been found as laozi, zeno, spartacus, etienne de La boetie, Thomas Munzer, Francois rabelais, Francois fenelon denis diderot, and jonathan swift anarchist trends have also been detected in many religious groups aiming at a communalistic order such as the essenes, the early christian apostles the anabaptists, and the doukhobors. However, while it is true that some of the central libertarian ideas are to be found in varying degrees among these men and movements the first forms of anarchism as a developed social philosophy appeared at the beginning of the modern era when the medieval order had disintegrated the reformation had reached i rudimentary forms of modern political and economic organization had begun to appear. In other words, the emergence of the modern state and of capitalism is paralleled by the emergence of the philosophy that in various forms has opposed them most fundamentally.

Read rest of entry

Individualist Anarchism

Individualist anarchism lies on the extreme and sometimes dubious fringe of the libertarian philosophies since, in seeking to assure the absolute independence of the person it often seems to negate the social basis of true anarchism. This is particularly the case with Max Stirner who specifically rejected society as well as the state and reduced organization to a union of egoists based on the mutual respect of “unique” individuals each standing upon his “might.” French anarchism during the 1890s was particularly inclined toward individualism which expressed itself partly in a distrust of organization and partly in the actions of terrorists like “Ravachol” and emile Henry who alone or in tiny groups carried out assassinations of people over whom they had appointed themselves both judges and executioners. A milder form of individualist anarchism was that advocated by the american libertarian writer benjamin Tucker who rejected violence in favor of refusal to obey and who like all i ividualists opposed any form of economic communism. What he asked was that property should be distributed and equalized so that every man should have control over the product of his labor.

Read rest of entry

Mutualism

Mutualism developed by proudhon differed from individualist anarchism in its stress on the social element in human behavior. It rejected both political action and revolutionary violence some of proudhons disciples even objected to strikes as a form of coercion in favor of the reform of society by the peaceful spread of workers associations, devoted particularly to mutual credit between producers. A recurrent mutualist plan never fulfilled was that of the peoples bank which would arrange the exchange of goods on the basis of labor notes. The mutualists recognized that workers syndicates might be necessary for the functioning of industry and public utilities but they rejected large-scale collectivization as a danger to liberty and based their economic approach as far as possible on individual possession of the means of production by peasants and small craftsmen united in a framework of exchange and credit arrangements. The mutualists laid great stress on federalist organization from the loc commune upward as a substitute for the national state. Mutualism had a wide following among french artisans during the 1860s. its exponents were fervently internationalist and played a great part in the formation of the international workingmens association in 1864 their influence diminished, however with the rise of collectivism as an alternative libertarian philosophy.

Read rest of entry

Collectivism

Collectivism is the form of anarchism associated with Michael Bakunin. The collectivist philosophy was developed by bakunin from 1864 onward when he was forming the first international organizations of anarchist the international brotherhood and the international alliance of social democracy. It was collectivist anarchism that formed the principal opposition to marxism in the international workingmens association and thus began the historic rivalry between libertarian and authoritarian views of socialism.bakunin and the other collectivists agreed with the mutualists in their rejection of the state and of political methods in their stress on federalism and in their view that the worker should be rewarded according to his labor. On the other hand they differed in stressing the need for revolutionary means to bring about the downfall of the state and the establishment of a libertarian society. Most important they advocated the public ownership and the exploitation through workers associations of the lan and all services and means of production. While in mutualism the individual worker had been the basic unit in collectivism it was the group of workers Bakunin specifically rejected individualism of any kind and maintained that anarchism was a social doctrine and must be based on the acceptance of collective responsibilities.

Read rest of entry

Anarchist Communism

Collectivism survived as the dominant anarchist philosophy in spain until the 1930s elsewhere it was replaced during the 1870s by the anarchist communism that was associated particularly with kropotkin although it seems likely that kropotkin was merely the most articulate exponent of a trend that grew out of discussions among anarchist intellectuals in geneva during the years immediately after the paris commune of 1871. Through kropotkin’s literary efforts anarchist communism was much more elaborately worked out than either mutualism or collectivism in such books as La conqurte du pain (The conquest of bread 1892) and fields factories and workshops (1899) Kropotkin elaborated the scheme of a semiutopian decentralized society based on an integration of agriculture and industry of town life and country life of education and apprenticeship. kropotkin also linked his theories closely with current evolutionary theories in the fields of anthropology and biology anarchism he suggested in mutual aid (1902) is the final stage in the development of cooperation as a factor in evolution. Anarchist communism differed from collectivism on only one fundamental poin the way in which the product of labor should be shared. In place of the collectivist and mutualist idea of remuneration according to hours of labor the anarchist communists proclaimed the slogan “From each according to his means to each according to his needs” and envisaged open warehouses from which any man could have what he wanted. They reasoned first that work was a natural need that men could be expected to fulfill without the threat of want and second that where no restriction was placed on available goods there would be no temptation for any man to take more than he could use. The anarchist communists laid great stress on local communal organization and even on local economic self-sufficiency as a guarantee of independence.

Read rest of entry

Anarchosyndicalism

Anarchosyndicalism began to develop in the late 1880s when many anarchists entered the french trade unions or syndicates which were just beginning to reemerge after the period of suppression that followed the paris commune. Later anarchist militants moved into key positions in the confederation generale du travail, founded in 1895 and worked out the theories of anarchosyndicalism. They shifted the basis of anarchism to the syndicates which they saw as organizations that united the producers in common struggle as well as in common work. The common struggle should take the form of “direct action” primarily in industry, since there the workers could strike most sharply at their closest enemies the capitalists the highest form of direct action, the general strike, could end by paralyzing not merely capitalism but also the state.

When the state was paralyzed the syndicates which had been the organs of revolt could be transformed into the basic units of the free society the workers would take over the ctories where they had been employees and would federate by industries.Anarchosyndicalism created a mystique of the working masses that ran counter to individualist trends and the stress on the producers as distinct from the consumers disturbed the anarchist communists who were haunted by the vision of massive trade unions ossifying into monolithic institutions. In drance, italy, and spain, however it was the syndicalist variant that brought anarchism its first and only mass following. The men who elaborated the philosophy of anarchosyndicalism included militants such as fernand pelloutier georges yvetot, and emile pouget who among them created the vision of a movement arising from the genius of the working people. There were also intellectuals outside the movement who drew theoretical conclusions from anarchosyndicalist practice the most important was sorel, the author of Reflexions sur la violence (Reflections on violence 1908),who saw the general strike as a saving “social myth” that would main in society in a state of struggle and therefore of health.

Read rest of entry

Pacifist Anarchism

Pacifist anarchism has taken two forms. That of tolstoy attempted to give rational and concrete form to christian ethics. Tolstoy rejected all violence; he advocated a moral revolution, its great tactic the refusal to obey. There was much however in tolstoys criticisms of contemporary society and his suggestions for the future that paralleled other forms of anarchism. He denounced the state law and property he foresaw cooperative production and distribution according to need.

Later a pacifist trend appeared in the anarchist movement in western europe its chief exponent was the dutch exsocialist domela nieuwenhuis. It differed from strict tolstoyism by accepting syndicalist forms of struggle that stopped short of violence particularly the millenarian general strike for the abolition of war.

Despite their differences all these forms of anarchism were united not merely in their rejection of the state of politics and of accumulated property but also in certain more elusive attitudes. In its avoidanc of partisan organization and political practices, anarchism retained more of the moral element than did other movements of protest. This aspect was shown with particular sharpness in the desire of its exponents for the simplification of life not merely in the sense of removing the complications of authority but also in eschewing the perils of wealth and establishing a frugal sufficiency as the basis for life. Progress in the sense of bringing to all men a steadily rising supply of material goods has never appealed to the anarchists indeed it is doubtful if their philosophy is at all progressive in the ordinary sense. They reject the present but they reject it in the name of a future of austere liberty that will resurrect the lost virtues of a more natural past a future in which struggle will not be ended but merely transformed within the dynamic equilibrium of a society that rejects utopia and knows neither absolutes nor perfections.
marxists lies in the fact that while the socialists maintain that the state must be taken over as the first step toward its dissolution the anarchists argue that since power corrupts any seizure of the existing structure of authority can only lead to its perpetuation. Anarchosyndicalists however regard their unions as the skeleton of a new society growing up within the old. The problem of reconciling social harmony with complete individual freedom is a recurrent one in anarchist thought. It has been argued that an authoritarian society produces antisocial reactions which would vanish in freedom. It has also been suggested by godwin and kropotkin particularly that public opinion will suffice to deter those who abuse their liberty. George Orwell however has pointed out that the reliance on public opinion as a force replacing overt coercion might lead to a moral tyranny which having no codified bounds could in the end prove more oppressive than any system of laws.

Read rest of entry

Ngtv Rythn

American media almost never shows pictures of civilians killed by U.S. military bombs. I designed and posted the picture of the child hit by one of Raytheon's missiles which was objected to by Julia Pheifer's opinion "Raytheon folks doing something constructive ". I believe most of the people being killed by Raytheon's weapons are civilians and these people of Afghanistan and Iraq are not a threat to America's "way of life."

I designed and posted it because Americans never see the results of their government's ugly wars of aggression and I think most people in the United States would be against the war if they had any idea that thousands of women and children were being killed. These images of bombed civilians are shown to the rest of the world and that may explain why American's are feared instead of respected. I would also like to say to Julia Pheifer that I am not 21 but I am 47 and for the past 24 years I have volunteering with a group that helps children and the poor. In fact I co-founded a movement Food Not Bombs that feeds the hungry in hundreds of cities in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. And finally Julia about my freedom to express my self, well I have spent over 500 nights in jail for trying to express myself and when I was facing life in prison in the United States for my first amendment activities Amnesty International declared me a "Prisoners of Conscience" and worked for my unconditional release. Its time America stops killing and attacking people in other countries. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking Raytheon¹s missiles are built to defend freedom. There mission is murder for profit.

To see the poster and list of Raytheon products visit this website.
www.foodnotbombs.net/raytheon_poster.html
( Image posted in the day and evening)

Re: Raytheon Folks do Something Constructive, by Julia Pheifer

It¹s laudable for the Star to air multiple viewpoints on various issues. Still, it seems odd that you¹d provide special ³guest opinion² editorial space to what is clearly delusional war profiteering propaganda.

The damage inflicted on this community and the world by the Raytheon Corporation probably is containable. But their war profiteering activity is a dangerous disease, not only to those 10,000 plus Tucsonans infected with it, but it is dangerous to our freedom, our safety, and to the American way of life.

Ms. Pheifer, who confesses to being the wife of a Raytheon employee, implies that Raytheon workers are at least as civically minded as other Tucsonans, if not more so. True or not, this is a pointless distraction that smacks of defensive guilt.

Her piece asserts that [aside from their weapons of mass destruction which have inflicted massive civilian casualties throughout the world] Raytheon manufactures some really cool electronic and navigational merchandise. Fair enough. Should we make a like-minded argument to reconsider the contributions of fascism because they always made the trains run on time? Or should we take a more balanced look at the Nazis who successfully pushed production of the Volkswagen and provided affordable transportation to the German masses? I don¹t think so.

She would have us accept the notion that Raytheon provides protection to Americans, and even ³allows² people here to express whatever sophomoric opinions they choose. Perhaps this fallacy would get bigger laughs if more people knew she was joking. Raytheon is in consistent violation of the Geneva Convention and international law. Raytheon missile plants and any community that supports them is a legitimate military target for every group or any country that is, or ever has been, on the receiving end of their hardware. Of course, Raytheon is not solely responsible for making Tucson a dangerous place to live, nor is it solely responsible for making the rest of the world a more dangerous place for every American citizen. But they are certainly doing their part. And in their arrogance, they imagine themselves to be above accountability. Raytheon¹s tentacles reach deeply into the Tucson community for no other reason than that they generate a lot of local revenue from their despicable, immoral activity. In this respect, they enjoy the kind of support here that Al Qaida gets from many communities and some governments in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

Still, Raytheon employees should not be considered pariahs. Particularly those with a strong desire to change. Perhaps the first step for former Raytheon employees who really want to do something constructive and contribute to a healthy community would be to organize a War Profiteers Anonymous program.

Read rest of entry

Breaks 1W

The model E8257D signal generator from agilent technologies now offers an option for more than 1 W (+30 dbm) output power from 250 mhz to 20 ghz (and usable down to 10 mhz). For applications that require specified output power higher than +25 dbm such as TWT amplifier testing and ATE/antenna test configurations (where signal insertion loss is high due to switch routings and long cable lengths)

* extra hardware such as amplifiers, couplers and detectors are needed. This signal generator and option eliminate that requirement and the costs associated with that extra hardware.

Read rest of entry

Manda

Ben kendi tarihinden bu kadar habersiz bir orta-ust sinif gormedim.

1) Manda nedir? bir bolgeyi, bir uluslararasi kurum adina yonetmektir.

2) Biz mandayi kabul ettik sevr antlasmasiyla. ve bu manda uygulandi da. nerede uygulandi? suriye, filistin, irak, lubnan. tabii misaki milli deyince antep'le halep, diyarbakirla musul arasi bicak gibi kesiliyor bazilarinin kafasinda, pek sormuyorlar neden vatan surasi da burasi degil diye, o yuzden bu mandalar pek kimseyi irgalamaz. halbuki kimsenin manda onermedigi yere vatan siniri cekmek zorunda kalanlarin ardindan, 80 sene sonra cikip "mandayi kabul etmedik" diye babalanmak komik bile degil. senin olabilecek ve elinde tutabilecegin yer vatandir, o kadar basit. bilmem kac asirlik musluman bosna ve trakya balkan milliyetciligi yuzunden, musul ingilizlerin petrol meraki yuzunden vatanimiz degildir. hatay ve kibrisin da sonradan vatan olduklari hatirlanmis, geregi yapilmistir.

3) Dedigime uymayan, yani gunumuz turkiye sinirlari icinde manda ile anilan tek yer dogu anadoludur. bu manda onerisi de ermeniler icindir; amerikalilar gelip milletler cemiyeti adina ermenilerin (genisletilmis) bolgelerini yonetecek. bunu da amerikan senatosu reddetmistir zaten cok pahaliya malolacak diye, ermenileri doldurusa getirip imzalari bastirip yuzustu biraktilar bir nevi.

4) Bunun otesinde de baska manda onerisi yoktur. ne vardir? istanbul uluslarasi bolgedir ( ama bir garip, osmanli hanedani devam ediyor kendi parasini kontrol etme izni olmamasina ragmen). baska? zone of influence denen ne idugu belirsiz yerler vardir, bildigin direkt kontrolun azalmisi. referanduma gidecek bir kurdistan vardir. yunanistanin kontrol ettigi yerler de bm mandasi degil yunan protectorateidir (ama osmanli sultani adina, oyle de sacma bir durum)

5) Dolayisiyla kurtulus savasi sirasinda asil mandalara karsi bir mucadele veril(e)mediginden ve verilen mucadeleler de herhangi bir mandaya karsi olmadigindan, basliga damlayip "sehitlerin kemikleri sizliyor" tarzinda beylik tepkiler verenlerin "ben bu hayatta ne yapiyorum" diye oturup dusunmeleri lazim.

Neyse, yorum sahibinin amacinin samimi bir alternatif tarih analizi olmadigi, ucuncu bir what if kitabi yazmaya calismadigi ortada. kurtulus savasinin cikisini basortusune uzanan ellere yoran kadindi galiba -ulkenin luzumsuz gundem maddelerini uzaktan takip edemiyoruz da- yani elestirmeye gerek dahi yok. asil elestirilecek olanlar bir ilerleme kaydetme sansi, imkani, niyeti -ve sosyal statuleri sebebiyle- sorumlulugu olanlar. o yuzden dellendiriyor bu "laikler" beni.

Bunlar bir yana "manda gibi" olacak olan istanbul icin, daha dogrusu varlik vergisi ve 6-7 eylul olaylari sonucu kacan veya kacamayip calisma kamplarinda falan heder olan istanbullular icin konusursak bunun gecerli bir tahmin olacagini saniyorum. tabii o zaman da, birkac on yil gectikten sonra, cezayirle ayni zamanlarda ayni seyleri yasar miydik bilemem.

Read rest of entry

Turk Askeri

amerikan askeri colden gitsin bu icimizdeki irlandalilar da amerikan propagandasi yapmayi kessinler. irak savasiyla ilgili her haber amerikanin colde ne isi oldugu sorusuna odaklanmali hava sartlarina karsi yenilmelerinden bahsedilmemeli hele hele stratejik bileler sayesinde onlarin "bizden ustun olduklari" vurgulanmamali.

ustun mustun degiller de zaten turk askeri olsa ruzgara firtinaya dayanirdi. neden? cunku canakkale! evet canakkale boyle bir jokerdir, ismini zikredince akan sular duruyor. baskentinin yuz km otesinde surpriz bir cikartma yerine 1.5 aylik gecikmeyle taa dunyanin obur ucundan gelmis askerlerle ates gucu eksikligine ve deniz bombardimanina karsin sayi ustunlugu ve avantajli konumu kullanarak, iki tarafi da perisan eden salgin hastaliklar arasinda savasmis, dogal olarak yenisemeyip berabere kalmisiz ama oradaki cocuklar kahramanca olduklerinden ve adina zafer dendiginden cilginlar icin turk askeri tarihi o muharebeden ibarettir.

o yuzden de abd yalakaligini birakacagiz cunku col kosullarina karsi "maymun olmayan" olmuyor. bak mesela, turk askerinin colde savasip da ingilizlere karsi kut al amaradan sonra defalarca yenilerek tum mezopotamyayi kaptirmasi diye bir sey olmadi karda savasip da kendisinin ucte biri buyuklugundeki rus kuvvetleri tarafindan yok edilmesi de uydurmadir (sarikamis) daglik taslik balkanlardan da zaferle cikmisizdir.

Zaten ordular kosullara maddi imkanlara veya baska nedenlere bagli olarak yenip yenilmezler, boyle seyler yok. biz buyuk iskender oncesinde, lojistik bilimi oncesinde yasiyoruz. savaslari aslen askerlerin damarlarindaki kanin asalet seviyesi belirler o nedenle de yenilip yenmek yerine maymun veya kahraman olurlar.

bu amerikan ordusunu da buyutmek bu yuzden hainlik. adamlarin dunya askeri harcamalarinin yuzde 50'sini yapmalari,silah teknolojisinde epey ilerde olmalari filan onlari bir numara yapmiyor; askerleri dombili ve zora gelemeyen bir irka mensuptur onemli olan o. zaten onlar da bagimsizlik savaslarini f-16'larla yapmislar ingiliz kraliyet kuvvetlerini uzaktan uzaktan patlatmislar, boyle turk milleti gibi asil nesnel ve akilci degiller.

Read rest of entry

Read rest of entry

Shoot Caption

Read rest of entry