De gesel van het neoliberalisme: Ewald Engelen's 'Ontwaak! Kom uit uw neoliberale sluimer' (2021)

Zowel “neoliberalisme” als “technocratie” zijn termen waarvan ik eigenlijk alleen - tot voor kort - "ongeveer" wist wat ermee bedoeld wordt. Ik ben hoger opgeleid en heb jarenlang in een bibliotheek van een wetenschappelijke instituut gewerkt, maar toch kwam er tot voor kort geen sluitende definitie in mijn hoofd op van deze termen. “Neoliberalisme” associeerde ik met “kapitalisme”, het belang van grote bedrijven en banken, en verder, wel, de VVD. Wat het “neo” (nieuw) maakte wist ik niet precies.

“Technocratie” vond ik nog lastiger om goed te definiëren. Ik vermoedde iets van beleid gebaseerd op kille apparatuur en (reken)modellen.

Welnu, het pas (2021) verschenen en goed leesbare boek ‘Ontwaak! Kom uit uw neoliberale sluimer’ van Ewald Engelen hielp me uit de metaforische brand: het besprak beide thema’s, in relatie tot met name de recente Nederlandse geschiedenis.

Ik kwam het boek tegen in de sociale media, en had weleens eerder wat gelezen van Engelen. Ik was het over het algemeen wel met hem eens. Ook beschreef hij leuk sociaal-economische ontwikkelingen, niet zonder humor, alhoewel wel met soms complexe zinnen. Dat laatste zie ik ook als uitdaging.

Ook tijdens wat nu speelt, en dat ook mij meer raakte dan me lief was, namelijk de coronacrisis, bleken Engelen en ik het grotendeels eens. Laten we zeggen dat we beiden tot de linkervleugel behoren van mensen die kritisch zijn over de coronamaatregelen/het lockdownbeleid.

DUIDING

In dit boek uit 2021 was ik dus ook geïnteresseerd, omdat ik de thematiek interessant vond – mijn interesse is echter breed – maar ik vooral ook duiding zocht. Dit zeker ook in de corona tijd van pandemie, die Engelen ook in dit boek over neoliberalisme betrekt. Sommige tegenstanders van het coronabeleid gebruiken de term “plandemie”.

Zelfs als complottheorieën – zoals rond Bill Gates, WEF, Agenda 2030 etc. – waar blijken te zijn – mijn persoonlijk vermoeden: in ieder geval deels -, heeft loos speculeren over de achtergronden van het internationale coronabeleid nu geen zin. Althans: niet zonder een grondige analyse van de politiek en economie die er aan vooraf ging, zoals in Nederland. Dit leek mij een nuttige, historische duiding die ik zocht. Het is een lacune die het boek voor me vult, dat gaandeweg ook meteen “neoliberalisme” en “technocratie” duidelijk voor mij definieert.

Tenminste, dat verwachtte ik. Dit boek voldeed aan die verwachtingen, laat ik dat voorop stellen. Ik heb het met plezier gelezen, en kreeg ook het gevoel dat ik wat bijleerde. Het had iets van “bevestiging” van mijn denkbeelden – ik geef het toe -, maar zeker ook opende het boek mijn ogen voor andere ontwikkelingen en verbanden, die ik zelf nog niet zo zag. Ergens in het boek vat Engelen samen wat volgens hemzelf het kernthema van dit boek is: “de manier waarop hoogopgeleide experts het zogenaamde publieke belang misbruiken om de eigen belangen te dienen ten koste van die van laagopgeleiden.”.. Dat is nog eens duidelijke taal! Rond dit kernthema wordt veel interessants uiteen gezet.

NEOLIBERALISME

Ja, ik weet na lezen beter wat “neoliberalisme” is, hoewel een strakke, “catchy” definitie moeilijk te geven is. Engelen wijdde er zelfs een apart hoofdstukje aan met als titel ‘Wat is neoliberalisme?’, met als deel van de definitie: “meer macht aan aandeelhouders (eigenaren) van ondernemingen, en minder voor andere belanghebbenden (werknemers, klanten, en leveranciers). Dit leidde tot de karakteristieke, neoliberale focus op “winstmaximalisatie”. Het “neo” (nieuwe) ervan ten opzichte van het eerdere “laissez faire” liberalisme zit hem in de “ordening” via wetgeving en gerichte politieke steun.

Interessanter is hoe Engelen de dominantie van het neoliberalisme in het economische beleid van Nederland, en de rest van de Westerse wereld, beschrijft, hoe deze opkwam, en de status quo werd. De norm werd dat de vrije markt alles kan oplossen, simpel gezegd, en dat een minimale, maar effectieve, staat dit ondersteunt.

Dit Anglo-Amerikaanse kapitalistische model kwam inderdaad overwaaien uit de VS en het Verenigd Koninkrijk naar de rest van Europa. Dit was begin jaren 80 (1980s), met de University of Chicago als een leidend neoliberaal bolwerk, met internationale invloed. In Nederland, met een handelstraditie, was die invloed er relatief vroeger en sterker, zo vertelt Engelen, vergeleken met andere landen in Europa: landen als Frankrijk waar gemarginaliseerde economische “scholen” (Keynes, Marx e.a.) nog wel wat meer ruimte en politieke invloed behielden.

Engelen zet goed voor mij uiteen dat er weinig “altruïstisch” en “humanitair” is aan het neoliberalisme, en dat het cynisch genoeg inderdaad de belangen dient van een kleine, welvarende financiële elite in de wereld. Complottheorieën zijn niet eens meer nodig. Het idee van “trickle down economics”, dus dat de baten van winstgevende bedrijven iedereen, ook de arbeiders onderin (want meer werk) ten goede zouden komen, lijkt het cynische egoïsme te legitimeren.

Engelen spreekt zelf over een “proces” sindsdien, in plaats van een “complot”, een “gelijkschakeling” zo men wil, tussen alle machtige maatschappelijke groepen: politiek, de pers, met het grootkapitaal, tegenover “de massa”, en het “volk”. Deze gelijkschakeling -procesmatig, maar met welbegrepen eigenbelang - heeft zich volgens Engelen de laatste decennia in Nederland haast volledig voltrokken. Het omvatte ook puur machtspolitiek en druk, en subtiele omkoping ( zoals “job security” toch kan worden beschouwd).

POLITIEK

Alle “middenpartijen”, zo stelt hij, VVD, PVDA, CDA, D66, inclusief GroenLinks, voeren nu al een tijd neoliberaal economisch beleid uit, of propageren dat. Rechts-populistische partijen die het “ongenoegen” onder het volk willen kanaliseren - PVV, FVD – doen dat volgens Engelen met een verkeerde focus: op cultureel nationalisme, migratiebeperking, en harder vreemdelingenbeleid, daarbij het echte, diepere probleem, namelijk armoede onder dat volk door neoliberalisme, negerend. Partijen als PVV en FVD zitten in dezelfde “neoliberale” fuik wat betreft hun economische standpunten als de “middenpartijen” die ze zelf (als het “kartel”, zoals FVD voorman Thierry Baudet ze noemde) bekritiseren.

Het echte probleem, en dat vond ik een sterk punt van Engelen, is niet “migratie” of “mobiliteit” van mensen, maar mobiliteit van “kapitaal”.

Slechts de SP heeft een duidelijk ander economisch verhaal, volgens Engelen, terwijl de Partij voor de Dieren, ook wat meer afwijkend is qua ecologisch en economisch beleid van de “middenpartijen”, en minder in die neoliberale fuik zit.

WERELDBEELD

Wat is die “fuik” dan wel, en welk wereldbeeld zit achter het neoliberalisme? Dat vind ik interessant. Het “wereldbeeld” van het egoïsme, klaarblijkelijk, gedeeld door meerdere hoogopgeleiden. Daarnaast ziet Engelen ook het mensbeeld van de rationele, calculerende “homo economicus” terugkomen, sinds de stimulering van het neoliberalisme. Het gaat voorts, meer praktisch, uit van het “aanbod” (markten creëren) dan van de “vraag” van consumenten. Dit zorgt voor een – vanuit het perspectief van burger/klant - opdringeriger soort kapitalisme, met welbeschouwd ook meer leugenachtigheid (“behoeftes creëren” is the name of the marketing game), in vergelijking met de Keynesiaanse school van kapitalisme. Verrijking van het grootkapitaal, eenvoudig samen gevat, als belangrijkste uitkomst.

Overtuigend toont Engelen aan dat dit neoliberalisme – ondanks de “trickle down” pretenties – eigenlijk vooral negatieve gevolgen had voor de meerderheid van de bevolking. De bankencrisis van 2008 liet dat zien. Een kleine elite bleef er van profiteren, welke ook alsmaar rijker werd. Die elite werd juist politiek gesteund als antwoord op die economische crisis van 2008, en het neoliberalisme daarmee versterkt, ook politiek..

Hij zet ook uiteen hoe de analyses die ten grondslag liggen aan het neoliberalisme tot een “self-fulfilling prophecy” leiden: de scheiding van “feiten” en “theorie”, depolitisering van economie, samenhang tussen probleem en “oplossingen”. De interpretatie van feiten is inderdaad een heikel – en corrumpeerbaar - punt in meerdere wetenschappen.

ECONOMEN

Veel aandacht geeft Engelen ook aan “economie” als wetenschappelijke discipline. Met de dominantie van neoliberalisme sinds 1980 kregen academisch geschoolde economen - zo illustreert Engelen – veel macht en aanzien, resulterend in een combinatie van arrogantie en tunnelvisie. Hier gebruikt hij de term “technocraten” ook, alsmede “econocraten”. Kort door de bocht geformuleerd: meer geïnteresseerd in cijfers en winst dan in de bredere maatschappij. Of in zulke hinderlijke factoren als “het volk” of “democratie”.

Opvallend is ook – en dat verbaast mij ook, vanuit mijn tijd in een wetenschappelijk instituut – het gebrek aan open discussie in specifiek de economische discipline, het gebrek aan tegenspraak en twijfel. Wetenschap gedijt immers bij de twijfel, en elke “waarheid” erin is tijdelijk. In echte wetenschap dan.

Aan de neoliberale economen is dat over het algemeen weinig besteedt, verduidelijkt Engelen. Ze worden hierbij ook gesteund door de journalistiek, die dezelfde hoogopgeleide, technocratische positie en levensvisie delen, aldus Engelen. Het veelvuldig gebruik van de termen “topeconoom” of “topeconomen” in de media, wijzen op dat ontzag, als deel van een bredere kritiekloosheid. Dat de meeste politieke partijen diezelfde neoliberale focus hebben, eveneens.

Zo kregen deze technocratische economen veel invloed op het politieke discours, en “neoliberaliseerden” deze (mijn term) sinds de 1980s, zogezegd, tot op heden. In Nederland, en een flink deel van de Westerse wereld (en daarbuiten). Dit alles vergrootte de ongelijkheid tussen rijk en arm, en hoogopgeleid en lager opgeleid, maar vergrootte ook de ecologische schade.

MINACHTING

Voorts is een andere interessante lijn in dit boek van Engelen, het dédain of de regelrechte minachting van de hoogopgeleide “technocraten” voor “het volk”, met andere woorden: de lager-opgeleide (en armere) meerderheid. Dit uit zich volgens Engelen in een focus op “verdienste” (merit) van deze hoogopgeleide academici, voortkomend uit een vermeend superieur brein, waar goed gebruik van gemaakt is, door bijvoorbeeld die net-niet-zelfbenoemde topeconomen, en andere academische geschoolden in hun “bubble” en letterlijk of figuurlijk “gated communities”. Deze hoogopgeleide elite heeft een aura van internationaal, kosmopoliet burgerschap om zichzelf heen gecreëerd, geplaatst tegenover het al snel als dom, en xenofoob neergezet lager opgeleide “volk”, vatbaarder voor nepnieuws, populisme, en stemmen op Trump, of partijen als PVV, of voor nationalistische en racistische stromingen, etcetera.

RACISME

Terecht bekritiseert Engelen die hoogopgeleide hoogmoed, in Nederland ook sterk aanwezig, die generaliserend en onwaar is, ook wat betreft “racisme”. Het riekt ook nogal naar hypocrisie. De zwarte Amerikaanse komiek Paul Mooney gaf aan dat racisme vooral iets is wat (rijke) “blanken” DOEN (niet toelaten, niet aannemen, niet verstrekken), en dus meer is dan ergens “rancuneus PRATEN over andere rassen”, zonder verdere machtsmiddelen.

Die hoogopgeleide elite heeft die machtsmiddelen en zal de eigen groep daarmee bevoordelen. Ja, inderdaad vooral rijke blanke mannen, die al uit welvarende gezinnen komen. Daar ligt de hypocrisie.

Een autochtoon Nederlandse PVV-stemmer (werkeloos of uit de arbeidersklasse) die scheldt op teveel Marokkanen en andere buitenlanders in zijn wijk of omgeving, zal geen prettige of positieve persoon zijn, zeker niet voor individuele niet-Nederlanders, en andersom geldt dat ook voor leden van in Nederland etnische minderheden (Marokkanen, Surinamers e.a.) die alleen maar in rancuneuze en negatieve termen aan autochtone Nederlanders kunnen denken (vaak vanwege wat vernederende ervaringen), en contact met die Nederlandse meerderheid maar liever helemaal vermijden, ook al is dat wat generaliserend.

Deze “rancuneuze” mensen hebben door hun maatschappelijke positie echter weinig macht. Premier Mark Rutte, eindverantwoordelijke voor de “racistische” toeslagenaffaire, had daarentegen duidelijk wel macht.. Net als alle grote politieke partijen.

CULTUUR

Engelen betoogt dat de focus op “culturele” onderwerpen dominanter is geworden in het internationale politieke discours, met name sinds de terroristische aanslag (9/11) in 2001. De Islam en zich daarop beroepend terrorisme kreeg zeker overmatige aandacht van overheden, met strengere terreurwetten, en nieuwe, ingrijpende bevoegdheden, en meer inbreuk op privacy en lichamelijke integriteit. Populistische partijen in sommige landen maakten hier en daar gebruik van de Islamofobie, maar het werd ook deel van een breder “cultureel” discours binnen gevestigde partijen over de plaats van de Islam in Westerse samenlevingen. Het evidente feit dat de meerderheid van moslims geen terroristen zijn – en dat het vanuit de psychologie ook zomaar zo kan zijn dat individuele moslims hun religieus fanatisme gebruiken als uitlaatklep voor allerlei (eigen) frustraties -, werden daarbij gemakshalve veronachtzaamd.

Dat Islam-terrorisme was een “hype”, kun je concluderen uit wat Engelen in dit boek stelt, zelfs een afleidingsmanouevre om “neoliberaal” beleid te rechtvaardigen, via een sterkere, maar ondemocratische staat.

Hetzelfde vindt hij gelden voor de focus op andere “culturele”of “raciale” onderwerpen (naast de Islam in Nederland) in het maatschappelijke discours, en in de media in Nederland: “Zwarte Piet”, het Nederlands slavernijverleden of koloniaal verleden, emancipatie, standbeelden van koloniale moordenaars of slavenhouders, of zelfs thema’s als “genderneutraliteit”.

Dit dient vooral om “het volk” af te leiden van de macht van het “neoliberalisme”, en de ongelijkheid die het veroorzaakt, vindt hij. Verdeel en heers, met andere woorden, het volk (de “gevaarlijke” meerderheid) dus verdeeld houden.

Ik denk te snappen wat Engelen ermee bedoelt, hoewel ik het er niet 100% mee eens ben. De wetenschappelijke bibliotheek waar ikzelf ruim twaalf jaar voor werkte, had juist dat Nederlandse slavernijverleden (en koloniaal verleden) als thema, waarbij ik mij specialiseerde in het Caraïbisch gebied.

Ik heb er veel geleerd, maar vooral ook hoe belangrijk is om veel van dat slavernijverleden te leren: voor iedereen in de huidige wereld, en niet slechts mensen van Afrikaanse afkomst. Als slecht voorbeeld, voor het belang van mensenrechten en gelijkheid, en om de positie van bijvoorbeeld Afrika in de huidige wereld te begrijpen..

Ik vind het (Nederlands) “slavernijverleden” dan ook geen irrelevante “afleiding” zoals Engelen lijkt te suggereren, ook omdat de trans-Atlantische slavenhandel en plantage-slavernij in de Amerika’s, eigenlijk ook historisch aan de basis staan van het “kapitalisme” als zodanig, dus ook de huidige neoliberale variant, die Engelen in dit boek heftig bekritiseerd. De opbrengsten van de Britse slavernij financierden de bekende, eerste Industriële Revolutie, zoals wel wat bekender mag zijn.

Hetzelfde geldt voor racisme, waarbij Engelen wel terecht Martin Luther King citeert over de toch ook gedeelde belangen van arme arbeiders (van elk ras) met de Afro-Amerikanen – ook veelal van de arbeidersklasse – voor wie hij opkwam.. ze hadden dezelfde (neoliberaal-kapitalistische, rijke, witte) vijand. Nu nog steeds, zou je kunnen betogen.

Hoewel racisme bestaat, en discriminatie op uiterlijk en cultuur, ook in Nederland, aan de orde van de dag zijn, moeten de relaties met het dominante, ongelijkheid-bevorderende neoliberalisme niet vergeten worden, lijkt Engelen te stellen.

Enigszins samenvattend zegt Engelen treffend, achterin het boek:

“Het neoliberale middel bij uitstek is het creëren van een technocratie die de controle over de regels van de markten en de bescherming van de eigendomsrechten zoveel mogelijk buiten het bereik van volk en democratie houdt”.

Het doel van neoliberalisme is de staat gebruiken om markten verder te verdiepen en eigendomsrechten verder te zekeren, stelt hij tegelijkertijd.

Om dit te bereiken zijn ‘rampen” en “crises” welkome aanleidingen, en zo komen we bij een ander thema in dit boek: de corona crisis.

CORONA

Engelen schreef dit boek terwijl deze merkwaardige coronacrisis gaande is, wereldwijd, met een beleid van ongekende “lockdowns”, ook in Nederland, nodig geacht – of als zodanig gepresenteerd – om verspreiding van de virale ziekte (een nieuwe SARS variant) die via China de wereld over ging (sinds Februari 2020) tegen te gaan. Zoals we veel te veel in de media hebben moeten vernemen, wordt dit virus “Covid 19” genoemd.

Ik was onder de indruk van Engelen’s analyse van deze crisis, met name het politiek gebruik ervan.

Hij geeft zich niet over aan complottheorieën rond Bill Gates, Agenda 2030, the Great Reset, die veel criticasters van het coronabeleid aanhalen, maar refereert er eigenlijk wel indirect naar.

Interessant is echter juist dat hij het plaatst binnen het verloop van het Westerse neoliberalisme.

Hij spreekt – vind ik terecht – tegen dat de hele crisis en het ondemocratische “lockdown-beleid”- wat opvallend veel regeringen nu hanteren - een “ommekeer” is ten opzichte van dat neoliberalisme.

Integendeel: hij ziet het eerder als een bevestiging ervan, zelfs een culminatie van hetgeen eraan vooraf ging. Net als bij de “terrorisme hype” sinds 2001, de politiek gebruikte “banken crisis” van 2008, ziet hij de corona crisis - of “corona hype” zoals ik het zelf wel wil noemen – als nog zo’n noodsituatie en crisis die de “powers that be” gebruiken om het neoliberalisme verder te versterken.

Er is zelfs een vergelijkbare rol van academisch geschoolde “technocraten”, wier woord wet lijkt, zonder de gebruikelijke toetsing en tegenspraak. Voorheen waren dat dus de (neoliberale) “economen”, nu dus de “virologen”, met eenzelfde neiging tot arrogantie en tunnelvisie.

Een desastreus gezag – veelal gebaseerd op zeker betwistbare “modellen” – welke zelfs basale burgerrechten en –vrijheden die we als Nederlandse burgers sinds 1945 voor lief namen, beperkten en afnamen. Voor het eerst sinds de Nazi-tijd een Avondklok, daarvoor al gedwongen sluiting van publieke gelegenheden, reisbeperkingen, samenscholingsverboden, en andere ge- en verboden die de lichamelijke integriteit zelfs aantasten (mondkapjesplicht, meer en meer gedwongen tests en inentingen, en quarantaine).

Engelen zegt daarbij dat de angst bij het volk voor het virus, het vergemakkelijkt voor die neoliberale elite om hun doelen door te drukken.

VERKIEZINGEN EN STEMGEDRAG

Engelen zegt in dit boek weinig over de ernst of aard van Covid 19, en of dat het beleid legitimeert. Of die angst voor corona bij “het volk” (een meerderheid, lijkt het) terecht is (overlijdenspercentage inmiddels minder dan 0,23%, aanwijsbare risicogroepen, is het nog wel een pandemie?) daar kun je ook een boom over opzetten, en genoeg mensen doen dat tegenwoordig nu ook. Terecht uiteraard. Zowel aan de linkerkant als de rechterkant van het politieke spectrum.

Viruswaarheid (rond Willem Engel) is naar eigen zeggen teleurgesteld in de “Linkse” steun voor het corona/lockdownbeleid, maar gezien de partijpunten voor de laatste verkiezingen (Willem Engel was zelf verkiesbaar voor Lijst 30), hebben hun sociaal-economische en culturele standpunten meer met pre-corona GroenLinks of Partij voor de Dieren, of zelfs de SP gemeen, dan met rechts-populisme. Niet erg “neoliberaal” dus.

Wel aan die rechtse kant zit de Forum voor Democratie (FVD), waar partijleider Baudet met Wybren Van Haga een sterke criticaster van het coronabeleid binnen heeft gehaald, kritiek die Baudet nu lijkt te delen (na eerdere steun voor het beleid). FVD was van de “cultureel nationalistische” school die Engelen bekritiseerde: met dus de verkeerde (xenofobe) antwoorden op de noden van het laagopgeleide volk. Met de “corona focus” van nu ook Baudet veranderde de partij wel wat.

Van Haga is minder met “cultureel nationalisme” bezig en probeert nuchter als ondernemer naar het coronabeleid te kijken, en zelfs of Baudet werkelijk een “racist” is betwijfel ik eigenlijk, ondanks wat ongelukkige uitspraken die de media haalden, of opgeblazen zijn. Sommige hardvochtige voorstellen als deel van hun plannen (van de FVD) gaan in die richting, maar verschillen ook niet zoveel van wat in ‘t VVD-of CDA-programma staat (“opsporen van illegalen”, kansarme migratie beperken, en meer van dat soort onempathische, rechtse onzin). De FVD is in ieder geval deels zeker Rechts en elitair, waardoor ze economisch ook gewoon meegaan met het neoliberalisme. Hetzelfde geldt voor de nog xenofobere PVV.

Daarnaast joeg Baudet met zijn recentelijke “obsessie” met het coronabeleid andere FVD-leden weg, die meer met “cultureel nationalisme” en xenofobie bezig waren, en die dat blijkbaar meer dan Baudet combineerden met hun smetvrees. Hetzelfde geldt voor Geert Wilders die het lockdownbeleid steunde, maar electoraal gewin zag in het tegen de draconische avondklok zijn.

Engelen (en zijn partner)’s eigen Partij Voor De Dieren is volgens hemzelf de enige waarvan het electoraat grotendeels bestaan uit mensen die én Links én hoogopgeleid én kritisch over het coronabeleid met mensenrechtenschendende – en niet-effectieve – maatregelen durven te zijn (avondklok en de meeste andere beperkingen).

Dat geldt ook voor Willem Engel en de zijnen, maar die haalde de kiesdrempel niet (volgens Engel zelf door fraude).. Partij Voor De Dieren wel.

Ook Van Haga lijkt beloond te zijn voor zijn anti-coronabeleid standpunt (enkele zetels), terwijl GroenLinks voor hun pro-coronabeleid – zo lijkt het - juist zetels verloor, bij een deel van hun achterban (immers populair bij Linksige studenten, die levendige studentensteden als Amsterdam, Utrecht, en Nijmegen in dystopische spooksteden zagen veranderen, met na een bepaald tijdstip alleen politie of bezorgers op straat).

Het stemgedrag is een ander thema in dit boek: waarom blijft de meerderheid van de Nederlandse bevolking die neoliberale “middenpartijen” (VVD e.a.) stemmen, die tegen hun eigen belangen in gaan, en die van een elite juist versterken?

Dat is een belangrijk thema van het boek: die “gelijkschakeling” en gevoelde verwantschap tussen hoogopgeleide technocraten, neerkijkend op het volk, met de media, en politiek, die de politieke en economische realiteit in hun voordeel hebben “geframed” (grote bedrijven laten groeien, winstmaximalisatie, meer markt is goed, “trickle down economics”), en steeds meer mensen daaraan mee hebben laten doen, afhankelijk van hebben gemaakt.

Denk aan het toenemende huizenbezit en aantal hypotheken onder Nederlanders, de afgelopen decennia.. Dat is deel van een neoliberaal wereldbeeld, naast andere dingen, die veel Nederlandse middenklassers bij de VVD maar ook bij D66, of het PVDA en CDA herkennen, waardoor veel mensen die partijen de afgelopen verkiezingen (17 maart 2021) gewoon weer in meerderheid stemden (of “leken te hebben” om de optie van fraude open te houden).

Dit “stemmen tegen eigen belangen in” lijkt raadselachtig, maar Engelen verklaart in dit boek zeer goed hoe dat zo kon ontstaan. Het is uiteraard ook niet zonder historische paralellen (onderdanige slaven op plantages die anderen verraadden, slijmen bij de baas, nepotisme etc.). Met de “corona crisis” kwam de factor “angst voor ziekte” of zelfs “smetvrees” (die laatste term is voor mijn rekening) erbij, ook misbruikt door neoliberale krachten.

Engelen geeft terecht kritiek op de waarheidsclaims van (nu virologische) deskundigen, die principieel betwistbaar dienen te zijn, inclusief de achterliggende aannames, maar dat niet zijn. Die claims van deskundigen (het OMT met name) lijken een eindpunt van debat te zijn, en niet een beginpunt van debat en waarheidsvinding, zoals in echte wetenschap.

Ik herinner mij dat uit mijn tijd in een wetenschappelijk instituut, over meer – zij het soms moeizaam - “debat-toelatende” thema’s als “slavernijgeschiedenis” en antropologie. Discussie was open en soms zelfs aangemoedigd, ook vanwege het evidente, scheve feit dat blanke academici schrijven/onderzoeken over zwarte/Afrikaanse geschiedenis.

Echter: toen heikele thema’s als “herstelbetalingen voor slavernij” besproken werden, onder meer aangekaart door Surinaamse wetenschappers, ging een deel van de (blanke) deskundigen op hun strepen staan. Het ging toen immers om geld van de overheid en de elite. De “apologistische” school van slavernij historici als Piet Emmer (die het leed en de omvang van de Afrikaanse Holocaust teveel zou relativeren) of (iets gematigder) Gert Oostindie, had veel macht – en ook meer toegang tot de politiek – lieten als blanke wetenschappers van zich horen via invloedrijke kanalen, hoewel ze genuanceerde kritiek kregen van andere (o.m. zwarte) slavernij deskundigen. De blanke “apologisten” onder wetenschappers speelden dus de machtskaart.

Dat zie je nu ook, wil ik betogen. Engelen lijkt dat te bevestigen. In de “epiloog” aan het einde, gaat hij meer in op het huidige coronabeleid.

Hij ziet de coronacrisis niet als “nieuwe kans” voor een groene en eerlijke samenleving, ondanks vage (en oncontroleerbare) pretenties van het World Economic Forum (club van rijkste mensen in deze wereld), en mensen als Bill Gates, maar ziet dat eerder als misleidende retoriek, om het neoliberalisme verder te versterken, via oneigenlijke middelen.

Het feit dat – zoals Oxfam Novib ook al concludeerde – de kleine, maar rijkste (financiële) elite van miljardairs in deze wereld sinds “corona” en lockdowns alleen maar rijker is geworden, terwijl wereldwijd de ongelijkheid, armoede, en honger juist toenamen, bevestigt dat. Dit is dan niet eens een "onbedoeld gevolg”, maar zou best weleens juist de bedoeling ervan kunnen zijn.

MORBIDE SYMPTOMEN

Engelen lijkt dat te concluderen, waarbij hij ook wijst op een soort “macht der wanhoop” en overschreeuwen door de neoliberale elite van zichzelf. Ergens is er het besef dat neoliberalisme niet werkt voor de meerderheid, maar dat besef moet overschreeuwd en onderdrukt worden. Vandaar dat gebrek aan wetenschappelijke tegenspraak, de virologische “technocratie”, de strikte, ondemocratische, vrijheidsbeperkende maatregelen voor het volk, en de merkwaardige terugkeer van dingen eigen aan dictaturen (vreedzame demonstraties verbieden, censuur), in wat we dachten een democratisch land was. “Overcompensatie door onzekerheid” zegt Engelend prikkelend over dit beleid, en terecht naar mijn mening.

Is het internationale coronabeleid – met lockdowns en restricties – eigenlijk een agressieve vlucht naar voren van een onzeker wordende neoliberale elite? Engelen citeert hier de Italiaanse intellectueel Antonio Gramsci, die sprak over “morbide symptomen”, als deel van die wanhopige, elitaire machtsgreep tijdens een crisis.

Zo’n agressieve “vlucht naar voren” is een constante in de wereldgeschiedenis, inclusief bij ondemocratische (fascistische of anderszins totalitaire) regimes, hoe deze zichzelf ook legitimeerden (fascistisch, communistisch, islamitisch, nationalistisch, e.a.). Bestudeer daarvoor maar het Italiaanse fascisme, de Rode Khmer, het fundamentalistische Talibaan-beleid, 't Ayatollah beleid in Iran, Pinochet in Chili, Franco en Salazar in Spanje en Portugal, maar ook – dichter bij huis – Hitler in Duitsland, die anders dan sommige andere dictatoren, niet via staatsgrepen of oorlogen, maar gewoon via democratische methoden in het centrum van de macht kwam, om de democratie daarna dus te vernietigen.

Die “schijndemocratie” is ook lang een euvel in Nederland geweest, maar totdat sinds Maart 2020 vrijheden en grondrechten geschonden werden (sluiting publieke etablissementen, samenscholingsverbod, lockdowns, avondklokken, reisrestricties, vraag om verplichte tests en quarantaines, mondkapjes, indirecte vaccinatiedwang etc.), kon de gemiddelde Nederlandse burger zich daar wat meer aan onttrekken. Al was het alleen maar door vrijelijk vrienden te bezoeken of ontmoeten, of vertier te zoeken, in toen nog “ongeproblematiseerde” en vrij toegankelijke culturele plekken of uitgaansgelegenheden.

“De neoliberale orde staat op instorten, bezweken onder haar eigen mislukkingen”, zegt Engelen stellig in de laatste paragraaf. Om het boek te eindigen met een oproep, en ook in de hoofdtitel van het boek, ‘Ontwaak!’.

Daar ben ik het helemaal mee eens!

Zeker lezenswaardig en leerzaam, dit boek. Aan te raden!

Bunny Wailer

Sadly, the last of the living founding members of the Wailers, Bunny Wailer, died recently, the 2nd of March, in 2021. He was 73 years old, and suffering from health problems after first a stroke in 2018, causing speech problems, and a second one, last year June 2020, leaving him hospitalized ever since. The cause of death is, as I write this, officially unknown, but probably relate to the strokes.

WAILERS

Either way, though he died relatively young according to modern, developed standards, he got to live longer than his fellow-Wailers Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, the two people with whom he formed the Wailers in the 1960s, the Ska era.

In fact, Bunny Wailer, birth name Neville Livingston, knew Bob Marley from childhood days, in Nine Miles, in the rural parish of St Ann’s in northern Jamaica, including family connections: later his single father got into an intimate relationship with Bob Marley’s single mother Cedella Booker. They stayed good friends, later residing in Trench Town, a ghetto area in Kingston, Jamaica’s capital, joined there by Peter Tosh, who grew up in another part of rural Jamaica.

Landscape near Nine Miles,St Ann, Jamaica

Not much use in repeating too much biographical information that is available elsewhere online, but it is good as an introduction, I think.

The Wailers are relatively much studied and described, even in more mainstream (“pop” or “rock”) sources, of course especially due to the fame of fellow-Wailer Bob Marley, rising to international stardom, and globally the best known Reggae act, by the mid-1970s. Now, almost 50 years later, this seems still the case. Bob Marley is the best known Reggae act. Though objections to this are thinkable – in light of the many talented Reggae artists that Jamaica produced over the years.

Perhaps these did not have commercial support, or did not make the “translation” to a more mainstream audience that well. Or, as some argue, because their skin colour was too dark, compared to the half-White Marley (who had a White father, - much older than his mother -, with which he had only little contact).

Yet, due to his connection to Bob Marley, you might say that Bunny Wailer achieved relatively somewhat more attention in the international music scene.

COMPARISON

I find for this post interesting the comparisons that are often made between the three Wailers: Peter (Tosh), Bunny (Wailer), and Bob (Marley). They formed and shaped the band, stayed together, well into the rising fame, including through internationally successful (for Reggae standards) albums like Catch a Fire and Burnin’, and first bigger hits like Stir It Up and Get Up Stand Up.

In 1974, they split ways, after a partly problematic tour in Britain and elsewhere, and some inner conflicts, including also producer Chris Blackwell. Peter and Bunny went solo then, while Bob continued as Bob Marley & the Wailers (including long-present musicians like the Barrett brothers, the female I-Threes-background singers, Tyrone Downie on keys, Junior Murvin on guitar, and Seeco Patterson as steady percussionist). Bob’s first album without Peter and Bunny for Bob was Natty Dread, released in 1974.

Several authors – such as Jamaican-British author Colin Grant – and many writers on Reggae, as well as many Reggae fans, tend to compare the three founding members of the Wailers, beyond emphasizing how they joined “as friends”. Certainly, they also could “complement” each other, often occurring in fruitful and successful relationships.

RESPONSES AND PERSONALITIES

According to Colin Grant, who wrote a book on the three Wailers I discussed elsewhere on this blog (years ago) – and who also wrote the magnificent biography on Marcus Garvey titled ‘Negro With A Hat’-, they indeed were complementary to each other. Grant spoke interestingly of three “archetypes”, so to speak, or – as he also saw it – three “main responses” by Blacks – as well as Rastafari - to oppression and discrimination in the White Western world. Bob represented the “adaptation” response, Peter the “rebel” response, while Bunny was the “escape” response.

The three “types” of Grant seem to make at least historical sense regarding the African Diaspora and slavery history. On slave plantations, in Jamaica and elsewhere, the three types of survival and resistance could be found.

So, the recently passed on Bunny Wailer represented according to Grant this Maroon-like, reclusive “escape from the system”.

In several writings on Reggae, and what I heard several Reggae fans say, is that Bunny was strictly speaking the best singer of the three. I kind of agree with that. While the singing voice – “timbre” – of Bob was not very special, Bob compensated that with musicality, charisma, songwriting talent, strong melodies, and enduring lyrics. Peter compensated this with an impressive baritone voice, his rebellious image, and his according to many more charming or extrovert personality, compared to the the more shy/introvert other two, Bob and Bunny.

Colin Grant, and biographers of e.g. Bob Marley, stated that Bunny Wailer differed from the other two in that Bunny “seemed always to be angry” to outsiders. An interesting combination of personalities, we can conclude from this.

PERCUSSION

His start in music received at first some skepticism among more conservative musicians. This was due to the fact that in partly Eurocentrically influenced part of the Jamaican population, the fact that Bunny first only played percussion (drums and small percussion), while Peter was a skilled guitar player, and to a degree Bob also.

Of course, I – as percussionist - disagree with this. We got used to the dominance of “chording” instruments (guitars, keys ) in Western (even “Black”) popular music, but all good music begins naturally with the heartbeat of “rhythm”, remaining essential in any music piece, accentuated by good percussion. This is especially the case in Black/African-descended music, like Reggae, with much percussive influence.

In early recordings of the Wailers, indeed Bunny Wailer combined playing percussion instruments with his background vocals. There is also video material of their performances showing this. Bunny kept playing percussion, also later on his own albums. So, he certainly was a percussionist too.

ESCAPING

Does all this in any way reflect Colin Grant’s classifying Bunny Wailer’s persona as “escaping” or “reclusive” already? Maybe a bit, but that trait became more clear in the Early 1970s, when tours with the Wailers in Britain, led to unease with Bunny, complaining that some of the “freak places” they had to perform, went against his Rastafari beliefs/way of life. He also said that he did not like to fly in planes for tours. This limited his motivation to remain part of the Wailers band, at that stage breaking through internationally. This could be seen as an “escape” from rising fame and its pressures.

He further concentrated on his solo career after 1974, building a steady fan base, and with little “commercial” concessions to the non-Jamaican mainstream, it seemed.

Then there are the lyrics. What set Bob Marley according to many apart within Reggae were also his “to-the-point, yet deep” lyrics, aptly – and understandably – expressing the woes of the poor and suffering in simple terms, yet containing timeless wisdom.

Bob was further, according to Colin Grant – and other writers, more of the “adaptive” type to the Western system, - in e.g. commercial company demands - , – suggesting a slight “uncle tom/house slave” echo. I think however that this is not a just comparison, especially when looking at Bob’s rebellious lyrics “chanting down Babylon”, and critical of politicians, colonizers, authorities, and other oppressors/downpressors.

Bunny, of the “escaping” or “self-recluse” hermit-like type, did he have lyrics reflecting this simplified typology?

A comparison of Bob’s and Bunny’s (and Peter’s) lyrics is both fun to do, and very educational, I find, at the same time. After all, Bob and Bunny were close friends since childhood. Yet different personalities? Later friend Peter Tosh was known to be rebellious, also in his lyrics, but did that not likewise apply to many of Bob’s lyrics?

And to Bunny’s. Yet, looking back over the whole career of Bunny Wailer, now with his passing, I notice some differences with Bob and Peter: he is after all an own artist, with his own style.

DIFFERENCES

I think, however, that it would be interesting analyzing a bit these differences in relation to the “escaping” persona of Bunny.

I know quite something of the work of all three Wailers, and when comparing, I notice that each Wailer has different songwriting styles, vocals, but also themes in lyrics. Since the three were not just founding members of the same band, but also shared the Rastafari faith, and grew up together, those lyrical differences are interesting.

One difference: Bunny sung relatively more songs about music itself and dancing: or specific dance, though Peter and Bob had some such festive, “in the moment” lyrics too.

ROCKERS AND RUB-A-DUB

Musically, Bunny entered more the Rockers era – led by Sly and Robbie and Channel One since the Late-1970s -, referring to a type of Reggae rhythm (added bass kick on the One), that developed outside the Wailers. Even if Bob still lived in the first “Rockers“ years, Bob’s Wailers band kept hanging on to the One Drop basic Reggae patterns at the height of fame, though with some rub-a-dub influences on the latest Bob Marley + the Wailers albums. Bunny, now, was more influenced by Rockers and related Rub-A-Dub patterns, found on some slightly (nondigital) later Dancehall-influenced, yet overall Roots Reggae albums like Rock and Groove.

Self-evidently, as he lived longer, he also could go more with the flow and changes of Jamaican music, including toward (Early) Dancehall. He chose to, actually, including “toasting”/deejaying vocally in his songs since the 1980s, something we did not hear Bob or Peter do as such, who stuck to their fine singing (instead of toasting/deejaying).

LYRICS

Bunny’s first solo album, Blackheart Man, released in 1976, though, followed more on the 1970s Wailers material, and was deep Roots Reggae, with a slight modern mainstream edge. Lyrically, with reference to the Blackheart Man “living like a gypsy, in the lonely part of the country”, “being safe and free in my fig tree”, and a “dreamland”, confirms this “escape/reclusive”response to the (Babylon) system, besides social and spiritual comment.

And yes, he had such “escape” lyrics more than the other Wailers Bob and Peter, the latter discussing more directly social and global affairs. Also the referrences to dancing on music itself in some of Bunny’s lyrics, can be seen as part of that “escape” response to oppression/downpression.

Bunny tended to express social concerns too, but mixed more often with such an “escaping” vibe, rather than a dominant “fighting” or “crying” vibe. Rastafari spiritual themes were also common in Bunny’s lyrics.

He did on the other hand not have many songs on (romantic) love, though his flexible singing voice would fit also these. He does refer to romantic love as part of the escape, though (on the dance floor, “in my dreamland”). In a sense, falling in love with someone, is also an “escape” from an unpleasant reality, without denying that reality, as more “love song” artists like Gregory Isaacs, Dennis Brown, and Ijahman Levi showed beautifully.

Bunny, though, did not have many direct romantic love songs overall, but still some nice ones in crucial moments of Bunny’s career. Notably, one of his early songs for the Wailers – still in the 1960s Ska days – was Dancing Shoes, with the nice poetic lyric “never in this world there’ll be so much love, as between you and me my love”.. And on some later albums, he had a few love songs here and there (e.g. song Another Dance).

Of Burning Spear I once noticed that, unlike some other Reggae artists – he had no “ganja songs”, i.e. on smoking marijuana. Bunny Wailer did prison time for possession of marijuana, in 1967, discussing it in his lyrics. Furthermore, it (ganja/marijuana) does recur here and there overly much throughout his lyrics, a bit less than in lyrics of his fellow-Wailers Bob and Peter, but Bunny made some songs about it. Of course, good ganja (high grade) fits well in an “escape” response, and might well be implied (“inna di dance”). He mentions “high grade” (good quality) ganja smoking in some of his later lyrics.

RHYTHMIC

As an instrumentalist as such, Bunny Wailer remained a percussion player throughout his career, also on all his own albums, such as for his own Solomonic Label. Often he combined this function with other well-known Jamaican studio percussionists as Bongo Herman.

Interestingly, on his 1976 debut album Blackheart Man, Bunny played most of the percussion himself. On later albums he was joined in this by e.g. Bongo Herman, Sky Juice, and others.

This percussionist background explains partly, in my opinion, the different style of Bunny’s songwriting, compared to the other Wailers. Bob had strong, memorable melodies and lines, crafty chord structures, and likewise Peter had good melodies and catchy “hooks” coming, across with his booming voice.

Bunny, on the other hand, had a flexible, soulful singing voice, yet: his singing style on most songs were quite “rhythmic”, somehow guided by the groove, as much “part of it” as leading it. This is a percussive feature, which I also know from my own experience as percussionist. In addition, I think that interest in dancing and percussion intermix. Their relation seems logical, but dance/percussion “mixing” is understood, in my humble opinion, better by rhythmically-specialized percussionists - and maybe trap drummers - than by others, often tending to keep apart playing/music and dance. The latter separation is a Western/Eurocentric influence. The mixing of music and dance, on the other hand, is common in all African cultures, as an anthropological fact, shown partly in Bunny’s musical style.

The sense of rhythm of Bunny was excellent, even playing with various (crossing) rhythms - another percussion influence -, and his songs therefore focused often more on the “groove” than on chord structures and dominant melodies, in which both Bob and Peter were more specialized. Both percussion and dance are – here I go again, haha – suitable ways to “escape” or “ withdraw”, as part of the “escape” response, according to Colin Grant one type of “Black” response in a White Western society.

Added to his strong sense of rhythm, was Bunny’s strong and flexible singing voice, that could be very soulful too, perhaps a bit more so than Bob’s, but less than Peter’s. Bunny’s voice was nice and playful, making even some of his melodically less memorable songs more interesting and “a pleasant ride”. Many of Bunny’s songs, moreover, had a lively, uplifting feel – a reggae party “vibe” -, especially later in his career.

SONGS AND ALBUMS

Overall, he had a lot of strong songs and mostly great to good albums, as well for “listening” as for “dancing” (I tend to combine both..joking), and even some deserved “hits” at the Jamaican dances and abroad.

His 1976 debut album Blackheart Man was Rootsy and somewhat somber, but with good, varied songs. Other 1970s albums like Protest were also very good and Rootsy. Much later, the 1989 album Liberation was another strong Rootsy album, with strong memorable songs like Rise & Shine, and a Rockers feel, differing in that from Blackheart Man, though equally “Rootical” sounding.

The Early Dancehall-influenced albums from the 1980s of Bunny were also good (Rock and Groove/Roots Man Skanking, Rule Dancehall a.o.), rendering catchy club hits.

After 1990, more modern (Dancehall) influences appeared on some of Bunny's albums, that were overall creative and fine, though some here and there a bit simple and repetitive. That is, though, the exception rather than the rule. On some albums, such as Communication from 2000, he combined modern, somewhat digitalized Reggae, with Dancehall (or Ska), but also Hip-Hop influences, such as on songs like Almighty Is A Rappa, part of his recurring “playful experimentation”. Some critics did not like it, but even those “experiments” had a good rhythmic flow, in my opinion.

Inevitably, he covered quite some Wailers songs (even those by Bob) on his albums: some good covers, some a bit unnecessary, but still well done or creatively reworked.

The percussion was on most albums quite varied and creative, as could be expected, as Bunny Wailer was as said both a singer/songwriter and a percussionist.

PERSONAL OPINION

In the Reggae scene, also to me a few times, the question is often asked: “which Wailer do you like most, musically: Bob, Peter, or Bunny?”. I always found it hard to answer this question.

I consider myself a percussionist and rhythm-focussed, so I am tempted to say “Bunny”, having several albums of him I listen regularly. On the other hand it is too simplistic. The strength of the Wailers laid in the combination of different, complementing (rebelling, adapting, and escaping) personalities.

Bob had timeless lyrics - for instance still relevant today, even with this pandemic/plandemic crisis - and good melodies as songwriter, Peter Tosh had a charismatic rebelliousness and catchy songs. Bob Marley was in addition influenced more by white Island boss Chris Blackwell, but indirectly, toward a more slightly “watered down” mainstream sound, but that was hardly Bob’s fault.

Bunny Wailer maintained a more “Jamaican dance” sound, which I at least find attractive.

I moreover personally like the flexible singing voice – the “timbre” as such - of Bunny indeed better than Bob’s voice (who could nonetheless use it well musically), but I also like Peter’s often soulful voice.

Another interesting question, now with Bunny’s passing on to Zion, might finally be: “do I have favourite songs of Bunny Wailer?” Also difficult to answer, to be honest.

Among the songs I can recall now, and that proved for me more memorable, are Fig Tree, Rastaman, Rise & Shine, Free Jah Jah Children, Trouble On The Road Again, while Ballroom Floor has a very nice, “feel good” flow to it, and there are other, lively, and danceable songs that I enjoyed equally..

I probably forgot to mention some, and there are simply too many great or good songs by Bunny Wailer to mention, throughout his varied music career. That defines a great Reggae artist, that has now left us, making him a true Reggae icon and legend.

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.

Babylon

"Babylon" is a term in the vocabulary of Rastafari adherents. It has spread a bit outside of it, though not that much. Not in the sense that Rastafari people use it, anyway.

Of course, the term Babylon refers to the history of Babylon/the Babylonian kingdom, a powerful kingdom mentioned in the Bible, enslaving Israelites, after capturing them. Historians found that the ancient "Babylon" was historically located in what is now Iraq - around the river Eufrate, about 80 km from Bagdad. It has become a source of nationalistic, historical pride in greatness among Iraqi people, including as part of the rhetorics of politicians (like Sadam Hussein), similar to how historical Rome is still viewed in Italy.

The history of Rastafari, and of Afro-Jamaican people, already explains the use of the term, relating to the obvious parallels: Africans were likewise enslaved, after being captured, and brought to another powerful kingdom to work as slaves, like the Israelites in the Bible. These Africans were brought to the "Babylon" of European colonies, and their oppressive systems, since the 16th c.

That same Bible also mentioned other kingdoms and powers, such as Egypt, of course also enslaving Israelites. Maybe it was seen early on by the early Rastas that using the term "Egypt" would be problematic for being an African country, or more abstract: to literally a place on the map, elsewhere than present-day Babylon (Europe/the West and its American colonies) the term normally refers too.

The long history of Babylon - which can be found elsewhere on the Internet - is in itself insightful. It represents - in a sense - also the history of big cities, urbanness. In certain epochs - at the peak of its power, such as between 1770 and 1670 BC - Babylon was the biggest city of the whole world, and according to some historians possibly the very first city in history with more than 200.000 inhabitants.

BIBLE

Its figuring in the Bible is also interesting, even confirming Babylon's metaphorical use in the Bible. Babylon was an enslaving power of Israelites, but also the counter-kingdom against God and godliness: immoral, corrupt, and evil. Due to these Biblical referrences, including about the Babylonian captivity, - relatively many in the Book of Daniel, by the way - also in the Jewish tradition, Babylon represents for present-day Jews still oppressors and hostile nonbelievers, while in the Christian world it came to symbolize vane worldiness (i.e. greed, vanity, lust) and evil.

By comparison, Babylon is as such referred to much less in the Quran and Islam, and mostly related to stories about Abraham and thus older Judaic stories. This referrence is partly neutral (geographical), and partly condemning (like in the Bible), contrasting the "magic" Babylon was known for, as well as te worldly power of king Nimrod, to the true Abrahamic God, in the same vein as the Bible.

RASTAFARI

So, one might argue, the symbolic use of "Babylon" in these major religions (notably Judaism and Christianity) is comparable to its use in Rastafari terminology. In that sense it follows on the Biblical influence on Rastafari, since the movement arose in Jamaica in the 1930s. This includes, though, a "reinterpretation" of the Bible from an African perspective. Terminology like "Babylon" and "Zion" (Sodom and Gomorrah, walls of Jericho, and more) are part of that, as well as many general referrences to Bible texts, stories, and psalms. As said, reinterpreted by Africans in a (former) colonial and downtrodden situation.

This reinterpretation is quite interesting, I find. The Rastafari, I contend, "amplified" the term Babylon both culturally and philosophically. It "updated" it also for the present time. More on this later.

The meaning of "abstract evil", as Babylon has in Christianity, or "enemy oppressors" in Judaism, both fed into the Rastafari definition of the term "Babylon". In fact, it is an excellent example of the Hegelian "thesis-antithese- then synthesis" principle. The Rastafari use of the term "Babylon" therefore can be seen as a "synthesis" of earlier Biblical refrences, shaped by the history of the African diaspora, including slavery, oppression, and poverty in the present.

Some say, Rastas mean with Babylon really only "the West", i.e. Europe and North America: the modern, wealthy, economic powers in this world, whereas some associate the term, specifically with "capitalism", and capitalist exploitation, world wide, but dominated by the West.

The truth is, that there is no "one authorative" definition among the Rastafari of "Babylon" as term, mainly because Rastafari is not a strict, rigidly organized or centralized religion, and many not even call it a "religion", but rather a "(spiritual) movement", loosely connected.

Many Reggae lyrics, especially since the 1970s, express Rastafari ideas, and therefore the term "Babylon" recurs a lot in Reggae lyrics. In many, many lyrics, too much to count. It spread that Rastafari term internationally, especially since Bob Marley's rise to fame in the course of the 1970s.

A common term among Rastafari adherents, and in (Roots) Reggae lyrics, its use is not only broad, but also "wider" and more varied than one might think.

I find intriguing, and almost beautiful, didactically, how "expressive" and communicative" the term Babylon is within the Rastafari movement and ideas. It brings the message across, including nuances, in a single term that seems "vague", but in reality captures all dimensions. This adds to its deep, philosophical meaning. It relates to the relatively free and "loose" and not-so-rigid structure of the Rastafari movement, when compared to "mainstream", over-organized (a personal opinion) religions, connected with dominant power structures (Christianity, Islam etc.).

Its figuring in a variety of Reggae lyrics include "Babylon" referring to "oppressive authorities", sometimes quite specific state forces or police officers, sometimes a level above that (political structure, economics). In other lyrics even levels above that are referred to as "Babylon": evil systems keeping poor people down, and fighting against the Rasta people, not just locally in Jamaica, but worldwide. It then represents a "system", without an explicit geographical reference.

GEOGRAPHY

I contend, however, that the interesting about the Rastafari use of "Babylon" is that, even as literally referring to a "system", of e.g. capitalist exploitation, it suggests geography indirectly. Being an Afrocentric movement, the Rastafari see "Babylon" as the enemy of African people, as Rastafari seeks the upliftment of and for many repatriation to Africa, in the line of Marcus Garvey's teachings.. Babylon thus implicity also represents "the West", with its developed and invading (mostly capitalist) economic dominance, going against Africa-focussed Rastafari values in Jamaica itself, as well as increasingly intruding and invading the African continent itself, with corrupting effects on original cultures.

This is the unique, amplified meaning of "Babylon" in the Rastafari definition. Its utility lies precisely in its "vagueness" or, otherwise said, multi-interpretability: from a "place" that you can leave, to a state of mind, an (oppressive) system, authorities, confusion, and corruption in a more abstract sense. It is also associated with "captivity", and therefore contrasted with freedom.

COPING WITH BABYLON

The breadth and depth of this definition of Babylon also is discussed in the 2007 documentary Coping With Babylon, including the different (often personal) interpretations and definitions by Rastafari adherents (including artists), either specific or general. Some in the documentary perhaps simplify its meaning, as relating it to one world power, the US, or New York, at the time of the documentary involved in a controversial invasion of Iraq. Broader - deeper - definitions also got a place in the documentary, though.

Similarly, in Reggae lyrics - of which I heard a lot throughout my life - Babylon is used clear, but also wide: Babylon the state/authorities in Jamaica, Babylon system, policemen, a place keeping you captive and limited (trampling rights), as well as an international phenomenon. Recurring is "Babylon" standing for the modern "Western world", including capitalist exploitation and modern technology.

The Biblical allusions to the ancient Babylon, refer to greed and lust. Especially regarding the latter, in most Reggae lyrics and Rastafari utterances, another Biblical loanword "Sodom and Gomorrah" tends to be used more often. The connection with "confusion" of Babylon kingdom (the story of the tower and the many languages) in the Bible, is however still maintained among many Rastafari. Also in the documentary Coping With Babylon some associate Babylon with "confusion": confusing righteous people.

ETYMOLOGICALLY

While linguists are not sure about "Babylon's" etymological origins, a connection with the Semitic term for "gate" (Bab) seems confirmed. In present-day standard Arabic, the word for "gate" is pronounced as Bawwaba.

Some historians point out, though, that this was a later term/meaning added to an older, perhaps even nonsemitic place name. The added "El" refers in the Semitic tradition to "God", as known of course in many Biblical names (Daniel, Gabriel, Michael, Elijah, Ezequiel, Israel, etcetera), though it might have been meant plural in the case of Babel/Babylon ("gate of the gods").

The informal term "babbelen" in Dutch (for: chatting) seems to derive from this Biblical story, and there are similar examples in other European languages. The term "Bable" for a dialect in NW Spain (Asturias , northern León) might be one, but that might be coincidence (formal "Castilian" Spanish would after all be "habla" - speech - with the first H unpronounced).

DEFINITIONS

In this by the way recommendable documentary Coping With Babylon, a Jamaican scholar on Rastafari (Barry Chevannes) at the University of the West Indies, justly pointed at the wide, varied meaning with which Babylon is used among the Rastafari: a wider powerful, economic system, exploiting poor people, African people, and all its collaborators. A lot of "wrongs" in this world fit in this in general, yet - at the same time - its meaningful and specific enough.

In the song Who Art Babylon, Reggae singer Ricky Grant specifically addresses how to "define" the term Babylon, rather than using it in his lyrics in some ways (as many Reggae artists do). Grant sings that Babylon consists of: "not only oppressors", but also "the clothes you wear etc.": i.e. the wider economic system we are all made to depend on, and "all things of vanity"..

Burning Spear in Mek We Yadd (and some other songs as well, like This Man) sings as lyrics: "in a time like now, any man could be Babylon..", pointing thus at the psychological "collaborators" (to use a war-time term) with an oppressive system, even if not directly recognizable as such. Indirectly referring to the "confusion" associated with Babylon.

When I was in Jamaica (in 2006 and 2008), I heard differing definitions among Rasta-adherents and -sympathizers. A Jamaican said to me: "Jamaica is nice. Not much Babylon here.. there is still some here and there, though".. Away from the geographical - Jamaica being a former slave plantation island where Africans were forcibly brought to - it has here come to mean something like an ideology, evil influence, or universal "economic corruptive force" that is everywhere, but can and should be avoided, wherever you are.

Others, like many Reggae singers, use it as such too (corrupting system), but also often as "place", "location": "down here in Babylon", "leave Babylon" (and go to Zion/Africa).

The common recurrence of the expression "Babylon must fall (or Go Down)" in many Reggae lyrics, combines several meanings: that of a wicked place, as well as of a wicked system, "falling" both physically and, more, metaphorically, i.e. its power stopped and broken.

BOB MARLEY

All these varied meanings are also heard throughout the lyrics of the internationally best-known Reggae artist: Bob Marley.

Some, like myself, have pointed at some commercializing aspects of Marley's music, led by Island boss and producer Chris Blackwell, aimed at catering to White tastes (openly stated as goal by Chris Blackwell, himself a White Jamaican).

This was noticeable in the aspects Blackwell had most influence on (production, "sound" etc., instrument choice), yet, overall, Bob Marley kept his authenticity. Muiscally in part, but even more so lyrically. Admirably, Bob did not compromise his message, and continued with his rebellious message against oppression of African and poor people, standing up for rights, Black and African pride. Criticizing and fighting of "Babylon" was certainly part of this.

Maybe not all people who got to know Bob's songs worldwide knew immediately what Rasta people mean with "Babylon". It does not seem to be a "racial" reference, maybe helping the spread of the music among easily scared White people. If Bob used "white racists" instead of Babylon in some of his lyrics, some would stay away of Bob's music. Yet, these are the fans one should not want to have, I argue.

However, this was neither a "mincing" of words or a deliberate cowardice eschewing "code word" Bob used, to not offend his potential public (or to use an uglier word "market"), or to not thwart producer Blackwell's commercial goals. No, Bob Marley with the common use of "Babylon" just followed the common Rastafari terminology, as it got known before him, and simply followed that spiritual/rebellious tradition.

Like other Rastafari adherents, he also found that Babylon wickedness goes beyond mere racial features, but is a mentality and system, albeit racially unequal. The fact that Bob was half-white (he had a White father) also relates to this, but also full-black Jamaican Reggae artists, of course use Babylon beyond mere race.

CURRENT TIMES

Scholar Berry Chevannes in the documentary Coping With Babylon says something interesting about the use of Babylon, as I mentioned before, pointing out that Rastafari adherents do not just live in the past, but go with their times, and refer to current, contemporary times and events too, thus in a sense re-applying and updating the term "Babylon" to present-day circumstances and situations.

Here it becomes even more intellectually challenging, I think.

Some questions I would like to ask, in relation to this, questions I tried to answer for myself.

2020

The fact that I write this in January 2021, short after a disrupted, odd "coronavirus"/pandemic-dominated year in the whole world, is certainly relevant in this regard. The official story of a bat virus spreading to humans causing a later international pandemic, mankind needeed to confront jointly, was naively believed quite internationally.

Over time, this was questioned more and more by critical thinkers. First these (like David Icke) were considered as fanatical "conspiracy thinkers" who tend to mistrust everything politicians say (justly or not). Yet over time, many reasonable, nuanced - and even medically and scientifically knowledgeable people - came to the conclusion that "things do not add up".

From the natural origins among bats (if so, why does the Chinese state obstruct research into how the virus came about, and the relation to a lab in Wuhan?), to the use of a "pandemic" for economic, elitist goals, with an undemocratic, unexplainable role of a nonelected, nonmedical entrepreneur as Bill Gates as in time main funder of the World Health Organization. This raised in my opinion just suspicion.

Later figures about the actually more limited mortality of this Covid-19 virus, as it got known, than first stated, especially as the virus matured after April 2020. In fact, regarding mortality, it got to similar levels as a medium- to severe flu virus in previous years.

The draconian "lockdown" policies international governments chose supposedly to halt the pandemic throughout the year, - with devastating effects - seemed absurdly dictatorial and disproportionate, in light of these objective facts. The damage to economy, and culture!, and the increase of poverty it caused were even criminal, with the "remedy" proving to be much worse than the cure.

2020 was the first year in modern history that "healthy" people were massively confined/locked in at home for health reasons, with the excuse of a new infectious virus. This was - to make matters worse - presented often in a patronizing manner, as if citizens were all children. The fact that in some countries, like Spain, people could not leave their own house for periods (not even across the street) under threat of stationed police officers, night curfews, the closing down of all clubs, restaurants, theatres (from one day to the other) in many countries, banning of free social gatherings, all led to an absurd dystopia in many countries across the world (to differing degrees), only supported by a stimulated, media-wide irrational fear (for a relatively mild virus!).

Moreover, the fact that in many poor countries, the "stay home" orders also disregarded (or ignored) that many people have to leave their house, simply to eat, to survive.

More people died because of all these policies, than ever would have of Covid-19, is the sad conclusion, I am afraid we must come to after 2020.

This is gettng discussed now openly, also because of increased open objections of (imparcial, uncorrupted) doctors and scientists. Despite increased dictatorial tendencies in many countries calling themselves "democratic" (even here in the Netherlands, where I write this from), there is still a free press and internet, even if now more harassed and bothered by (even paid) proponents of these corona policies.

Let's say it is a "plandemic", as some say. Evidence seems to suggest this, but let's keep the question a bit open. If it is indeed a "plandemic", would the Rastafari people call it (part of) "Babylon" too?

The ones benefitting seem to confirm that it is indeed a "Babylon plan" as Rastafari would define it. A rich economic elite, rich White people in Western countries, controlling most wealth in this world, are connected to the World Health Organization (WHO), and these policies. Bill Gates, but also Rockefeller (starting the WHO once), and others, sometimes are even mentioned condemningly in Reggae lyrics. Sizzla spoke of "Rockefeller handcuffing the world" in his song Babylon Judgement from 2016, a bit - even very much! - predicting the current situation.

In fact, many Reggae lyrics seems to have predicted this odd 2020 "pLandemic" (as it can be seen), referring to wealthy elites, o/downpression, curtailing popular movement, trampling rights, limiting freedoms, of poor Jamacans, Africans, but in fact all poor people. In fact, already since the 1970s.

This is all defined more or less os "Babylon" or "Babylonians", in Reggae lyrics, referring to systems, politicians, elites, inequality, injustice, a.o..

ISMS

Critics of the corona policies - seeming to have the facts more and more on their side - compare them sometimes with Fascism, others with (Chinese-style) Communism, both totalitarian systems, disregarding individual rights. The lab in Wuhan, and the annoying secrecy of the corrupt Chinese state - and their links with Bill Gates and the WHO - seem to support this, while many aspects and policies once in place in Fascist states (under dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco) have remarkable - and frighteningly - many similarities with present "corona" policies and restrictions, trampling of human rights etcetera. So in my opinion, such comparisons are not totally out of order, nor nonsensical. A good reminder of history.

CUBA

I asked these questions myself years before this "corona crisis". I went several times to Communist-ruled Cuba, between 2001 and 2006. As a Spanish-speaker, I got to know and talk with many Cubans, and made some close friends. I more or less "integrated" in Cuban society, you might say.

Cuba was known as dictatorship, and indeed, there were no "open" elections, and Fidel Castro's rule as president unquestioned and (presented as) unchangeable, when I went there in 2001-2006. In line with this, there were certainly totalitarian aspects in Cuban society, including censorship, "state snitches" (informers) on the neighbourhood level, "informing" the government (unless paid, so corruption too) of unwanted behaviour (including allowing foreign influences), that all Cubans knew to be careful with, especially when having (intimate) relationships with foreigners.

On the other hand, there were during periods of Socialist rule in Cuba after 1959 some positive changes, that seemed to make society more equal, especially for poorer people, including Afro-Cubans.

This came with a price, though: the limited freedom of speech and of choice, had more to do with Fascism than with claimed "Socialism". As Bob Marley sang: "Never make a politician grant you a favour.. they will only want to control you forever.." (song Revolution).

Also, the beneficial role Castro's communist rule had for Afro-Cubans must be put in perspective, as Cuban authors like Carlos Moore (whom I discussed on this blog, in 2016) - once translator for Castro, later critical of him and exiled - , and Castro's, for Castro's "implicit Eurocentrism and racism".

Indeed, despite some equalizing policies in the early stages, white or Euro-Cubans maintained their favourable position. Also the so "equal" Communist leaders and party members were and still are disproportionately, dominantly white/of European of descent or near-white, in a country with a population of over 70% partly or mainly of African descent. A discrepancy Malcolm X also noted, when he visited Cuba, among other things to meet Fidel Castro.

I noticed all this. Added to this were my experiences of the many controlling police officers on the streets (and the said informers and snitches), and stories told by Cubans, of sudden, random arrests on racial grounds, often with the excuse of crushing prostitution. An Afro-Cuban woman with an obviously non-Cuban White, male foreigner/tourist got in the danger zone, though haphazardly, as the police at times turned a blind eye to the obvious - if you want to call it that - prostitution (some call it: "sex tourism"), perhaps because of the needed tourism income for the Cuban economy. Fidel Castro even referred to this sex tourism frivolously: "because of our good health system, our prostitutes are healthy and clean", while the official communist party line in theory opposed it, as all "private businesses" (in whatever form) ..

Having noted all this repression and hypocricy - and the poverty and limited freedom of many Cubans - I had to conclude, being already a Reggae fan then: "this is also Babylon.. just another ISM than Capitalism or Fascism", but similarly repressing humanity and freedom, as so many Reggae lyrics lament.

So, "Babylon" includes alls "ISMS" - as also referred to in Reggae lyrics (often as "isms and schisms"), with "ism" being in reality a linguistic translation of "system": capital is money, capitalism a system, "commune" is a community, communism a system, etcetera.

BACK TO 2020

So is this Covidism or Coronaism/Coronism of 2020 more like Communism (with an influence of a corrupt Chinese state), Capitalism (obvious vaccine company/pharmaceutical interests, Bill gates as entrepreneur), or like Fascism (totalitarian, limiting rights and freedoms, cultural destruction, with "lockdowns" possibly having been "wet dreams" once of dictators like Hitler and Mussolini)? In fact: these dictators have enacted during their reign policies in that "lockdown" direction, e.g. Mussolini once suddenly (by command) forbade "nightlife and clubs" in Italy - they say due to a Vatican influence -, effective immediately, like those lockdowns today..

All these historical comparisons with earlier political "isms" make sense to differing degrees, but they all can be placed more beauitifully and sensibly under the umbrella of "Babylon", as the Rastafari use this term. This shows clearly the strength and utility of the term "Babylon", also for present times, as scholar Barry Chevannes hinted at: the "same old Babylon", as it is referred to in some Reggae lyrics.. Nothing new under the sun.

CORONISM

This "coronism" is quite new and fresh, and the debate surrounding it quite polarized and confused. As a friend of mine said it: "if it is a wicked "plan" (instead of an actual pandemic), it is a very smart one, also psychologically". "Smart" in the wrong sense of the word: trampling physical integrity rights, but at the same time calling for 6 feet/1,5 m distance. Isolating old people in hospitals, yet claiming we do it for them, referring to the love for our old ones ("think of your old mother or grandmother") seems a cheap trick, but is remarkably effective, especially since many citizens feared the new virus.

An infectious diseases has for "Babylon downpressors" furthermore the advantage that it gives an excuse or pretext to outlaw "social gatherings" and thus unwelcome protests, joined protests, popular uprisings, etcetera.. A smart, crafty plan, indeed.

That is probably also the reason why it is not recognized as such unanimously. Even if it is "typically" oppressive Babylon and a PLANdemic (not a real one anymore) as (like me) some argue, the "health policy" focus is effective in scaring people, or convincing of "keeping healthy", and therefore of good intentions of governments. This is evident internationally, in many countries (oddly even securing support in some countries with very repressive lockdown policies, such as Spain), but also in Jamaica itself.

JAMAICAN ARTISTS

Buju Banton's recent outburst against "masks" against corona, and his calling for "freeing his/the people" seemed sincere to me, but was criticized even by some other Rastafari adherents, not just paid or corrupted government officials and politicians. Even Buju's own daughters were used against him (one of them a JLP politician), calling his remark against forced masks "unwise" and irresponsible.. The facts: there is no scientific proof that those proscribed nonmedical masks actually protect against virusses.. Facts do not seem to matter anymore, apparently, in this polarized debate.. Fear does..

Another Rastafari-adhering reggae artist was from the start critical of "coronism/covidism".. Already around March and April - when much of the world was still trying to figure out what went on -, that one being Chronixx..

A relatively young, talented, and by 2020 quite popular Reggae artists, Chronixx had several big hits in Jamaica and in the international Reggae scene. His nice Skanking Sweet became almost a club or summer anthem in 2019. In relation to a "charity event" in 2020 for then spreading Corona/Covid-19 pandemic problems, he called it a (media) "hype" in which he not wished to participate, preferring to release his music on his own terms.

Especially remarkable is Chronixx pioneering "(media) hype" conclusion: it took many, even university-edcated intellectuals in the West, several months before they drew (in other terms) the same conclusion about corona-related policies.. Wisdom of the Rastaman? Knowing what "Babylon" is all about and being prepared? Who knows?

Also other artists, like Sizzla, Lutan Fyah, or Tanya Stephens began to critique harsh corona-related policies or the "hype" , especially as " lockdowns" also meant no or limited "live music", and thus affecting their life choice, livelihood, and sense of purpose directly.

Some of these expressed this directly or indirectly in some songs, of course in the Rastafari tradition of social comment, including references to, yes, "Babylon", such as in the song Nuh Trust Babylon by Lutan Fyah..

All good and well, but overall there seems to be quite some popular support for the corona policies in Jamaica as well. That someone like me, or other critics, do not understand this, does nog negate this support. Protecting one's health and avoiding deadly diseases seem a good idea - also to me - , so maybe for that reason one is less psychologically inclined to question the logic or efficacy of governments, even if negatively affecting one's life and goals. "This is what needs to be done now.. later when it is "fixed" (vaccination?), we'll party again", is a common opinion I heard expressed in many countries, also here in the Netherlands. Mostly by people not exactly experts in "virusses", I must say, but governments are advised by virologists, claiming to be trustworthy and knowledgeable.

There are for these reasons some, but not very much critical lyrics in Reggae, yet, about the coronacrisis specifically, or the ill-informed (and also not proeven to work against virusses) "lockdown" policies so many governments choose to put in place, even if they remind of "captivity" and colonialism for many Caribbean people.

2021

Unfortunately, these corona policies have been taken to the year 2021, so maybe more lyrics in Reggae will be released, criticizing them.

In the Netherlands (and several other countries) the year 2021 started with a continued "lockdown", keeping all bars and clubs closed, restaurants only for "take-away", museums and theatres closed, and with the city of Amsterdam at a Saturday night almost a ghost town, safe small groups of walking friends passing by closed, now unlit bars and clubs, and a few cars of which many were police cars.. This felt to me like a police state, a dictatorship, but also like a ghost town. The latter was not the case in an actual "police state" I have been to, namely Cuba. Always liveliness, music, joy, people, and, okay, also many men in police costumes between all this.

Amsterdam is colder, especially now in winter time, playing a role, but the nightlife always went on. Now its dead. This for a virus now hardly more deadly than a common flu in previous years (Infection Fatality Rate of Covid-19 now around 0,23%, science says, flu just a few years ago around 0,21%), and with hospitals in the Netherlands seeming now capable of dealing with extra patients (according to hospital workers themselves).

"That was a very aggressive vaccine marketing campaign", I recently joked to someone about the last year 2020.

A serious joke, because it is also a guess of mine of why these repressive and draconian policies are still in place, and so much of the civil rights and freedoms limited in the process, often even ressembling Fascist dictatorships, or what I heard my Spanish mother tell me of her growing up in the Franco-ruled Spain that she left around 1966. Ressembling a dictatorship, or "going towards it", which is equally bad and worrisome.

THE BEST WORD

For the sake of argument (others may differ in opinion), I will state now boldly that what was a mild pandemic up to April, became an abused PLANdemic, with other reasons and goals than health.

Capitalist-Communism China-style? Old US/Western merciless exploitative capitalism (Big Pharma, etcetera)? A return to Fascism?.. New World Order? Great Reset (even a public goal)? Elements of all these, combined?

Difficult to tell or define as yet, although the expression "Isms and Schisms", by Rastas, captures its essence well.

What's more, "Babylon" in my opinion adequately and fully describes what is wrong with these (Babylonian) international corona policies.

It is in this case not - as the saying goes - "for lack of a better word"..; rather, in my opinion, the Rastafari term "Babylon" is the best word to describe the entire complexity of this current situation and corona-related crisis, including its historical context, spiritual meanings, and the other connotations the term "Babylon" has, and which I have discussed in this essay..