Russell Brand's 'Revolution': a review

For some reasons, I wanted to read the book ‘Revolution’ (2014) by Russell Brand, recently. Of course because I knew the author, mainly from his online videos and “podcasts” I saw around the period 2020, when the world got in the “corona craze”. I recall him being one of the few dissonant voices, in this seemingly massively shared fanaticism about a supposedly dangerous virus, criticizing the veracity of the corona “hype”. Justly, in my informed opinion.

Brand stood in that sense out positively as alternative thinker, and - along with others I encountered a bit before - helped to break down the foolish corona narrative, and wider elite policies it was part of. Awakening more people.

PODCASTS ONLINE

So I watched some of his “podcasts”, maybe seeking some “confirmation”. Following confirmation, comes – hopefully – edification and education, but for that next psychological stage, there were many critical thinkers in the alternative media, I could reliably count on. Not only to further analyze what the hell was behind that imposed global corona hype – that was insightful, but got boring and repetitive later. Still some remained critical and came with new insightful information about how later, current global elite policies (warfare, energy, climate), are part of the same Agenda 2030.

Me myself, I am not really a “political animal”, so also that I took in small doses, but still try to keep myself informed about the alternative movement’s critique of elite policies, and different perspectives.

CONFIRMATION

Brand thus played a role in my earlier “confirmation” step, but only because I lacked time to continue watching his podcasts. He was – moreover – often a bit too “busy” and “frantic” to my temperament. Still, I pleasantly remember I agreed with some things he said, often with some humour.

While I was following other things and people – including selecting others of the many, many podcasters – I later found out Brand underwent a change, others in the alternative movement deplored. It seemed even condemned as if it were a “betrayal” by David Icke: Brand became a born-again Christian, returned to mainstream Christianity. With all its conservative, “powers that be” connotations, that was ill-understood, and seen even as hypocritical. Criticizing the powers that be, while joining them.. something like that.

I am not sure whether it is just some spiritual relief he personally sought, but separate from his continuing social criticism, or if it is indeed “betrayal” of some sort.

Be that as it may, Russell Brand as a person I found intriguing enough, also because I remembered he talked at least around 2020 vividly and with some wit. Enough to read his book about “Revolution”.

REVOLUTION

The theme intrigues too, but “revolution” is not by definition a positive term – maybe only for the Cuban Communist regime, and some other such regimes in the world – but it just means “radical change”, even a “total turn-around or restart”, of a situation, radical, not gradually as in an “evolution”.

Knowing Brand a bit, though, I imagined his ideas about a “revolution” could be something even for me desirable, toward democratization and freedom “of the people”.

Indeed it was. His anti-elite criticism became clear from the start in the book, but not just the vague “state”, or abstract politics or governments, but concrete manifestations in our daily lives, notably consumerism.

Brand relates about his past life, including addiction, and fortune and fame: apparently he was a well-known actor in the US, while British: I missed that, I must admit. When I saw his first podcasts around 2020, I did not even know what he actually did in the UK or elsewhere (stand up comic?). I just noticed he said some sensible things –read: I agreed with.

His rich, “jet set life” as well as his escapist addictions (alcohol a.o.) taught him lessons about what really gives satisfaction, aided in this – he tells – by Yoga, meditation, and related thinking. Fair enough. Everyone has his own way. I found it in nature and African “dance religions”, and eventually Rastafari.

Brand looked spiritually a bit more to India, I more to Africa and the Caribbean, but that’s okay.

I largely agreed with him in this book, just like I did with his earlier “Left-wing” podcasts: against big business, their political allies (“big politics”), greedy capitalists, consumerism, and those participating in it.

ELITES

Such elites – he states – control the masses of the population “the people” with confusion and binding them to their economy without input (modern capitalist slavery).

Again, the “confirmation” modus entered me, because I knew all this already before. Even before 2020, I knew more or less what he described, partly because I studied a lot of human (political) history, including e.g. colonial history. So not “mind-blowingly” new to me – the notion that a wealthy and powerful elite wants to remain like that, therefore keeps down and binds the masses.. I knew that already. I still found pleasantly “confirming” that someone agrees with me, putting some rest in my mind. More like relaxing and sitting down when tired, than an inspired thrill of excitement. Still pleasant, though, and interesting to read about from someone who is from another country (UK), and had another life than me.

PERSONALITY

Does Brand’s personality and character traits also differ from mine, despite sharing some social views? From what he writes, I think partly.

He seems more extrovert than me – loudly addressing strangers in unknown places, lacking shyness. He also seemed more “flexible” – or “easily affected” – than I think I am. Empty buckets go with every wind, while I was already as a child more steadfast, often quite skeptical and doubtful about what people – even adults - around me said or did.

For better or worse, since young, several people told me I have a “strong personality”, people who studied psychology, but also family members, ex-girlfriends, colleagues, concluded as much.. for better or worse. I take it as a complement – “a strong personality” - , though, even if I am not fully sure of its significance. I experienced it does not make you many friends, to put it one way. Empty buckets are after all more useful.. ha!

Even as a youth, I was at times skeptical about “fashions” and “trends”. Sure, some things seemed cool and fun to me for a while, but if someone followed a fashion I found nonsensical, I tended to let that know, losing even some potential friends in the process. I just liked to think for myself, and go my own way, I guess.

Brand seems more adaptive, and more of a “social animal”, which need not be bad or morally deplorable. Even in me, there is a “social animal” somewhere. In the case of Brand – though – he gave me the feeling that he was insecure, not knowing what he was doing, thrown off-balance by lust and greed – and insecurity – doing regrettable or “ugly” things. The insecurity he shows in his name-dropping, as well as in his image building of a cool guy somehow “above it all”. We all have an ego – me too -, so I get that too: keeping face.

However, the “failure” trope, such as in Woody Allen movies – the Jewish “schlemiel” story tradition – is at times a welcome change to such boastful “I got it all under control” attitude.. No you don’t, say e.g. those Woody Allen movies. We’re all searching losers, who can fail and make mistakes. That’s closer to the truth: we’re only human.

Again, caressing one’s own ego is maybe more deplorable, but also very human, and that makes him more accessible. If you lived some life like I did, you learn that people who uphold a rigid, “righteous” image, showing no weak sides, tend to be, well, “wicked” imposters. Often with a (blue collar, white collar, or street) criminal past. In high and low places..

So, I could appreciate the sincerity of Brand in this book (addiction problems, admitting his mistaken attractions). Not total sincerity, though. He escapes through his life philosophy about a more just society (“revolution”). This is after all the book’s theme. Also a way to escape his own psychological doubts, but that is in a way also endearingly human.

INSPIRING EXAMPLES

Interesting is how he refers to different philosophers, philosophies, books, persons, or (international) historical epochs, he stumbled upon, and found relevant. Most I knew already, but not everything, and he puts it – combines them - in another light, adding thus analytical value.

His spiritual ideas were at the time of this book more in the Yoga (kundalini) and Hindus spheres, but with references to “God” as well. He mixes this well in, I must say, with his general message to make his point: how can people regain control of their own lives, from the economic and political elite. An economic and political elite on top, keeping the majority of “common” people in today’s modern (somewhat moderate) wage and debt slavery.

Politics and elections are also a façade, serving the maintenance and strengthening of this wealthy elite, Brand also concluded, also to explain why he never votes in any elections.

COVID

Mind you, this 2014 book was written years before the “covid hype” since 2020, during which those same elites, showed another absurd, yet cruel, side. Politicians in most countries followed orders and the corona playbook of the elite, as if it were a military drilling. Vaccines/injections were promoted globally, along with harsh social measures and restrictions, including war-time (and or: "prison-like") measures like lockdowns and curfews. During an evening curfew in Amsterdam (starting at 21:00, later 22:00) I remembered staring at my front door from inside: if I walk through that door, I will be breaking the law, I realized. I felt weirdly imprisoned.

The president of Tanzania of the time, John Magufuli, “did not get the memo” – or was truly rebellious enough -, - and criticized/ignored corona policies in 2020 - so was gotten rid of. They say he died of “covid”.. Oh, irony: the same disease against which he found policies nonsensical. Of course, I do not believe that he died of that. Interests are too big. Before I get into legal trouble, I’ll leave it at that, just my opinion, haha. He died – anyway – in Late March 2021, and was conveniently replaced by a more pious (scarfed muslima) and especially more “compliant” president. Just coincidence.

SOLUTIONS

Brand in this book and I thus seem to have the same enemy. Some other ideas (due to my more Left-wing background) I also share with him, or partly. We also share anarchist views.

“It takes a revolution to make a solution”, Bob Marley sang, so what about the solution to this inequality problem of elite dominance, Brand has to offer?

Do they make sense? I think so. Direct, small-scale democracy, in self-organized communities, with no top-down rule. Self-rule, owning the production means, as in anarcho-socialist views. That’s more or less his proposal.

ANARCHISM

Indeed, Brand sees the anarchist experiments during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) – which general Franco unfortunately won – as good, working example. In parts of Spain, like Catalonia, there were also left-wing anarchists, among the socialists, or moderate democrats, and others (the Republicans) opposing Franco’s Right-wing, Fascist coup. For a period during the war in “republican” areas , everything was made communal and “popular”, even bars. No more bosses and owners. This loose and chaotic approach led to conflicts with more structured Communists in Catalonia itself, causing division within the “Left” and among Republicans. Sadly, it also meant a weaker, less united front against Franco’s troops, who were more militarily prepared and experienced.

The anarcho-socialist movement – and anarchism in general - was stronger in Spain than in Northern Europe. The reason for that – as historians point out – is that while places like England, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, industrialized relatively early and stronger, Southern Europe remained longer in agrarian stages, with limited industry, thus less “factory-like” structures, as shaped Communism and Socialism (and trade unionism) in Northern Europe. A freer idea of popular freedom arose, so you will, beyond in-factory, worker-friendly favours.

Russell Brand, speaking from the UK, being the first industrialized nation of this world (financed by colonialism), realizes that in the UK a lot has to change to realize this.

COMPASSION AND HOPE

He shows compassion and optimism with some elite members – as ultimately human and unhappy with the skewed situation -, quoting Che Guevara, who said that many elite people of power will defend their interests only to a point, but will give up as society no longer rewards them. Thus making the revolution victorious for all in the end.

Good to dream, but is it realistic? A long way to go, to say the least. Giving up one’s generationally built wealth like that, seems not very realistic to me. Some will hold on to it stronger than one might think. Millions or billions (money and acres) one possesses in this world, ideally (in their mind) go to their children, their offspring. Not to “society” as Brand’s revolution foresees. It is almost an identity – used to one’s own family power – that is defended at all costs. Historically shaped elite positions, connected to pride, ego, survival (the reptilian brain reflex), superiority delusion.. probably all that, but either way stubborn.

This explains “controlling” corona and climate policies, other global control increases (secret services, NATO, WHO, EU), the military-industrial complex, the banking system, international, economic “oil”-related conflicts,..

INTERNET AGE

This expanded more - with some seeming "panic" - especially when information became more freely available, historically: the rise and spread of Internet, since roughly the 1990s. Too many common people came to know too much. Too much free knowledge.

This also shows in the recent increase in censorship even in Western so-called democracies, including calls to limit free access to Internet, cunningly disguised behind “ID” or “protection” arguments.

This increased however strongly after this 2014 book by Brand, so understandable he does not mention this, but he does see Internet as potentially democratizing for common people. It was already corrupted by commercial parties (thus: economic elites) and consumerism – wanting your money for their products – but in recent years political parties try the same, now wanting your obedience..

REVOLUTIONS GONE WRONG

A good point, Brand repeats throughout his book, is that well-meant popular revolutions can go wrong, as an elite often just replaces another one, as history showed in several instances. A “hegemon” shift, nothing more, not benefitting the masses of people. The Russian and Chinese Revolutions, and other “communist” revolutions soon degenerated into totalitarian, oppressive regimes, to several degrees, with new, hypocritical elites. Including Cuba, I am sad to say, from my own travel experience.. Even without US economic “bullying” this would often have occurred: ego, hidden interests, nepotism, etcetera. Again, the excluded masses, expected to work for an elite.

In the case of Cuba, someone like Carlos Moore (an Afro-Cuban refugee), even saw a racial/cultural component, as Fidel Castro (whom Moore once worked for as translator, before his disappointment with the Cuban Revolution) had - according to him - no affinity with Afro-Cuban culture, showing in limiting, repressive policies. The oppressive treatment of Tibet and Uygurs by Communist China are other cases in point.

Aware of this danger, Brand among other things takes what he calls the “Spanish revolution”: periods of localized, anarchist rule in parts of Spain, during the Spanish civil war (1936-39), as main example to follow.

Brand does not really believe in “nations”, favouring a world of truly democratic and local, self-ruled communities, with “bigger government” or “economics” only having temporal, “admin” functions, as he calls it – for specific purposes - , with no lasting social power.

CAVEATS

A nice theory, though there are some things I think one should be aware of, in this idyllic, naïve picture painted. Humans will be humans, often still with big ego’s, and many insecure men (and some women) would still like to dominate, only on a smaller scale. Personal ego’s, but also other inequalities (race, gender, background) might persist in such groups. Women’s emancipation and equality seems reached in some Western, liberal countries, but in many parts of the world, yet also in many male minds in the Western world, women are still “second-class citizens” to men.

Also: do all people really want to interact voluntarily, intensely with other ethnicities (not the one of your family/parents, let’s say), if given a choice? Studies of some Western cities – including Amsterdam where I reside – showed after all that about 80% of all people mainly interact socially within the own ethnic group (Dutch, Moroccans, etc.), subtly eschewing other ethnicities, expect when inevitable (e.g. professionally). Don’t be on forehand too optimistic about man’s “open mind”, is all I’m saying.

Self-ruled, democratic groups can thus lead to fragmented societies, with racial, religious, and ethnic preferences, creating islands of peoples, who want to stay apart from others. “Live and let live” measures – as Brand proposes – can limit that, but a very stimulating, varied world does not arise, isolated in a uniform group, including possibly even social control of wayward members, as prejudices and personal interests still might persist.

People who have participated in the Flower Power period “democratizations” of the 1960s and 1970s – some of whom I met – in hindsight found the debates and decision-making in “hippie or squatter communes” chaotic, ineffective, and skewed. Nepotism and a big mouth determined directions and decisions, rather than a balanced, democratic weighing of options. Many only in theory want democracy, and only for themselves. Still better than a top-down humiliation and wage slavery for unknown bosses and interests, but neither perfect. So we must remain careful.

To Russell Brand’s proposals I would therefore add some more spiritual and psychological dimensions to protect this democratization from corruption from within. Like I said, Brand seems more adaptive and more a “social animal” or “group thinker” than me, and I believe more in “healthy individualism” or better: a “healthy individual focus”, as we Rastas do not like “isms”. Respecting each individual as valuable – beyond race, sex, nationality, or other attributes – should be ingrained in society’s make-up. Even in “democratic sessions” in such self-ruled, self-chosen human communities, this should not be forgotten.

The “I and I consciousness” in the Rastafari movement – arguing that divinity is shared throughout all living things, but also in each human being. Jah (“God”) – or “the divine” is according to most Rastafari adherents also “within” each man or woman. Not in some, but in each person.

This is my conviction, differing perhaps from those (e.g. Christians and Muslims), separating mankind from divinity or nature. Having the divine within, you also maintain an agency to stand up for your rights and dignity, and be no one’s subordinate or slave, as we are all equal. This ensures true democracy, according to me: a healthy individual focus, which I personally draw from the Rastafari tradition, but makes sense more broadly, I opine, for all people.

OTHER BLIND SPOTS

Other “blind spots” in this particular book by Brand – perhaps he addresses it elsewhere – are global inequalities. Fine that big companies, and their billions, are shared with society for the people, but let’s start with hungry, and suffering people world wide, outside the well-off Western world, even in medical need, before addressing “first world” or “luxury” problems like another hospital in a Western city. Brand does not exclude this, but does mainly give Western examples of money reinvestment for the people. The emphasis on “local democratic communities” need not make one myopic to the rest of the world. Nothing wrong with thinking global (also educationally), as long as it is not just for selfish power goals, as the Western, economic and political “powers that be” always have practiced since colonialism, up to neoliberalist and neocolonial capitalism now. You can still think international, as many do already culturally (food, culture, etc.), only now with equality in mind.

There is also corruption, local power elites, and discrimination of women and minorities, to deal with in other parts of the world, disturbing equity ideals.

DICHOTOMY

A final blind spot in this book is “culture”. Owning the means of production for work is okay, being self-sufficient and self-ruled in democratic communities, likewise a good idea, but life is more than working to pay bills/ and have food and shelter. People need the inspiration of culture and art too, in my opinion, so there is something to say for breaking that dichotomy, as Pablo Picasso also once lamented: that dichotomy between “having to work” on the one hand – as a sensed obligation, and “fun” and “culture” on the other hand.

An intertwined balance might make us in the end happier. Making and enjoying art or music every day, alongside working – preferably with some creative aspect to that work! -, to express your full humanity, instead of working for days in a row uninspired as a robot, and then some time for “fun” or creativity.. realizing then that you’re too tired for the latter, having worked too much. With the “clock” as persisting tyrant, even after a “revolution”.

We must somehow break through that too, if Brand’s proposed “revolution” for people’s self-rule is to really make all humans happier as individuals.

Still, Russell Brand expressed some good ideas in this book that I agree with, and with – as he did and does elsewhere – some interesting and funny stories to tell about his life, and other humour and wit, making this 2014 book both very readable, and insightful.

Misconceptions (or lies?) about the trans-Atlantic slave trade (1500-18XX)

The recent (25th of March, 2026) “recognition” of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade - with enslavement of Africans - as “gravest crime against humanity” by the UN – after a Ghana-led initiative - was celebrated by some as a victory. This crime took place in the period 1500-1800, it states. In reality, it was until well in the 1860s that slavery as an institute was finally abolished in the Americas, but roughly the trans-Atlantic slave trade as such was around that period (1500-1800). This recognized declaration connected textually with the need for “reparations” and “compensation” for Africa and African descendants, increasing a sense of triumph.
See: (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg06q36052o)

The problem with this UN recognition document, is only that it is not legally binding, so - for all intents and purposes – symbolic “window dressing”, or at best “increasing awareness”.

That awareness is what I will deal with in this post. The reactions on mainstream and social media were varied, and those critical repeated common misconceptions, mostly betraying lack of sufficient and proper knowledge. Or they consciously spread lies, that is also possible.

OWN STUDY

I think I can conclude that with some authority. I have worked for over 12 years in a scholarly institute on colonial history and present – specializing in Indonesia/South East Asia and the Caribbean, for its library, summarizing (“abstracting”) and indexing books and articles.

This was for the KITLV in Leyden, the Netherlands, explaining the geographical choices: the Dutch had colonies in those regions (Indonesia, Suriname, Netherlands Antilles).

I worked at the Caribbean department, having to study many books and articles about Caribbean history and present, in order to describe them well for the library catalogue.

Important for this post: a lot of these works were about slavery, and connected slave trade, being so crucial and formative for Caribbean development. The focus was on the (entire) Caribbean – not just the Dutch colonies, with some side steps to Africa, yet personally, later, I read some works about the African side of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, as well as the European side.

The KITLV, I then worked for, had a conservative image, as it started/was founded during the Netherlands’ colonial era, aiding such policies, but modernized over time, having a balanced library collection with different studies and viewpoints. (http://www.kitlv.nl)

OPEN DEBATE

There was also an open debate in Dutch slavery studies then, which I think is healthy in academic circles. Scholars deemed as too “apologist” debated with more postcolonial thinkers, and vice versa, including opposing stances, always beneficial for truth-finding. This open debate seems to have been lost a bit in academic circles now, according to critics, especially when “bigger interests” are at stake (the military industrial complex, "security"/control, corona, climate), open debate is avoided, and critics marginalized or “cancelled”. The slavery debate at that time only got similarly corrupted – I recall – when “reparations” by the state were called for (i.e. “money”): suddenly more the apologist, White scholars on slavery came then to lead the debate and could only speak in authoritative sources, but in time even these could be contradicted. I studied both sides.

From that professional, analytical context, I now recognize the misconceptions or lies about the slave trade and slavery in media expressions, by different commentators. Opponents of that UN, Ghana-led “gravest rime” declaration – especially – seemed to “invent” fictional histories, or repeated these. Apologist or not, but certainly not true.

Subjectivity of the term “gravest” aside, the declaration in itself makes sense: trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery were undoubtedly crimes against humanity, with tragic results (also over time) for Africans, and lacking up to the present proper compensation. What shape and form this compensation (reparation? Paid by who?) would take, is another issue.

Though not legally binding, it gave a moral message, that many critics sought to undermine. Predictably those on the Right politically, but also those with other ideological or material interests.

Main colonial powers of yesteryear – read: once involved/main culprits in the trans-Atlantic slave trade – Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, Netherlands, a.o. – “abstained” in that UN vote, while as could be expected, mostly African, Latin American, Asian, and other “third world” countries supported it (a total of 123 countries). Only the US, Israel, and Argentina bluntly opposed this "recognition declaration". Israel nitpicked on the word “gravest” in relation to Jewish history, also knowing dispersion and slavery.

The US and Argentina – at least their political leaders - just wanted to “diss” Blacks, I guess.

British conservative leader – Kemi Badenoch - of Nigerian descent! - showed her best “uncle tom” or “boasy slave” side, by claiming that Britain should have voted against the declaration, as Britain fought (later, as crucial addition) against slavery. One of those misconceptions, or repeated lies (or something in-between).

That’s one of those misconceptions.

These politicians or leaders, but also many commentators in the mainstream and social media repeated ideas – seeking to undermine the “gravest crime” argument, or that Europe did this to Africa and Africans.

I repeat: from all that I read professionally in an academic setting, and after – by white and black authors, including both postcolonial and conservative (even apologist and their opponents) ones, etc. – I knew immediately some of these ideas some spread in media in response to the UN-declaration, were mistaken misconceptions, not having any ground or basis in actually proven history.

I will discuss the main ones, based on my acquired, balanced knowledge.

“AFRICANS SOLD SLAVES THEMSELVES”

Slavery is as old as organized man, globally. That’s harsh, but true. Especially with larger scales after earlier “communal” stages among humans, hierarchies arose, with serfs and slaves. From ancient China, to Ancient Babylon, Ancient Egypt, Greece, ancient Rome, Aztec and Inca empires, but also among the Germanic and Celtic peoples of Europe there was slavery. The Germanic peoples, forefathers of many Northern Europeans, including in Germany and England, knew a class of slaves and semi-slaves, some would not imagine, seeing the image of “wild, communal” woodland societies surviving historically about the Teutonic/Germanic tribes. St Patrick, who would become the patron saint of Ireland, was ironically a slave of Celts in Ireland, though Patrick himself was also a Celt (albeit from what is now Wales).

And yes, also Africa, especially societies outgrowing the small-scale, family-based “communal” stages (that all societies go through), developed hierarchies with slaves, often as prisoners of war. Generally these slaves were absorbed if subdued locally, as societies became more large-scale and power-based, to different degrees.

This, however, was relatively limited and enshrined. The trans-Atlantic slavery – or African Holocaust – being the topic here, was a result of more global and modern European demands, disrupting African societies, even if depending first on existing practices. These local practices were aggrandized and corrupted in the European colonial interest, albeit aided by some African leaders or disunity/warring African nations. The Europeans made opportunistically use of intra-African divisions (between kingdoms/states), becoming the main (economic) impetus for enslaving more fellow-Africans, than would have been under normal, local “feudal “ developments, as selling slaves to Europeans became big business.

Several authors have shown this process, in my opinion convincingly.

“WHITES/EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES/ENSLAVED TOO”

This argument is repeated too, usually referring to Barbary (North African, Islamic) slave trade and slavery, occurring in parts of Northern Africa, the Middle East, and even Moorish Iberia.

Historians having studied this Islamic slavery since Islam’s spread after Muhammad’s death (7th and 8th c. AD and after), from Arabia to Northern Africa and the Middle East (and beyond), came to the conclusion that Muslims in earlier and later stages enslaved people of different races, with relatively many sub-Saharan Africans, Berbers, and, okay, in later stages also Europeans.

According to Islamic doctrine, all nonbelievers could be enslaved (until they converted), offering an unfortunate wide base. Slave raids among Europeans took place, but places along the Barbary coast (now roughly Algeria) were multiracial, also regarding the slave population (including Europeans, true, but also Africans, a.o.). Even Spanish author Miguel de Cervantes (of “Don Quixote” fame) was temporary enslaved there.

Much more Africans were enslaved, however, also by Arabs and other Muslims. African women for harems, as concubines, African men often as guards or servants, in many cases these were even castrated by their masters, decreasing their influence. Sources speak of millions of sub-Saharan Africans, thus enslaved and traded by Muslims, prior to European colonialism.

Most sensible conclusion: Whites/Europeans were not singled-out - or even dominant - among the Islamic-led slavery in North Africa, Spain and the Middle East.

Also in Spain and Portugal, the Moors had often sub-Saharan African slaves, cementing – according to some less-politically correct historians – the image of the ”the black as slave” In Portuguese and Spanish minds. This would then translate in Portuguese seafarers later enslaving Africans, as first Europeans, aided by sea traders from other European areas (Genoa, Venice, Catalonia, in present-day Italy and Spain). Areas with maritime traditions, that Castilian Spain had then still less.

However, with Spain’s own colonization of the Americas after 1492, the Spaniards at first made use of this Portuguese monopoly/specialization in African slaves, increasingly “racializing” trans-Atlantic slavery toward (imported) Africans, after Amerindian enslavement largely failed. Britain, France, and the Netherlands soon jumped on that bandwagon, with their colonization, even innovating this trans-Atlantic slave trade in enslaved Africans economically.

“BRITAIN FOUGHT AGAINST SLAVERY”

With modernized methods, Britain imported relatively many African slaves to its colonies in the Caribbean, aided by bases on African coasts. The profit (“blood money” one might say) or slavery gains were invested differently by and in England, than before were more chaotically by and in Portugal and Spain.

This is related to modern development, but also to cultural/religious factors, as Max Weber pointed out the role of Protestant values. Slavery profits were invested more in a productive, lasting economy, according to Protestant ethics in Britain, rendering the first industrial cities in the world – as such –, Birmingham and Manchester. This eventually led to capitalism.

Due to this modernization, by around 1800, slavery was no longer necessary or efficient, but has served its crucial purpose. Britain could therefore abolish the slave trade and slavery before other European nations. Modern tools required modern, moderate slavery/exploitation of labour, eventually developed in the West into dominant capitalist “wage labour”, some say “wage slavery”. Trans-Atlantic slavery helped shape and finance this very basis of modern Western society we all still live under now. There is thus a direct link between slavery and the Western, wage-based capitalist society of now. Many do not even know this.

The humanitarian goals of British abolitionists might have been there, but were not the dominant motivation, rather serving as hypocritical disguise, and self-righteous stances against economically more backward colonizers (Spain a.o.), which they were coincidentally also competing with. The main motivations for Britain leading the abolitionist movement were – behind the scenes – rather economical and of national interest, not humanitarian.

Conservative British leader Badenoch used this argument, which I hope to have showed is ultimately flawed.

“THOSE INVOLVED (OUR FOREPARENTS OR VICTIMS) ARE NO LONGER ALIVE”

This argument I hear or read here and there, coming down to “water under the bridge”. This is used very selectively, as historical epochs have of course lasting consequences up to the present. Besides: Germany and Japan are still paying “reparations” to European countries, Jews, or Asian countries for their roles during World War II, while most who have lived that period are by now deceased.

Moreover, it is about “lasting (generational) consequences”, which trans-Atlantic slavery surely had, such as on the African continent: population loss, economic decline and stagnation, as shown in Walter Rodney’s recommendable work ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’ (1972), the title saying it not all, but well. I wrote elsewhere on my blog about this work.

Walter Rodney, a Guyanese scholar, shows in this work not to be a bigoted activist, checking intelligently the veracity and neutrality of all sources (dismissing not just apologist White westerners, but also obviously pro-Black sources), before taking – in my opinion – just conclusions about the devastating effects of Europe’s imposing of the slave trade and later colonialism on and in Africa.

That colonialism in Africa started after Britain (and also France) outlawed slavery, but in reality built forth on the same structures of trade developed during slave trade. Walter Rodney shows that well too.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the African Diaspora in the Americas, the consequences of slavery are very evident. Slavery was dehumanization into work-horses, but also involved “deculturalization”, including the loss of family names, increasing the intense dehumanization.

This of course has lasting effects up to now, supporting the “gravest crime” argument, and with it making more sensible the “compensation” and “reparation” rationale.

Issues of “bodily integrity”, “dehumanization” and such, aligned with violence-based forced labour, combined with a cultural destruction or damage . You could – and I do – argue that all human beings have the right to know their family’s roots, being essential in this world.

Blacks in the African Diaspora – in the Americas – all have lost this, bearing now Portuguese, English (or Scottish), Spanish (or Catalan), Dutch, or French surnames – i.e. of their erstwhile European masters/owners -, with only vague family lore reminding them of their African roots.

An Afro-Cuban woman I befriended had Spanish surnames (two, as in Spanish tradition) – specifically both Catalan surnames, belonging to Barcelona elite families – referring to their erstwhile family owners, but with family stories reminding vaguely of “Congo” origins of their forebears, as many Afro-Cubans in Eastern Cuba (later confirmed with DNA tests, so accurate). Many Afro-Cubans know for instance of their Yoruba origins too, even with some tangible retentions of it, Jamaicans of their Ghanaian or Igbo roots, etcetera. Historical written records of the time itself (in e.g. colonial archives) can give some more specific insight of one’s family members, but are partly deficient.

The connection to their family history has been – however – systematically disrupted due to slavery, as regards to historical records, as they were assigned European names of their masters. DNA studies (which only arose since the 1950s) give now some more possibilities to trace one’s specific roots. Still, organic family ties (a basic human right) have been lost.

CULTURAL RESISTANCE

Within this overall tragedy, there is the beauty of cultural strength and survival. Enough African retentions and memories were kept alive to give birth to own cultural creations among Afro-Americans, including musical genres based on African principles. African principles also giving birth to folk belief systems, and other cultural expressions throughout the African Diaspora in the Americas, by necessity mixed with European culture.

Thus arose and were invented Samba, Salsa, Reggae, Calypso, Merengue, Jazz, Blues, Funk, and Soul.. just to name some known Afro-American musical genres, with elements that can be traced back to specific African principles and roots in what is now the Congo, Ghana, Nigeria, and other parts of Africa. A beautiful story of cultural survival and resilience, but amidst a tragedy of grave human rights abuse. Culture as resistance against dehumanization.

Depopulation in parts of Africa, already hinted at the “genocidal” effects of trans-Atlantic slavery, also need to be mentioned. Figures differ – I also recall from my own studying of slavery, professionally – but an estimated 15 million Africans died during the forced transport from Africa to the Americas – probably more, while those surviving had relatively short lives, due to the harsh, inhumane conditions of slave work. Population loss, genocide..

On top of this, they were enslaved, so had no property or income, to pass on to offspring, as other human groups in theory had. This kept them economically backward and dependent, up to the present. So, even if those directly involved no longer live now, it is present in the unequal socioeconomic position. In most American nations, Blacks – those of African descent - are at the bottom of the economic ladder.

“IT WAS AN ELITE THING”

This argument is somewhat more sensible, though not fully. The poor European people (the peasants, low-wage labourers, property-less) had indeed less stake in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery, of course started and benefitting the elite, moneyed classes: rich merchants, sometimes nobility, within European societies. They profited most of it, and in earlier stages, Portuguese and Spanish gains of slavery went to these elite families, building palaces, buying more grounds, gaining more political power in national affairs, with little “offshoots” benefiting poorer surrounding Portuguese or Spanish people: at most creating some extra, low-wage jobs in the margins of colonial activities (dockworkers, seamen, stores, sugar refining, housekeepers, etc.).

The “offshoots” became – however – more structural with the more investing, and overarching, Protestant approach of the British, redirecting colonial and slavery gains toward industrialization in England, and eventually capitalism. This created whole economic sectors – also indirectly - in British society, requiring many workers, and thus (albeit relative) wider economic prosperity.

The poor labourers in the factories in e.g. Birmingham or Manchester, that thus arose, were of course not from classes or families that ever had leading or decisive roles in colonialism or slavery within or by their country, but profited from it nonetheless. As known, Britain started the first “industrialization”, and left earlier colonizers like Spain and Portugal, economically behind as less-modern, while the Netherlands (with a Protestant ethic, but also a modern, financial strength) had more of these economically prosperous side-effects like Britain, as to a degree France.

Shortly, and somewhat simplistically put: slavery gains ended first up in some elite families in Portugal and Spain, but in time got invested more “smartly” in the entire economies in Britain, the Netherlands, and France, and with it wider Europe.

This has consequences - e.g. global inequalities between Europe and developing countries - up to today, aiding Europe’s and the West’s (also US) relative wealth in this world.

These are the cold, historical facts.

RACIALIZED

Important is also to add that it was “racialized” slavery. This increased racism. Race played a role in the initial starting of trans-Atlantic slavery by Portuguese and Spaniards around 1500, but in the early stage not even a dominant one. Principal motivations were at first economic: Amerindians could not handle the strain, and not enough Europeans wanted to migrate to the Americas, and Spanish colonizers then turned (as the Portuguese and Moors before them pioneered) to Africans.

Still, in time the dehumanization became cruelly racialized, with racist and discriminatory practices becoming the norm in colonial societies. Anti-Black racism, essentially.

Also this has consequences up to today. Economic and opportunity inequalities, persisting discrimination, racist policies globally (Apartheid ended only in 1990), but also inferiority complexes, are still realities of today, for who want to see them.

The Uncle Tom – or as put in Jamaican Patois “Boasy Slave” - syndrome: Black persons overly pleasing the White oppressor or boss, for some personal gain – of which the UK Conservative opposition leader Badenoch is now a particularly ridiculous example (at least in her response to the declaration), has been going on for centuries, also during slavery itself. In fact, many (for fear) compliant slaves kept the system working, but in still exploitation-based, albeit more moderate contexts, with less openly “brute” force, such as in present-day wage-based “modern slavery”, this phenomenon still shows, Badenoch only being a very noticeable example in higher circles.

Neoliberalism - modern, state-supported capitalism – stimulated since the 1990s “identity politics” to distract from economic inequality, benefitting the elite, and a part of the Blacks/people of African descent, seemed to have fallen in that trap, especially when taking a “politicized”, instrumental form within the system. Acting as “pro-Black” – even in a bully-like manner - to compensate for being a “boasy slave” elsewhere in their lives, occurs, showing the contradictory psychological disorders of people having lost touch with themselves and their history. That is the psychological dimension.

Even that is forgivable, as also many White people having to participate in this system likewise keep fooling themselves that it is their own free will (hiring and firing people, or on the low end: setting the alarm clock at 07:30 to go work for a boss), and maintaining the illusion that is not at all (labour, time, human) exploitation that they stimulate, or engage in. Just a job.

That is the unequal, make-believe world we are living in today.

Historically, this modern, moderate wage slavery of modern-day capitalism was financed by colonial slavery during the trans-Atlantic slavery period (1500-1800), which is historically both interesting and painful.

The African victims of that 1500-18XX trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery period can be seen as sacrifices for this.

On the basis of this, I opine that it indeed can be seen sensibly as “of the gravest crimes against humanity”, and making calls for reparation or compensation not at all irrational. How this should be worked out in a good manner, is another issue.

Tigray

Even so-called “alternative” thinkers get too often lured onto the “mainstream” path, it seems. Something like “international news” has, in this context, always been problematic, as far as I recall.

Over-emphasis in TV news on certain regions of this world, and later finding out that other regions knew more dramatic, more lethal and bloody conflicts, we heard less about. This has in fact recurred during my whole life-time, even as teenager. Around my 16th year, - we’re talking 1990 - the Iraqi war took place, following an invasion of Iraq into Kuwait. Since the US (and NATO) was involved, in the (TV) news in the Netherlands, it dominated – rather: hi-jacked – all other possible news in the world. I noticed this even then, the pro US-bias, though as a music-loving teenager (I was a Reggae-fan already), I was more interested in culture than politics (still, to a degree). I was irritated, though, by the Hollywood-like propaganda tone of that operation and news coverage. I smelled the insincerity, and hidden agendas, on some level, I suppose.

Healthy intuition – one might say – but helped by critical thinkers I knew of and read from. My own (Left-leaning) mother, often critical about some news coverage and hidden interest, probably influenced me too in this.

It has only gotten worse; in earlier decades there was more space for “independent journalism”. This got a large blow since 2020.

Much has been said about this independent journalistic decline, its degree and causes. Regarding causes, I find the relation with “new media” interesting. Internet provides access to a lot of global information, diminishing the role of the “old”, mainstream media, but likewise its “filtering”, leading function. This caused – in my personal analysis – a panic among authorities and the “powers that be”. The “main media” to reach the masses was after all “disarmed” by open information, through the Internet. Hence: panic among those with vested interests.

MONOPOLIZATION

This coincided with a general (modern/neoliberal) capitalist tendency of monopolization - the power of money -, with once different media and newspapers becoming more and more owned by the same concerns. In the Netherlands and elsewhere. With that same power of money, propaganda campaigns through the mainstream media (television, newspapers, journals) – with the p(l)andemic covid scare as test – meant to marginalize internet sources, including social media. Not by coincidence, the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” were since 2020 heard a lot more, seldom in a just or true sense.

Even in formally democratic Western societies in Europe, Canada, and the US, thus the authorities/politicians/entrepreneurs , used the mainstream media to their advantage, but was luckily unable to impede access to Internet of common citizens.

Tellingly, I find, is the recent lack (say since around 2020) of open, good debates on television, with opposing stances and arguments, yet good manners. That is democracy. Political goals – largely hidden – seem however more important.

BIAS

Meanwhile the reporting, journalist, and news coverage biases keep showing in relative attention, now – as I write this – in 2025.

A bit further on in this post, I will give and discuss an example of this bias, which also gives insight into world relations.

In the regular Dutch news on mainstream media, the Ukraine-Russia conflict, and the Israel-Palestina conflict, compete for main attention, often – predictable – with a biased stance from the start. Strangely pro-NATO in the case of the Ukraine conflict, and generally pro-Israel (in the Netherlands). Regarding Israel, some opposing opinion can more or less still be uttered, even in Dutch media. That Israel’s actions are deemed genocidal regarding Gaza, for instance, by many people, reached the mainstream media, as were pro-Palestina voices. Not regularly, but sometimes.

Russian “apologists” are allowed even less space in the public debate: Ukraine must apparently be defended at all costs. The NATO - and US economy? - have even bigger and more powerful interests than a small country like Israel, I deduce from this.

It also illustrates my “serious joke”, I made in response to people in my surroundings criticizing (assumed) powerful Jews in the US supporting Israel, as some kind of Jewish conspiracy, aligning all too simple Israel with “all Jews”. I countered that (said it to several people personally, and - of course – shared it as open Facebook post on my wall):

“I don’t think there is such a Jewish conspiracy, if there is one, there is an “Anglo-Saxon conspiracy”..

, I stated, seeing US economic dominance with UK support, and neocolonial and neoliberalism’s global influence. Europe, Russia, and China are, after all, also powerful competitors of the US. Israel is an important ally of the US in the region, that is true, but wealthy Arab countries like Saudi-Arabia eventually also. Still, the Middle East with its petroleum industry, is also competitive to the US, in some sense.

For these combined reasons, conflicts in Africa, like the one involving Tigray in Ethiopia in the period 2020-2022, got scarce attention in Dutch and Western news on mainstream media. Scarce and superficial, generally. The increase of animosities in Tigray began in the plandemic Covid period (2020), offering – I suspect – excuses for many Western media to ignore African wars, for a hyped-up flu, and international measures. To resume: the estimated deaths of this 2-year war between Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Tigray separatist rebels number up to (around) 600.000 (!). Some even say closer to a million.

TIGRAY

First, the context. As a Reggae-fan, and in time Rastafari-adherent, I maintained a strong interest in Ethiopia (and wider Africa), and read even scholarly works about its history, already before the Internet (Wikipedia and such). In my mind, Tigray was an integral part of Ethiopia’s history as nation.

Indeed, this was the case. The most Northern/NW of Ethiopia’s regions, Tigray, was just North of the Amhara region, historically the center of power of Ethiopia, but always competing with Tigray, which comprised after all Aksum, center of the first large Ethiopian empire – known as the Aksumite Kingdom -, preceding symbolically Abyssinia and Ethiopia as kingdoms and empires, including once what is now Eritrea, and the Amhara region, but also up to the Yemen region, South of (Saudi) Arabia.

The famous Battle of Adwa (Early March) of 1896, when the invading Italians were defeated by Ethiopians (of all ethnic groups, working together!), safeguarding Ethiopia’s independence in a colonial era, also took place in Tigray.

In more recent history, the Tigray protests were crucial in the overthrowing Ethiopia’s totalitarian Communist Derg regime in the Early 1990s – along with other regions/peoples within Europe -, in power since 1975.

Meanwhile, though, the Tigray-Amhara relationship was often one of competition for power, since the beginning. Petty politics and interests, eventually aggrandizing the ethnic differences for political purposes. This happened historically elsewhere in the world too, of course, and even can be seen as a common thread. In world history, that is. This competition had over time differing degrees of intensity, with peaceful periods.

There are long-standing historical antecedents, including ancient conflicts, as often in these cases. The 2020-2022 Tigray War was quite bloody and catastrophic (around 600.000 deaths as already mentioned), as other civil wars. The involvement of Eritrea made it even an international conflict.

CAUSES

The causes of the conflict are somewhat complicated, but boil mostly down to Tigray wanting more independence from the central Ethiopian government, now lead by someone from the Oromo ethnic group (Ahmad Abiy). Before - up to 2019 - a Tigrayan party was in the government (a coalition), which was however dissolved by prime minster Abiy. This “snub” combined with other long-standing irritations, and attacking actions, between Tigray and the central government..

In the course of the two-year war between 2020 and 2022 (when a peace treaty was signed), human rights violations were reported on both sides of the conflict: by Ethiopian and Eritrean troops in Tigray, but also by Tigrayans in parts of the Amhara region they invaded. Destruction, murders, torture, and even rape as weapon, were reported.

This “rape as weapon of warfare” is as unpleasant and wicked as it sounds, of course, but tends to be – for crypto-racist reasons? – over-emphasized in the case of African wars and conflicts (e.g. in the Congo). Again, an odd media bias.

In reality, rape as (demoralizing/humiliating) weapon also took place in European wars, historically (Viking/Anglo-Saxon times, fascist/Nazi invasions, Yugoslavia, a.o.), and in Asia, such as by the Japanese, e.g. during WW II. Not to forget during European invasions and colonization in Africa and the Americas! Also on slave plantations – as in the Caribbean -, which I have studied in a professional context, raping enslaving women by White overseers and masters was common, partly also with demoralizing goals/show of power. Good to point that out, I think.

The 2020-2022 conflict got known also as a “Ethiopian civil war”, yet the involvement of neighbouring Eritrea (also with Tigrayan ethnicity) – due to border conflicts - , made it even an international (rather: regional) conflict.

COMPARISONS

Though stemming from very particular historical conditions and antecedents within Ethiopia and the region, even 1000s of years back in time, I argue that in international perspective such a bloody ethnic/territorial conflict is not that unique to Ethiopia. I base this on my historical knowledge.

The 1990 Yugoslavian war was also about competitive territorial warfare, involving trumped-up ethnic/religious differences between Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, and Albanians, many of these sharing histories and even a language: Serbo-Croatian, also spoken in Islamic Bosnia.

Propaganda also plays a role in the Tigray War, and in all such ethnic conflicts (think also Rwanda, where it was unfortunately effective), - and in historical European dictatorships for that matter - though not always successful. Anti-Haitian migrants rhetoric in the Dominican Republic since the 1960s, not often could disturb the peaceful Dominican-Haitian cohabitation in many parts of the Dominican Republic, just like how even up to the 2020 Tigray War, in Tigray and wider Ethiopia, common Tigrayans, Amhara and other Ethiopians, lived peacefully side by side for the most part, in spite of political rhetoric or (state) propaganda.

Historically, some “combined kingdoms” (leading to modern states) have the same tensions as in Ethiopia. The Basque Country had a separatist movement (recently diminished), for independence from Spain (and to a lesser degree France), but in history the Basque region had a founding role in the influential Kingdom of Castile, eventually a formative kingdom of Spain, as the Basque region was a maintained Christian region in the far north, when most of Iberia was under Moorish, Islamic rule. Linguists further assume that the first Castilian kings, also spoke the Basque language. Yet, tensions between some Nationalist Basques, and centralized Spanish, “Madrid/Castilian” rule have always recurred, to differing degrees, partly triggered by economic/industrialization advantages of the Basque country. “Nation formation” is nice for history books, but in daily practice it often is about current-day economic and political interests.

Comparable to - including current economic/political issues/interests - between Tigray and Amhara: sharing a founding historical role in shaping Ethiopia as state – including the mentioned epochs like the Axum/Aksum empire and the Battle of Adwa - , and sharing largely a religion (Orthodox Christian) and scripture (Ge’ez), but still with recurring tensions and competition, regarding ethnic identities of these two “founding” Ethiopian ethnic groups.

DIFFERENCES AND CULTURE

The cultural differences between Tigray and Amhara – and other parts of Ethiopia – are to a degree there, but as between regions of any country: Sicily is not the same as Lombardy, Northern India, not the same as the Tamil-speaking South of India, Yorubaland different from Igbo-land in Nigeria, etcetera.

Tigrayan is different from the Amhara language, but a related Semitic language, with a long history in the region. Not quite mutually intelligible, but clearly related.

Both ethnic groups, the Tigrayans and Amhara, are in name (and language) “Semitic”, but – as studies found – are in fact a genetic mix of Semitic people, mixed with local African and Cushitic peoples (mostly found in female/maternal DNA, suggesting mostly male Semitic invaders). This shows in some sub-Saharan African features: darker skin, hair, other traits, among most Tigrayans and Amhara, in different gradations.

Apart from “looks”, physical genetics, also in culture – and language – there is, simply said, more “sub-Saharan Africa” in Tigrayans, than among semitic Arabs in the Middle East, such as in music. The big Kebero drum is used in churches and for religious festivities, yet the common, smaller “negerit” drum (also a two-sided drum) is commonly used as “steady time-keeper”, usually in a syncopatic relation with hand clapping. Both steady, strong rhythms, and hints of syncopation, show African influences, differing from (mono-rhythmic) use of drums and rhythm in e.g. Middle Eastern Arab music.

The vocal styles (like melisma) show some semitic/middle eastern/North African traits, but also African influences, including a “call-and-response” style (with female choirs repeating lines).

As I saw an Ethiopian online state in praise, that “Tigray music has good rhythms”, I tested this by trying to dance to traditional Tigray music. Indeed it was danceable enough, with steady rhythms, also to a point from an “African” perspective. I know that the rhythmic syncope in “hand clapping” is also found in some forms of Spanish Flamenco – must be said -, but it is of course quite possible that African influences historically reached southern Spain.

Interesting, I find all this about Tigre/Tigray culture..Yet, Amhara music (and wider parts of Ethiopia) has much of the same musical elements and instruments too, including further shared Ethiopian string instruments, like the Masinko, or the Krar lyre, or the Washint flute, and others, also recurring in both Tigray and Amhara music.

Also the dominant type of (Orthodox) Christianity is shared among Tigrayans and Amhara (both with only small Muslim minorities, the Tigrayan one a bit larger). The same applies to other aspects of culture (food, music, etc.): partly similarities. Even the “shoulder” or “upper torso” dance of Northern Ethiopia is largely similar. Some small differences, also in musical instruments and customs – traditional clothing -, but overall mostly related cultures, the ones of Tigray and of Amhara.

In conclusion, the “cultural” differences are simply overall not all that big, lying mostly in details and variations, though some crucial differences are noticeable. The differences and conflicts are more “political”, related to both petty politics and “autonomy” demands.

MIX

In addition, based on different Ethiopian people I got to know personally – also as friends - , and on other information sources, one must not exaggerate the “pure-blooded” nature of these ethnic divisions. Most Ethiopians I know are a mix of different ethnicities, often even with different religions (Christian and Muslim): mixing Amhara with Oromo and/or Gurage, Tigray, and other peoples, in their bloodline (traced back to grandparents etc.).

Even the Emperor (up to 1975), Haile Selassie – while associated with the historically powerful Amhara ethnic group - , was in fact only partly of Amhara descent, having also Oromo and Gurage blood, according to several sources. This in fact is quite common among present-day Ethiopians, especially – predictably - those in Addis Ababa, as the main city was and is a hub of migrants from other parts of Ethiopia.

POLITICS

It comes thus down to it that predominantly politics and economics - more than ethnicity and culture - are behind the recent conflicts: not very surprising. These are even related to something as vane as party politics. Some nationalistic pride and grudge on all sides, indubitably also play a role, territorial integrity, independence, etcetera. Cultural reasons play less a role in this conflict, I dare to conclude. Mostly, material, “tangible” reasons, only seeming more rational, but in fact absurd. If anything, this shows the senselessness of the conflict and war even more: culture (even if less “material”) is “the people”. Politics and economical control is “the elites” (even within ethnic groups, party/separatist leaders and such), thus sacrificing in a sense the masses.

Tigrayans accused the Ethiopians attack on opposing forces in Tigray as involving even a wider “genocide” of Tigray from Tigrayan civilians, and even of "ethnic cleansing". Ethiopia denies this.

This last accusation reminded me of the naming of “genocide” of Israel’s actions in Gaza against Palestinians, by more and more commentators, even a bit in mainstream media (and even more in alternative media, of course), often even suggesting a full “ethnic cleansing” plan of the coastal Gaza region by pro-Israel forces, which is however hard to prove.

There in Israel, and in Ukraine (with Russian-dominated provinces), also territorial warfare, economic interests, and built-up animosities, long-lasting feuds, etcetera, translated “ethnically” for political purposes. This avenges itself again and again, resulting in violence, and dehumanizing the enemy, as such wars (internationally and inter-culturally) usually encompass, and violent and deadly military attacks and terror.

We heard only much, much less about the Tigray War, than about those other conflicts, or earlier ones in the Middle East, or involving NATO interests, even when with much less casualties, than the estimated over 600.000.

Because there is nothing to gain (materially, geopolitically, o.o.), - for the “big powers” in this world - .. a cynic might conclude..

Despite the 2022 peace treaty – as could be expected – derived conflicts still persist up to today within Ethiopia, even in central parts. An Ethiopian friend of mine, who visited his family in Addis Ababa in late 2024, also still noticed tensions and security measures within the city of Addis Ababa.

MAINSTREAM

With this, I bring my point home that attention in the mainstream media in the West is biased and skewed, with much conflicts largely ignored, for being irrelevant for “big power interests”. Even self-declared “alternative” or “woke” thinkers fall in that biased trap at times, I noticed: choosing to debate or take firm stances in conflicts with less casualties/les bloody than this one, or other ones, following mass media agendas, ignoring other ones. People are people.

It is a good thing we still have access to all other kinds of sources – alternative sources of information and news -, mostly with less bias, if one searches well. Also a wider (ideologically detached) knowledge of world history – that I more or less have gathered over time – surely helps to put things in proper perspective.

Brazil and the world order

Brazil is the country with the highest number of people of African descent, outside of Africa itself.

The largest country of South America was once an important destination for the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Eventually, it outnumbered in number of imported slaves all other also major destinations in the Americas, numbering well in the millions.

In the course of time, Brazil became independent from Portugal, and in recent times even kind of an “economic power” of sorts. In these times, the BRIC countries, and more updated BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), became a common term, representing a counterweight to the dominance of the US.

INFLUENCE

What’s interesting to me is how Brazil - as largest South American country and economy - influenced our lives, or, more personally, mine: my musical and cultural interests notably. How and why?

What is the Brazil that is presented to the world: the Amazon and its Amerindians, Afro-Brazilians (incl. Samba), football, carnival, or the white elite? Clichés and stereotypes, simplified images, or some of its complex reality?

How did this reach me? Growing up in the Netherlands since the 1980s, and with Latin-speaking, South European (Italian and Spanish) parents?

NEOLIBERALISM

In the Netherlands, because of economic might, but also due to linguistic reasons, the US was culturally much more influential, when I grew up. This was especially in mainstream culture and entertainment: pop music, cinema, television. This was in tandem with the US economic influence: companies and brands, neoliberal capitalism (of which I am NOT a fan), to which European countries adapted. Along with it came a commercial, pushy advertizing and "consumerism" we're supposed to take for granted, as Naomi Klein explained well in her work No Logo (1999), with as telling subtitle: 'taking aim at the brand bullies'.

Personally, I think that the type of capitalism, the “Chicago school”, called “neoliberalism” has been an underestimated, virulent evil in this world. Its materialist, “money shark” and pro-rich focus had spectacular effects, but at the same time mainly favoured the wealthy, increasing global inequality.

Its favouring of shareholders, replaced the once more “social” entrepreneurship (called “Rhineland model” by some) in parts of Europe, considering also employees’ well-being and rights to employment, the environment, i.e. a company’s wider social context. This was not all about the money, unlike this US-shaped neoliberalism, where harsh unsensitive firing of employees is stimulated rather than avoided.

Compared to this strong cultural and economic mainstream influence the US obtained in Europe, Brazil remained strongly behind. Even in “Latin” countries as Spain or Italy – and even erstwhile colonizer Portugal -, the US got a more dominant influence than Brazil. Brazil remained an exotic place of which most knew not much beyond football, carnival, samba, bossa nova, and perhaps favelas.

COMPARISON

The comparison between the US and Brazil I chose not randomly: they represent the largest countries in the Americas, the most numerous populations, yet a totally different position in international relations.

This has historical reasons, such as the different colonial patterns, the later date of independence, and all kinds of social and climatic reasons. The connection of the US to the Anglo-Saxon world, ensured its ties to industrialization, that started in Britain in the Late 18th c.

Yet, other countries reached that heightened degree of industrialization, outside of the West, notably Japan and South Korea, as well as China to a degree. Perhaps a tropical climate limits the “super power” potential in this capitalist, exploitative world, seeking control over “raw materials”.

Lula Da Silva apparently just won Brazil’s elections in Late 2022, as I write this. I remember that same Lula Da Silva said in a speech for an international audience, about 20 years ago, (during an earlier presidency, I reckon) that: “for all intents and purposes, Brazil belongs to the Western world”. For some reason, I remembered this. It seemed at odds with his “Left-wing” image, and I do not know if I agree with it fully, maybe only partly.

It is somehow disrespectful to the large African population in Brazil, as well as the original Amerindian population: the only cultural values that matter internationally are supposedly Euro-Western ones. There is however a strong cultural impact of Afro-Brazilians on Brazilian culture and society.

CUBA AND BRAZIL

In that sense, a comparison can be made between Cuba, a country I know better, and Brazil. Both were Iberian colonies and important destinations of African slaves.

For a large part these Africans in both colonies (Cuba and Brazil) were taken from roughly the same regions in Africa. “Roughly” because there are interesting differences regarding the Central African slaves ending up in Cuba and those in Brazil. Historical sources say that in Brazil more enslaved Africans came from is now Angola, and in the case of Cuba more from what is now DR Congo or Congo-Brazzaville, with the cultural differences this implies, even while sharing a Bantu heritage.

It is noticeable in main cultural exports of both countries: the Brazilian Capoeira “martial dance” has clearly precursors in present-day Angola, while Afro-Cuban music genres like Son and Rumba – in turn shaping what we know as Salsa – evidently show Congo region musical characteristics: straight rhythms, polyrhythms and clave, pelvic moves, dances, etcetera. Some of these Central African traits, though, are also found in Afro-Brazilian Samba

To both colonies, also relatively many slaves from Yorubaland (Nigeria, Benin) were brought, but from different parts of Yorubaland, again implying slight cultural differences.

PERCUSSION

As a percussionist, I focused on both cultures (Cuba and Brazil) and its instruments, noting that these instruments differ: partly attributable to different colonizers: the “Portuguese/Lusophone” world e.g. uses more tambourines than the Hispanic one, but also due to different places of origins of enslaved Africans, even if bordering. There are interesting, remarkable peculiarities, alongside partial similarities.

While a “conga-like” big drum can be found in Brazil too - and also like in Cuba several drum types -, there are differences. Tambourines are little used in Afro-Cuban music, but much in Afro-Brazilian music (Samba, capoeira music, carnival). Bongos (two attached small drums of different sizes) are not really found in Brazil, while on the other hand the Yoruba-derived Agogo bell in Brazil (with two connected different-sized bells) has no real equivalent in Cuba, where mostly single cowbells are used.

Friction, rubbed drums with the high “monkey-like” sound, called: “cuicas” are typically Brazilian, although friction drums are used in Cuba, though with a much lower sound.. perhaps more akin to the sound of lions or lionesses. Why that difference in sound? The origins are mostly in Central Africa.

Though as a percussionist I am overall more of the “Afro-Cuban” school and soon also of the Reggae and African schools, in time Brazilian instruments and music influenced me too, making myself even compositions based musically on Afro-Brazilian genres Samba or Afoxé.

Then there are other instruments, developed over time, that became unique to Afro-Brazilian culture, differing from e.g. Afro-Cuba.

Both Cuba and Brazil represent cultural “power houses”, also with regard to internationally spread percussion instruments, each with own characteristics. They influenced music and not least percussion worldwide.

In Cuba, guitars follow either Andalusian (South Spanish) or Canarian models, in Brazil smaller, Portuguese models, all used in Africanized contexts.

Song structures and singing styles came to differ too, in relation to different colonizers and African influences. In part, Brazil also has stronger Amerindian influences.

RACE RELATIONS

Through all these relative differences, within broader similarities (Iberian influences, Central African and Yoruba influences), a main similarity is the racial mixture.

The latter is much stronger in both Brazil and Cuba, when compared to the US, where races “stayed apart” more historically. The Black or White worlds one might distinguish in the US, are less clear-cut in Brazil (and Cuba), though not absent.

Political power, for example, remained – up to today! - for the largest part a Euro or White domain in both countries, in sharp contrast to “the street”. In Cuba, the Castro family (with roots in Galicia, Spain) shows this, but also most of the Communist Party’s leadership are White Cubans. Not representative racially, because in Cuba, about 60 % is either mixed or mostly African, with similar percentages in Brazil.

Also in Brazil, politics and parliament remained long almost “lilly-white”, dominated by people of European descent, thus hardly representative.

This “racial fluidity” – albeit with hypocrisy and inequality – did not reach Europe as much as influences from US-style Black-White dichotomies, echoing in US-style “minority” and "identity” discourses in some multicultural European countries (Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, France).

This again shows a stronger US influence in Europe. This also showed in the relative attention to police violence often targeting Blacks in the US. As I wrote in an earlier article/post, this also happens in Brazil, and in much higher numbers: police killings in the Rio de Janeiro state alone outnumbering those in the whole of US, and disproportionately affecting young Black men. We only hear less about it.

In fact, I think comparing Brazil and the US – as comparable regarding size - and its present position in the world, is useful to highlight some major historically grown inequalities in this world, stemming largely from colonialism.

Brazil is not really a “white" nation, but mostly mixed, with large minorities of mainly Africans or mainly Europeans - or Amerindians in some regions -, but mostly mixed, often also culturally. This is further complicated by migrations, such as the large Japanese community in the big city Sao Paolo, Italian and German migrants more in South Brazil. Nonetheless, Brazil has an image of “racial mixture”, including Africans.

The US, despite its quite large African American minority, has the image of a “White”, European/Anglo-Saxon country, presenting itself to the world as such. With this, it gained power and influence and maintained it, showing – as much more - the colonial legacy of white supremacy today.

Neoliberalist capitalism is largely a “US” invention, but another “economic model”, for instance developed in Brazil, would not be so influential and popular. We are stuck with the “hard”, shareholder-biased capitalism of neoliberalism, bearing a clear WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) system of values. A bit more popular or looser, Third World or “Latino” minded approach to economic life would actually be refreshing, but has little chance to influence European or global affairs.

NEW WORLD ORDER

The recent lockdown policies and alignment with Big Pharma and Business of most Western countries, only showed that this neoliberal capitalism only became “harder”, until reaching totalitarian, Fascist characteristics.

The term Fascist I chose specifically, because the alignment of Big State and Big Business we now see, has a precursor in Mussolini’s Fascist policies in Italy since the 1920s: this was called Corporatism, sharing the same principle: big money is big power.

The former President of Brazil Jair Bolsanoro was not perfect, said some nonsensical things probably, but at least was to a degree justly critical of such lockdown/fascist directions and of Big Pharma’s and WHO’s influence. He differed in this from more compliant leaders, also in Latin America, and in the West.

Some Brazil experts I know here in the Netherlands, told me that Bolsonaro – while White and Middle-Class - did not come from the traditional elite (with its dubious links to the historical plantocracy), and as an outsider was more independent.

That the newly elected President of Brazil, Lula Da Silva, once said – as mentioned - that “for all intents and purposes, Brazil is part of the West”, does not seem promising for an own course, though some commentators say he wants to go an own way. It will be merely “neoliberalism with a social face”, Dutch scholar Kees Van Der Pijl said.

I can only hope that his election does not represent a “putting in line” of Brazil’s government policies with global governance – present neoliberal fascism -, or any Agenda the UN has (2030), which do not benefit the poor people of this world (only in name).

That’s another thing, when comparing the US and Brazil: Brazil has (overall) still a much higher poverty rate than the USA, including predictable racial disparities.

Lula Da Silva must know this too. Would he sell his soul to this globalist capitalist elite at the cost of his multiracial people?

Time will tell, and will show whether the elections were indeed fraudulent, or that corruption/bribing is hidden from sight.

If this is the case, the vague yet outdated image of Lula Da Silva as anti-elite Left-wing is precisely that: an outdated memory, past and gone, fake and false, in this negatively changing, corrupted world of politics, shaped by a global, Western-led capitalist elite.

Unfortunately, Brazil is then indeed part of this exploitative Western world, and more compliantly so. Such as it became since colonialism.

Shock doctrine?

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

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

SHOCK DOCTRINE

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

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

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

DICTATORSHIPS

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEIL YOUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POSTSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detachment

I guess “detachment” is a welcome concept at the time of writing, amid a “corona crisis”, that many see as an elite’s pLandemic.

These corona policies resulted in gradually normalized, yet still “surreal”, measures like global lockdowns and curfews, trampling of people’s rights and liberties, increasing inequality, divide and conquer, segregation, and recently even discrimination and “medical apartheid”. Something like “covid passports” in several countries, including France, Germany, Italy, and recently also the Netherlands, where I live, is now required for simple entry into free public life (bars, restaurants), and hacks at the roots of liberal democracy as we know it.

A sad and disturbing period, also because the “infection risk of a severe and deadly virus” narrative of the international governments, seems to be believed widely, or at least upheld as accepted fiction.

Many say these governments are elite-driven, negative forces “against the people”. They assume mass control goals by a wealthy elite, with a hyped-up virus/pandemic as excuse, or pretext.

Others (at least in their public statements) believe such strict, undemocratic measures might be unprecedented in liberal democracies since Fascism and Communism, but are necessary to deal with a pandemic and the dangerous Covid 19 virus. Simply said: some think it is about power and/or money, some think it actually is about health.

I am not going to walk that well-trodden path of these hopelessly opposed stances – even if involving reality or true facts (with few “true” facts on the side of those who think it is about health, and more plausible, yet difficult to prove, facts on those who think it is about power).

In reality, if it is just a control plan based on lies, it can be considered “too much honour” to dignify it by having it become the main subject of conversation: “cold” and tense themes like disease effects, virus infection, infectiousness, IC capacity, and so on.

More important I consider now the attack on and limiting of democratic values through corona policies in once liberal democracies like the Netherlands or France. These were built after all successfully, though with imperfections, since WWII, and these changes in them touch us individually, our way of life, how we move in our societies. It changes our lives, whether we want to or not.

The gradual nature of all these policies are suspect, but also obscure that by now we must conclude: since March 2020 we have lost control over our lives vis-à-vis the state and politicians, due to this corona crisis. This cannot be denied. Most harshly and humiliating for those not submissive enough to take the experimental "vaccine", but requiring "a pass" to go to e.g. a bar, restaurant, or museum, should be questioned also by the now newly privileged vaccinated, even if their ego is caressed.

Gathering freely as humans, travelling freely, even going out to a restaurant or bar (requiring covid passes/codes in some countries).. all has been made problematic, through some kind of “commandment politics” by “tough” politicians, giving their statements suddenly - in tone and content - as “closed” and “final say”, as in Fascist or other dictatorships.

GLOBAL POLICY MONSTER

In a sense, it made us as individual humans feel more powerless, especially as this Fascist “final say” and "definite" tone political leaders use nowadays in once democratic countries – from Macron in France, to Rutte in the Netherlands, Merkel in Germany, Trudeau in Canada, and Biden in the US -, seems part of a big “global policy monster” which for individual citizens seems impossible to fight. Or even leave out of one’s life.

Yet.. I argue it only seems impossible. I return therefore to the first sentence of this post and the word “detachment” for a philosophical concept. There must be a spiritual way to detach oneself from this – in essence – psychological war - , and I think this detachment is necessary.

The totalitarian nature of the policies, show especially in the “behavior” ordinances for citizens that oddly became commonly accepted: when to gather, how many people in your house, where to work, how to go out. Using “fear from infection” worked apparently wonders, even in “free” societies.

The gradual nature of this corona hype, hid from plain sight that the focus is always negative: both tone and content. Commandment/ordinnances rather that consolation, threats rather than advise, division rather than unity.

Against this seemingly unbeatable foe of negative energy, I think a spiritual approach, or rather spiritual “detachment” or disconnection can help us humans maintain balance and positive purpose. Especially because of much of it is “fear-based”, thus irrational.

First of all: how can detachment be defined?

DETACHMENT

In its philosophical sense, the Wikipedia article on Detachment, contains some interesting things , but is too limited in scope. It restricts philosophical “detachment” to Eastern religions in Asia, notably India, China, and Persia (Buddism, Hinduism, Bahai, a.o.), and Christianity, but excludes e.g. Africa, and the Americas.

Detachment might be best known in its Zen Buddhist meaning: being detached (unstained) by one’s thoughts: not to be harmed mentally and emotionally by them.

Also interesting is Detachment in Hindu thinking as “living in the moment” (focusing on the task at hand). Both in parts of Buddhism and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Detachment is connected to being “free from lust or passions”, being available solely to God, related to the lambasting of “temptation” in the Bible and Quran.

These are mentioned in that Wikipedia article, but ignore therewith many other equally interesting faiths and spiritual beliefs in this world, such as in Africa, among Amerindians, or African American ones, like Rastafari, or Vodou.

AFRICA

Focussing on belief systems in some African cultures one can find Detachment in this philosophical sense in some way, but indirectly through “spirits”.

The Igbo in Nigeria know the concept of “Chi”, a spirit/godliness belonging to an individual. While connected to a higher encompassing spirit or deity, “almighty creator”, the “Chi” itself is individual, and therefore represents one’s own godly, spiritual essence and destiny. It is an initiating and animating force. The detachment lies in its independence from all else: the material world, and societal demands, while indirectly connected to higher deities, or ancestral spirits.

Similar personalized spirits among other (higher) spirits can be found in other African peoples as well, such as the Akan in Ghana, the Yoruba, and the Bantu. All have this implied “agency” for each individual human, which also can be understood as “rising above”, disconnection form worldly affairs, as well as an “inner strength” or “fire”. Or indeed Detachment.

Even the concept of “cool” in the African aesthetic – to which I devoted an earlier blog post – is related to this detachment.

RASTAFARI

This African type of “detachment” found its way into the African Jamaican spiritual movement Rastafari, originating in the 1930s, now well known through Reggae music.

The “Livity” spiritual concept – of which there is also a Wikipedia article – is certainly relevant here.

Livity is according to that Wikipedia article:

“Its essence is the realization that an energy or life-force, conferred by Almighty Jah (God), exists within, and flows through, all people and all living things. This is seen as the presence of Jah living within humans, and is often expressed in Rastafari vocabulary as "I and I", where the first "I" refers to the Almighty, the second "I" for oneself.”

Later on:

“In Rastafari philosophy, Livity can be enhanced by intense prayer and meditation (often enhanced by sacramental cannabis use), adherence to an Ital diet, and perhaps most importantly, loving behavior toward others.”

The remarkable similarities with the mentioned Igbo concept of “Chi” (and similar notions among the Akan and Bantu people) shows that this must be an African retention, mixed with Christian/Biblical influences.

It also shows an idea of “detachment”.

Spirit possession cults and beliefs in Africa and the African Diaspora, such as those in Vodou, Santería, Kumina, or Winti, are ways to connect with ancestors for sure, but their very “possession-like” or “trance-like” character – often through rhythm and drums - forms an escape or detachment by itself.

RECONNECTION

It is, then, a reconnection with one’s spirits within – or ancestral ones -, but when “reconnecting” one apparently felt disconnected before. Too attached to the worldly and material. To "the system".

Since the drastic and ineffective “lockdown policies” were stubbornly chosen internationally since 2020, this also meant a limitation of culture and the hospitality sector, and an increased focus on home life, avoiding people, especially by those very afraid.

This increased loneliness and mental problems among many groups, largely due to the lack of “outlet” or stress relief, or even the togetherness and consolation of other people with similar lots.

In this confrontation with oneself, in such a tense time, I think a positive and spiritual detachment is crucial.

Power politics and fear are negative, yet strong, invasive and polluting forces that can take over minds, limiting a clear view on things.

The detachment in all senses seems necessary, whether from Zen Buddhism, the idea of “living in the moment”, to African, and other ones, simply to escape monotonous, tense themes like viruses, infections, and such – “hyped up” –, and related politics and power games.

Then to look within oneself: at first detached from passions and worries (as in Buddhist and Christian interpretations), then finding what really makes you tick, what are your unique needs and qualities (as in African interpretations).

Here, the “African” concept of an individual “inner spirit” or “inner divinity” – yet connected with ancestors – really can be helpful in maintaining own pride and agency. Detachment with a purpose.

Labi Siffre sang about it in the fine song “Something Inside So Strong”, while African American author James Baldwin in an interview interestingly said that however oppressed and limited – and damaged - by historical White power structures: these will “never have ME”..

The world needs this individual pride and agency. This also in light of cultural differences. Chinese culture developed through time as collectivistic, rather than individualistic, making a “social credit” system, probably not loved, but accepted there more easily.

CONDITIONS

The corona policies, especially the digital “covid passports” made many fear similar plans in Western democracies, as it introduced external conditional aspects to one’s behavior. Conditions by other forces, beyond our control.

In my opinion, history can largely be seen as wealthy elites, fearing - and therefore controlling and restricting - the poorer majority, and their possible rise or rebellion. A "control state" seems only a more totalitarian "solution" to this long-held "fear of the masses".

This very idea of another party being able to place “conditions” on your behavior as free individual, would seem absurd and morally unacceptable – as it should be considered – when you know that inner, “divine” strength, your right to agency. Living and not being lived. Ruling your own destiny. To say it with a cliché: “believing in yourself”.

The long-upheld Christian and Islamic idea of a “God in the sky”, apart from humans, limits human agency, also toward such unprecedented political “control” goals, and therefore seems less helpful in maintaining one’s own strength. The same applies to a quite naïve "blind" trust in authorities, that is still common, though not universal.

We need to “detach” from that entire system through our own energy and agency, I think, before the “control state” and patronizing, demeaning “social credits” systems goes any further than it already has, and then “roll it back”, toward true humanity.

This is best done by having faith in one’s own spirit of capacity, of self-study, intelligent thought, despite outside pressure, “shaming”, or “fear-mongering”. Independent self-confidence. True independence requires courage.

In short: this type of detachment helps in my opinion in “opening one’s third eye”, realizing the self-ridiculing absurdity of the undemocratic, rights-trampling policies, and also in presenting an alternative.

This alternative is an individuality detached from - in the "Zen" sense - materialism, including all man-made oppressive/freedom-taking structures, but also aligned to all living beings and nature (and natural immunity!), and the ancestors, - as in the African and Rastafari senses, or in the Bantu concept of Ubuntu: human through other humans.

A good way to deal with trauma, and revive culture, togetherness, and social living, as a way out of this dystopia..