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