interference (mondial)

as the term globalism has been long imperialised i default to mondial.

in my last article i unrevel the european connection, here i want to push dutch politics into their due position in the international spectrum.

except europe there are other things that marginalise the content of dutch politics. the whole crisis in the parliament, including the death (perhaps) and resignations of leading politicers, can be related to one thing, militarism..(1)

it could also be called usian interference(..)

this aspect of the international situation is hard to concisively describe. is the victory in the second worldwar an economical bases for the usian aggresive dominance? perhaps even an economical cause of imparity?

i guess so, i guess it is why europe hasn't been able to resist usian diplomatical pressure all this time. however i am not so naive i think it met no willing allies within the european economy's.

so we have this cowboy nation, where everyone wears guns and people shoot another up for the prosperity of tv producers . they are drenched in religious values so much, about half of their populace doesn't appear able to say a sane thing, and whenever something appears to happen they panick, praising their own particular tricolor.

but.. with allways a steady talk about freedom and 'democracy'.

meanwhile usia happens to be on a load of disparity lists and socially backward on their own accord, (eg. black man in ghettos hardly getting 40 on average), really a lot of this equality (let alone equity) talk is puzzling, perplexing and even alienating.

after the conclusion european centralism takes precedence over national politics the hint that other such interests could overrule our (the people's) political aspirations for europe and our nations isn't anymore as hard to grasp. not for me at least, and like i don't feel like spending two pages on an attempt to historically place this reality i don't feel like spending two pages about making the point.

the label in this case is 'national (here "international") security. national 'security' takes precedence over election results, and practically it means netherlands will only end up with a parliament capable of imposing the wishes of nato with the seems of 'democratical' procedure.

nato is perhaps an obsolete term, but it has been able to devastate a hard to calculate number of millions people's lives the past decades as it is. even if i have disagreed a lot with 'nato' i think the label is the more practical, otherways you have to go with terms like ' the capitalist militairy industrial complex' or 'western hegemoniacs'.

so except in terms of distributions of seats (2), what else does the nato security mantra imply for dutch politics?

i think the answer is more simple then it seems, the consequences of 'europe' for the national politics are interchangeable and paralel to the consquences of us i a.
nato is on it's turn taking precedence over european politics, and as such it is instrumental in shaping the development of this nation's control mechanisms and europe as a whole.

that happens more on a tit for tat bases then anything else. eg. when airport controls are heightened in usia, commonly so they are in europe, "security" (3) prerequisites tend to be uniformly adapted and implemented in national policy's(4). the extend of control of the individual is hard to understand and i think even my sceptic perception of it is incomplete. meanwhile everything is done to withstand financial transparance. the double standard couldn't show more obviously.

this is the point to touch on the 'european constitution'. after rejecting this constituion for and of the rich, (it practically translated into a central european decission making commision and transparancy protection for the rich, (the 'privacy' postulation)), we are fed the same regulations piecemeal.

that it is not possible to distinguish between nato interests and european interests is because they both represent another phenomenon, the militairy industrial complex. the notion that when you have money the use of military power will garner a profit.

the conclusion for the dutch politics and elections must unfortunately be we are so much a toy of opinion making, and so little informed about the real state of affairs, that whatever dutch people choose, whatever they would choose if true information had been prerequisite, and even whatever will be the outcome calculated to be most profitable and still credible to people numbed and intimidated into believing they set back their moral standards collectively to the 1930s , we remain confronted with international powerploys that will outvoice and overcome our dutch engagement. (interference;)

remains to say sth. about dutch politics after acknowledging the contexts. probably i will in a next entry.


(1) in essence to secretive top level 'decissions' to join the afghanistan and by extension irak wars.
(2)refer eg. to the thx and praise for irak that barred a party and 500 candidates from participating in those 'wonderfull democratic elections'.
(3) commonly translating to existential insecurity for the poor
(4)through or before 'democratic' ie. elitarist parlementarian processing

interference (europe)

i wonder what should i do, make some points about the dutch situation perhaps? otoh. there are enough things going on on the international stage that deserve attention.

more attention perhaps, about the dutch situation what you can say depends very much what you still "believe". and in my case that is not so much. every time i feel like discussing the dutch situation i encounter that point that i have to say.. if things were as they should, if representation represented what it says, if opinions were not mostly predominantly shaped by media interference..

etc. so, i am willing to say a couple of things about the dutch situation, but people need to keep in mind the dutch "democracy" isn't a real 'democracy'. dutch national policy's are subservient to international (and often corporational) interests, people haven't (and probably will never ) been directly (or truely) represented..

for many long years many dutch, often around half of them, refrained from voting. obviously (and nearly always explicitly) because there was no trust in the whole political parlementary and.. corporational elite. for as long as i remember dutch politics has been a play on and with the people, and that impression was shared by (often) a majority of the dutch.

what i see dutch politics isn't at all independend, it depends on at least 3, 4 or 5 foreign interests,
and decissions are more often a result of interference through one of these interests then not.

so i will list the interests that take precedence over the workings of a 'dutch parlementary democracy' as i meet them.

the first and most important influence for our own legal systems and fundamental rights, is twofold, the planetary aspect is that of "western democracy", and there is the european aspect,
i would call, european centralism, but it doesn't say all, it's got notable touches of 1984 like "bigbrother is watching you" policy and authoritarism.

the european interference

this european backdrop, in fact makes it hard to say anything about dutch politics, since it leaves it hardly a serious matter. we can have dutch traditions of tolerance and freedom, but they are subordinate to the european aspect for the whole of the national politics picture.

now to an extend they should. the simple link is that human rights, fundamental liberty's and rights, and international cooperation deserve a more central place in politics then national interests.

that is certainly true for the european federation, and probably the better model for any (sub)continental federations, since in unifying europe part of the consideration is economical, that trade is facilitated by a more simple model, and for example distribution and building activity are way more effective when they are coordinated. however it is also politically (or geopolitically) true, in matters of human rights, like peace, the whole of europe will anyhow deliver a clearer standpoint then (with a blink of the eye to wiki) endless lists of individual states governments and their opposition statements.

so that's the pro's. economy and diplomacy.

logically my opinion here translates into that europe should be so central to european politics only for these two reasons.

practically that means in terms of infrastructure europe has a territorial say over the memberstates . no matter i may disagree details and projects in that context, in principle here i support a larger say of "europe". to an extend trade is an extension of this, as you need infrastructure only for distribution.

i think it is logical that the limit to europes authority here must be found in scale, on a very small (eg. communal) scale obviously europe does not have the expertise (or informations) to make the more responsible decissions. also in terms of sustainable development smaller entity's should take precedence over europe. that is a two way story and more important then it may seem.

firstly sustainable developments tend to be smaller scaled, (and probably then need protection for not being outscaled (or overshadowed by larger projects)). secondly sustainable developments permit win-win situations. altho they cannot be really "concurrent". it will really allways be cheaper for an industry to pollute, but the cost to society is enormous.

all that does not happen with sustainable developments, wich is the win win aspect and why they need to take precedence over the usual economical megastructures although it will probably complicate matters.

anyway, if europe gets healthy it will apply such regulation, and in the longer run it will become more easy to adapt to requirements for sustainability. (ranging from eg. nature reserves to fishing rights)

so it is funny that in the item that europe should have it's biggest impact (sustainability) it will also end up with the least of a say, since the small scale of many such projects would render them subject to national and regional iniative. this also means that nations in europe could spend a lot of their efforts in the sustainable sector, as it will be the one were they keep most of the say.

basically sustainability takes pecedence over european economical policy's in burokratic terms,
so when a nation wants to underline it's identity or preferences (for eg. use of land and labour) their best platform would be the sustainable one.(1)

however that is still dreaming, the pragmatical reality of europe is one strongly influenced by monopolism and corporate gigantism. (interference)

ok so after the realisation dutch politics is largely subservient to european i follow up with arguments why it should.

the problem is, this is about all i think europe should take precedence in, and the opposite is happening.


obviously a centralist ambition is best served by power of law. and that is were i disagree with dutch politics being just a clown of the (corporate) european policy makers.
basically corporate europe thinks law should be a sum of restrictions, where i think it should be a sum of freedoms.

now you may think that genious, but it is anticipated within politics in europe (in the member states and centrally) the actual dutch politics over the past decades are occupied with restricting freedom to the point it appears obsessive. i don't feel like putting up a list, but the pattern is simple, media campaigns are the start. a couple of years long people are swamped with certain projections, allways usually based on 'traditional' values, that often are based on religious values beneath.

after that a campaign follows to extort punishments from 'guilty ones', not polluters, that are guaranteed to make 1000s of innocent victims or elites that grab the money of the individual states, but petty criminals or random black sheep, and certainly also politically wayward iniatives.

those campaigns in netherlands have a long history by now, and many people still don't realise how these ambitions of european centralism take precedence over realism in the media and in fact their national politics as a whole(2).

it would be terribly naive to assume this is only for netherlands(3), i never did. if you only realise that these mechanisms are in place in many or all european memberstates, it gets a bit easier to see how they love to turn 'national' politics in a comedy.

so assumed the legal implications would be regulated progressively, when i don't have a problem with european authority, i still disagree to this stealthy proces of disempowerment.(4)

even reacting seriously to this artifical concept of 'dutch policy's" is hard for me, by reacting seriously i would make it seem that i consider any of it credible.




(1) by extension culturally
(2) ofcourse they are not intended to notice
(3) in terms of promoting cryptofascism to me it is now obvious for at least 20 years, wether that comes in the form of promotion of the 'liberals' or plugging actual populism based on the underbelly sentiments.
(4) and i think answers can be found in 'grassroots democracy' allthough that term is also subject to the obligatory interferential distortions.