[P2P-F] Fukuyama on the absent left

Mon Dec 26 19:45:20 CET 2011

It is indeed easy to call an author a liar. It's another thing altogether
to document it:

Chapter Four of Buchanan's *The Death of the West*, "Four Who Made a
Revolution," shares with the Oslo mass murder, Anders Breivik's presumed
"manifesto" the feature of being plagiarized from an unreliable source (the
*same* source) who distorted his sources... and so on.

Listed second among the five friends who "were kind enough to read the text
and to urge cuts, alterations and additions" was Bill
Lind<http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/07/confessions-of-cultural-marxist.html>.
Five of 49 footnotes are to authors subsequently included in the Free
Congress Foundation pamphlet, "Political Correctness: A Short History of An
Ideology," also plagiarized by Breivik -- William Lind (2), Raymond V.
Raehn (2) and Gerald L. Atkinson. However, there are two additional
footnotes to "Michael Löwy" that are clearly *not* from Löwy but again from
Raehn. The true source is evident when one traces the footnote and compares
Buchanan's text with Löwy's and Raehn's. The infidelities in Raehn's
quotations are carried through, unmolested, into Buchanan's text.

Buchanan:

'Who will free us from the yoke of Western Civilization?' -- Georg Lukács,
Marxist Theoretician.

Raehn:

'The question is, Who will free us from the yoke of Western Civilization?'

Löwy:

Lukács's attitude to the powers at war was at once that of a (Hungarian)
anti-absolutist democrat and a (German) romantic anti-capitalist. The 1962
preface to *The Theory of the Novel* offers a retrospective account of his
position. 'When I tried at this time to put my emotional attitude into
conscious terms, I arrived at more or less the following formulations: the
Central Powers would probably defeat Russia; this might lead to the
downfall of Tsarism, I had no objection to that. There was also some
probability that the West would defeat Germany; if this led to the downfall
of the Hohenzollerns and the Habsburgs, I was once again in favour. *But
then the question arose: who was to save us from western civilization?'*

In Löwy's account Lukács is reflecting, critically, on his inchoate, *
pre-Marxist* attitude, not stating some premise of his formulation of
Marxist doctrine.

Buchanan:

The first dissenting disciple was the Hungarian Georg Lukács, an agent of
the Comintern, whose *History and Class Consciousness* had brought him
recognition as a Marxist theorist to rival Marx himself. 'I saw the
revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution,' said
Lukács. 'A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the
annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the
revolutionaries.'

Raehn:

Georg Lukács was the son of a wealthy Hungarian banker who began his
political life as a key Soviet agent of the Communist International. His
book *History and Class Consciousness* gained him recognition as the
leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. And like Karl Marx his primary
emotion was hatred. 'I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the
one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,' was one
of his expressed attitudes. In defending Bolshevism, Lukács stated: 'Such a
worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation
of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.'

Löwy (p. 93):

What attracted the young Lukács to [poet Endre] Ady's lyricism was the fact
that, unlike the *Nyugat* and *Huszadik Szazad* 'modernists', he rejected
not only the old feudal Hungary, but also western bourgeois 'progress': "At
bottom, this entire phase of my development was inspired... by discontent
and revolt against the Hungarian capitalism that had sprung to life in the
'gentry'. These same feelings lay behind my unconditional admiration for
Ady; yet not for a moment did they give me the idea -- generally accepted
by the Hungarian intellectual left -- that a way out had first to be
prepared by the introduction of western capitalist civilization into
Hungary. . . . *'Even though my ideas were confused from a theoretical
point of view, I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one
and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.'*

As should be clear from the context, the first part of the Raehn/Buchanan
citation refers to Lukács's romantic anti-capitalist affinity toward a
Hungarian poet. An older Lukács was reflecting on ideas he held as a youth
in 1909. The second part of the citation comes from a different,
transitional, period in Lukács's intellectual development -- in November
1918 *before* Lukács embraced Bolshevism. In fact, the article from which
the quotation is taken contained his last argument *against* Bolshevism
(not *defending* Bolshevism as Raehn claimed) before his unexpected
conversion. Regardless, in terms of fidelity to sources, it is worth
pointing out that the last nine words in the sentence attributed by both
Buchanan and Raehn to Lukács were not Lukács's but Löwy's
*interpretation*of the sense of what Lukács was saying.

Löwy (130):

Lukács had no hesitation in rejecting the argument of numerous conservative
intellectuals that Bolshevism spelt the destruction of civilization and
culture: *'Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without
the annihilation of the old values'* and the creation of new ones by the
revolutionaries.

What I have documented so far is garden-variety intellectual dishonesty.
The next footnote, however, is a *tour de force* of calumny. Not only has
Buchanan misrepresented his source but his actual source, Reahn, has
misrepresented *his* source. Moreover, the chain of obfuscation and fantasy
continues back through two more mendacious links.

Buchanan:

As deputy commissar for culture in Bela Kun's regime, Lukács put his
self-described "demonic" ideas into action in what came to be known as
'cultural terrorism.'

As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in
Hungarian schools. Children were instructed in free love, sexual
intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the
outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives
man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual
mores of the time.

Raehn:

In 1919, Lukács became the Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik
Bela Kun regime in Hungary, where he instigated what became known as
Culture Terrorism. He launched an explosive sex education program. Special
lectures were organized in Hungarian schools and literature printed and
distributed to instruct children about free love, about the nature of
sexual intercourse, about the archaic nature of the bourgeois family codes,
about the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which
the Marxists said deprives man of all pleasures.

Children urged thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the
authority of the Church, and to ignore precepts of morality, easily and
spontaneously turned into delinquents with whom only the police could cope.
This call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian children was matched by a
call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian women. This was a precursor to
what Cultural Marxism would later bring into American schools.

Buchanan again gives Löwy as his source for the description of Lukács's
reign as deputy commissar for culture. Unfortunately for Buchanan's
credibility, Löwy was himself citing a source, Victor Zitta, that he
explicitly identified as "unserious", giving as an example a supposed
incident where Lukács was alleged to have dragged the poet, Endre Ady "from
his deathbed" to a ceremony that couldn't have taken place until months
after the poet's death!

Löwy:

The bourgeois fury and indignation at Lukács’s profoundly subversive
cultural policy has recently found an echo in the writings of one Victor
Zitta. Portraying Lukâcs as a ‘fanatic . . . bent on destroying the
established social order’, Zitta argues that education became ‘something
perverse’ under Lukács’s guidance:

*Special lectures were organized in schools and literature printed and
distributed to “instruct” children about free love, about the nature of
sexual intercourse, about the archaic nature of the bourgeois family codes,
about the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which
deprives man of all pleasure. Children urged thus to reject and deride
paternal authority and the authority of the Church, and to ignore precepts
of morality, easily and spontaneously turned into delinquents with whom
only the police could cope. . . . This call to rebellion addressed to
children was matched by a call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian women.
Among the numerous curious pamphlets published under Lukács’s auspices in
the Commissariat of Education and Culture, one is singularly interesting,
if not typical of Lukács’s cultural endeavours. Written by Zsôfia Dénes, it
deals with “Women in the Communist Social System" … Zsófia claimed that in
bourgeois society the mistreatment of women was shocking. . . . In her
deliciously queer and hilarious pamphlet, Zsófia calls upon women the world
over to unite and overthrow the chains imposed upon them by exploitive
bourgeois-spirited males.*

Löwy's characterization of unseriousness would seem to be corroborated by
contemporary reviews of Zitta's book, which were scathing. Of course there
is always the unlikely possibility that it was the critics who were biased,
not Zitta but here is a sample of their observations:

Zoltan Tar, *Slavic Review*:

The book relies heavily on a confusing conglomeration of philosophical
terms: alienation, objectification, reification, self-estrangement, and
distortion or neglect of elementary sociohistorical facts. This confusion
is partly due to the author's heavy reliance on secondary source material,
some of which was written by official historians of the semi-Fascist
interwar Horthy regime of Hungary. Based on these dubious sources Zitta
accuses Lukács of a murder which he allegedly ordered during the 1919 Kun
regime.

Irving Louis Horowitz, *The Sociological Quarterly*

VICTOR ZITTA has written an unusual book, made so more by the biographical
elements included in the analysis than by the analysis itself. The work is
the product of an emigre's desire to settle accounts with an intellectual
tradition that he was part of. It expresses a sense of guilt at the world
he left behind no less than the one he has come to. He has gone about this
study of Georg Lukics as one writes about a deviant father; from the point
of view of a son who wants to go straight. At this level, the book
represents an apologia pro vita sua in the special form of criticism as
vengeance.

At the intellectual level, we are promised too much and provided with too
little. At one and the same time this is a book on a book, an analysis of
Lukács's *History and Class Consciousness*, but displaying even at this
level all the chief elements of a *chronique scandaleuse*, including cheap
expos6s. In the process of self-redemption and sin remission, Mr. Zitta is
guilty of some sins of commission. Lukács is credited with all kinds of
evil deeds. It is stated as a fact drawn from an anonymous author that
during the Hungarian commune days Lukács gave orders to kill a medical
student on the charge of being counterrevolutionary. This, after a
discussion of how remarkably free of terror the early days of the Bela Kun
regime were. Along the same lines are unproved charges against Lukács that
an international art exhibit which he helped organize had missing items in
it; and that these were stolen by Lukács and sold to Western businessmen,
presumably for personal and family plunder.
...

The recourse to private correspondence serves to legitimize a questionable
sort of notation system. Mr. Zitta is careful to insert a footnote when he
is accusing Lukács of sins, but invariably, the footnotes prove no such
sins. The notes generally have reference to an isolated phrase in the
paragraph and are irrelevant with respect to biographical charges against
Lukács.

John O'Neill, *Philosophy and Phenomenological Research*:

At first slight, the massive, multilingual, and bibliographical scholarship
that has gone into Zitta's text would seem to assure it of a place as the
principal English introduction to Lukács. But this is not what Zitta has
achieved. To have done so would have required a relation to his subject
which his pseudo-psychoanalytic method vitiates. Zitta is neither the
patient student of Lukács nor the profound analyst.

Laurent Stern, *The Journal of Politics*:

The high points of Lukács's intellectual activity during this period are *The
Soul and the Forms* (1911), *Theory of the Novel* (1914-15) and *History
and Class Consciousness* (1923). Since these books bear clearly the imprint
of Lukács's development, a biography can be written based on them, if the
biographer (1) has some competence in the intellectual pursuits of his
subject and (2) possesses understanding and critical judgment to
distinguish between reflections concerning Literature or Philosophy and
autobiographical remarks. The reviewer regrets to admit that he finds the
author wanting on both counts.

Zitta resorts to two surrogates for a serious discussion: (1) he relies on
documents of questionable value, especially concerning the Hungarian Soviet
experience in 1919, which prompts him to speculate whether Lukács was
implicated in murder; (2) he relies on gossip. Zitta claims having
"obtained orally" from this reviewer the information that Karl Mannheim and
two scientists of world renown have associated with Lukács. (p. 132) Zitta
places this association arbitrarily after Lukács became a communist.

Annette T. Rubinstein, *Science & Society*:

This book by an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Marquette
University is a curious conglomeration of serious study in terms of
valuable bibliographical research, a close if tendentious reading of early
Lukács material (1905-1923), much of which has long been disowned by its
author, a highly colored religious and, I think, incorrect philosophical
polemic conducted with at least verbal propriety, and a wildly
irresponsible series of often simplistic historical and slanderous
biographical or critical-biographical statements. Here the most absurdly
tenuous conclusions are presented as literal statements of fact and
generally discredited or interested individuals are quoted as authoritative
scholarly sources.

Often this sort of interpretation is inextricably intertwined with equally
blatant misstatements of historical fact, blandly offered without a shred
of evidence. For example, Zitta tells us that, as Deputy Commissar of
Education for the short-lived Hungarian Commune. Lukács, with the help of
his comrades, undertook what might be called a cultural brain-washing
campaign. To a self-estranged man this came quite naturally. The campaign
called upon the techniques congenial to his and his comrades' souls: he was
to devise measures which would reproduce on a mass-scale what he and his
comrades had undergone on an individual scale, namely self-estrangement.
First of all, anxiety had to be induced in the Hungarian political patient
by various arrangements which would deprive him of the ability to predict
his daily routine and behavior. . . . Second, guilt-feelings were to be
inflicted by devising rules and decrees designed not so much for the sake
of their observance, but to enable random punishment. . . . Third, doubts
had to be created about all values which were in touch with the previous
order. . . . Totalitarianism is thus prescribed on recipe by self-estranged
persons who exterminate the environment where self-identity is possible.

György Márkus, *Science & Society*:

...the fantastic misorientation of Prof. Zitta on questions of Hungarian
cultural history... begins on the very first page, where it is stated that
Lukács was the editor of "the famous literary monthly" *Nyugat* and of
the *Huszadik
Század*. Both statements are incorrect. On page 23 Lukács has already
become the founder of the first journal, but perhaps that is not a miracle,
because on page 30 we learn that he was active in *Nyugat* circles around
1903, which is all the more astonishing because *Nyuga*t- the most
important journal in pre- war Hungary- was not founded until 1908. But
perhaps the best ex- ample of the total irresponsibility of the author is
the story about Lukács and Endre Ady on pages 101-102. It is stated that
"Lukács contrived somehow to drag E. Ady to a ceremony before the House of
Parliament on March 1, and proclaimed the dismayed and helplessly
protesting poet . . . the 'Saint' of the Commune." Now the facts of the
matter are that: First, E. Ady died on January 27, 1919. Second, on March 1
the Communist Party was underground and any meeting before the Parliament
was quite out of the question. Third, the Hungarian Commune was established
on March 27.

And while some persons, if we are to believe Zitta, were active after their
deaths, others were poets and members of "the revolutionary generation" in
their early childhood (see page 43). Miklós Radnóti (in the book
incorrectly spelled Radnóthy) figures as one of the members of the
revolutionary generation of the 1910's. (Radnóti, one of the most
outstanding poets of the years before and during the Second World War, was
born in 1909).

Here is Patrick J. Buchanan again, commenting on the massacre in Oslo:

Predictably, the European press is linking Breivik to parties of the
populist right that have arisen to oppose multiculturalism and immigration
from the Islamic world. Breivik had belonged to the Progress Party, but
quit because he found it insufficiently militant.

His writings are now being mined for references to U.S. conservative
critics of multiculturalism and open borders. Purpose: demonize the
American right, just as the berserker’s attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
in Tucson was used to smear Sarah Palin and Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City
bombing was used to savage Rush Limbaugh and conservative critics of Big
Government.

No. Patrick J. Buchanan is *not* responsible for the acts committed by
Anders Breivik. Nor is William S. Lind responsible for those acts. To
paraphrase Mary McCarthy, "Every word they say is a lie, including 'and'
and 'the.'" Anyone demented enough to act on the basis of what *they* say
is undoubtedly just looking for a pretext and will clutch at any straw.
What Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Lind, Mr. Reahn and their ilk ARE responsible for,
though, is *calumny*, which, according to the Catholic Dictionary, is a
mortal sin.

Calumny {from The Catholic
Encyclopedia<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03190c.htm>
)

(Latin calvor, to use artifice, to deceive)

Etymologically any form of ruse or fraud employed to deceive another,
particularly in judicial proceedings. In its more commonly accepted
signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by
imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus
committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction. It is hardly
necessary, however, to observe that as in other breaches of the law the sin
may be venial, either because of the trivial character of the
subject-matter involved or because of insufficient deliberation in the
making of the accusation. *Objectively, a calumny is a mortal sin when it
is calculated to do serious harm to the person so traduced.* Just as in the
instance of wrongful damage to person or estate, so the calumniator is
bound to adequate reparation for the injury perpetrated by the blackening
of another's good name. He is obliged (1) to retract his false statements,
and that even though his own reputation may necessarily as a consequence
suffer. (2) He must also make good whatever other losses have been
sustained by the innocent party as a result of his libelous utterances,
provided these same have been in some measure (*in confuso*) foreseen by
him. In canon law the phrase *juramentum calumniae* is employed to indicate
the oath taken by the parties to a litigation, by which they averred that
the action was brought and the defence offered in good faith.

On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Natalie Golovin <10natalie at cox.net> wrote:

>   I’m wary of everyone & their facts. Easy to write off things you
> disagree with by calling the author a  liar. But few are totally correct or
> in error. Buchanan’s Chapts 8 & 11 were well worth throwing into play, and
> he’s solidly against preemptive war which should get a few points 2 make up
> for his derision of multiculturalism.
>
>  *From:* Sandwichman <lumpoflabor at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 25, 2011 9:04 AM
> *To:* P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation at lists.ourproject.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] Fukuyama on the absent left
>
> Even if you agreed with Buchanan's politics (God forbid), you should be
> wary of his "facts." He lies in a very discrete way, citing as "sources"
> sources that his real sources have egregiously and maliciously misquoted.
> In plain terms that is plagiarism. Lying plagiarism.
>
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Natalie Golovin <10natalie at cox.net>wrote:
>
>>   Suggest “The Origins of Political Order” by Fukuyama & “Currency Wars”
>> for p2p’s New Years Reading List. Buchanan’s “Suicide of a Superpower” is
>> full of facts-but not ones that would please the majority of readers.
>>
>>  *From:* Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 25, 2011 6:02 AM
>> *To:* P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation at lists.ourproject.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] Fukuyama on the absent left
>>
>>  a nice displacement <g>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <
>> xekoukou at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The end of history guy talks about the future of history.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/12/25 Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
>>>
>>>> thanks, a very nice summary of the neoliberal agenda!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Peter Mazsa <
>>>> peter.mazsa at theunitedpersons.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> FYI:
>>>>>
>>>>> "[...] It has been several decades since anyone on the left has been
>>>>> able to articulate, first, a coherent analysis of what happens to the
>>>>> structure of advanced societies as they undergo economic change and,
>>>>> second, a realistic agenda that has any hope of protecting a
>>>>> middle-class society.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main trends in left-wing thought in the last two generations have
>>>>> been, frankly, disastrous as either conceptual frameworks or tools for
>>>>> mobilization. Marxism died many years ago, and the few old believers
>>>>> still around are ready for nursing homes. The academic left replaced
>>>>> it with postmodernism, multiculturalism, feminism, critical theory,
>>>>> and a host of other fragmented intellectual trends that are more
>>>>> cultural than economic in focus. Postmodernism begins with a denial of
>>>>> the possibility of any master narrative of history or society,
>>>>> undercutting its own authority as a voice for the majority of citizens
>>>>> who feel betrayed by their elites. Multiculturalism validates the
>>>>> victimhood of virtually every out-group. It is impossible to generate
>>>>> a mass progressive movement on the basis of such a motley coalition:
>>>>> most of the working- and lower-middle-class citizens victimized by the
>>>>> system are culturally conservative and would be embarrassed to be seen
>>>>> in the presence of allies like this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever the theoretical justifications underlying the left’s agenda,
>>>>> its biggest problem is a lack of credibility. Over the past two
>>>>> generations, the mainstream left has followed a social democratic
>>>>> program that centers on the state provision of a variety of services,
>>>>> such as pensions, health care, and education. That model is now
>>>>> exhausted: welfare states have become big, bureaucratic, and
>>>>> inflexible; they are often captured by the very organizations that
>>>>> administer them, through public-sector unions; and, most important,
>>>>> they are fiscally unsustainable given the aging of populations
>>>>> virtually everywhere in the developed world. Thus, when existing
>>>>> social democratic parties come to power, they no longer aspire to be
>>>>> more than custodians of a welfare state that was created decades ago;
>>>>> none has a new, exciting agenda around which to rally the masses.
>>>>>
>>>>> AN IDEOLOGY OF THE FUTURE
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine, for a moment, an obscure scribbler today in a garret
>>>>> somewhere trying to outline an ideology of the future that could
>>>>> provide a realistic path toward a world with healthy middle-class
>>>>> societies and robust democracies. What would that ideology look like?
>>>>>
>>>>> [...] the agenda it put forward to protect middle-class life could not
>>>>> simply rely on the existing mechanisms of the welfare state. The
>>>>> ideology would need to somehow redesign the public sector, freeing it
>>>>> from its dependence on existing stakeholders and using new,
>>>>> technology-empowered approaches to delivering services. It would have
>>>>> to argue forthrightly for more redistribution and present a realistic
>>>>> route to ending interest groups’ domination of politics. [...]"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136782/francis-fukuyama/the-future-of-history
>>>>>
>>>>> P.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>
>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>>
>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely yours,
>>>
>>>      Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sandwichman
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
>

-- 
Sandwichman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111226/0b4f84a7/attachment.htm 