Pragmatic Idealism

Revival

2010-04-07T00:13:00.002+02:00

After a silence of a few months, I've decided to give this thing a go again. Not immediately, as I currently have very little time reserved for the writing of worthwhile articles, but soon enough. In a while, you can expect more articles on some of the subjects I have been focussing on for my studies, mainly historical subjects related to the first half of the twentieth century in Spain.

As for Holland: politics here are as woeful as always, but I will try to shed some light on the upcoming general elections without resorting to excessive amounts of cynism.

I may also post a more varied amount of articles. In stead of just political writings, I might focus a bit more on reviewing movies, music, and some other things. We'll see.

436 years ago on this day...

2009-10-08T10:19:00.001+02:00

...the city of Alkmaar liberated itself from Spanish occupation. This Dutch victory was a turning point in the 80 Years' War waged between the Spanish empire and the Dutch rebels. This war is one of the best examples of how your perception of history is heavily influenced by the one who wrote it. Traditionally, Dutch people view this period as a battle for (religious) freedom against an evil empire that was only interested in torturing random people for not being catholics. The Spanish, on the other hand, view it as a longwinded period in which a group of unwashed barbarians effectively put an end to Spain's Golden Age, just because they could. So is the truth somewhere in the middle like always, or is there more to it?

To be able to answer this question we have to go back and take a look at what exactly caused this war. As said, we like to think that this war was all about religion. A lot of Dutchman were protestant, which was obviously not appreciated by the catholic Spanish king, Philip II.

This religious aspect wasn't the main motivation behind the war, however, but it wasn't made up by the Dutch either. Philip II used this motivation himself as an excuse to justify his campaign to the outside world. His war was supposedly 'a war in defence of christianity', which sounded very sympathetic in those days, seeing as nearly everyone in Europe was a christian, must like nearly every European is a democrat these days. In this way we can compare Philip II's reasoning to the outside world with the way the USA claims to wage war 'to keep the world safe for freedom and democracy' (while everyone with half a brain knows that's not true, by the way).

But like with the USA, Spain didn't spend all that money, and risk the very existance of its empire (for losing this battle would cause a domino effect throughout its ourcorners) due to some random, quasi-noble bitchfight about who had the awesomest religious doctrine. At the root of the problem lay Philip II's desire to do away with the medieval feodal system by stripping the noblemen of their political power. The fact that the power of the latter was dependent on bloodline rather than merit annoyed the Spanish king, so he made plans to give power instead to civil servants he could hire and fire at will.

Needless to say, the noblemen weren't all too happy with these plans. One of those noblemen was the Stadhouder (a powerful feudal lord) of Holland, Utrecht, and Zeeland, William of Orange, who would go on to lead a rebellion against the Spanish empire, leading the Dutch rebels in the early stages of the war, until he was killed in 1584. Aided by cold winters and strong city walls, many Dutch cities managed to remain independent after the imperial army came into the country to set things straight.

Eventually, most of what we now know as The Netherlands, managed to separate itself from the empire. For the Spanish, it soon became obvious that reconquering every city lost to the rebels was a near impossibility, yet they would keep fighting on until 1648, when Spain definitely lost the status of the world's most powerful empire, never to retain it again. But why did they keep fighting if things weren't looking good, basically from the start?

There are several reasons. First and foremost, Spain had to set an example as an imperial force. If The Netherlands had been given up to the rebels so soon, indigenous peoples in other parts of the empire (for example in the Americas or in Italy) might have considered that an indication that Spain was unable to maintain its power in the empire's outposts, and they would have likely followed the example set by the Dutch rebels. But there's more. When I say Spain, I mainly refer to the political entity in control of the empire. The war can't be seen, however, as a battle between Dutch and Spanish people. Back in those days, national armies pretty much didn't exist, and wars were fought by mercenaries. Even though the basis of the Spanish army (i.e. the army under Spanish command) was formed by the feared tercios, who were widely regarded as the world's best soldiers in those days, many Germans, Walloons, Swiss, and Italians fought in the army. This had one major advantage, namely the 'binding factor'. As long as so many foreign soldiers occupied the ranks of the Spanish army, the likelihood of any serious conflicts emerging with said nations was small. In a way, The Netherlands functioned as Europe's punching bag.

So to answer the question I asked earlier, I'll have to say: yes, the truth is in the middle. The Spaniards weren't a bunch of zealous catholic crusaders, even though that still seems to be the common perception when you take a look at how the Spanish empire and its representatives are portrayed in a film such as Elisabeth: The Golden Age. But the Dutch rebels weren't a bunch of unorganised barbarians either. Both parties were fighting a long and difficult war, mainly over complex political conflicts the normal soldiers might have never been aware of. In fact, I must note that the binding factor among the foreign soldiers was their religion. They did, in fact, often think they were defending a true, noble cause against a horde of barbarians.

...And who still says history doesn't repeat itself?

The best of Dutch literature

2009-10-01T14:26:00.004+02:00

Seeing as culturally-based patriotism is one of the key elements of my ideology, and of this blog, I deemed it wise to revelate some of my country's indigenous culture to you. But instead of bothering you with endless stories about our national history, let me take you to the wonderful world of literature. Because literature, like no other form of art, reflects the spirit of a certain place in a certain age. I will not bore you with a detailed description of our literary history, however. I will instead give you examples of some of the finest works our literary canon has to offer. This is by no means a complete list, and I intend to do this more often.

Multatuli - Max Havelaar (1859)

Dutch readers might frown upon this choice, seeing as combining it with patriotism isn't the most logical thing to do according to current interpretations of the book. It's especially popular among left-winged humanists who feel ashamed of our colonial past. This is because the aim of the book is to criticise the treatment of the indigenous population in the East Indies (present-day Indonesia) by the Dutch colonisers. As such, people have often classified Multatuli's work as anti-colonial. It was not anti-colonial, however, as Multatuli wasn't against the idea of the colony itself, but rather propagated a more ethical treatment of the indigenous population of the islands.

The interesting characters, the ironic depiction of the bureaucratic civil sevant system of the East Indies, as well as the valuable message it carries, make the book Max Havelaar by Multatuli an unmissable addition to our literary tradition.

Nescio - Titaantjes, Dichtertje, De Uitvreter (1918) ["Small Titans, Little Poet, The Moocher"]

As a writer, Nescio (the pseudonym of Jan Hendrik Frederik Grönloh), only published a few hundred of pages worth of literature. Despite this low quantity, Nescio is commonly regarded as one of Holland's most important literary figures. And not without reason. His three most famous stories, Titaantjes, Dichtertje, and De Uitvreter, were heavily influenced by his disappointment with experimental anarchist communities in the beginning of the 20th century. As such, a recurring theme in Nescio's work is how people are idealistic when they're young, but always turn out to become good, moderate, average civilians as they grow up.

This gives Nescio's work a touch of both melancholy and despair. The people who want to change the world become part of the old, familiar system themselves, only to wonder what went wrong, at the end of their lives.

Ferdinand Bordewijk - Karakter (1938)

Karakter tells the story of Jacob Willem Katadreuffe. Being the child of a bailiff (mr. Dreverhaven) and his maid (Jacoba Katadreuffe), he spends most of his childhood alone with his mother, who refuses to have any contact with the father whatsoever. Jacob spends the early days of his childhood in a rough neighbourhood. His mother isn't rich, but she makes sure Jacob gets a decent elementary education. As time progresses, Jacob starts to try and make his own living, failing at first, but eventually becoming clergy at a lawyer's office, where he starts climbing the social ladder. Jacob does not have an easy time doing so, however, as he is constantly being obstructed by his father.

Those who can handle the tough 'New Objectivity' writing style, will find a beautiful story about the power of will. Karakter was also translated into English (as Character) as a result of the internationally successful film version of the story (it won an Academy Award), directed by Mike van Diem. Both the book and the film are very recommendable.

Toon Tellegen - Misschien wisten zij alles (1995) ["Maybe they knew everything"]

Having grown up with his work, Toon Tellegen oeuvre just has to be mentioned in my list of noteworthy Dutch literature. His work is so pluriform and rich that it's impossible to capture its essence in one sentence. Misschien wisten zij alles, like much of Tellegen's work, is a collection of stories about anthropomorphic animals who live in a big forest. Though generally classified as children's stories, most of the stories have a hidden philosophical layer that will probably only be understood by adult readers. Moreover, the extremely dry sense of humour displayed in nearly all of the stories will be appreciated by young and old alike. This work simply offers so much, and there are so many ways to read it, that everyone who's familiar with it will keep coming back to it.

The real shame is that Tellegen's work has not been translated into other languages for as far I know, so you'll have to either believe me on my word, or learn Dutch. Without flattering myself too much, I do believe the former option is slightly easier.

And with that, I'll end my first ode to Dutch literature. While our literary canon cannot compare to such literary traditions as those in Germany, Great-Britain, America, France, or Spain in terms of quantity, I hope to have proven that a small country such as Holland (which is, I believe, tinier than the smallest American state) can still produce a respectable amount literary gems. If I'm being even more optimistic, I hope to have motivated some of you to try and familiarise yourself with some of our literature and culture in general, although the lack of translation of Dutch books into English makes it hard to be able to fully appreciate everything we have to offer.

That being said, I intend to discuss more of the cultural production of this lovely patch of land in the future, so stay tuned.

Drop your MP3 player and put your hands above your head

2009-10-01T00:50:00.002+02:00

German government decides what kind of music its citizens are allowed to listen to.

Those of you who think that America has had a hard time with Jack Thompson and the likes trying to censor what you play, watch, and listen to, can think again. Because Germany, the most politically correct country in the world, is at it again. In the only country where Carmageddon was about killing dinosaurs with a car, in the country for which Cannibal Corpse has to supply their CD's with alternative cover art to prevent their albums from getting banned, censorship has reached a new level.

It has recently come to my attention that on last.fm, a major website annex online community that keeps track of what music you listen to on your computer, German users are no longer to are able to view the artist pages of bands which are deemed 'inappropiate' by the German establishment. These artists are mostly bands with national socialist or simply nationalist lyrics. When you look for the German nationalist band Sturmwehr, the national-socialist band Stahlgewitter, or the nationalist Dutch band Brigade M, you get a message saying:

Es tut uns Leid, aber diese Seite enthält eventuell jugendgefährdende Inhalte. Der Zugriff auf diese Inhalte wurde gemäß des deutschen Jugendschutzgesetzes verwehrt.

Translation: We're sorry, but this site has content that may be damaging to youth. The access to this content is being denied according to the German youth protection law.

( http://lastfm.spiegel.de/search?m=all&q=Stahlgewitter )

Damaging for the youth? Then why not block all gangsta rap as well? The sad thing is that you even get this message with a band such as Absurd, a black metal band of which the members have a national-socialist background, but of which the lyrics aren't actually nazistic, but deal with paganism and general black metal themes such as death and battles. Along with Nokturnal Mortum, another censored band, Absurd is widely listened to by black- and pagan metal fans, regardless of their political preference.

Moreover, 'damaging to the youth' is a very subjective classification. I despise nazism, but as I am not as closed-minded as the German government (or many other people for the matter), I am actually familiar with some of the band music. The aforementioned metal formation Stahlgewitter, for example, has some very valuable messages regarding capitalism, the consumer society, and American imperialism. Although the radical solutions they offer do not appeal to me, this doesn't mean the band should be put away as 'damaging' and 'dangerous', while the countless MTV acts promoting limitless consumerism, hedonism, and a total lack of morality are being left untouched.

How can anyone actually consider this a good development in a time where things such as free speech and privacy are already under pressure? How long until they also start banning bands with violent lyrics, or bands with blasphemous lyrics? Even if you think nazism and nationalism are utterly disgusting, isn't it more disgusting that the government is actually deciding what you can or can't listen to?

Germany is very extreme when it comes to censorship, but even in the surrounding European countries similar developments can be seen. Only recently a judge in Holland ordered the website The Pirate Bay to deny access to Dutch users within 10 days after a lawsuit from a private company that claims to protect the copyright. I think it's very scary that private companies can already decide what we can and can't visit on the internet. Not to mention the countless ways the governments of the West are trying to spy on their people outside the internet, with the introduction fingerprints on passports, obliged DNA samples, and laws against blasphemy soon becoming a reality in many Western countries, all with the excuse of fighting terrorism. Treating every inhabitant of your country as a suspect, however, is a fundamental mistake that shows us terrorism has won, if anything.

What happened in Germany can thus be placed in a larger context of internet censorship, and the increasing control of the state over its people. People who've read my previous posts know that I'm not a liberal: in my view, the state should have enough measures to keep both the economic and the social structures of the nation under control, but I do not by any means support governmental control over what we listen to or view, what goes on in our bedrooms, what they do in their spare time...

In this light, I can safely say the measures taken by Germany are scandalous. What surprises me most is that with a few google searches I couldn't find anything on the censorship of right-winged bands. Those who are interested can visit the German version of last.fm with the following link:

http://lastfm.spiegel.de/

2009? More like 1984.

Tintin in Trouble

2009-09-25T13:37:00.004+02:00

PC squad strikes again.

And who said comics were innocent? A group of black Frenchmen wants the Belgian comic "Tintin in Africa" to come with a warning about the alleged racist portrayal of the Congolese. The CRAN (conseil représentatif des associations noires de France) claims that the comic confirms all prejudices about the Congolese. According to the CRAN, this portrayal might have a negative effect on how people in Europe, especially children, perceive Congo and the Congolese.

While the portrayal of Africans in the comic can hardly be considered realistic, the desire to put a warning on its cover is nonsensical. Will we make comics which portray the Japanese as backwards people with huge front-teeth who keep babbling about 'honoulable' this and that, come with a warning as well? What about all those cartoons which portray the Germans as nazis who shout and march all day? What about movies in which Indians wear feathered hats, smoke peace pipes, and dance around their tipis all day? Or movies that identify Mexicans with border jumping, talking funny, and being dirty? While we're at it, I think we have to warn children that the image of Canadians who have flapping heads and say 'aboot', as shown in South Park, doesn't coincide with reality.

Et cetera. Ridiculous stereotypes of races and cultures are an inherent part of many comics, cartoons, and movies of present and past. It's stupid to think that an 80-year old comic will influence a child's perception of the Congolese, while he still has his everyday experience to learn from, and parents who can tell him how things work.

This situation is very comparable to the controversy surrounding the annual Sinterklaas celebration in Holland. In this Dutch equivalent of the Christmas celebration, Santa Clause is Sinterklaas (notice the similarity of the names), and his helpers are not elves, but the so-called Black Petes (Zwarte Pieten). The latter occasionally generate controversy, due to their appearance being derived from the stereotypical depiction of Moors. Its original meaning is unknown among children, however, as parents tell them the Petes are so black because of the soot getting on their faces while sliding down chimneys to bring presents. And this is how nearly every Dutchman views it nowadays - soot rather than a mocking depection of Moors.

Controversy occasionally arises, however, mostly due to the efforts of politically correct whites. A protest against the Sinterklaas celebration (or at least its use of Black Petes) was organised a few years back by an American man and a German woman. With America and Germany being the most politically correct countries in the world along with Great Britain, this isn't particularly surprising, except for the fact that it's at least questionable that foreigners try to tell us how to celebrate our own holidays. I reckon that especially the American would love to see us exchange the unique celebration of Sinterklaas with the commercial Christmas celebration they have in the Anglo-Saxon regions, in which the consumers are the real Santa Clauses, serving the Capital even though it hasn't been a particularly good child.

When it comes to politically correct, over-the-top anti-racism measures in general, it's mostly whites who are responsible. Not only the whole Sinterklaas ordeal was organised by whites: the banning of the word 'negerzoen' (negro kiss: a Dutch snack with chocolate and whipped cream) was organised by guilty-sensing white people as well. Moreover, extreme-left, self-proclaimed anti-racist organisations such as AFA almost exclusively consist of whites as well.

What's so surprising about the whole Tintin controversy, however, is that it's actually the black community (or members thereof) itself that protests. This doesn't make the situation any different, though. I'd personally endorse a 'deal with it' kind of mentality, as supplying future editions of Tintin in Africa with a warning would only be the beginning of a long process in which every form of stereotyping, regardless of its political, social and historical context, would be supplied with a label telling us what we already know. Not to mention that censoring or limiting art in general is just a very bad idea, especially seeing as freedom of speech is already being endangered by all kinds of crazy measures. Let's hope neither law nor society will give in to the closed-mindedness of the CRAN and other entities that think we are stupid, and feel the need to tell us how to approach literature and art in general.

Politicians never fail to live up to their reputation

2009-09-25T12:32:00.003+02:00

Dutch government fails to keep promises regarding Afghanistan.

What is it with politicians and lying? It was bad enough that our government decided to send troops to Afghanistan to aid the Americans in their chanceless mission to magically convert Aghanistan into a democracy. You would think the ancient monniker 'To make the World safe for Freedom and Democracy' has lost its merit by now, as it has been used by the Americans to justify their military expeditions ever since the first World War. The commanders in chief must look back to those days, when they could simply force soldiers to charge eachother for several years, until one of the figthing parties got bored of this military equivalent of a dick measuring contest and called it a day. It's a sharp contrast with those cheating Talib meanies, who don't come charging out of a trench to be blown to bits by futuristic weaponry, but instead fight a guerilla war that actually gets people on our side killed.

Yes, our side, because inevitably the armies of Europe had to jump in and help because the Taliban actually fought back. The Dutch army was no exception, as the government led by prime-minister Jan-Peter Balkenende decided to send troops to Afghanistan in 2006. Initially, the mission (called 'Task Force Uruzgan') was supposed to end in 2008, but now we're pretty deep into 2009 and we're still there, having a 'contract' running until 2010. The politicians responsible for having our country getting involved in this seemingly endless conflict assured us it was a 'peace mission', and we would only go there to build resources and maintain order when necessary. Now, 21 dead soldiers and many battles with the Taliban later, it's impossible to keep up such appearances much longer.

And the government finally seemed to realise that, as they continuously assured us that the date on which the Dutch soldiers would leave Aghanistan would not be postponed by another few years. However, and I think you saw this one coming, the ministers of defence and foreign affairs (Eimert van Middelkoop and Maxime Verhagen respectively) already crawled back, and are now investigating the possibility of continuing this mission, be it in a somewhat altered form. According to Van Middelkoop, "it would be a waste to throw away all the knowledge of local relations and projects just like that". What would really be a waste, is if we continue to throw tax money into a bottomless pit during an economic crisis in a very obvious attempt to please Barack Obama. Not to mention even more Dutch soldiers would die in vein.

I can imagine that politicians change their opinion over a period of time, when the context and outlook of a certain issue are different than they initially were. I wouldn't be the one to use the term 'flipflopper', as it's actually a good thing to continually evaluate your own views and alter them when necessary. In this case, however, it's obvious that politicians sell this country in exchange for some slight diplomatic benefits, making up excuses along the way. We are being lied to: it's a cliché and a mantra, but that's because it has already happened so often in the past that it has become more of a rule than an exception. The truth is that we, as a country, have nothing to gain in Afghanistan, nor do the people who live there. It's time we let the Americans clean their own mess. You break it, you pay for it.

Out of the Oven

2009-09-24T17:56:00.008+02:00

About the most pleasant of seasons.

Autumn is upon us again. With myself not being a fan of the tremendously heat summers that have tormented this country in recent years, I'm looking forward with great enthusiasm to the mild, pleasant autumn weather. Even though this change of seasons inevitably means that the winds will start blowing furiously again (which is quite a nuisance when you live in a country that's flatter than Mondriaan's painting style), autumn may have become my favourite season over the years. I hate sunbathing, or having to put my fans on 24/7 if I don't want to melt inside my own house, but I love being able to go outside not having to wear a thick sweater or a coat, and autumn seems to be the only season in which the latter is possible without having to suffer from the 'walking in an oven' feeling.

One of the best things to do when the weather is in all ways pleasant, is to go outside, sit down (be it in your own garden or on a bench in some park), and lose yourself in a book. What a wonderful coincidence, then, that I received €47,50 (over $60) worth of book gift certificates for my birthday a few weeks back. For the first time in a long while, I was able to walk into a bookstore with the intention of actually buying something. Because mind you, books prices are steep these days, or, as the immortal Eddie from Bottom would put it, 'effing vertical'.

All negativism aside, I was able to purchase two seemingly fine books for that budget, which should guide me through this installment of my beloved transitional season. The first being Misschien wisten zij alles ('Maybe they knew everything') by Toon Tellegen, a firm hardcover edition containing many of Tellegen's famous stories about anthropomorphic animals. While essentially children's stories, many of them contain a philosophical layer only adults will understand.

The other book is a diary specifically about nature, written by Nescio. It'll be interesting to see if my appreciation for autumn is shared by one of the greatest authors to ever grace the Dutch language. Maybe I can also destillate some useful tips from this book, on where I can best enjoy the Dutch nature during the fall.

And those tips are no luxury these days, as there's less and less space for nature to flourish in this densely populated country.

A few words regarding "conservatism" in Europe

2009-09-24T16:29:00.005+02:00

Having recently stumbled across this video by chance, I feel that the current economic and political situation in Europe isn't shed proper light upon. I thought I'd be a gentleman and offer a helping hand.

Unlike what is suggested (even though Hannan already implies some of the following), the shift towards "conservatism" in Europe isn't a shift towards political parties with a set political set of ideas resembling that of the GOP in America, hence why I use parenthesis when using the term. The first and foremost reason of the shift towards "conservatism" is the sole fact that many of the centre-right parties are in the opposition against the centre-left parties that are currently governing many European countries. In the European elections, people vote for a party to enter the European parliament, but the election results can also be used to measure the approval rate of the national governments.

What must be understood is that, economically, these parties don't differ a great deal, meaning that centre-left parties are not socialist, and centre-right parties are not liberal. In fact, a lot of centre-right parties have applied pure socialist policies in trying to keep the crisis under control. So Beck's suggestion that the results could be an indication of Europeans "finding out" that 'socialist measures don't work' is far off.

Another reason why people vote for so-called conservative parties is not so much their economic stance, but their social stance, for example when it comes to the growing problems with islam in Europe, which were rightfully mentioned by Varney near the end of the video. Geert Wilders, the leader of the PVV (Partij Voor de Vrijheid - 'Freedom Party'), who was also mentioned by Varney, is an economic liberal (although some of his latest measures have been a bit atypical for that profile), but nearly everyone who votes for him does it because of his strong anti-islamic stances. The people who vote for him are partly the same people who voted for the Socialist Party in the past, but seeing as they've lost their status as the most prominent oppositional party when their talented leader Jan Marijnissen left, their voters are opting for other parties more and more.

Geert Wilders.

In this light, is not surprising that a lot of the so-called conservative parties are actually national socialist parties who capitalise on the growing contempt among the European people against the islamic invasion that takes place in the form of mass immigration. And this is where the problem lies: too many political systems, such as the ones in Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Germany, France, and too an extent Holland, are still caught up in the outdated battle between centre-left and centre-right, both of whom differ to little from eachother to realise some big changes in our continent. Those differences have only become smaller since the economic crisis hit our shores.

If you want a social-democratic economical system, you have to embrace multiculturalism. If you want to put an end to the disappearance of our own culture, you have to embrace privatisation of everything including your own mother. You should go and travel with the English railway system to see how well that worked out. So it's basically a choice between an invasion of islam and an invasion of corporate America. Good luck with that.

Take your pick.

The only alternative is currently being offered by obscure, often inept national-socialist parties who solely operate out of racist motives. My prediction is that the first decent party to combine left-winged economic ideas with a right-winged perspective concerning immigration issues will harvest a lot of the votes. Votes that ended up in the pockets of liberal and nazist parties during the last elections. It would put an end to the priority dilemma a lot of the voters have had to go through thus far.

Drifting Apart

2009-09-24T00:38:00.005+02:00

A piece of melancholy and slight frustration.

Recently, officials from New York celebrated that, 400 years ago, Hudson reached the American continent with his Dutch expedition, and formed a basis for what eventually would become known as the city of New York. The celebrations took the form of a joyous commemoration of the 400-year old friendship between Holland and the USA. The friendship, at least in recent years, can best be described as the Dutch government doing everything to please the American government in exchange for favours. Political support of the Iraq War in exchange for a Dutch secretary-general of the NATO, just to name an example.

The days when European countries had to look at America to know what to do have passed, however. Or at least they should have. Even though the Americanisation of the Old Continent is a more noticeable trend than ever, and is even starting to affect the previously uncaressed Eastern half of the European mainland, our differences are becoming ever more obvious, and we slowly come to realise that our interests are all but the same.

Too slowly, because even if the USA is often frowned upon as a political entity by many Europeans, a lot of them seem to have no problems with the aggressive implementation of American lifestyle into European culture, if they are even aware of this process. This implementation, or rather invasion, is made possible by the shift towards capitalism all Western-European states took after the end of World War 2, ignoring centuries of the economic evolution that has intergrated into our culture and mindset, our Volksgeist, so to speak. Not that capitalism is necessarily bad: when implemented properly (i.e. with measures to keep it under control) it can make our lives easier and work as a promoting factor for scientific research. In fact, the privatisation of science in Europe in the 17th century is often listed as one of the reasons it evolved into more than just some philosophical affair, as opposed to the state-controlled science in China. However, the in many ways borderless variant of capitalism utilised by the Americans, is very incompatible with our culture, explaining the continuous problems arising from economically liberal measures.

This Americanisation and subsequent decline of European culture manifestates itself in countless manners I won't bother listing, but some of the key elements of this process are perhaps the more symbolic developments. A particularly annoying example of such a development in my country (The Netherlands) is the continuously growing use of the English language in many facets of everyday life. A lot of commercials on television are in English, even commercials from Dutch companies aimed at an exclusively Dutch audience. Apart from that, companies adapt more and more English slogans, making the growing number of billboards a foreign entity that pollutes our cities at a fast-growing rate.

Another, more concrete example is the tidal wave of corporate America over Western Europe. Not only McDonald's and Coca Cola are everywhere, but in the major Dutch shopping streets, nearly every store has an English name. To label this as a slightly worrying development would be the understatement of the year. Even a lot of Dutch or otherwise European stores sell American products, such as clothes, music, books, etc. Not that this is necessarily bad thing: I can't help but cry whenever I see some peasant-like white kid walk around like some ghetto star, but contemporary American literature is among the best of our age, so why not buy it? What I mean to illustrate is that we're confronted with American culture on a daily basis, and while some aspects may be enriching (such as the literature), others do great damage to the indigenous culture, and the characteristic European lifestyle, which will eventually even start to influence our way of thinking.

Maybe this is the main reason behind the indifferent attitude many Europeans display towards American politicians who try to tell us what to do. The most recent, and probably the most prominent example of this starred president Obama himself, who not only stated that the people should embrace the social problem generator known as islam, but also that it would be a good idea to admit Turkey into the European Union. How is it a good idea to let a non-European country join a confederation of European nations? How would be able to do what's best for our continent when Turkey, upon admittance, would become the single most powerful country within our union? How low are our standards when we even admit countries like Turkey, where violation of human rights and censorship of the free press are daily recurring events? Further more, how would we control the huge flow of islamic immigrants towards the West when the borders within our union vanish, while we can hardly control the current amount of immigrants?

But perhaps the most essential question is: who does Obama think he is when he tells us to let this Trojan Horse just roll into our continent? If I were more of a conspiracy theorist I'd say that America is effectively trying to destablise Europe as a political power like always, but that thought is too easy. An attempt to satisfy the islamic world may be a more plausible explanation for this remarkable statement. After all, America literally can't afford to have another cold war with a relatively powerful political-religious entity. Another explanation may be that Obama drastically oversimplifies the problems Europe has with muslims, and tries to apply American multiculturalist policies to our society, without a lot of success.

At any rate, the above is another illustration how, facing similar problems, we should both take distinctive directions, but still end up being tied to eachother, possibly against our will. The American way of thinking should work for America, not us. And even if our countries may seem like similar, ultra-capitalist societies within the same 'free' world, there are other, near ancient undercurrents flowing through our society like rivers - subconscious awareness that is best comparable with the metaphor of a sleeping giant.

In many ways this resembles the way in which the christian religion, a religion, mind, with non-European roots, was (often violently) forced upon the Northern-European peoples by mainly Anglo-Saxon missionaries. While all of Northern Europe was eventually christianised, the traditions, habits, cultures, and thinking patterns of the pre-christian era largely remained intact in one way or another. Especially the Scandinavian countries never fully subdued to the christian religion, explaining why those nations are so secular these days. In a way, this pagan, pre-christian spirit, or Urgeist, that lives forth in European culture can be compared to the pre-globalised idea that still lives in our nations today. But it is starting to fade.

Extremely Right

2009-09-21T18:31:00.001+02:00

A specification of my political background.

Recently I've found out that I have some sort of inability to classify myself politically. Not that I like putting a label on myself, but it's at least nice to be able to give people a general idea of what you're about politically without having to write an essay on it. But seeing as I haven't succeeded in identifying myself with anything more than vague, general terms, I'm going to do just that.

Over the months I have discovered that the worst thing you can do when it comes to trying to pin a name on your political preferences, is to let other people do it for you. I've been called far left, nazi, extreme right, liberal, nationalist, populist, and just about everything you can think of in a relatively small period of time, and I can assure you I didn't switch between all of the aforementioned ideologies, as that would require me to change my political preferences on a weekly basis.

So what exactly am I? For starters, the only label I have no trouble with is 'nationalist', but nationalism is an aspect incorporated by entities and currents all over the political spectrum, and a term prone to subjective interpretations. Not to mention it's a term with a negative connotation, at least here in Europe, as a result of its identification with national-socialism and fascism. For me, however, nationalism, is something positive. In contrary to the hate-driven ideology that is national-socialism, nationalism is motivated by love for one's own country and/or people. The racist aspect that it's so often identified with these days is a direct cause of the racial policies of Nazi-Germany, which merely used nationalism in an attempt to justify the eradication of supposedly 'inferior' peoples. This doesn't mean, however, that nationalism equals exterminating people for being different and should thus be condemned, just as one can't discredit the idea of nationalising primary resources just because the communists did it (and many fascist regimes, too, by the way).

In many cases, nationalism is about culture rather than race. Personally speaking, I find racial purity an idiotic and merely hypothetical concept, but at the same time I recognise the differences between cultures all over the world, and the need to protect them as long as they stay where they belong. That being said, I attach strong value to the maintenance of European culture, and do not tolerate large ethnic groups entering our society while they completely ignore all of our values, and indeed our entire culture. I do not believe in fairytales claiming that everyone is equal. Sure, all members of a community should have equal principal rights, but that doesn't mean we ARE equal. We're different.

But what does all of this come down to in the everyday policy of my country and continent? To put it simply: if someone (i.e. a non-European immigrant) wishes to be a member of our society, he should respect our culture, and abide to our rules to a certain extent. Because I don't believe that someone can or even should completely forget about his own culture and adjust to our culture as if he were a native. Even children adopted from other countries, who've spent their entire lives in this country, maintain certain differences in their behaviour, which is why a lot of them go through some kind of an identity crisis once they hit puberty. Still, if someone wants to be accepted here, he should at least speak our language, and, most importantly, respect the many things we handle and perceive differently in this country than in their country of origin.

That being said, it seems almost surreal that there are people in this country who refuse to shake hands with women because their religion forbids them to do so; that there are imams (islamic preachers) who suggest it's a good idea to throw homosexuals off of buildings head first; that there are Capeverdian youngsters harassing and even gang raping women because 'they asked for it'; that there are Moroccan youngsters saying that people should be shot in the head with a gun for protesting for more safety in their city... I could go on forever, but I think it is clear that immigration policy leaves a lot to wish for in my country, and many others surrounding it.

I do not hate people because of their skin colour or racial background: I merely think it's a very bad idea to let more and more of these people flow into the country every day, while we can barely handle the people we've admitted over the past few years. I know many people, however, who would use the above paragraph to 'prove' that I'm a racist, and far right. And there we have another label. ‘Far’ or ‘extreme right' is apparently what you are when you want to preserve your own culture, and any attempt to emphasise that you're not a racist is identified as a sneaky way of trying to make your ‘clearly’ hateful and fascist ideology look attractive to the general public... ahem.

I won't waste any more time trying to explain I'm neither, but I will illustrate how the classifications 'left-winged' and 'right-winged' are outdated. For even if some people would find my opinions on immigration enough to label me as some far right zealot, my opinions on economy might make other people think I'm the mirror opposite of that. I wouldn't label myself as a socialist either, but I believe in strong government regulation of the economy, although the free market should still have space, at least when it comes to luxury goods.

Even though the above isn't a very shocking opinion over here, it'd be enough to be labeled as a communist by at least a part of the Americans, which tend to see any governmental intervention in the economy as evil and socialist. So what does that make me? An environmentalist nazi commie?

Clearly the problem is the need for people to be able to put a label on everything and everyone, preferably a very static label that fails to cover even half of the 'content'. So apart from my identification with nationalism, I refrain from putting labels on myself, as identifying oneself with a specific set of political ideas can make one adapt to one's political preference, instead of the other way around as it should be. The name of this blog is PRAGMATIC Idealism for a reason, after all. For some, however, my identification with nationalism will be enough to push me in the far right corner, but should I really care? Do I view myself as extreme right? Nah, extremely right at most.

The necessity of environmentalism

2009-09-21T15:23:00.000+02:00

Unfortunately, animal wellbeing and environmentalism in general are still subjects that don't receive the attention they deserve. It's not so much the quantity of the attention, but much rather its quality that is the problem. While the hype surrounding durable and environmentally friendly products is at an all-time high as I write this, environmentalism is still actively avoided by the majority of the people.

Only recently the market has started to meet the popular demand for products such as hybrid cars and all kinds of ‘green’ devices. The experimentation with alternative, more durable sources of energy is a relatively new phenomenon, as well. Despite these hopeful developments, self-interest is still the main motivator when it comes to the customers buying and using these products. In advertisements promoting these products, the central message basically always comes down to how much money you, the customer, would save using the product in question. Subsequently, the environmental aspect is a nice bonus at best.

It is no coincidence that our wallets are so often addressed in commercials, much rather than our conscience. Humans, like the animals we really are, are masters at short-term thinking. How much money we have is often more important to us than how our planet will look when our children will have become adults. Apart from that, people quite simply do not like hearing that what they're doing is wrong. That being said, Al Gore could not have picked a better title for his film than 'An Inconvenient Truth', despite of what you think about the film or its creator. We'd rather not know what kind of problems our lifestyle (and our closely related consumer society) generates, and just about every commercial institution there is doesn't want us to know, or rather realise, that. Being such good participants in this capitalist society, we shall only take the environment into account if we can get some kind of personal gain out of it, often financial. It's no coincidence that, for example, 'green' washing machines (which are much cheaper in use than their old-fashioned counterparts) are becoming ever more popular, while a relatively expensive product such as biological meat is still heavily under-represented in the meat market.

Another problem is that environmentalism, and animal wellbeing especially, are often subject to cynicism and sarcasm. These issues aren't to be considered a childish effort to save as many cute, cuddly animals as possible, though. Environmental issues should be mankind's top priority, if it wishes to preserve this beautiful planet for future generations. Then what are the reasons, other than the inconvenience of being confronted with our own mistakes, we still view as environmentalism as exclusively for zealots? The first reason is the Judeo-Christian thinking pattern that has been dominating the Western hemisphere since early medieval times. According to its dogma, animals are merely an object - a God-given tool that man can use at will. Even though the churches have been becoming ever more empty in recent years, the Judeo-Christian thinking structure appears to have mixed so thoroughly with our culture and become a part of it, that it's still alive and well in most places. Our general ethics concerning animals are not an exception to this rule, unfortunately. Therefore it is no coincidence that in countries where Christendom is still powerful, such as Spain, animal rights are virtually non-existent.

Another aspect of our culture that's hard to combine with care for the environment is our consumer society, or to put it in other words, the ultra-capitalist nature of our economy. Stricter rules generally mean less profit, and profit seems to be what it's all about in the Western societies. The result is that, even in the middle of an environmental hype such as this, more care for nature is generally only negotiable when economic gain is not endangered. In the best case, some long-term goals are set, but everyone knows from the start that they won't be lived up to. But the ones responsible for that will be retired by the time we can conclude that they weren't very successful in making those targets.

Lastly, a lot of the people who do stand up for the environment have been all but helpful in promoting the cause to the general public. While environmentalism finds its origins in nationalist societies, the issue is generally identified with (extreme) leftists these days. They, however, are often too preachy, too radical, and too smelly to be taken seriously by larger crowds. It's not without reason that, when you say you stand up for animal rights, are often called a hippie or a tree hugger, and you're told that you should go look for a job instead. Even if you are not close to looking like a hippie, and if you work or study hard, you're continuously confronted with the prejudice generated by leftist activists.

This is one of the reasons why it's so important that groups and organisations hailing from other sides of the political spectrum stand up for their environment. If only to show people that you don't have to be a hardcore vegan squatter to stand up for something that should really be placed above all politics. For if we don't act fast, we won't have an earth left to govern soon.