[P2P-F] Fukuyama on the absent left

Tue Dec 27 07:57:47 CET 2011

thanks, quite an extraordinary tour de force in terms of genealogy!!

Michel

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Sandwichman <lumpoflabor at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111227/d1ecaedb/attachment.htm 