China: culture or politics?

China is now considered a global power.

Global powers are – indeed – global in impact, with economic power influencing virtually the whole world. One can argue that the whole concept has historical precedents, only in different forms and reach, from Mesopotamia, Babylon, to Egypt, Rome and its empire, Arab conquests, and European colonialism. More recently, the USSR and US. Powers absorbing and conquering others, with a disproportional impact on world affairs.

GLASS

China has historically always been powerful, but also rather isolationist in a sense. The famed Chinese wall being a symbol of that. Its economic power of yesteryear did a period compete with the Western world, until one invention/discovery by the West: crystal or glass. This in turn allowed development of telescopes, glasses for people, chemical reactions, and also e.g. electronics, based on glass. It gave the West a competitive edge over China, also a technological one, that it long has maintained.

The influence of China was culturally dominant in a large part of East Asia (incl. Japan), but remained seemingly inward-looking. There still was in history “expansionism” too, though, throughout the different imperial periods of China.

The competitive edge of the West over China since, simply said “glass”, could only recently be questioned, in modern (post-imperial) times: the Chinese republic was followed by a Communist state, that with some setbacks, in a ruthless manner, became a world power.

MAO

Mao Zedong epitomized that in the early stage, being a fascinating figure all in all. Contrary to popular myth, it was not Adolf Hitler who had one testicle/ball: it was another dictator who liked killing: namely Mao Zedong. It was never reported in Hitler's medical reports, so not the case, but probably a joke about a cruel dictator somehow overcompensating for having only one testicle.

In a sense this still applies, as Mao was certainly cruel and murderous in ruling, although his ideals seemed on paper more humane and positive: social equality versus Germanic superiority. Besides lacking one testicle, Mao was also relatively tall for a Chinese person, by the way, enabling more psychological theorizing.

CORPORATISM

The effect, anyway, the centralist Chinese state – mixing Marxist ideas with ingrained Chinese Confucian and Taoist (albeit adapted to the regime’s benefits and goals) values of obedience and family – became powerful. In time it incorporated capitalism and modernity with this centralist state approach. In reality, this shared remarkable similarities with Mussolini’s Fascism, started in Italy in the 1920s.

Probably as a way to end stifling “class struggle” in Italy, Mussolini made “corporatism” an important building stone of Fascist state rule: big capital (commercial companies) aligning with the state in controlling the masses/people. A first step toward totalitarianism, that in Italian society back then could be largely, but not fully implemented – though Il Duce Mussolini and his Fascist clique might have wanted that – due to the unorganized and “loose” structures of Latin/Catholic culture, characterizing Italy then.

It was attempted, though. My Italian father – born in the 1930s, once told me that he started going to school as a child during the last years of Mussolini’s rule (internal strive already started develop, and WW II in process), and had to give the Fascist greeting in a strict Italian school setting. This stopped with democracy after 1945.

TOTALITARIANISM

Hitler and the Nazi’s were more successful in establishing a “full” totalitarian state in Nazi Germany – influenced by Italian Fascism. Hitler named Mussolini as one of his inspirers. From school curricula, to local councils: the Nazi doctrine was supposed to shape all Germans mentally. Fascist corporatism mixed with racial and racist ideas of Northern Germanic, Aryan superiority, with partly roots in colonialism and separate sources, such as old German resentments and despise of Jews and Gypsies, or even the ridicule of neighbouring European peoples like Slavs, Celts, and Latins.

Especially the anti-Semitism became vicious, as is known, as well as the anti-gypsy policies, resulting in a mass genocide by Nazi Germany of especially Jews and Gypsies (Roma) in their occupied territories, as is widely known.

Such aspects of supposed cultural (or racial) superiority are historically recurring of course, with differing degrees of “totalitarianism”. It also recurs in China, especially today.

China’s Communism turned totalitarian/corporatist, some say, a “surveillance state”, adapted to modern technology (cameras, computer technology), but to repress and control the masses, and keep the central state power as absolute as possible, and obedience intact. Like in Nazi Germany, this totalitarianism was and is now “successfully” applied. The supposed superiority is now based on an ideology.

The cases of repressed culture in Tibet and the Uygurs (and other minorities in China), however, show that a Han Chinese sense of (ethnic) superiority is also there, despite ideological rhetorics.

CULTURE AND POLITICS

This lends itself to some interesting reflections on the relationship between culture and politics. The recent corona “pandemic” crisis showed this contradiction on a global scale. Not all people realized or saw this, since many were fooled into thinking it was actually a dangerous pandemic, and not – what it actually was – a “pLandemic”.

Some saw in those corona policies a type of global communism, China-style. Despite an obvious Chinese connection – the Wuhan lab - I consider it more capitalist-totalitarian and Western (in light of the WEF, Gates, and Fauci, being involved), and moreover: China is neither really Communist, but rather capitalist-totalitarian.

Culture in the end is stronger than politics, though it can be repressed. I experienced first- hand how Communism was applied in Cuba, in the Caribbean. A totalitarian control, including “snitching” on a neighbourhood level , seemed even to work there. Yet, there was also a way to get around it.

I do not know whether the latter is the case in China too: ways to get around it, flexibility in practice. The culture of obedience is supposedly much stronger there, although Cuba’s history of colonialism and slavery might have shaped such a passivity, albeit partly.

The “social credit” system in China, results from a cynical use of modern computer and internet technology, to control the masses’ behavior. It fights against all individuality, or individual deviance.

INDIVIDUALISM

This is a difference with Cuban communism. Some Protestants say that “individualism” arose with the Reformation: when Christians could read and interpret the Bible themselves, before it not allowed by the Catholic Church.

That is too simplistic. The creative ways of expressing one’s individuality have always existed, and even been the norm, within Catholic contexts, even if espoused otherwise.

Even during slavery in the Caribbean, Africans found ways to maintain their culture, even when not allowed. Spanish colonizers in Cuba allowed some cultural organizations for Africans, but even outside of that, more covert, African culture lived on.

The rich and varied musical legacy of Cuba is a testimony to this free spirit.

CONTROL

This “escaping state control” seems harder now in the computer and Internet age, and indeed China has a tradition of collectivism and popular obedience to authorities. At least, that is what is said.

This is only relative, and can only be, in my opinion. This is because I argue that culture is stronger than politics, even if the latter is aided by modern technology. People want love, enjoyment, relaxation, fulfillment, be pleased, and fun. Everywhere.

That “collectivist” sense in parts of Asia is in part an urge for “harmony” and security within a community, citizens may find relaxing or pleasing when knowing no better. It relates according to some to Confucian and Taoist ideas, - called “wu wei” – ingrained in Chinese culture, emphasizing from some perspective “inaction”, “passivity”, respect for elders, and “detachment of desires”.. but this is of course terribly simplified..

I think the Chinese Communist Party, however, only brought tension among most Chinese with their “social control” policies. Just like I have not encountered one Cuban in Cuba who liked to be controlled. Some went along with it, or even “snitched” to authorities, because their job or livelihood depended on it, but no one really wanted such a system. Let alone the culturally oppressed and repressed Tibetans, and other minorities (including religious ones) in China, or – I contend – most Chinese citizens.

Also, the Communist regime (Derg) that, in 1975, overthrew Emperor Haile Selassie in Ethiopia, and with that ended the ancient monarchy in Ethiopia, was no mass improvement. It substituted a – perhaps - archaic institution (an absolute monarch), that at least did not interfere with people’s lives, replacing it with Marxist totalitarian control over citizen’s lives at Ethiopian local levels. Even the Communist promise of education, social equality, and economic improvement in Ethiopia proved in balance not beneficial: more and larger famines were reported in Ethiopia after 1975 than during Selassie’s reign, and ethnic and other strives and conflicts (latently there) only increased with this stronger, interfering Communist state. Even with some benefits (e.g., food provision, egalitarian measures), common Ethiopian citizens did not want too much “top down” state control, and preferred to live their life and culture in their own way.

FREEDOM

Despite appearances, I think that what applies to Cuba and Ethiopia, also is the case for most Chinese citizens, though many may be hesitant to admit it. This admitting and self-realization takes time. Just like some only after about two years came to realize that “lockdowns” (also before this a common policy tool in China, by the way), and that entire corona policy, might not be appropriate in free, democratic societies, for such a relatively mild virus, and that some other goals may hide behind it.

Freedom and independence seeking values may be more in the culture of Cubans (Afro- and Hispanic-) or Ethiopians historically, but are somewhere within most Chinese too, I contend. Also within most Europeans/North Americans, even if too many let themselves so passively be deceived by the corona plandemic hype, and accompanying fear-mongering. The search for freedom is, simply, too universal and human to be repressed long. In the end, I opine, people will want to break free.

In that sense, the recent “total lockdown” (in April 2022) of the city of Shanghai, because of a few corona cases, is the peak of absurd totalitarian wickedness. Millions of people in this big city were forcibly locked down in their own house, strictly limited in their movements, by the state and its forces. This is Fascism, even more than Communism.

It also is – in another sense – capitalism. State capitalism or corporatism, one can also call it. Shanghai is a crucial economic hub in China and the world, and the world’s biggest port. People with a flu (virus) might not work so hard, or at all temporarily, and slave masters want their slaves - exploited labourers - after all to be healthy, but not free..

Freedom is a road, seldom travelled by the multitude.. But it should.. (and that rhymes, ha!).

COLLECTIVISM

The cultural aspect of “collectivist” values in China, comes more to the fore when one considers the “capitalist” parts of China: Taiwan, Hong Kong, known for big manufacturing industries. “Made in Taiwan” has become economic cliché.

Someone I know well, a woman from the Philippines, settled later in the Netherlands with a Dutch citizen. She met him in a Taiwanese company (based in the Netherlands), that she already worked for in Taiwan, relating about harsh, “modern slavery” conditions: not allowed to leave a terrain, rough manners, extreme demands, no longer accepted (formally) in Western companies. The blatant disregard and lack of consideration for individual labourers/workers could be related to Chinese culture (collectivistic) – and its lack of democratic tradition -, she found, also differing from the Philippines. Her Netherlands partner, she met in the Taiwanese company based in the Netherlands, I know well too, and he told me how he was truly shocked by the bad manners and demeaning treatment he received, provoking in him so much anger, that he found it hard to control himself against the rude bosses, but contained himself, needing the job and income then.

This disregard and lack of respect for individual needs is thus found in both Chinese communist (China) and capitalist contexts (Taiwan, Hong Kong). A collectivistic culture of obedience, characterizing China historically, to a large degree might explain it. Still, there is more to it, I argue.

MATERIALISM

These "isms” (communism, capitalism) are ideological, yet also materialistic. In fact, “materialism” is the overriding category of both.

The “egalitarian” goals of Marxism and Chinese communists by Mao Zedong c.s. seem more humane, that the “profit maximalizing” exploiting capitalism represents. Both deny, however, individuality. Their materialism also denies true “spirituality” which in a sense is related to individuality.

Mao Zedong said to the Dalai Lama in the 1950s (when the Chinese started to conquer Tibet more) “religion is poison”. Tibet was then extremely religious – Buddhist -, with many religious festivals, and structures, determining the whole society, with a large proportion of the male population e.g. being trained for Buddhist “monks”.

Was it really just “religion” though - an institute and ideology -, and not just as much spirituality - a culture -, guiding Tibetan life and culture, that Chinese government forces sought to repress or destroy since the later 1950s? About 85 days of a year were up to then taken up by various religious festivals in Tibet, of an own Buddhist nature, before the Chinese communist take-over. These were all then banned by the atheist Chinese government.

DEHUMANIZATION

It is here that the “culture versus politics” question becomes more complex.

Common labourers at the bottom of societies suffer in all isms. Fascism, capitalism, and communism.

I structure my values partly by sincere, eye-opening conversations I had during my life with close ones, apart from own experiences of course (and reading good works). My mother (growing up under the Franco regime in Spain, a more or less Fascist regime) told me several times, often sadly, that she felt she was only meant to be a “slave” working - under harsh, demeaning conditions - as labourer in Francoist Spain, for bosses who were generally Franco supporters, reaching positions often through nepotism. Little freedom or respect for individual rights there, especially for the poor and powerless.

An ex-girlfriend of mine in Cuba, living then under Castroist Communism, said – also sadly – something similar: “they treat me like a slave”, with much compulsory extra work, e.g. agricultural harvesting in rural Cuba, as part of the national plan economy, also for people already working as teachers with a degree, as she did. Added to usual working hours, and compulsory. Often even uncompensated (perhaps some food items). She being mainly of African descent, made her use of the term “slave” extra painful, in light of Castro’s Cuba propaganda of “improving the position of Afro-Cubans”. In what way, improving?

All those materialist “isms” disrespect individuality, the own human “spirit”, which expresses itself in culture, replaced by a cold, dehumanizing view on humans, needing to fit in an unnatural and unequal economic ideology. As I sing in one of my songs: “ideology is not humanity”.

One can argue, thus, that historical “collectivist” and “obedience” cultural values of “harmony” in Chinese culture, have been hardened and “coldened” by these dehumanizing “isms”.

The totalitarian regime now in place in China, therefore has ironically ideological similarities with Western elites, such as those joined in the World Economic Forum, and the wealthiest 2% in all Western countries, the Rockefellers, Bill Gates etcetera, often family fortunes going back generations with large capitalist enterprises, or even to colonialism, as the origin of “multinationals” (e.g. Shell) goes back to colonial times. That the father of founder of the “club of wealthiest people” in this world, the WEF, the German Klaus Schwab, was an influential active member of the Nazi party is telling in itself.

Marxism, in theory, countered that capitalist exploitation, but within the same collectivist, materialist value system. It’s all about the money, still.

This same dehumanizing value system oddly suddenly “normalized” totalitarian, undemocratic policies, earlier practiced in China, also in Western nations, during that Covid “plandemic” since 2020. Lockdowns, curfews (in some countries last imposed under Nazi rule!), non-working (obligatory!) face masks, even obligatory “vaccination”/MRNA injection in some countries, unconstitutional yet structural discrimination of unvaccinated, etcetera.. all attacking and damaging free culture, medical freedom, bodily integrity, gathering, and small businesses, in other words: individual humanity.

The unholy, unhappy “social credit” system for citizens, in practice for some time now in a large part of China, treating citizens like children or even animals, is even experimented with – to degrees – now in some parts of Europe: Bologna and Rome in Italy, Bavaria in Germany. A cheap shot, maybe, but also countries with Fascist/Nazi pasts.

However, I am quite sure that the free individual spirit, indestructibly inherent in humans, will eventually want to break free from this, to return to “free culture” and “free spirituality”. There and everywhere.

The shocking footage I saw recently of people locked up in their apartments above sinister empty streets in Shanghai under state-enforced “covid” lockdown (for a relatively mild flu virus) – almost like animals in stables in industrial farms -, and the desperate screaming I heard from the houses, exemplifies this struggle, and this dehumanizing injustice.

It also should be a warning sign for most reasonable and decent people in this world: this dehumanizing totalitarianism is not what we want (anymore), nowhere in the world.

Shock doctrine?

If you cannot bear nonsense much, this is not a good time to follow the news.. Of course, there have always been interests - monetary or otherwise - and biases regarding world events.

The big powers always had ways, even in “democratic” times since 1945 in the Western world, to shape the news information to the masses for their own interests. The “war on terror” – specifically of Islamic fundamentalism – was a recent example, while the proven lying surrounding war efforts of the US, regarding e.g. Iraq, another one.

SHOCK DOCTRINE

I “resaw” Naomi Klein’s recommendable documentary Shock Doctrine (2009) recently, noting more of such historical hypes, often nationally focused, such as in Chili with Pinochet’s coup in 1973, enforcing basically through a “shock therapy” neoliberal/stakeholder capitalism, after removing Left-wing, democratically elected president Allende. This was aided by news distortions and misinformation in the US (where Milton Friedman’s economic neoliberal School of Chicago capitalism was based), to legitimize such a violent coup, for citizens.

The same occurred in Argentina with the coup by Videla in 1976. The same harsh, shock therapy was later applied in Russia after communism, Iraq, and elsewhere. Privatization and making the rich richer: that's what the shock therapy sought to attain. The rule and policies of Thatcher in Britain and Reagan in the US in the 1980s ensured this neoliberal free-market capitalism (“trickle down economics”), internationally, but with still an Anglo-American inclination.

So these Western democracies were throughout recent history certainly not immune to propaganda for their purposes, only a bit less extreme or closed-off than in regimes like that of e.g. Iran.

DICTATORSHIPS

Since 2020 many former Western democracies (however relative) stopped being democracies in the strict sense. The Trias Politica – separation of powers – has been discarded for a monolithic emphasis on fear for a flu virus called Covid 19. I myself tend to call it a “hyped-up” virus, and with good reason. Certainly by now, impartial science shows how this covid is no more severe than the influenza, even before the Omikron variant they mention. Before Covid 19 was like a “quite” heavy flu, now a medium-level flu. Never was a “state of emergency” really legitimate or appropriate (pure medically), beyond perhaps a few weeks in Early 2020, making many countries – especially in the Western world – de facto illegitimate “full dictatorships”.

The hype/propaganda worked anyway, to create chaos, then to shut down societies, destroy smaller businesses, and reorder economies, on the way to what in globalist circles is called Agenda 2030, or the 4th Industrial Revolution. Part of the shock doctrine?

Trinidadian scholar (and later politician) Eric Eustace Williams showed in his study Capitalism and Slavery (1980) that the very first Industrial Revolution in England was financed largely with the British slave trade and slavery in British colonies. Denying of human rights, and taking freedoms away, were sacrifices people were forced (not willing) to make for this economic goal.

Williams even argued that Britain’s later anti-slavery stance (abolishing it before some other European countries) was less humanitarian than it seemed: the industrial revolution made the slavery gains simply less necessary for Britain’s economy.. It’s all about the money..

More subtly, history now kind of repeats itself. The same driving forces – the world’s richest elite - , and comparable goals: economic reset, - economic “shock therapy” at this wealthy elite’s benefit. Another dimension of modern slavery.

UPDATED

Yet, this shock therapy was adapted – or updated - to current times and contexts, with instead of the military as means, now politics and “health policy”, and with Big Pharma and Big Tech playing now the roles that the Plantocracy (slave-owning castes), industrialists, and landowners played before. This time also more "psychological torturing" methods than direct physical ones (reinventing you as infectious, sick being, fear of infection, problematizing "having fun with others"). In the same way as before they “bought” politics and assured corruptible political stooges.

Meanwhile, they cleverly made the world believe it is really about public health. At least, a part of the world. Apparently, fear mongering proved effective enough, even keeping people from checking trustworthy sources about this virus: if more people did that, they would have found out its danger is exaggerated, not absent (like the earlier flu is also real, and could be deadly for vulnerable people), but, indeed, “hyped up”.

People who have not yet lost their mind, and have found the proper information, have to put up with a lot a biased news and propaganda from the mainstream media. Often transparent in its bias and aims, yet somehow bought by people in “a fear modus”, that stops clear thinking, and using our entire brain.

According to brain studies, things like “fear” are triggered in a certain, “primal” part of our brain – shared with reptiles. This reptilian, primal brain is aimed at “survival”, and therefore contains “fear”, as well as getting by financially (money), survival of the species, etc.. A pity, because our brain has more parts we can use too, with more conscious, intelligent and creative thought. Those parts where beautiful things like culture, love, and empathy, and balance, - and good memories! - also can be found.

These are not the brain parts the people behind this plandemic (a rich elite, the WEF, etc.) want to stimulate. Eventually, these made since 2020 de facto dictatorships of former Western democracies, including Fascist elements like State-Big Business alliances (an idea of Mussolini too), and structural discrimination against unvaccinated people.

The injections promoted by Pfizer, Moderna, and those companies, are technically not even “vaccines” as such, but gentech-based, and are not tested enough. They might have dangerous side-effects, and some say these are proven already, such as with the recent collapse of healthy, young athletes. This should be studied more, and all non-natural medicinal methods can have negative side-effects, of course, and even more a new technology messing potentially with our DNA.

Besides that, Covid 19 is not severe enough for most people for such a mass “vaccination” campaign, with pressure - and even force! - in some countries. Even promoted for children.

Limiting the people’s free movements, lockdowns of all hospitality, banning gatherings, even forcing the people to stay home, keeping distance, face masks.. all this did not help against the spread of the virus. Pure power politics, and showing who is the boss. It was also meant to keep the hype and fear strong among the people, so they’d take the “vaccines”, and ensure all citizens have QR Codes. Some see this as the advent of a “control society”, with governments – rather: regimes – controlling citizens digitally in more aspects in their daily life.

Many before 2020 in free societies, would not have thought that activities as mundane like “going to a club” or “going to a bar” would be made conditional by powers that be: but precisely that occurred in several countries. People put up with a lot, as long as you put fear in their heads.

NEIL YOUNG

The recent Neil Young affair should be also placed in this light. I did not know, but apparently he was a musical artist from the rebellious “hippy” generation. I just thought he was an older Rock artist with some Country influences.

His stance against supposed “anti-vaxer” Joe Rogan on Spotify, showed the same lunacy and loss of sense many people – even some of whom I expected better – unfortunately exhibited during this plandemic.

To recapitulate: Neil Young took off his music from the Spotify platform, as on that same platform was also the podcast of Joe Rogan, a comedian and presenter, who was critical of the “vaccines”, and at least gave a stage to those critical of the plandemic policies, including vaccines.

Of course, Neil Young is by now an old man, feeling perhaps more vulnerable, and therefore more susceptible for the propaganda tricks: Covid 19 – like previous flu viruses – was relatively more dangerous for older people, or those with otherwise compromised immune systems.

It could be that – selfish fear -, which is all too human (that primal brain, I mentioned). Some argue, however, that it is more corrupt than that, pointing out that the rights to Neil Young’s music are owned by big companies connected to Pfizer, Black Rock, etc.

That action by Neil Young – taking away his music from Spotify because Joe Rogan was on it too, is extreme nonsense in more than one way.

First of all: what about freedom of opinion and freedom of speech? Someone can have a different opinion than yours in a free world, Young once sang to “ keep on rocking in”. I fear, the ”health” trick of the authorities was clever: Fascist intolerance of other opinions now can go under the disguise of “public health” issues.

That action by Young is also nonsense because there are in fact no “anti-vaxers”, as the MSM portrays them for propaganda purposes. Rogan, or some people he interviewed in his podcast, were critical of some of the policies, or of this specific MRNA injection, so much enriching companies like Pfizer. These objections are based on reasonable – and legitimate! - concerns of necessity or possible adverse effects.

Many with such objection against these covid “vaccines” did not have this so much with old-type vaccines (for polio, tetanus, small pox, etc), that some even have taken.

The final reason why that action of Young is nonsense is that it is purely symbolic, stupidly symbolic at that.

Other musical artists, like Eric Clapton, Van Morrison, or the Stone Roses’ Ian Brown, criticized the “vaccines” and lockdown policies too, and elsewhere Nena in Germany, and Spanish singer Miguel Bosé (with also many fans in Latin America) early on pointed at the Big Pharma and elite corruption behind the plandemic, Spain’s government – according to him – sold itself too.

These voices were largely marginalized in the present dictatorships, but their music is also on Spotify. Van Morrison even made some anti-lockdown songs.

Moreover, there are many songs critical of the corona policies/plandemic, including the covid “vaccines”, also on Spotify. Especially in genres with a history of social critique, developed among poor people, these are common, notably in Reggae music from Jamaica.

To a lesser degree, also in conscious Hip-Hop this can be found. Especially Reggae, though, as there are several critical songs about the plandemic (also named as such), the “vaccination” campaign, and related policies.

Reggae, especially Roots Reggae, is also influenced by the Afro-centric, spiritual Rastafari movement, combining with the lament of poor “sufferers” from the ghetto’s, and a history of slavery and poverty, to help explain a stronger mistrust – probably founded – of enforced restrictions by authorities.

Like in other poor countries, some people have to get out of the house to simply eat – so the odd “stay home!” ordinance caused irritation among poorer Jamaicans, as did the lockdowns limiting small businesses and simple market vendors. Also, the Fascist ban on gathering and parties, travelling limits, – and the closing hours “terror” - , of course seriously affects a country with a rich popular and (internationally known) musical culture like Jamaica.

These corona policies are remarkably coordinated internationally – along with the accompanying propaganda and misinformation in the MSM – and psychologically clever (referring to older family members, trampling rights gradually, instilling fear regularly) - , and indeed many people in Jamaica were “fooled into fear” as elsewhere, often temporarily. Far from all Jamaicans, though, and well-known Reggae artists like Buju Banton, Sizzla, Lutan Fyah, Bushman, Hempress Sativa, Natty King, Luciano, Chronixx, and Queen Omega, had no reserves expressing this critique openly in lyrics of their songs, also regarding the “vaccines”. These are also found on Spotify.

What Neil Young basically demanded is censorship, and that makes it worse. If he had just said: I do not wish to keep my music on the same platform (Spotify) as this guy Joe Rogan, whose opinions I detest so much, it would be his right to do so. Insane, but his right. He demanded, however, a choice between him (as well-known artist) and Joe Rogan, taking a dubious, propaganda stance, of a political nature, making me indeed suspect some Pfizer/Big Pharma corruptive forces behind it..

A pity that a rock star once known – apparently – as a hippy rebel could sink so low.. Is it because of fear, or because of money?

Some artists, also from that “hippie” era, like Joni Mitchell – and also an old woman by now – copied Young’s ill-informed move (taking way songs from Spotify), I understood.

POSTSCRIPT

On the one hand, this recent affair confirms the same nonsense as before during the plandemic, the same mind-games and unfounded “progressive” image authorities want to give the corona policies, now with the seeming public support of some (supposed) “hippie-like” artists.

The same nonsense, but betraying at the same time a bit more desperation.”The narrative is crumbling apart”, many people in the resistance against the elitist, plandemic “shock doctrine” say hopefully. Relatively, this is true. More people got to know the truth over time, and the pressure on vaccines - even for children -, and as requirement for work, even drove the “homely” people who could do without bars, restaurants, or clubs/concerts, now also to more suspicion.

Rewatching Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine convinced me of the largely “neoliberal” agenda at play here, albeit mixed with some functional Chinese Communist “social control and credit” dehumanizing nonsense aspects, to achieve the ‘shock” effect, or “disaster capitalism” this enables.

The comparison with historical fascism is not purely rhetorical. The combining of Big Business (now Big Tech, Big Pharma) with politics, was an “invention” of Benito Mussolini, the spiritual father and initiator of Fascism. Similarities increased when after a “fear mongering” year, the international “vaccination” campaign began (in 2021), and the discriminating marginalization and removal of rights of certain non-complying or resistant minorities (i.e. unvaccinated) took hold.

My main conclusion in this post is maybe this: there is nothing remotely “progressive”, “liberal”, or “Left-wing” about this corona policy/shock doctrine. Besides political persuasion: there is not even much “humanitarian” about it.

In line with the documentary the Shock Doctrine, the crisis was created for an economic reset (WEF’s Great Reset), as a “shock therapy” toward economic enriching the already wealthy, increasing their control over the masses through digital and pharmaceutical means, as the 4th Industrial Revolution, actually only rich and upper classes want.

Like in Chili, Argentina, Iraq, and elsewhere before, this “shock doctrine” could not be achieved, when there was still a functioning democracy: it required a dictatorship, and sideling the populace, either through poverty, war, or fear.

This is not what I consider “Left-wing”, to say it mildly. To say it less mildly: it is more like Fascist capitalism, with a sanitary excuse.

Patronizing efforts to bribe and include well-known musical artists for the propaganda with a “hippie” image for the corona cause (with after all much more musical artists on the opposing, resisting side), and the totally unfounded framing of anti-plandemic protesters as “extreme right” – as also Trudeau did again with the truckers, as I write this occupying Canada’s capital Ottawa -, are in my opinion ridiculously transparent as acts of desperation of people without moral arguments.

Migration is freedom

In reality, it is an example of how we ended up in a strange world: the often problematic and politicized use of “migration”.

Humans, after originating in Africa, roam from the beginning, seeking livelihoods, greener pastures, even adventure and joy, populating the world. Humanity is in that sense interwoven with migration, and with that human “culture”. In an episode of the Migrant Journal, nr. 6, titled Foreign Agents (2019), the author/editor writes in the introduction: “the grounds of culture rely on a capacity to develop local traditions, which are then transmitted not only across social groups, but also across time and space. The very foundations of culture appear inseparable from the logics of migration”.

Of course, separate civilizations developed, urbanization, modernizations, distinct nation states, and hierarchies of power, up to the 21st c.. During this process, “migration” became “framed” as intrusive and disturbing an order. Man kind lost an essential and existential – and original! – freedom. Migration is essentially freedom.

Dutch critic of Neoliberalism, Ewald Engelen, justly argued that in today’s world, movement of “capital” is problematic and detrimental, not movement of “people”.

Yet, it became accepted policy to halt people crossing over to another piece of the earth, while using their natural freedom of movement. Most of this world is after all not an unorganized, small-scale and fragmented “society” through which one can freely roam around – unbound – like a Gypsy or nomad. There are upheld boundaries.

Rhetorics of “national protection” against all things foreign are widely accepted, being in fact an off-spin of warring empires and kingdoms from ancient times, the times of Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, way before AD.

In modern times, passports, visas, and citizenship cards keep people in control, and essentially bound to nation states. Loss of original human freedom, that many now even take for granted.

The large wealth inequalities in this world, shocked some humans into going back to that original and inherent “migrant” within, that always remained there. Illegal migrations from nearby poorer areas are well-known, such as from Mexico to the US, and from North Africa to Europe.

Not to dwell too much on an abstract level, I will now make it more concrete and topical.

CORONA

The “corona crisis” since Early 2020, in relation to a proclaimed pandemic, showed how we took more freedoms for granted: free migration we gave up already, now with unprecedented “lockdown” policies, which I personally am NOT in favour of, for a variety of reasons (Covid 19 is not severe enough, being a main one), but that’s not the issue here.

The long ago loss of free migration of humans was limiting “where” we go, while recent, enforced, international measures (like obliged facemasks, forced closing of places, keeping distance, gathering bans), deal with “how” we go. Other draconian measures, like travel restrictions and curfews, come closer to that “original loss of free migrating”, impacting on “where we go” , limiting even more and in a detailed manner our freedom of movement.

The Main Stream Media is lost and utterly corrupted in this stage in human history. The uncritical propaganda for the corona policies of mass media, raise suspicion of corruption (mentally or financially). As part of this, even large popular demonstrations against corona policies, lockdowns, curfews, etcetera, are either downplayed or ignored, like in fact all critics or opponents.

In reality, there are worldwide many opponents – and skeptics - of these corona policies, increasing with consciousness, lamenting the loss of freedoms. Justly, in my opinion.

PERSONAL STORIES

I wish to elaborate deeper on the human search for freedom though migration, by discussing personal stories of migration I have encountered – or am connected with. I live in the Netherlands.

I myself am Netherlands-born, and a son of immigrant parents, my father came from Northern Italy, my mother from Southern Spain, via Madrid, both in the 1960s. Both the different countries my parents came from, plus the fact that I was born in the Netherlands, while my family roots lay elsewhere, made it difficult for me to embrace a “national protection” or “national purity” idea. Many Dutch people have less difficulties with that, I noticed.

“The paradox is in the ugliness of vanity”, as singer Vaughn Benjamin from the Reggae band Midnite sang. The ugliness in this case being the judging by “locals” of people on their descent or presence, not their behavior or personality, of treating foreigners – in worst cases – as polluting hindrances. As absurd as it is cold and evil.

To make sense within this evil absurdity, I will discuss a few of the “migrant” stories I heard in my life, mainly from “foreigners” in the Netherlands I know.

One main fallacy, I soon learned, is the simplifying as “one-dimensional” of migrant motivations. Of course, escaping poverty is a main motivation (or sending money to poor families home), but even with that there are nuances. Others, refugees, escape political oppression or persecution in their own country.

SYRIA

One such refugee I know told me a lot about his travelling and “migrations”. He is a young man from Syria, the civil war in which, seemed “eclipsed” in the global news, by everything related to corona/Covid 19. That Syrian civil war has been in fact going on since 2011, so now over a decade there is war in Syria. The war and conflict is still continuing in Syria during the now pandemic policies, though less intensely. This Syrian I know, was accepted as refugee, and obtained the Dutch nationality.

He told me stories of bombing by state forces where “rebels” hid, fearing it, when rebels hid near their building. He told about intense corruption dealing with Syria’s bureaucracy, state control mechanisms, obligated military service, and Syria’s wider political context under the Assad dictatorship.

I understood through him, that for all intents and purposes, Syria is a dictatorship, even in the classic sense. It can be compared to what we heard about Saddam Hoessein’s Iraq, but also harkened back to other known dictatorships: big photos of Assad in the streets and in every school, artists must first praise Assad in their work, before censorship might loosen. Hard to “breathe” in such dictatorships, is what you often hear. Another analogy is of a life “without colours”. Of course worsened with the tensions of civil war.

SPAIN

In fact, I found comparisons with the story of my mother, similarly “escaping” a dictatorship under Franco. The dictatorship with photos of the “leader”, state propaganda, censorship, reducing gathering and demonstrations, seemed to have parallels of the stories of my Syrian friend. One difference being maybe that in Spain “democracy” lost to Franco’s Fascist dictatorship in the period 1939-1975, while the ongoing conflict in Syria is between myriad forces, some of which are pro-democracy, but others not much more democratic than President Assad himself.

My mother was officially a labour migrant. Though not made easy, under Franco’s Spain travelling or migrating out of the country was partly allowed, also to limit the strain on the economy. Spain was then poorer than the Netherlands, surely, and she found a job in the Netherlands, near Haarlem, in 1966.

This was part of the “guest labourers” program, with labour migrants from the wider Mediterranean area, doing work that Dutch, German, Belgian, French, or Swiss people did not want to do anymore.

There’s more to it, though. Having talked a lot with my mother, I found out she was also a kind of a refugee.

“Bullied away” you can say, but anyway, she told me that having to work to contribute supporting her younger siblings and parents, she noted the harsh treatment and exploitation at virtually all workplaces in Spain. She felt treated “like a slave”, she even said to me. This related to the Fascist doctrine of Francoist Spain, where poor people’s “obedience” to bosses and work was promoted, and “Left-wing” democratization discouraged. My mother told me she did not feel “free” in Franco’s Spain: neither at workplaces nor in society as a whole (Spain was then more or less a police state), though with differing intensity (and arbitrariness).

Her migration to the Netherlands, was as much an escape toward wealth, as one toward “freedom”. This is an essential birthright of humans: finding another place, maybe better. Being a good guest when the host treats you good, is likewise natural for most migrants, I argue. Loyalty is however not an obligation, and human dignity comes first. Having crossed a border can never be an excuse for trampling one’s rights, though it has become that.

UNPLANNED

These, and other migrant stories, point at other aspects that are often disregarded in politicized “migration” debates. The haphazard, chaotic, and “unplanned” steps one takes toward eventually migrating to a foreign land. A land of which one does not even know or speak the language, as both was the case of my Syrian friend and my mother.

Many migrants, especially pre-digital ones, did not even know that the Netherlands actually had an own (Germanic) language. Even in European countries like Italy and Spain, some thought that people spoke French or German in the Netherlands. Of course, they found out soon enough about that own language.

INTEGRATION

Also, I learned from migrant stories, the confrontation with the other culture of host countries, in this case the Netherlands, was also multidimensional: haphazard, changing, and contradictory. Of course, some Dutch people likewise criticized immigrants’ behaviours and cultural customs, and still do. My Spanish mother attributed such demeaning remarks about South Europeans (such as the countries of my parents) to Dutch “jealousy” and thus a hidden inferiority complex. That is a way to look at it.

DIFFERENCES

Many irritations uttered about “other cultures” are also “guesses” about human behavior, less recognized from one’s own background. In time they understood or accepted the differences more, I noticed.

The “speaking loud (or fast)” norm among many migrant groups (including Spaniards) in the Netherlands, versus the “speaking soft” norm in the Netherlands, being an example of anecdotal difference. Controlled temper and emotions (Dutch “reserve”), or the Dutch fame for being “Protestantly” economical with money, other differences.

Politeness with strangers is not very common anymore in the Netherlands, causing some cultural misunderstandings. Harsh insults as sarcastic “jokes” are for instance sometimes accepted among close friends in countries like Spain or Italy, but not by strangers just met on the streets, as occurred with Dutch people making harsh (racist?) jokes toward them. Like in Britain and Ireland, Spain and to a lesser degree Italy still have a norm of “public politeness” in social life. The Netherlands is in that sense “freer” and rougher (especially in the cities), but even to that many migrants become accustomed, dealing more with Dutch people.

Often, such traits are both admired and ridiculed concurrently. At the same time, noting them shows a genuine curiosity in people with other cultures. It is no cold detachment or dehumanization. This curiosity is not static, but always continuing and changing. All too human, and as natural as the original human urge to travel.

The interesting thing is that even poor, individual immigrants over time tend to influence local cultures, but organically and voluntary. Cultures with not very developed cuisines (Britain, the Netherlands) enriched their food choices, and for instance Jamaican migrants attributed to British youth culture, and also in part Surinamese migrants in the Netherlands.

Even other migrant groups are influenced by other migrant groups, such as Moroccans in the Netherlands, using Surinamese terms, or in the choice of music genres. There is no force in such processes; it is all voluntary and organic.

Only racist or nationalist ideas, or feelings of cultural superiority or conservatism, make many object to such “multicultural” mixtures and ways. In reality, it innovated and broadened culture and creativity. It increased options for all.

Even without “bigger”, geopolitical contexts, highly individual stories of migrations – often involving simply sense of adventure – migration is not by definition “negative”. Somehow that was put in our heads: migration is a bad thing.

Falling in love, just wanting a change in life, or limited options due to direct family or surroundings, are less “sensational” than heroic stories of “escaping deep poverty”, “escaping war”, or “escaping a dictatorship or repression”. They are still “all too human”. I think they are also legitimate migration reasons for free human beings.

ITALY

The northern Italy, where my father came from, became soon after World War II, more industrialized and wealthier than Spain, where my mother came from. Like in Germany (but less disciplined), Northern Italy experienced a kind of “economic miracle”, after being on the wrong side during the preceding devastating war. Many industries developed, e.g. manufacturing, textile and automobiles. My father even told me that because of this rapid growth, wages in many companies in parts of Northern Italy for low-wage workers, were even higher than in the Netherlands he migrated to. He just migrated for several reasons, partly economic, largely relating to personal circumstances, and including the search for freedom.

There is nothing wrong with that: that is personal freedom.

The crux of the matter is that the now politicized “migration” falsely is depicted as an ‘invasion”, as if it were an invading army “taking over” and imposing its will. An inappropriate and unfounded “war” terminology, especially when dealing with individual poor, virtually powerless immigrants.

REGGAE

Being a Reggae fan for decades now, I more or less specialized in Reggae music, including its lyrics. Relevant to this post, I can mention that “migration” is a theme in Reggae lyrics, but especially with regard to Jamaicans going to wealthier countries like US or Britain.

Also, the Jamaican national hero and intellectual – important for Rastafari adherents – Marcus Garvey, was migrating for various reasons: economic (labour- and poverty-related), political, and personal. It can be seen as part of Garvey’s studying of the wider world, and particularly the downtrodden position of Black people in it.

In Reggae lyrics, other, contemporary migrants are also discussed, including common Jamaicans who went astray, as they got caught up in urban and modern confusion and temptations abroad.

Linton Kwesi Johnson’s classic song Inglan Is A Bitch exemplifies in its autobiographical lyrics adequately the poor Black immigrant labourer’s life – and social position of poor newcomers - in Britain.

Mutabaruka’s Johnny Drughead, and Don Carlos’s Cool Johnny Cool deal with a Jamaican migrating to New York and it going wrong, ending up addicted, or involved in crime.

Also Lutan Fyah’s discusses this “migrants gone astray” theme in the lyrics of Rough A Yard, also as a “cautionary” tale against losing yourself.

This may seem a negative or pessimist take, yet only goes to show that with freedom of course should come responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is dangerous. Responsibility without freedom is slavery.

More positive, in some lyrics, hard-working immigrants are praised.

Success stories are discussed less in Reggae lyrics, beyond the impressive movement Marcus Garvey – against all odds - set up for Black Americans in the US since 1917, pioneering even the Black Power movement as such in the US.

Meanwhile, being a poor and problematic country, many Jamaican artists migrated too, some temporarily (such as Bob Marley to Britain, following a shooting of him), some for good.

POLITICIZED

Over time, many Right-wing politicians raised objections against “free migrations” (especially of poor people with “other” cultures) as disturbing. They used economic and cultural arguments, and some Extreme Right parties even racist arguments. This denies the fact that, as I outlined above, humans are inherently migrants, historically. As natural as walking or breathing, and therefore limiting it, simply infringes on humans’ natural freedoms and rights.

CORONA AGAIN

The “freedom of movement” came under attack again with the current corona policies, and its increased “control focus”. Some opponents even speak of “psychological warfare”, in this regard. This did not lead to a massive global uprising, as many world citizens thought the restrictions had actually to do with a pandemic or health (I myself lost that belief in the course of 2020). I see it as an aim of a world elite to control the world population even more strictly than before, and indeed a psychological warfare.

Curfews, lockdowns, or gathering bans, in essence make that where before you were impeded to “cross national borders” – limiting that freedom -, these stricter corona policies now go further: even impeding leaving your own house (curfews), or limiting what you can do outside of your house, forced to show you are not infected with a flu virus, which is not even that grave or extra infectious.

While “the whole world” did not stand up against this as one (unfortunately, in my opinion), of course there was protest, critique, and opposition to such corona policies.

CONTRADICTORY

Somewhat contradictory in all this was that the formal political opposition was - at least in the Netherlands - not of (most of the formally “Left” parliamentarians), who were remarkably supportive of this elitist new order plan, but more often of Right-wing parties, combining corona policy critique in some cases with anti-immigration stances. This I consider contradictory. Migration is after all freedom, and represents the essence of human freedom: the same essence now trampled upon with these corona policies. Open up the society, but do not let those poor immigrants with other cultures in to be part of it?

A somewhat smaller political party (FVD: Forum for Democracy) in the Netherlands is critical about the corona policies and its negative effects, saying some sensible things in this regard. On the other hand it also pleads to not allow much more “poor” migrants entering in the Netherlands, and for instance proposing to send back Syrian refugees to “safe areas” in Syria (with less war activities).

The biggest and governing Right-wing political party in the Netherlands, the VVD, holds similar (though more diplomatically worded) views, but supports strongly the corona policies and the nonsense of ineffective lockdowns (for whatever reason). At least they are consistent in their attack on and fight against human freedoms and rights. Consistently wrong and immoral.

Also Right-wing presidents like Trump in the US and Bolsonaro in Brazil (both having made some anti-immigration and xenophobic statements), were a bit downplaying regarding the Covid 19 virus, with fewer restrictions on freedoms.

Again contradictory, also because those Right-wing policies do the same as what in my opinion is fundamentally wrong with this “lockdownism” of international corona policies: it “dehumanizes” people, reducing them to soulless – potentially annoying - “numbers” or “factors” that can be manipulated without consent or involvement. Without respecting their freedoms, fundamental rights and desires, their humanity, physical integrity, and birthright to self-determination.

Some things the mentioned Syrian friend of mine also told me can bring this point home.

When I mentioned that idea of some Dutch politicians of having Syrians return to “safe“ parts of Syria, he responded that “if I could return to live among my people and family there, I would”. Politicians not knowing actual situations in countries, and like so often (and now with the corona policies) reducing individuals to abstract, one-dimensional factors to be controlled, not as complex persons with complex stories.

Even more significant was therefore another thing this Syrian friend said to me, as we were facing more and more absurdly strict “anti-corona” measures in the Netherlands: besides the patronizing facemasks and “1,5 m distance between persons rule”, these included a ban on groups over 2 or 3 people, and there was even a curfew, where Dutch citizens could not leave their own house between 21:00 and 04:30, as in more countries around the world. Meanwhile demonstrations were roughly disbanded, and dictatorial methods like censorship became more common in Dutch mainstream press, especially against anti-corona policy voices.

In response to this police state-like measures, my Syrian friend said: “I exactly left Syria because of these kind of things, for a free country like the Netherlands. Now it’s here in the Netherlands too..”

Nuff said.

Left-Right

At some point in my life it became a solid part of my vocabulary: being Left and Right, in the sense of political "persuasion" or "ideology". In fact, since I was a child.

Psychologically I find it interesting how as a child you "choose" one of those sides, how intuitive is it? How much relates to one's upbringing: what one hears from parents or siblings?

Growing up in the Netherlands since the 1970s and 1980s, I noticed how what was called "Left" and "Right" was not so much a matter of content or theory, but rather a "feel" or "vibe" transmitted. The Right was cold, conservative, strict, and square or boring. Of old people. The Left was passionate, progressive, loose, artistic, and "cool". Of young people. This is of course terribly superficial and simplistic, even if reflecting a worldview.

It did not take long, though, before I found what the terms historically and ideologically meant, also because I read a lot as child, going through a "bookworm period" as a member of the public library.

TERMS HISTORY

That distinction between Left-(wing) and Right-(wing) politics predates Marxism and thus Socialism and Communism. It goes back to the Revolutionary period of the Late 18th c France, when parliamentarians seated on the left side favoured a democratic society and secularization, and opposed the absolutist, and monarchist privileges, while those seated on the right supported the traditional institutions and the Old Regime. The terms Left and Right were first used in that sense in France in 1789. Later it got applied to Marxist-influenced movements, but also anarchists, and other progressive, "alternative" movements, especially when striving toward social equality. Marx's Das Kapital was released first in 1867, so much later than the first political use of the Left-Right distinction.

MY TRAJECTORY

One might argue, that I was destined to be "Left-wing". I loved Black music already then, was interested in Africa and nature, realized my parents were from the poorer labouring class, and belonged to an ethnic/cultural minority in the Netherlands.

On top of that, my Spanish mother had left a dictatorship in Spain that was decidely Right-wing and largely Fascist: that of general Franco. She complained about having to - as a young woman - look for jobs en get by in Francoist Spain, including facing disdain and even harsh abuse. On the other hand, land-owning Spanish family members sought - more opportunistically than ideologically - to maintain workable contacts with pro-Franco local politicians, so the defiant Left-wing stand got muffled (out of fear and opportunism), though not lost. Over time, my mother told me more and more about how she "was only good to work as a slave" in exploitative employer-friendly Francoist Spain, that everyone wanted "freedom", and about the sense of "suffocation" she felt under that Fascist dictatorship.

Labour conditions were much better, and more humane, when she came to work in the Netherlands, after leaving Spain around 1966. My mother called herself - perhaps in response to her youth under Franco - sometimes a communist, later moderated to "socialist", and even a "feminist" at times - ridiculing ingrained "machismo" -, placing herself at the Left-wing spectrum, even while taking some conservative views from the strongly Catholic Spain under Franco.

My Italian father, as a poor worker since his teens, associated with the labouring class too, though somewhat more, let's say, populistically than my more intellectually-oriented mother, and a bit more centrist, ideologically. He mistrusted all politicians, even those nominally Left-wing ones, - both in the Netherlands and in Italy - since he was, e.g. irritated with high taxes or state overregulation.

I was therefore predisposed, one might say, to be anti-systemic and sympathize with the Left, though as I grew up, I became Left-wing in my very own way, as everyone.

As an individual, I considered myself mostly as an artistic musician. At least that was my main ambition - making songs -, only after that I was a bit interested being "politically engaged", though sometimes I combined that in song lyrics. My being "Left-wing" therefore became very soon in my life quite "individualistic" and "free-spirited". I felt more at home with "hippies" or "squatters" than with "group thinkers" thinking in economic class terms. The forced, collectivistic "let's work together toward a communist state" led to an intolerance of dissent, I soon noted. Like with Right-wing ideologies before (like Mussolini's Fascism) the disrespect for individuality disgusted me. "You are nothing, the State is everything", Mussolini said, and Communist dictators said more or less the same, attested to by the "secret services" and snitching in East Bloc countries, such as the KGB or Stasi, and the prevalent "military" logic in such dictatorships.

Later experiences I had in Cuba between 2001 and 2006 (with also a - more informal - political "snitching system"), derived from that totalitarian "other communist" model.

FREEDOM

I prefer a world with equal rights for all, no poverty, but also social and cultural "freedom" for each individual, used as I was to strive to be original and go my own way.

This tension between "individualism" and "Left-wing" came sometimes to the fore, also in relation to "identity politics". The positive thing I found about "identity" politics is that it centralized "culture" as category. On the other hand it was a somewhat limited frame.

Nonetheless, I always associated "freedom" with the Left politically, going as far as describing the "Communist" dictatorships in the East Bloc, as "corrupted" or "false" communists. In my head there was no such thing as a "Left-wing dictatorship", maybe partly influenced by my Fascist dictatorship-escaping mother.

CONTRADICTION

That was my trajectory, but I became a bit confused after encountering other people calling themselves ideologically/politically "Left-(wing)" - in the Netherlands, Spain, and elsewhere - with seemingly other mentalities - and preoccupations - than me. From nationalists with a war rhetoric (Basque ETA-adherents, anti-Israel or pro-Palestina groups, to politically "Left" (often social-democratic), but culturally conservative Muslims, or highly placed Left spokespersons in the Dutch media, who were from wealthy backgrounds, yet presented themselves as "guarding" Left power, often never having set foot in factories or poor neighbourhoods. I assumed hypocrisy, or at least contradiction in many of these cases and people. Did the ideologies they espoused, translate in their practices?

From a human point of view, I could on the other hand also understand that complex people are "somewhere in between", showing flexibility, especially admirable when they were truly independent thinkers, despite group pressure, or their parents' material wealth. Then I appreciated the individual freedom of persons "going against the grain".

FAKE AND FASHION

Not always, though. I noticed that in the Netherlands, it was considered fashionable and "cool" to be appearing "Left-wing", without proper credentials or even attitude. In some other European countries the same applied, since the 1970s. For many it was just fashion, even mainly so, but even worse were those with wicked and bad intentions: using their "Left-wing image" to hide their Right-wing, high-class interests. "Fake-left" I called these.

During my study years (higher education/bachelor), and working at a high professional level, I noticed this "corrupted" fake-left more often. I tended to like the Left-oriented persons, especially with a "hippy-like" vibe and open mind more, but getting to know people they turned sometimes not so open minded. Or even truly "progressive", even if boasting of multicultural and multiracial friends or lovers, and intense travels - among the people - in Africa or Asia, learning even exotic languages, and expressing interest in Yoga or Buddhism. Even if lambasting Right-wing politicians or calling these Fascists (though some of them were, haha). Sometimes I found out how they had a privileged background, and their stances "quasi-rebelling" against it, but not really. Sometimes "square-looking" ones, were more open-minded. Appearing liberal or Left-wing seemed so much easier than actually being it, so with all this hypocrisy I preferred overall to focus on culture and humanity, less on politics.

In short, Netherlands became a country where even the elite found it "cool" to present itself as "Left-wing" and progressive, while the "Right" became a dirty word. The "Right-wing" spokespersons or representatives were certainly present in the Netherlands, but tended to not call themselves "Right-wing", even if mainly serving the interests of "big business capitalism" and the rich in this world.

POPULISM

In the Netherlands, the Left-wing people considered themselves more often as a bit detached intellectuals, than as "common men", as Right-wing people tended to do, even if the latter only were pretending.

The rise of what were called, vaguely and inadequately, "populist" movements, confused me even further. "Populus/People" itself is good, and Left-wing, one would think, but it got mixed up with petty, and negative, frustrations, more a determent from actual social injustice than anything else. Very basic human instincts like national pride or jingoism, ethnic preference, or macho/male, heterosexual privilege - like in Right-wing movements before - got also espoused by labourers, mixed up nonetheless with ("Left-wing') mistrust of "the high classes" (politicians, bosses), toward a quite confusing whole.

Especially that "fashionability" of being Left-wing in the Netherlands stimulated a lot of hypocrisy and fakeness.

I tried to find my way between all this, and preferred to focus on truthful people, who were truly progressive and open-minded. The free minds, without, like Right-wing self-defined "free thinkers", the big business, money, or "law and order" nonsense.

SPIRITUAL

This combined since my 30s more with spiritual interest, as my life demanded more "depth". I read the Bible, but soon also showed interest in Vodou and other Afro-Caribbean "danced" religions, as well as what were called "nature religions". In part this related to my increased attention to percussion. The Rastafari movement even answered more to my spiritual needs, fitting well with my love for Reggae music, but not in a superficial way.

Rastafari, while Biblically influenced, is overall "progressive" in aims, while the main inspiring figures of Rastafari, Marcus Garvey and emperor Haile Selassie I, also were, being further quite individual free thinkers, "going against the grain". That I liked and appreciated too.

I expressed thus my critique of "the unequal system" and oppression and exploitation partly intellectually, later also more spiritually. I kept considering myself "Left-wing", even asserted that explicitly in debates or opinions, about society and politics.

Not unlike my mother, who even contradicted Right-wing opinions of the bosses she worked for. This had often less risk than in Francoist Spain, though: the bosses in the Netherlands often just made joking remarks back... or maybe they took revenge by denying her a contract extension. In Franco-ruled Spain labourers had little protection from being fired stante pede, abuse, nepotism, open discrimination, etcetera.

I guess many of us are more like their parents than they think, but still unique individuals with own intellectual, emotional, and spiritual needs.

2020

So, entering the year 2020, this was they way I carved my highly individual "Left-wing" identity, amid the (sometimes nonsensical) "Left-Right" rhetorical division and confusion. Above all, I still remained more interested in culture than in politics..

Needless to say, 2020 was an even more confusing - and troubling - year, also for me, including with regarding to the Left-Right division.

The claimed corona pandemic, based on a new, virulent flu virus called Covid 19, caused a worldwide panic, which was met with a surprisingly international and unanimous response. Supranational organizations like the World Health Organizations apparently coordinated the similar political directions to a new massive fear. This led to - as known - quite extreme and draconian measures, labelled "emergency measures".

Even when the "emergency" was not there anymore (Covid 19 as all flu virusses having softened to a common flu-level with an "infection fatality rate" of about 0,23%, already by May 2020), the panic-based policies strangely continued. Protecting health care access and capability came the stated motivation behind the continued stringent policies, even into 2021.

CRITICAL

I observed all this, and soon became critical of the corona policies. Maybe up to April, I was still somewhat worried, though I have never been a "hypochondriac" or "germophobe", neither were my parents I mentioned before. Yet I was somewhat careful with that supposed new virus.

Not for long. Always researching different sources, I began to conclude that the response in Western countries (followed by others) was not only wrong/disproportionate, but had become more a pLandemic than a pandemic: serving political and economic goals, rather than health goals. The fact that a nondemocratic "lockdown" policy was enacted in many countries made me doubt it even stronger.

LOCKDOWN

According to Irish lockdown-critic Ivor Cummins, the for Western democracies uncommon and unprecedented "national lockdown" approach to virusses came from China's Communist Party (CCP) having early successes against Covid 19 outbreaks in Wuhan and around in early 2020. Oddly, this totalitarian, collectivistic approach - only really possible when human rights and freedoms are limited, as in China - was copied in countries having on the other hand learned (since 1945) to respect and enshrine those rights.

Here is the confusion. A "communist" strategy, or, one might say, "corrupted communist" or "fake communist" lockdown policy. After all, China is in reality aimed at (state) capitalism.

This copied and - inappropriate - lockdown response in countries like France, the Netherlands, Britain, Spain, or Italy - to differing degrees of rigidity - trampled human rights and freedoms of citizens in these countries, not so much as since the also totalitarian Fascism in Europe. The exaggerated fear - through media propaganda - for the virus and "pandemic that no longer was" seemed orchestrated to be able to enact those policies. That's what I in time began to conclude.

I did not want to venture into "conspiracy theories", but just noted that facts did not add up, and that there was much lying.

RESET

The recently stated goals of a Great Reset by the World Economic Forum, representing the wealthiest economic players in this world -seemed shared by many political leaders, from nominally Left to nominally Right, translating in the Build Back Better phrase, after the coronacrisis.. This is no longer just a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact, for an elite's economic reshaping, at the cost of small businesses and poor people worldwide, and of, well, a cultural life. I deplore that, as it seems to go against everything I stood and stand for.

This elite economic plan does not seem very "Left-wing", looking at who pay the price (poor, small business), does it? Well, some consider it as such, oddly. Both in the Netherlands, as in other countries. Mention "health care" or "health system" - even insincerely - and it becomes automatically "Left-wing" or progressive. Is that the simple, superficial logic? A logic I do not get.

I see mainly similarities with totalitarian systems, and the capitalist interests of Big Pharma and other wealthy elites in this world. Even some "lip service" stated in the Great Reset plan, to Left-wing aims like inclusiveness, "eating less meat", sustainability, state care toward equality, and other aspects supposedly becoming Better after Building Back, did note come across as sincere and of substance to me.

Same as always: the rich got richer during this coronacrisis, and the poor got poorer, and also as always historically: a small, wealthy elite oppresses a large, poorer majority it fears, and therefore wants to control and divide. From colonialism, slavery plantations, to fascism, and communism. It is in that line.. There is nothing "Left-wing" about that..

POLARIZATION

In the Netherlands, as critique of the draconian lockdown-based policies increased, the polarization also increased. This happened in other countries too, with similar forms of censorship against corona policy critique. A bit belated, I uttered my critique of that undemocratic lockdown-based policy too, and I do not have a strong sense of "diplomacy" - or diplomatic "filter" - I must admit, when it comes to political views. With people, I am more careful, finding no joy in hurting personal feelings, preferring to share in (imperfect) humanity.

Yet, my sometimes undiplomatic critique got - in my opinion - odd responses, from people I did not expect it from. Self-proclaimed Lefties and Rastas (fake or not) said they associated such corona policy-skeptical views with a Right-wing president like Donald Trump or Bolsonaro. Presidents I did not feel myself politically related to. Some even deemed the anti-lockdown activists as loons, influenced by the "extreme right".

Fearing a disease you know nothing about, losing rights and freedoms because of it, is Left-wing? Quite the contrary, I would say.

Encountering other anti-lockdown activists, I noticed instead a "hippie-like" vibe, but even that is simplistic. They included different kind of people, Left and Right, but a bit more to the Left, or at most Centrist-Right. No Neo-Nazi's or Fascists who - I gather - would not be so interested in halting a lockdown, setting ALL people equally free..

PSYCHOLOGICAL

Pro-corona policy/lockdown people wish to categorize anti-lockdown people as "extreme right" , against their own knowledge. Psychologically it is explainable: they have a guilty conscience following a cognitive dissonance. Supporting a health policy, but in reality a trampling of human rights and democracy, and the direction from democracy to dictatorship, with increased totalitarianism, restrictions, and Fascist measures like banning gatherings, curfews, closures of schools and even private businesses, semi-forced testing and vaccination, experimenting with citizens, etcetera etcetera.

In the back of their mind they feel guilty and ashamed about what they kept supporting, easing their guilt by "inventing" a bigger cause and enemy requiring this sacrifice, calling opponents "extreme right" being a good example of projection and turning around.

These disturbed, corrupted psyches can still be quite eloquent, aggrandizing small details and faults in whatever anti-lockdown activists say.. This eloquency is false because not sensible or reasonable. I had some of those unpleasant discussions with pro-lockdown people online, noting that they made the discusion soon personal, trying to undermine my integrity and trustworthiness, losing the focus on the content or arguments, they apparently did not have. A lot of venom in their remarks, better to be reserved for actually powerful politicians. They just had a badly targeted ideological war in their head, while wanting to see themselves as "Left-wing".

They follow thus on the "fake Left" I described before, when also members of the wealthy elite in the Netherlands (and elsewhere, such as the US and France) found it - despite their privileges - fashionable to appear "Left-wing" publicly. The "corona crisis" and related polarization merely strengthened them. Also in other countries - for some inexplicable reason - coming with harsh corona restrictions is seen as Leftist realism and not - as it actually is Fascist meets Chinese Communist totalitarianism. This showed in the early statements by new US (Democrat) president Joe Biden, as well as the stances by (once) Left-wing parties (Socialists, Greens) even voting in favour of laws trampling human rights (out of fear of disease? pavlov reaction to "health" issues?).

Again, much confusion regarding the already troubled and confusing politicized Left-Right division. Like I said, I associate the Left - in my perception - with "freedom". Not with locking down, curfews, closing bars and small business, closing schools, stay- or work-at-home orders, movement restrictions, or stopping cultural events.. For the greater goal of... health protection of a minority? Or so they claim..

NEVER CHANGED ME

I was troubled and shocked throughout 2020 by the whole dominant, elite-led "plandemic", but it never changed me, as is also sung in a Reggae song I know. Neither did I change my definitions regarding the political Left - Right distinction, though one can sensibly argue that the strict Left-Right division has become obsolete after 2020: truth versus lie is more important now. Love versus hate also, I should add. And, not least, freedom versus captivity and slavery..

Moreover, all this confirmed to me personally that I find "culture" - so under attack during this corona plandemic - more important than politics. Culture is of the people wanting to be free, politics of elites wanting to control.

Military logic

For this blog, I did not write a lot about the police as such. I had to check my own posts to make that sure, and indeed I mentioned it relatively little. If so, it was often even a side point to the whole thematic thread.

I guess "police" is one of those things/phenomena in this world I prefer to avoid normally, unless it is inevitable, like a "mal nécessaire" (necessary evil). Up there with law, paying taxes, bills, working for a boss, or looking for a job in this system, etcetera. I have to consider it simply for living in this society and system, but it does not give me joy.

No enthusiasm or zeal, but neither so much outrage.. one would think. I refer of course to corrupt policemen, but more specifically to police brutality. I have more interest in that, but neither very consistent. I wrote about the Black Panthers for one blog post, related to a documentary I saw, explaining how the Black Panthers formed in California, USA, in direct response to (racist) police brutality.

BRAZIL

I sang/toasted a song about police violence, and later wrote a review of a documentary about it in Brazil, I saw at the International Documentary Festival in Amsterdam. This was for another medium: the Facebook page of the Netherlands-based foundation Agogo - Brazil News in The Netherlands (https://www.facebook.com/groups/806488343059624/). The file luckily came online publicly, but several restraints - financial, organizational, technical - halted the development of the Facebook page as widely spread and read source.

A pity, because the documentary was educational, and the article a summary that would have fitted on my own page (this one), equally. The documentary opened my eyes. My review can thus be read here, on the mentioned Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/806488343059624/).

The documentary was called - simple and plain, and to the point - Police Killing. It dealt with this, killing by police (not the other way around) in the state of Rio De Janeiro of Brazil. Much police violence there as a response to perceived criminality, often through war-like methods, and consequently unjust killings. Many unjust killings and murders.

Some facts particularly were eye-opening to me. The fact that the total number of unlawful police killings in Brazil is one of the highest in the world. This clearly has racial overtones, many of these Afro-Brazilian/Black teens, in poor neighbourhoods (favela's). Unlawful police violence or brutality, being often both "racist" and "classist". This is also good to emphasize.

Moreover, to illustrate this fact, in the state of Rio de Janeiro alone there were in recent years more unlawful police killings than in the whole (!) of the USA. Rio de Janeiro state has about 16 million inhabitants, the USA about 300 million. This is a staggering figure. With the Right-wing Bolsonaro as current president - even proposing the use of drones to combat crime - this military focus on fighting crime might even increase, and with that the number of unlawful killings.

GEORGE FLOYD

As I write this, there was a quite massive, and international outrage about such an unlawful killing in another country, namely the murder of George Floyd, by policemen in the US city of Minneapolis. Being a suspect for even a petty crime (possible false cheque), he was arrested roughly, and an officer kneeling on his neck eventually choked and killed him. George Floyd, a black man of 46 years of age, did not resist arrest, was not even a (petty or big) criminal, yet lost his life.

Without a doubt murder and unlawful, and most probably racist too, as most of those unlawful killings, elsewhere in the Americas, in Brazil. The policeman ending up killing Floyd was a white man, albeit married to an Asian woman. She divorced him after this, and one of the other officers present (who could have prevented this) was her brother, but that is besides the point. This does not even mean that he could not be racist, or maybe "just" too violent, I think.

It occurred, after all, I think because of racist ideas on the one hand, and of a certain racial logic, including war terminology, I also discussed in my review of the documentary on police killing in Brazil. "War on crime" is taken almost literally, and is furthermore not in an historical and social vacuum. Racial bias decides who some cops are rough on, simply said.

In addition, as was mentioned in that documentary on Brazil: over 96% of the cases of "unlawful killings" in Rio de Janeiro state was not even investigated, just "archived". No justice thus in the large majority of cases. Even less than the fact whether the policeman murdering Floyd should be imprisoned, and not just fired, as he already is. In Brazil, such cases are in most cases not even investigated, safe a few exceptions. A recent requirement in Brazilian law to add camera's in police cars was a well-intended measure, to prevent this evil to continue, but it does not seem to have that effect.

Going on about relative figures is relevant and educational. There are more countries with more unlawful police killings than the US than just Brazil, and the combination with racism, or specific victimizing of racial minorities, is found in the US, but also in several European countries and Latin American countries, and also some Asian countries, for instance. Due to media and cultural dominance, US cases of racist police violence get more attention.

In the Netherlands, where I live, there were a few cases of police brutality (ending up in deaths), and even more complaints of unjust arrests or searches by policemen of black people, just for, e.g. having an expensive car, or behaving supposedly "suspiciously", or being in some place. In other European countries this seems similar. That is international. In Britain, there were even more examples of such unlawful arrests and even police killings of Black people.

Those statistics can be found by people themselves, and are insightful by themselves, but I find it more interesting for my blog to approach it historically, socially, and philosophically, as I so often do on my blog. It is my blog, after all. It is still good to point out, at least, that racist police violence and unlawful police killing is an international, and not an US problem, if there are people stupid enough to think that.

POLICE AND STATE

I have been to police states, places with corrupt police officers, and heard about it.

This made me wonder: what is the function of police for man kind? The idea behind it is "enforcing the law" and a "monopoly of violence", else there would be what they oddly call "jungle law": everyone avenging everyone..

ANARCHY?

I am kind of an anarchist so I sometimes think: do we really need laws above us, and - by extension - officers enforcing them? Do we not innately know what is right, loving, and just? Or is mankind so wicked and corrupted that the absence of higher laws will lead to mass murder, destruction, maiming, rape, theft, exploitation, and negative disorder?

More full-fledged anarchists do not think laws and police enforcements are actually needed in especially small-scale communities, and that in fact the ideal world should be made up of such small, lovingly ordered communities, where the weak are protected. Rastafari adherent and dub poet from Birmingham, UK, Benjamin Zephaniah is one self-declared total anarchist, but I know more, and maybe there is one of them somewhere inside me too, haha. Historically there were also examples in Left-wing circles in e.g. Spain (during its civil war in the 1930s), and France.

BABYLON

I agree with such views, in itself, but we do not live in such an ideal world, that this functioning anarchy should encompass. We live in "Babylon", as Rastafari people say: a large-scale capitalist, Western economic system, based on power and inequality. Most people "have" to work for other people, are dependent on state or commercial resources, and even when achieving self-sufficiency, e.g. with own land and agricultural products, there is still a dependency. Freedom is a beautiful thing - as we had to realize again, and have taken for granted, with the massive "house arrest" - or more moderate confinements - as arguably an overreaction to the new Covid-19 flu virus starting in March in 2020, in several countries across the world.

My parents had to live under dictatorships, of Franco in my Spanish mother's case, and I went on journeys to dictatorships -notably Cuba -, even repeatedly, but could always return to the Netherlands. I got a taste of a police state in Cuba, but was not bound by it, unlike most of the friends I had there.

No, I was used to relative freedom, also of movement. Only money really enslaved me, and was the only force stopping me from doing whatever I wanted - like for many -, e.g. sleep and wake whenever I please, following my heart and true passions: listening to and making music, enjoying life and events, free curiosity, dancing, humour, love, nice tastes and food, love and sexuality, etcetera..

My parents were relatively poor labourers, and could not leave me enough money to just "work on my art" as I call it (which is not the same as being "lazy"). I am in fact forced to find a job, just to get money to survive and pay bills, or else deal with the hassle of being a much-controlled welfare recipient.

So I was still bound to alarm clocks, having to show up for work, report, and earlier going to school: this was neither voluntary, even if I liked that I learned some things at school, being quite curious and inquisitive by nature.

POLICE STATES

Cuba was a police state, e.g. Iran now too, Spain under Franco was too. With odd, ideologically driven, absurd legislation, still strictly upheld by undemocratically operating policemen.

In the case of Spain under dictator Franco (1939-1975), which was basically Fascist, combined with some conservative/Catholic aspects, my mother told me how common labourers did not have any rights vis-a-vis their employers. She got to know that phenomenon of workers' rights when she went to live in the Netherlands in the 1960s. She got some small and big conflicts with bosses under that Fascist regime in Spain, in that period.

Other undemocratic legislation was there in Spain too, such as censorship, against gathering of people (halting unwelcome protests against the regime), and other public behaviour the state wanted to limit or control. Like in present-day Iran, kissing on the street of couples was forbidden and punishable by law; my Valencian godmother was almost arrested for that once in Madrid (she was then joined by my mother): a more zealous police officer could have imprisoned or fined her. In the end, the policeman just gave a firm warning.

CUBA

In Cuba, I later had own experiences, where I travelled several times between 2001 and 2006. The Cuban state - with then still Fidel Castro as leader - needed an economic boost for its still Communist economy, after the supporting Soviet Union was disbanded it 1990.

On the one hand, it started to stimulate tourism to Cuba, but on the other hand wanted to control it for its purposes, weary of too much "dangerous" chaotic - read: freedom-enhancing effects -, not in line with state propaganda.

Several Cubans there told me the same joke: "Cuba has 11 million inhabitants, and of these about 4 million are police".

Indeed, there were quite some police men on the streets, especially in the cities, and even more the very unpleasant "informers" for the state/police, operating in almost every neighbourhood, albeit with differing degrees of intensity or fanaticism. These snitched/informed about what the state made illegal: prostitution, black markets, but also things like having foreigners staying over without government permission.

As can be expected, there was no consistency here, and like elsewhere much was left to the relative (positive or negative) "discretion" in each situation of police officers. This gave them power that could also be abused. In some cases it worked out better, such as the Madrid cop only "warning" my godmother not to kiss her boyfriend in public, instead of detention.

In Cuba, in several busy, tourist spots, semi-informal "prostitutes" or other "hustlers" standardly approached tourists, including me. Sometimes these operated by necessity "sneaky", and hidden from policemen or informers, but in some cases they approached me while police officers were nearby and saw it all, or turned a blind eye.

It could still be capricious. Suddenly, the police or government, could decide to "now come hard" on prostitution and arrest prostitutes being with tourists, or those suspected of it, as I experienced another evening. Someone I knew well got arrested there, together with a friend of hers I knew less well. I even got worried, finding out they took her to the police station. After a few hours she was on the streets again, not knowing quite how she got out (but having some ideas).

As she was with me shortly before she was arrested, I waited in that instant a while outside the police station in Santiago de Cuba where my friend was held, and it became after 1 o'clock at night.. I had an unpleasant conversation with a cop, after I lamented to him about such an arrest, when she was just going out (the plan was with me and some others, to a music club), and not "whoring". "How do you know?", the cop responded to me. Someone I did not know - but knew her and saw us together - came up to me later, and said, softly and carefully: "she got out.. you do not need to wait here" .. Sources say that Afro-Cuban women tend to be arrested in such ways more often, so a racial aspect also in Cuba (where about 70% is either brown or black in different shades).

Sounds like a spectacular film all this, but I could have done without it. It was one of the bitter tastes of an undemocratic " police state" I experienced in Cuba. A society where the state - through police - could do with citizens what it whimsically wanted, limiting their free movement, without any accountability required of them. Controlling people through intimidation and fear, basically.

The police killings in, e.g., the US and Brazil, in some sense have also a "repressive ideology" behind them, including strong, historical racism, and the "whimsical" aspect making a citizen dependent on the capriciousness of particular cops: if that cop is a virulent racist he might just kill you because you are black, irrespective of a crime you (supposedly) did.

ABOVE THE LAW

My point in relation to such personal experiences, is maybe this: in truly democratic societies, police officers should never be above the law. Only being fired for murdering someone is just not fair.

The good example must be given by those with responsibilities within the unfree aspects of this society: bosses should not discriminate for racism or nepotism, but give a job to the most qualified. Likewise, journalists and media should not present lies or half-lies unquestioned. Also, police officers should be just as accountable for their unlawful actions as any other citizen.

It makes this still not an ideal and equal system - with still no full freedom as a birth right as humans for you and I - just a bit more bearable and livable.

The continued police killings, often with racial overtones, but also the excessive ("anti-virus"?) quarantine measures at present, even disregarding fundamental human rights and freedoms, both showed us that even in formally "democratic" societies like the US and the Netherlands, we must remain vigilant, and that things do not always improve over time..

Our freedom, belongings, bodies, and our life, are everything, and should ideally only be under our own control, and strictly our own responsibility, safe very extreme emergencies.

Unless we want to control or take those of others, than we should be held accountable: citizens and "law enforcers" alike..

RACISM

The George Floyd case is of course as much about "police brutality" as about "racism", though. There were wild protests in parts of the US itself, alongside more modest organized ones. There were protests too in other countries, in direct relation to George Floyd's case. One of these was in Amsterdam the 1st of June, which I attended.

At the central Dam square in Amsterdam it was held, and there were good speakers, and a good atmosphere. Sensible things were said. Police did not intervene, not even for "Covid-19" reasons. Virusses do not survive well in the open air, so that would be quite useless anyway, but that is another issue.

So good speakers, relevant issues, and many homemade/makeshift cardboard signs with relevant, positive message. Not much nonsense, in my opinion. Racism, police violence, and racial inequality, all remained justly the main issue.

RACISM IN THE NETHERLANDS

Some would argue that the Netherlands cannot be compared to the US regarding violent racism and the police. . I would say yes and no. There is structural and institutional racism in Netherlands, mostly present in daily life though subtle and indirect means. Not so often Neo-Nazi's marching on the streets, or mob violent actions against people of another race, or burnt crosses or houses. Neither police officers beating up and killing black people on a daily basis. That is the open kind of racism on which the taboo is more known throughout the world, though found still here and there (US partly, Brazil, Libia recently, parts of Eastern Europe a.o.).

Then there are stereotypes and "verbal racism", as I will call it. People saying openly what they really feel of other races, where their preferences lie. This also has obtained a taboo in the Western world, in the last decades, though again not everywhere to an equal degree. In some parts of Eastern or Southern Europe, among working-class people all over Europe, but also parts of Latin America people seem more "open" in this regard. That is honest, and barking dogs might not bite, but at the same time hateful nonsense should not always be expressed.

In countries like the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, and the US, the cautious "political correctness" is particularly strong. This has good and bad aspects, I gather. Bad, because it is not always sincere, and honesty remains the best policy, as the saying goes.

If an employer does not want to hire for his company a Surinamese person because he does not like Surinamese people, he cannot say this openly due to possible legal action this might ensue. Instead, he simply does not hire him or her, and making up an excuse is easy, and largely uncontrolled (e.g. "the other candidate fulfilled our expectations more..").

Demeaning "jokes" during off-guard moments, is another common, sneaky way of racism in the Netherlands, often "masquerading" racial references and stereotypes as actual cause of the antipathy.

It showed some wisdom, that some of the speakers at the Dam protest in Amsterdam, the 1st of June, mentioned this common form of sneaky racism in daily communication with some White Dutch people, as a point where racism really starts - "unpleasant jokes with stereotypes", calling for not condoning it. It might after all end with arresting Black people earlier than White people for the same crimes or misdemeanors, and treating them rougher when arrested. It sounds as quite a leap, but makes some sense, in my opinion. The basic fact remains: you treat people better who you respect as equal.

Also, the critique - also during this protest - of the Sinterklaas & Zwarte Piet tradition, involving "black stereotypes" and demeaning "blackface" characters during this Dutch festivity, in the Netherlands, relates to it.

POVERTY

Social inequality is also important to address. Higher poverty rates among Black people - and as minority groups - is unfortunately a worldwide phenomenon: in the US, in Brazil, and in Europe (including the Netherlands). In some Caribbean countries even the "shade" of your skin determines largely your socioeconomic position and possibilities. The link between poverty and crime need not be clarified, I think, especially when related to theft or illegal trade. You do not really need to do that when you are rich.

The racial difference is not always decisive, for even when cops are the same race as the general population, police actions often discriminate the poorer classes, or perceived "rebellious" groups.

JAMAICA

The repression of and brutality against Rastafari adherents in Jamaica by police in certain epochs (and still going on) is an example of this. Jamaica's large majority is black, as is that of it's police force.

I have been to Jamaica too, and noted their was quite some corruption in the police force there. State police was not present in poorer ghetto areas, where "Dons" (criminal leaders) have taken over all state affairs. This brings a cynical order in a "disorder of poverty", nevertheless experienced by some inhabitants as "still better than no order at all" .

The police practices in Jamaica get quite some attention in Reggae lyrics.

There is a direct link between the police force in the history of (race-based) slavery in Brazil: set up by slaveholding Brazilians/Portuguese to control slaves, or hunt escaped ones. The same applies to a degree to other colonies in the Americas, like Jamaica, Cuba, and including the US.

Brazil is the country in this world with most inhabitants of African descent outside of Africa, showing the historical magnitude of African enslavement there.

The police force after slavery might have evolved, but the structural inequality "logic" essentially remained: keeping people in their place, as well as a racial dichotomy. Even in spite of in time " democratized" and "humanized" laws, on paper based on equal rights.

ACCOUNTABILITY

I will ignore that anarchist inside of me, and let's just say that a civilized, organized society needs laws to be upheld. Then also people "upholding" or "enforcing" these laws are also inevitable: police, military, government officials/agents, a.o. How then to ensure equality?

The problem in several countries in the world, including Brazil and the US, is that police officers can stand and operate too easily - without sanction - "above the law" . The law should simply apply to them too. It makes no sense to uphold or enforce something you are not part of. Also in the Netherlands, such laws are, as I write this, in the making (making police officers less liable than other citizens for e.g. man slaughter).

Yet, a legal system developed, with some type of "immunity" for police officers against legal actions against their behaviour. The logic behind it is a kind of "war" or "military" logic, as some also noted in the many police killings in Brazil in the documentary I mentioned. "Martial law" or "emergency measures" serving largely as excuse for excesses.

This military logic already is in most cases unwise and unnecessary - in my opinion -, and becomes even more dangerous when combined with racism and classism. Using "public order" as a main excuse should have become more suspect in this day and age, after the Nazi era, and other dictatorships. It bypasses individual human rights. Of course, dangerously violent criminals should be sanctioned, and kept away from people they might harm or kill. This is however a "one-on-one" thing, of individual humans. That is what an ideal democracy should be like.

When "members of a group" are singled out, though, democracy is abandoned and repression and discrimination begins. This indirect military logic has slipped in police practice in several "democratic" countries too, including the US, Brazil, or the UK.

This could be the only reason why many legal systems in even such democratic countries, include laws "protecting" police officers from legal sanctions when in line with their duty, even stating that only other police officers can judge or verdict police actions. This can only lead to partisanship and bias. Thus a lack of justice being done in many cases.

The same does not apply in other jobs, after all. Two colleagues in a shop might be racist toward each other, and in a fight one kills the other, or one working in a shop kills a client because of e.g. racism. These ideally are prosecuted for murder independently and from the outside, and not just based on statements of someone else working with them.

MILITARY LOGIC

Police work deals with criminality and law, everything outside it tramples human rights and should be punishable, including choking a black defendant to death for an (alleged) petty crime, as in the case of George Floyd.

The whole idea of "martial law" that suddenly legitimates trampling fundamental rights because of some emergency situation leads generally to abuse. The Covid 19 virus proved in time not to be so deadly as was presented through media, certainly not enough for - as happened - limiting freedoms and rights. Perhaps only slight annoyances for people in rich countries keeping their jobs, who did not go to bars or clubs anyway, but more bothersome or even fatal for others, especially for poor people or those in poor countries, losing their jobs or means of income, for which they had to leave the house.

"Martial" comes from "marte", the Romans' god of war, so again the "war" or "military" logic, outweighs here basic humanity.

This same "war" logic was identified as operative in the case of many (also unlawful) police killings in Brazil, and can be found also in police killings in the US. Racist or not.

RACISM AND WAR

To return to racism in societies. The racism may be more subtle in countries like the UK or the Netherlands, than in the US. Present, but mostly "limited" to unpleasant jokes, or simply - as some people of colour I know described it - not even be able to "talk as equal" with a Dutchman, with some kind of hidden wall of prejudice between them. Not all Dutchmen, of course, but the racist ones, locked in their own sense of superiority. There are also Italians, Britons, Frenchmen, etcetera like that, of course. Likewise, also people of colour or from ethnic minorities, can be prejudiced or negative in their approach toward random White people, that might not be racist.

The statement of one of the speakers at the protest in Amsterdam against racist police violence that I mentioned before, that racism starts with " a demeaning remark and might end with deadly police brutality" does therefore not even seem that far-fetched. Stereotypes should neither be trivialized in this regard, it is after all a way of dehumanizing. Stereotypes of "criminal (young) black men" have proven stubborn in several countries of the world, and is rarely contextualized as it should: within relative poverty and deprivation. Some would say "lack of self-pride" as psychological mechanism behind criminality. I agree with that partly, but think conditions weigh stronger. Many people with inferiority complexes (of all races) tend to need to criticize and seek to degrade other people a lot, but this can be done just verbally if one has no need to rob, e.g. as boss, policeman, politician, or other "bully function".

Demeaning stereotypes thus dehumanize. It starts with such dehumanizing: if you do not care what an "inferior" and "lesser" one than you has to say in a daily conversation, you might neither listen to that same one objecting when you are choking him with your knee, when arresting that one as a police officer. Especially when at the same time working under a "war" or "military" logic (that even further dehumanizes)..

That's why I say that both historical racism, personal racism of officers play their roles in such police brutality, but also this "military logic" legitimizing it. This stems in turn from "(political) ideology", with simply should not be mixed with legality. Separation of politics from legality is what makes democracies truly democratic.

This separation was/is not there in fascist or communist regimes, or other dictatorships, and should neither be there on a lower level in police activities in formal democracies.

With police officers less immune from legal sanctions, and equally accountable as others, they can still stop e.g. violent gangs in poor areas, violent and extreme crime, namely by being "proportional" in their violence.

Yet, this "proportionality" of police action should be evaluated and judged by the entire public, not by other police officers, and overall independently and externally. That is the only way to get rid of this "military logic" legitimizing racism of police in Brazil, the US, Europe, and elsewhere.

As for the other major problems in this world, racism and poverty: of course these should be solved too, but this proves historically difficult. Still worthy of a continuous effort, without a doubt. I guess Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I said it well, in his speech, also used as lyrics for the Bob Marley song War.

Also the phrase "No Justice No Peace", repeated and yelled at the protest in Amsterdam and elsewhere, makes in this regard perfect sense..

CONCLUSION

Some assume, or hypothesize, that the whole George Floyd case has been used or even orchestrated - and promoted as a media hype - by some higher powers - a wealthy elite - to distract mass attention from their hidden plan of global dominion.

There might be some misuse by powerful groups, but the nature of the riots and protests that followed throughout the US were largely wild and free. Manipulative elites wanting world control detest nothing more than popular free and wild gatherings and protests. It seems in contradiction to it, though they might try to manipulate the uproar.

To divide and conquer, some also say, but that is also not that easy. The recurring message "Black Lives Matter" on many protests is not very extreme or radical. It lacks that "military" logic, I mentioned before, and can hardly be considered a "call for war" or race riots.

I think, moreover, that excessive police violence, is in any case a theme worthy of attention, the "military logic" and unjust "cop immunity" part of it likewise, and even more so as it mixed with racism, suggesting : "targeted groups".

The looting and destruction, part of all this uproar, are probably a matter of opportunism or corruption, as occurs within many social movements. It is disturbing, yet not fully undermining of the main message and just cause of protest, in my opinion.

Besides, I also think it is all relative. After world powers lock a large part of the entire world population (!) to differing degrees up/down, trampling basic human rights and limiting freedoms, even causing more problems and deaths in several countries than the coronavirus itself - which even did not show to be so deadly after all (by itself) -, little can top that injustice. Looting in stores in some US cities is nothing compared to that global injustice.

On a personal level, I became deeper convinced after reflection about both these international issues (" pandemic", lockdowns, international protests against police violence and racism), that in my heart of hearts I am not "kind of" an anarchist.. I am actually a full-fledged anarchist, preferring anarchy as much as possible and reasonable.

Maybe I changed, maybe I just came to full realization about myself, developing further from my earlier life experiences and encounters with "police states"..

You might even say that this all "pushed me over the edge".