PAVEL: moj referenčni okvir, moje refleksije, moje življenje

Arhiv za 14.11.2009

Kučan, glasnik mediokritete

Objavil pavel dne 14.11.2009

Točno to, Kučan že dolgo zamuja, da bi bil tiho. To tudi dokazuje, da niti takrat, ko še ni zamujal, ni vedel, kaj naj bi govoril. In glede na to, da angleški pregovor pravi, da človek lahko pove samo to, kar ve in zna, to pomeni, da Kučan tudi takrat ni ničesar relevantnega vedel in znal, oziroma, je to kar je kao vedel in znal bilo zgolj znanje mediokritete in tega kar je (bilo) izpod nje. In ravno to Kučan je:

glasnik mediokritete in tega kar izpod nje, je.

Zato ni čudno, da se Kučan do dveh temeljnih vprašanj slovenske sedanjosti – krize in razvoja – obnaša tako neodgovorno in s prikazom tako neznatnega vedenja o pravi vsebini problema. Zanimivo, da Kučan rabi zgolj nekaj stavkov izven politikantske latovščine, da vsakemu normalnemu v zahod obrnejnemu človeku razloži, kakšen osel je. Človeka enostavno prime groza, kot bere te Kučanove oslarije in se zave, kakšen bebec je normalnim ljudem 25 let kreiral pogoje njihovega delovanja in življenja.

Če začnem s Kučanovim odnosom do ’stihije’, lahko vidimo, da Kučana praktično nič več ne loči od nekdanje Popitove retorike in Popitovega načina delovanja, ki se je osredotočalo na napad na vsako ’stihijo’, to je na vsako zadevo, ki je bila izven partijske kontrole. In ker se sodobni razvoj seveda ne more dogajati znotraj partijske kontrole, ga je seveda treba napadati in onemogočati dokler ne izgine. Problem pa je seveda v tem, ker je sodobni svet zgrajen ravno na taki ’stihiji’, kot gre Kučanu v nos, saj se svet za mnenje ne obrača na take prekmurske osličke in komunajzerske bandite, kot je Kučan in njihovega mnenja ne upošteva.

Podjetja se namreč ne razvijajo ne v vati in ne za vrati kakšnega CK ali Foruma 21, ampak na trgu. In na trgu seveda vlada stihija, kar pa je zgolj izraz za kumulativo nekontroliranih reakcij, katerim je poslovni subjekt na trgu izpostavljen. Kot rečeno, tega subjekta ne more krepiti noben CK ali Forum 21, amapk se lna trgu ahko krepi samo sam. Naloga države, in s tem tudi predsednika države, ki zakone podpisuje, je, da generira take zakone, ki poslovnim subjektom omogočajo krepitev na trgu. Kot je poznano, je Kučan, odkar je prišel na oblast, ves čas generiral temu ravno nasprotno zakonodajo, katere primarni cilj je bil, da čisto določeni ljudje postanejo lastniki čisto določenih podjetij, ki bodo seveda upravljana s čisto določeno vizijo in s čisto določenimi nalogami. To sicer diši po teoriji zarote, vendar pa ne gre zgolj za to, da sta komunizem in postkomunizem sama po sebi zarota proti normalnim ljudem, ampak da se, ko je osnovni okvir dogajanja tako postavljen, iz njega enostavno ne da več izkočiti. To pomeni, da je v Kučanovem sistemu (razmišljanja) pot iz točke T1 v T2, vedno pot iz točke T1 v T1. Do T2 se nikoli ne pride. ‘Razvoj’, ki se ob temu vseeno zgodi, pa so ostanki in drobtine s tujčeve mize.

Taka je Kučanova ponudba. In zakaj imaš tako zelo prav, ko praviš, da je Kučan ponovno zamudil priliko, da bi bil tiho. Zato, ker so pred 30 lleti (sistem je v bistvu ostal ves čas isti, oziroma, popitovski ali nekavčičevski tudi pod Kučanom) te drobtine še sestavljale sistem tekočega in takrat še prevladujočega tehno-produkcijskega načina, danes pa so se tuji trosilci dribtin v svojme sodobnem tehno-produkcijskem načinu, zaradi Kučanove vladavine norca, tako zelo oddaljili od faktične vrednosti teh drobtin, da je povsem vseeno ali jih dobimo ali ne.

Problem Slovenije torej ni stihija, njen glavni problem so predkučanovski in kučanovski norci, ki že 65 let preprečujejo vstop v to ’stihijo’. In ker je v kučanovskem sistemu vse kontrolirano in ponderirano, se lahko dogajajo samo dodelavni posli. Če posamezni rdeči direktorji pri tem pokradejo nekaj sto ali deset milijonov evrov to ni pomembno, ker bo itak Kučan pobral harač, pomembno namreč je, da se nam stihijsko ne bi začel dogajati razvoj. Ker to je tisto, česar potem Partija ne bi mogla kontrolirati in seveda ne bi mogla z njegovo pomočjo urejati usnja za udobno polaganje svojih komunističnih riti v območju davkoplačevalskega financiranja, ki pred ljudi z zaslužki, s karkršnimi so v Ameriki ljudje oproščeni vseh dajatev do države, postavlja finaciranje celotne enormne državne strukture.

Elementarno pa Kučan dokaže svojo bebavost z izjavo, ko govori o tem, da je kriza priložnost in pristavi, da tisti, ki tako mislijo, morajo povedati še, v čem je ta priožnost. Tako razmišljanje povsem razkrije Kučanovo komunajzersko naturo, saj se povsem jasno vidi, da Kučan razmišlja takole:

- najprej obstoji razvoj X, ki ga mi koristimo, - potem grdi kapitalisti, ki hlastajo za razvojem, povzročijo slabitev našega razvoja X, - zato mi manj koristimo naš razvoj X, kjub temu, da imamo visoko realno infalcijo in visok tuji dolg, - medtem grdi kapitalisti nenadoma, medtem ko mi koristimo razvoj manj od X, ustvarijo razvoj več od X, - mi se moramo ponovno prilagajati z nižanjem realnih dohodkov (pred 30 leti je bilo normalno, da si je delavec zgradil hišo,   danes je normalno, da nima za hrano).

To zaporedje se je stalno ponavljalo vsaj od leta 1972, ko je Milan Kučan pomagal odstranjevati Staneta Kavčiča, tako da v politiki Franceta Popita ali Milana Kučana ni nobene posebne razlike. Morda je pomembna razlika le v tem, da je Milan Kučan odstranil veliko več sposobnih ljudi, kot je to uspelo Francetu Popitu. Oslov pa sta promovirala približno oba enako.

Kučan torej trdno stoji na starem komunajzerskem temelju, da je osnovo (tekovine) treba braniti z vsemi sredstvi, zlasti pa pa pred nekontroliranim in neodobrenim razvojem. Ne uvidi pa, da je obramba vsega (in tudi tekovin) že dolgo, že od časa Kavčiča, samo še prilagajanje (tujemu) razvoju, ki pa za akcept zahteva menjavo ekvilvalentov. Ker z ekvivalenti Slovenija, zaradi predkučanovske in kučanovske družbene deformacije ni razpolagala, je za pridobitev ekvivalentov in kvaziekvivalentov (zdravstvo, farmacija, šolstvo), žrtvovala življenski nivo ljudi. Tako je iz bogataških samoupravnih lastnikov Kučanu v 25 letih uspelo narediti milijon lačnih delavcev in nekaj sto milijonarjev, ki so tem delavcem na osnovi zakonov, ki jih je bil Milan Kučan podpisal kot predsednik države, te milijone ukradli.

Teza, da je Kučanova banda te milijone pridobila na trgu, bi pač morala pridobiti potrditev, da je Slovenija vsaj večino obdobja po secesijski vojni preživela v okviru prevladujočega tehno-produkcijskega načina v svetu. Vendar Kučan javno dokazuje, da nima pojma o tem, kaj je tisto v teh družbah, kar je tak njihov razvoj ustvarilo in poganjalo dalje, za razliko od stagnacije in nazadovanja v Sloveniji. Kajti najprej je treba dati ljudem možnost in se potem ni treba spraševati, v čem je (bila) priložnost.

Zakaj ljudje v Sloveniji po osamosovjitvi niso imeli priložnosti, je jasno. Zato ker, če bi ljudje v Sloveniji možnost imeli, Kučanova banda ne bi imela priložnosti. Slovenija danes ni v riti zato, ker bi Rop zapustil karkoli dobrega in bi Janša iz tega naredil kaj slabega, ampak zato, ker je popolnoma izginilo vse, kar je dobrega ostalo od Staneta Kavčiča. Res me zanima, kateri slovenski imbecili si še upajo svojo usodo polagati v naročje tega prekmurskega komunajzerskega oslička in bandita.

Enfrice. popravil(a) enfrice: 2009-11-14 16:38:07 na Forumu Financ

mediokriteta = POVPREČNOST

  • Share/Bookmark

Objavljeno v Enfrice, Slovenija, Vsepovsod SOCIALIZEM oz. NEO-fevdalizem, Zgodovina, inženirji družbe, modne družbene smernice, politika | Brez komentarjev »

Humorna definicija zgodovinsko-političnih pojmov

Objavil pavel dne 14.11.2009

Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business

Confused about the difference between socialism, Communism, and the politics of huge corporations? This basic “dictionary” may help.

Feudalism: You have two cows. The lord of the manor takes some of the milk. And all the cream.

Pure Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to your neighbor. You’re both forced to join a cooperative where you have to teach your neighbor how to take care of his cow.

Bureaucratic Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as its regulations say you should need.

Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

Pure Communism: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

Russian Communism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

Communism: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for you share of the milk, but it’s so long that the milk is sour by the time you get it.

Dictatorship: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

Militarism: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

Pure Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

Representative Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

American Democracy: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair “Cowgate.” The cows are set free.

Democracy, Democrat-style: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being so successful. You vote politicians into office who tax your cows, which forces you to sell one to pay the tax. The politicians use the tax money to buy a cow for your neighbor. You feel good. Barbra Streisand sings for you.

Democracy, Republican-style: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You move to a better neighborhood.

Indian Democracy: You have two cows. You worship them.

British Democracy: You have two cows. You feed them sheep brains and they go mad. The government gives you compensation for your diseased cows, compensation for your lost income, and a grant not to use your fields for anything else. And tells the public not to worry.

Bureaucracy: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

Anarchy: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows.

Capitalism: You have two cows. You lay one off, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when she drops dead.

Singaporean Democracy: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.

Hong Kong Capitalism (alias Enron Capitalism): You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute an debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Isands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows’ milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the Feng Shui is bad.

Environmentalism: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.

Totalitarianism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

Foreign Policy, American-Style: You have two cows. The government taxes them and uses the money to buy a cow for a poor farmer a country ruled by a dictator. The farmer has no hay to feed the cow and his religion forbids him from eating it. The cow dies. The man dies. The dictator confiscates the dead man’s farm and sells it, using the money to purchase US military equipment. The President declares the program a success and announces closer ties with our new ally.

Bureaucracy, American-Style: You have two cows but you have to kill one of them because the government will only give you a license for one of them. The license requires you to sell all your milk to the government, which uses it to make cheese. The government pays lots of money to store the cheese in refrigerated warehouses. When the cheese spoils, the government distributes it to the poor. The poor get sick from the cheese, go to the emergency room, and are turned away because they have no health insurance. The President declares the program a success and reminds us that we have the finest health care system in the world.

American Corporation: You have two cows. You sell one to a subsidiary company and lease it back to yourself so you can declare it as a tax loss. Your bosses give you a huge bonus. You inject the cows with drugs and they produce four times the normal amount of milk. Your bosses give you a huge bonus. When the drugs cause one of the cows to drop dead you announce to the press that you have down-sized, reducing expenses by 50 percent. The company stock goes up and your bosses give you a huge bonus. You lay off all your workers and move your production facilities to Mexico. You get a huge bonus. You contribute some of your profit to the President’s re-election campaign. The President announces tax cuts for corporations in order to stimulate the economy.

Japanese Corporation: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You teach the cows to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Your cows always get higher test scores than cows in the U.S. or Europe, but they drink a lot of sake.

German Corporation: You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year and are very expensive to repair.

Russian Corporation: You have two cows. You have some vodka. You count your cows and discover you really have five cows! You have more vodka. You count them again and discover you have 42 cows! You stop counting cows and have some more vodka. The Russian Mafia arrives and takes over all your cows. You have more vodka.

Italian Corporation: You have two cows but you can’t find them. While searching for them you meet a beautiful woman, take her out to lunch and then make love to her. Life is good.

French Corporation: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want another cow, more vacation and shorter work weeks. The French government announces that it will never agree to your demands. You go to lunch and eat fabulous food and drink wonderful wine. While you are at lunch, the airline pilots and flight controllers join your strike, shutting down all air traffic. The truckers block all the roads and the dock workers block all the ports. By dinner time the French government announces it agrees with all your demands. Life is good.

Political Correctness: You are associated with (the concept of “ownership” is an outdated symbol of your decadent, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender. They get married and adopt a calf.

Counterculturalism: Wow, dude, there’s like . . . these two cows, man. You have got to have some of this milk.

Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

vir

http://www.extremelysm…plain.php

  • Share/Bookmark

Objavljeno v Humor | Brez komentarjev »