WHY THE ECONOMIC PIG'S BOIL WATER BEFORE THE EUROZONE BIRTH
SO IF THE EURO IT'S BORN DEAD, THEY CAN YES THEY CAN MAKE SOUP
WHY IS THE MONEY GREEN
BECAUSE JEWS CATCH THEM BEFORE IS RIPE
O CONCEITO DO DINHEIRO SER VERDE OU MADURO IS A AMERICAN CONCEPT
THE DOLLAR ARE NOTE A RIPE CURRENCY
IS MORE A R.I.P. CURRENCY BY THE CRIMEAN WAR'S
WHY JEWS HAVE SUCH BIG NOSES?
AIR IS FREE....AMERICAN JOKES ARE NOT FREE , YOU NEED TO PAY FOR THEM
TEATCHER FOR A 4TH GRADE BOY OR GIRL (OF WHITE COMPLEXION
WHAT DO YOU CALL A BLACK BOY WITH A BICYCLE
- A THIEF
A BLACK FAMILY IN 1971
FATHER MOTHER AND THREE VEGETABLES AT SCHOOL....
Sammy Davis Jr. in a bus....1969 WELL IS THE BEST YEAR OF THE ROARING SEX TIES.....
Nigger get the back of the bus
- but i'am a jew
-Jew, get off
and you have black jews in africa since king Salomon
and they are not born from a jewish mother ok.....
Anonymous10:12 PM
Yep, the human existence is full of ignorant people.
Truly Tasteless Joker10:21 PM
Yes, and they born everyday like human bobot's, at least 800 thousand a day
I wanna be rich I'm no fool and the genius make's a bundle of green note's
I wanna be white ....and the genius transform the guy
in a Michael Jackson 2000
And i don't want to work anymore
and the genius turn the Michael Jackson 2000 in the black version of 1980
zondag 23 maart 2014
maandag 3 maart 2014
AND THE CRIMEAN STAR IS GOING NOVAE OR SUPERNOVAE? TODAS AS CIVILIZAÇÕES E REGIMES TÊM PONTOS DE RUPTURA POR VEZES PONTOS DE RUPTURA TERRITORIAIS
Territories LIKE THE CRIMEAN TERRITORIES are, before
anything else, constructions of power, or rather of the powers of whose nature
and name they partake.
In the first place, territories are power supports, not only spaces of deployment and points of aid, but fashioned spaces: the fashioning of territories symbolises power.
But this fashioning is not always the same: it varies in function of the epochs, the forms of regime, and the types of powers.
The feudal power does not fashion the territories in the same manner as does the centralised state, the mercantile power does so differently than the industrial power.
Thus, there are no territories without power and for the most part, territories constitute the spaces of confrontation or competition between powers.
But is the reverse equally true?
Can one conceive of power without territory? YES THE BIG BANK CONCEPT
THE CORPORATION'S DON'T NEED TERRITORY TO HAVE POWER
The answer depends in fact on the nature of the connection running between power and territory. I
f it is a necessary and central relation, it is likely that all powers do not maintain this relation with the same intensity.
A power does not need to be implicated in the fashioning of a territory, a more or less tight control could suffice.
SEE TROIKA IN PORTUCALE 2011 - 2111.....
To what extent can one imagine a power without territory, without any mark of interest for some territory or other? GOLDMAN SACHS
THE FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION'S THAT COMMAND POLITICAL ONES
POLITICAL ECONOMY IS DOMINATED BY terrorist networks which neither claim, fashion, or control a specific territory and whose net-like form relies on a particular form of power, territory could well be very secondary but not as such absent.
The support or complicity of a territorial power appears a condition of their survival.U.S OF A
SAUDI ARABIA THE UNITED KINGDOM AND CHINA
IN HONG-KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION
MICROSOFT AND BILL GATES WITH 55 BIG ONES TAX FREE
Does the approach towards power in terms of governance fundamentally modify the articulation between powers and territories?
The answer to this question seems to be affirmative to the extent that this approach leads one to insist on the plurality of this articulation.
In fact, numerous recently published studies characterise the relation between powers and territories in a contradictory manner: one speaks of "territorialisation," of "deterritorialisation," of "reterritorialisation."
All three terms could be simultaneously true. On the one hand, each of these processes could signify a basic articulation of territories or of different powers. On the other hand, in certain cases, they could be perceived as three phases of the same global process.
Thus, a study could first be carried out on the way in which different powers maintain a relation with territories through practices, through intentions, through discourses. What are the relations that different types of power maintain with territories and how do those territories, in turn, act upon those powers? What integrates territories into an action, a project, a politics, a rhetoric? In what way are territories also bearers of identity?
In a more operational manner, the two days of the international conference are organised around four sub-themes which represent the general theme of "Governance/-s, Power/-s, Territory/-ies: A Rearticulation of the Local and the Global?" As far as possible, the sub-themes should inspire both comparative (between cultural, civilization spheres, etc.) and diachronic studies which underline the historicistic nature of the links between governance/-s, power/-s and territory/-ies.
Territories and Identities
What might the inclusion of territory in the construction of individual, social, and political identities signify in our contemporary world?
For some time now, identity has been a key term in the study of international relations. The relations between identity and territory, however, have remained an afterthought. At best, territoriality has been considered a secondary feature in the construction of identity, if it has not simply been read as an expression of traditional, geo-political power politics. Yet individuals do not live in transit. Neither do groups of people nor political organizations. They all inhabit some place somewhere. In this sense, territory can be said to present an integral part of the construction of any identity. The effect that specific territories might have on identities and the specific relations between identity-markers such as religion, ethnicity, nationality, culture and their territory/-ies therefore should be carefully considered and analyzed.
Frameworks and Territories
What place do the different scholarly and/or political frameworks accord or confer upon territories? In what manner could the idea of territory be part of such frameworks themselves? As is well known, in the history of international relations theory, the school of geopolitics provided a theory of territory - and became discredited as the ideology of an Imperial, colonialist and even fascist world politics. Since the end of the East-West conflict, a new, ostensibly critical, variant of geopolitics has gained in importance and territoriality has once again become a mode of framing international politics. Yet different ways of conceiving territory might either complement or negate other frameworks in international relations - including, but not limited to, human rights as an international regime, social justice and ecology as part and parcel of international politics today. Thus, one needs to clarify the effects that conceptions of territory might actually have in this regard. In addition, the question of how tradition in this case might or might not influence present thinking is both a vital and a complex one.
Political Order, Governance, and Territories
What are the relations, if indeed there are any, between political order and territory IN UKRAINE OR IN SYRIA OR IN THE FORMER EMPIRE ALSO KNOWN BY CENTER AFRICAN OR FORMELY KNOWN BY LYBIA IS THE SAME .....
Are specific political systems the outcome of specific territorialities?
Or do certain territorial arrangements actually reflect particular conceptions of political order? Political institutions are said to embody or, at least, are said to be founded on normative principles and (pre-existing) relations of power. Yet what about their spatial, territorial dimension?
While the possible relationships between political order, governance, and territories certainly elude the spatial divisions into "unitary" and "federal" political systems, their supposed underlying dynamics continue to inform present debates about a "world government" and a "European polity." Indeed, both the conception and the practice of "integration," at the global and/or European level, depends on coming to terms with the kinds of questions that the making and representation of territory within an institutional matrix raises.
IS EEC A TERRITORY? IS EEC A UNION
IS EEC THE UKRAINE LOST?
OR IS PARADISE LOST
I NEVER KNOW....
In the first place, territories are power supports, not only spaces of deployment and points of aid, but fashioned spaces: the fashioning of territories symbolises power.
But this fashioning is not always the same: it varies in function of the epochs, the forms of regime, and the types of powers.
The feudal power does not fashion the territories in the same manner as does the centralised state, the mercantile power does so differently than the industrial power.
Thus, there are no territories without power and for the most part, territories constitute the spaces of confrontation or competition between powers.
But is the reverse equally true?
Can one conceive of power without territory? YES THE BIG BANK CONCEPT
THE CORPORATION'S DON'T NEED TERRITORY TO HAVE POWER
The answer depends in fact on the nature of the connection running between power and territory. I
f it is a necessary and central relation, it is likely that all powers do not maintain this relation with the same intensity.
A power does not need to be implicated in the fashioning of a territory, a more or less tight control could suffice.
SEE TROIKA IN PORTUCALE 2011 - 2111.....
To what extent can one imagine a power without territory, without any mark of interest for some territory or other? GOLDMAN SACHS
THE FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION'S THAT COMMAND POLITICAL ONES
POLITICAL ECONOMY IS DOMINATED BY terrorist networks which neither claim, fashion, or control a specific territory and whose net-like form relies on a particular form of power, territory could well be very secondary but not as such absent.
The support or complicity of a territorial power appears a condition of their survival.U.S OF A
SAUDI ARABIA THE UNITED KINGDOM AND CHINA
IN HONG-KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION
MICROSOFT AND BILL GATES WITH 55 BIG ONES TAX FREE
Does the approach towards power in terms of governance fundamentally modify the articulation between powers and territories?
The answer to this question seems to be affirmative to the extent that this approach leads one to insist on the plurality of this articulation.
In fact, numerous recently published studies characterise the relation between powers and territories in a contradictory manner: one speaks of "territorialisation," of "deterritorialisation," of "reterritorialisation."
All three terms could be simultaneously true. On the one hand, each of these processes could signify a basic articulation of territories or of different powers. On the other hand, in certain cases, they could be perceived as three phases of the same global process.
Thus, a study could first be carried out on the way in which different powers maintain a relation with territories through practices, through intentions, through discourses. What are the relations that different types of power maintain with territories and how do those territories, in turn, act upon those powers? What integrates territories into an action, a project, a politics, a rhetoric? In what way are territories also bearers of identity?
In a more operational manner, the two days of the international conference are organised around four sub-themes which represent the general theme of "Governance/-s, Power/-s, Territory/-ies: A Rearticulation of the Local and the Global?" As far as possible, the sub-themes should inspire both comparative (between cultural, civilization spheres, etc.) and diachronic studies which underline the historicistic nature of the links between governance/-s, power/-s and territory/-ies.
Territories and Identities
What might the inclusion of territory in the construction of individual, social, and political identities signify in our contemporary world?
For some time now, identity has been a key term in the study of international relations. The relations between identity and territory, however, have remained an afterthought. At best, territoriality has been considered a secondary feature in the construction of identity, if it has not simply been read as an expression of traditional, geo-political power politics. Yet individuals do not live in transit. Neither do groups of people nor political organizations. They all inhabit some place somewhere. In this sense, territory can be said to present an integral part of the construction of any identity. The effect that specific territories might have on identities and the specific relations between identity-markers such as religion, ethnicity, nationality, culture and their territory/-ies therefore should be carefully considered and analyzed.
Frameworks and Territories
What place do the different scholarly and/or political frameworks accord or confer upon territories? In what manner could the idea of territory be part of such frameworks themselves? As is well known, in the history of international relations theory, the school of geopolitics provided a theory of territory - and became discredited as the ideology of an Imperial, colonialist and even fascist world politics. Since the end of the East-West conflict, a new, ostensibly critical, variant of geopolitics has gained in importance and territoriality has once again become a mode of framing international politics. Yet different ways of conceiving territory might either complement or negate other frameworks in international relations - including, but not limited to, human rights as an international regime, social justice and ecology as part and parcel of international politics today. Thus, one needs to clarify the effects that conceptions of territory might actually have in this regard. In addition, the question of how tradition in this case might or might not influence present thinking is both a vital and a complex one.
Political Order, Governance, and Territories
What are the relations, if indeed there are any, between political order and territory IN UKRAINE OR IN SYRIA OR IN THE FORMER EMPIRE ALSO KNOWN BY CENTER AFRICAN OR FORMELY KNOWN BY LYBIA IS THE SAME .....
Are specific political systems the outcome of specific territorialities?
Or do certain territorial arrangements actually reflect particular conceptions of political order? Political institutions are said to embody or, at least, are said to be founded on normative principles and (pre-existing) relations of power. Yet what about their spatial, territorial dimension?
While the possible relationships between political order, governance, and territories certainly elude the spatial divisions into "unitary" and "federal" political systems, their supposed underlying dynamics continue to inform present debates about a "world government" and a "European polity." Indeed, both the conception and the practice of "integration," at the global and/or European level, depends on coming to terms with the kinds of questions that the making and representation of territory within an institutional matrix raises.
IS EEC A TERRITORY? IS EEC A UNION
IS EEC THE UKRAINE LOST?
OR IS PARADISE LOST
I NEVER KNOW....
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)