Tatava Yapma??

Seçimler yaklaşırken, faşizme karşı tüm AKP-karşıtı oyların tatava yapmadan seçilmeye en yakın adaya verilmesiyle ilgili bir kampanya başladı.

Argüman kabaca AKP'nin oylarını düşürerek faşizmden kurtulmamızı öneriyor.

İyi de, bu argüman faşizmin nasıl çalıştığını hiç anlamamış ki !

Tatava kampanyasını savunanların mantığı şöyle: Halk AKP'yi destekledi, o yüzden AKP güçlendi, o yüzden Tayyip iktidarını koruyor. Demek ki seçimde halk desteğini efektif biçimde AKP'den çekersek Tayyip iktidarından kurtulabiliriz.

Oysa faşizm bunun tam tersi şekilde çalışıyor:

1) Öncelikle Tayyip güçlü. Bu güç, a priori'dir, halkla bir ilgisi yoktur. Tayyip'in emperyalizmin ve Türkiye burjuvazisinin çıkarlarını uzlaştırma yeteneğinde gizlidir.

2) Bunun sonucu olarak AKP güçlü. Bu, Tayyip'in bir sonucudur. Tam da bu yüzden Tayyip rezil rüsvan olduktan aylar yıllar sonra bile Tayyip'siz AKP projesi devreye sokulamıyor. Tayyip'siz AKP aynı işi göremiyor.

3) Tüm bunların sonucu olarak AKP seçimleri kazanıyor. Halk desteği vb. a posteriori'dir: AKP güçlü olduğu için devlet aygıtını ve neredeyse tüm medyayı elinde tutuyor; dolayısıyla AKP iktidarına toplumsal rıza üretebiliyor. (Tıpkı tüm diğer faşizmler gibi.)

Bunlara ek olarak:

1. Tayyip öyle büyük suçlar işledi ki seçimle veya herhangi bir "normal" yolla görevden çekilmesi kendi açısından imkansızdır. Tayyip için iktidar, ölüm kalım meselesidir. Emekli olup resme başlamanın bir seçenek olmadığını biliyor. Hatta düzgünce yargılanacağından bile emin değil.

Bu yüzden Tayyip'in sakinleşmesi imkansızdır.

2. Burjuvazi açısından Tayyip'in siyasal ömrü dolalı çok oluyor. Hala alternatif bulamadıkları için onun bu azgın tutumuna uyarı açıklamaları yapmakla yetiniyorlar.

Demek ki; Tayyip "normal" yollarla, yani burjuva siyasetin içinden yöntemlerle devrilemez. Hele yerel seçimlerle falan hiç devrilemez.

Tayyip hiçbir noktada "Ha iyi peki madem ben çekileyim kenara." demeyecek ! Seçimi kazansa da kaybetse de, hatta tüm burjuvazi ona sırtını dönse de demeyecek.

Dolayısıyla seçim yoluyla (hele ki yerel seçim yoluyla) faşizmin etkisinin azaltılması vb. bugün Türkiye'de mümkün değildir.

Fethullah bunu gördüğü için direkt AKP kurmaylarını ortadan kaldırmaya oynuyor. (Örneğin parti kurmaya veya açıkça başka bir partiyi desteklemeye kıyasla... Üstelik Fethullahçı milletvekilleri bile henüz AKP'yi terk etmediler.)

Bunlardan çıkan sonuç şöyle: Faşizmi defetmenin yolu, faşizme karşı omuz omuza aktif siyaset yapmaktan geçiyor. Şu anda çapulcuların yapabileceği en kötü şey, marjinden merkeze yönelmek, muhalefeti "normal"leştirmektir.

PS: Bu söylediklerim "normal" muhalefet gerçekten sol, sosyal demokrat falan olsa da geçerli kalıyor. Hele bizimki gibi "MHP'ye bas geç", "Mansur Yavaş'a bas geç" vb. durumlarda haydi haydi geçerlidir sanıyorum.

Recent findings

Survey of literature

sala de estar / living room / oturma odası

estar (verb):

1. to be (indicates location in space)

2. to be (denotes a transient quality; a quality expected to change)

Sala da estar, then, should mean, literally, where one locates one's self, where transient qualities are experienced, or where one's qualities change.

The last one is my favourite: Sala de estar should be where one's qualities change (with respect to one's self and with respect to others). I mean, we should have a room just for this, and we already have a candidate.

The ideological frame

Spent too long in real life anyway. Was longing for switching to an imaginary narrative.

Results

According to recent findings, I am officially in love now.

Further comments

Condolences will be accepted during working hours of our offices.

Logical deconstruction of a moment

He looked at her like someone who knew what he wanted.

From her look, to him, it was not clear, to him, whether she thought that he looked at her like someone who knew what he wanted, or not, while, in the affirmative case, that is, in the case that she thought he looked at her like someone who knew what he wanted, it was not clear, to him, whether she believed that the look was for real, for, even when one looks at someone else, at her in this case, like someone who knows what he wants, it does not necessarily follow that he actually knows what he wants,

which, in turn, can occur in two cases, one of which is this, that he does not know what he wants, but pretends to know what he wants, and, the second of which is this, that he does not know what he wants, but thinks he knows what he wants. The former case, that he looked at her like someone who knows what he wants, while actually not knowing what he wants, and, furthermore, that he was aware that he did not know what he wanted, yet looked at her like someone who knows what he wants, could have been a result of pretentious self-confidence, for he was well-known for his lack of self-confidence. The latter case, that he looked at her like someone who knows what he wants, thinking that he knew what he wanted, and, therefore, supposed that he, looking at her like someone who knows what he wants, was acting in an honest way, while, in reality, he did not know what he wanted – or, for that matter, perhaps was mistaken in his understanding of what he wanted, which would yield a similar result and will therefore be omitted in this analysis – , could have been a result of a delusion or of a confusion, of him, about what he wanted. Not that there was any reason for him to believe that it was the affirmative case, that is, that she thought he looked at her like someone who knew what he wanted, for it might well have been that she did not think he looked at her like someone who knew what he wanted, or, even worse, that she thought he looked at her like someone who did not know what he wanted. The only observable information was that his impression was that he looked at her like someone who knew what he wanted, and that she looked back, at him.

However, it was important for him, how she felt, or thought. (Not that it was not important for her, how she felt, or thought, for it was probable that it was, but this case is beyond the scope of this analysis.) It was important for him, how she felt, or thought, as he, once having known how she felt, or thought, would act according to this information. This is why he studied, in a moment's duration, each of the mentioned cases, and how he should act in each of the cases, in order to determine the best action to pursue, given that he did not have the information of how she felt, or thought.

If she thought that he looked at her like someone who knew what he wanted, yet that he actually did not know what he wanted but only pretended to know what he wanted, then, provided that she tracked this observation until its logical consequences, as he did, she would conclude, as he did, that he was pretending to be self-confident, which could most probably cause her to introduce a further distance between them – as there was already a distance between them, for historical reasons –, as it is generally considered preferable to keep a distance with someone who is considered, by the person in question, pretentious, and this would make the problem almost unsolvable, except if she had a preconception of him, which implied, or was, that he pretended to be self-confident for good intentions, for reasons unknown, in which case she could consider excusing, or at least ignoring, his condition. He concluded that, in this case, except when it was the exceptional sub-case mentioned just now, he would reach a dead end. Therefore, his only hope, in this case, to continue in any positive direction, was the small probability that she had a preconception of him, which implied, or was, that he pretended to be self-confident for good intentions, for reasons unknown, and, after calculating this probability to be infinitesimal, he moved on to the other cases.

If she thought that he looked at her like someone who knew what he wanted, that he did not know what he wanted, but thought he knew what he wanted, then, provided that she tracked this observation until its logical consequences, as he did, she would conclude, as he did, that he was deluded or confused, about what he wanted, which could most probably cause her to hesitate to express her feelings, or thoughts, seeing that he was not reliable. He concluded that, in this case, he would reach a dead end, unless he could find another way, a way different than looking at her like someone who knows what he wants, to continue the conversation towards a positive direction, in which she would feel comfortable to express her feelings, or thoughts. Given that she already had grounds for hesitating to express her feelings, or thoughts, he calculated the probability of him finding another way to continue the conversation towards a direction in which she would feel comfortable to express her feelings or thoughts, in such a way to neutralize the negative effects already caused by his look and then further create a positive and motivating ambiance – seeing that he was not a conversant person – to be infinitesimal, and moved on to the next cases.

If she did not think he looked at her like someone who knew what he wanted, then, most probably, she would have to assign a meaning to his look, a meaning different from the one he intended – which effort it is not obvious she would make, but will be assumed in this analysis. He remarked that if she assigned a different meaning to his look than the one he intended, namely, to give the impression that he knew what he wanted, then it would be almost impossible, for him, to guess correctly what that meaning would be, nor what consequences this meaning would have on her attitude towards him. He concluded, therefore, that the only way out, for him, was, for him to continue the conversation in another direction, and hope to reach safer grounds, unless he could find a way to infer the meaning she assigned to his look, in order to follow her line of thought, about him, to create a positive impression on her, but this last option, of inferring the meaning she assigned to his look, seemed highly improbable to him. He calculated the probability of him continuing the conversation in a direction to reach safer grounds to be infinitesimal, and moved on to the last case.

If she thought he looked at her like someone who did not know what he wanted, which, as mentioned before, was the worst case considered, by him, in this analysis, then this would most probably imply, for her, that he, not knowing what he wanted, was not worth the conversation. He concluded that, in this case, he would reach a dead end, unless he could find another way to demonstrate, to her, that he was someone who knows what he wants. Seeing that, under the assumptions of this case, he would have failed to show her that he was someone who knows what he wants, by looking, at her, like someone who knows what he wants, he calculated the probability of him finding another, and more effective, way of demonstrating her that he knew what he wanted, to be infinitesimal.

Considering all the cases carefully, using infinitesimal calculus, and ignoring the Bayes' theorem of probability (whereby he restricted his final results to the cases where he did not reach a dead end), he decided to open a conversation, as unrelated to his look at her, like someone who knows what he wants, as possible.

This desperate attempt, as well as its consequences, are beyond the scope of this analysis. Suffice it to say here that it was not related to what he wanted.

What is normal?

I was told to think, so I did.

I wouldn't consider myself as a sentimentalist, but well, there is the blog talking for itself anyway.

Stromae - Formidable (ceci n'est pas une leçon) from Quentin Devillers on Vimeo.

Whatever Happened To Pontape

Intro: The main left-wing union of Portugal, Confederação Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses - Intersindical Nacional (CGTP-IN) made a call for a march on October 19th. The title was "Pontape / Ponte a pé", a wordplay of "give a kick / bridge on foot". The idea was to gather laborers from all over the country to Lisbon (and Porto, but that's not relevant here), arrange a meeting point on the other side of the Tagus river, then march through the bridge into Lisbon city.
CGTP-IN informed the local authorities about the protest. Municipalities announced that the bridge is not under their supervision. State authorities argued that they couldn't provide the security of the protestants. The CGTP-IN leadership denounced such claims, claiming the issue was "not a technical one anymore, but a political one".
Later on, CGTP-IN and the Ministry of Internal Affairs had a meeting, where both position were repeated. The next day, CGTP-IN leader Arménio Carlos made a press conference. He reported that the "march" will take place "inside the buses". This means, the protesters will gather at a certain location, then cross the bridge with the buses, and then come back again inside the buses, ending the demonstration in Alcântara.
The followings are inspired by the outrageously hilarious chickening-out of the CGTP-IN leadership, which created a dissent not only among the protesters but also among the medium-ranking officials of the union.

Did I ever tell you how it is very hard to find a country like Portugal, where all political organizations are right-wing when compared to the society?

***

I skimmed the CGTP discourse. I skimmed the annual budget.

I declare my full respect and support to government officials. At least they honestly represent someone's interests.

***

I will never forgive CGTP for ruining the first and only wordplay I managed to understand in Portuguese language. (Pontape / Ponte a pé)

***

Today in Turkey, tens of thousands of animals were slaughtered as sacrifies, as part of the Islamic festivities. The Bosphorus in Istanbul turned red.

In the meanwhile in Lisbon, a wordplay joke was slaughtered as a sacrify to the gods of bourgeois legality.

***

I propose that the Ministry of Interior Affairs forbids all kinds of protests. Then perhaps we'd gather, go and visit other cities to make protests.

As it is also practically forbidden in Spain, I propose Alexanderplatz, Berlin.

It's a lovely square.

***

I propose that from now on all the protests be held inside buses. It's safer, securer and more comfortable.

***

I'm a CGTP-skeptic. I don't believe in CGTP, but there is a force.

***

Protests in Lisbon have ontological difficulties. You never know if a protest exists, in which shape it exists, and whether one can observe its existence.

Agnosticism rules.

***

I am told that an average CGTP member pays 40€ in 3 months.

Until now, I made 8 jokes about Pontape (not counting Arménio's). This makes 4€ a piece.

I challenge myself to make it worth 3€ a piece.

I mean, I support the cause.

***

MEDIA BLACKOUT IN PORTUGAL

The other day I went to SEF (Immigration Office) and sat there for 4 hours. As the toilets were really dirty, I went out, more determined than ever.

As media suppressed my occupation, I got more radicalized and took a bus all the way from Marques de Pombal to Restauradores.

This action was also censored by the mainstream media. But I am determined and angry.

A luta continua !

***

ARE ROBOTS TAKING OVER IN PORTUGAL?

Nation got shocked to hear that buses' union will organize a demonstration in the 25th April Bridge this Saturday.


The spokesbus of Confederação Geral dos Transformers Portugueses (CGTP) made a press conference yesterday, announcing that buses will protest the new annual budget proposal on Saturday in Lisbon.

"The government is deliberately ignoring our demands. The word 'bus' does not appear a single time in the budget proposal. We decided to take action.", the spokesbus said.

Mercedes Benz, a very active member of the union, is tired of austerity measures. "Enough is enough!" says Benz, "We are one of the main consumers of oil. If the government does not listen to our demands, we will go further and make a strike." Benz emphasizes a common delusion and argues "They say it's people, but actually it is we who consumes oil. I've never seen a human eating oil. We have a real power coming from consumption."

"We noticed that we don't need people to make protests", comments the leader of the union's bus section, "Buses will do just fine. And they were coming to all the protests anyway." It notes that each human can bring at most one bus while each bus can bring up to 50 people to a demonstration. "Cars union declared its support to our event." says the leader.

It invited the Marxists to reevaluate their claim that only workers can produce surplus value and asked for solidarity from all the sectors of the society.

Ministry of Internal Affairs made an urgent call for a meeting with the Ministry of Education and Science. The government is planning to form a Futurists Committee to deal with the situation. "We don't even understand what they say", said the spokesperson of the Ministry, "All I hear is Ruummmmmm rummmmmmm rummmmm."

***

I walked around Lisbon today and saw the posters for the Oct 19th march. I realized that none of the posters imply that "human beings" are involved in the demonstration.

Stop complaining. CGTP was honest all the time.

***

If Turkey has flying revolutionaries, why shouldn't Portugal have invisible proletarians?

(Photo from May 1st, 2013. Istanbul)

***

Não há becos sem saída ! É possível que haja algumas pontes sem entrada...

***

There are two teams I wanted to take part in before I die. Monty Python, and CGTP text writing team. I'm sure they laugh the hell out of it while they produce new material.

"Com os pés sobre rodas marcharemos em protesto na ponte 25 de Abril" [taken from CGTP website]

I'm not laughing at you, CGTP administration, I'm laughing with you.