Who's to blame?

Historically speaking, we still live in WWII....There is a big cease-fire, and the battle has shifted sporadically throughout the world in the general negotiation in the peacemaking-proces. The main participants (Security Council...they secure the money) of the World-Governing Body are representatives of the WWII-states. When it comes to it, they make the coices. The invasion of Iraq, like many conflicts before, were war-acts by the State which still ownes the best Cards at the negotiation table, the USA.


Because we dont have supranationality in any military-political sense, there are still many conflicts. Peace is soon negotiated by the peace-commity (The United Nations). They negotiated with the Nation-States and have achieved alot of accomplishment.

The top of the United Nations, the Participants of WWII will have to allow Nations of the World into the Security council, once those Nations are Democratic States. But that doenst seem to make the people democratic. Most of them would love living in a democracy, but some, usually the richest and most powerful, arrange a deal.


It is striking that it is the United States seem to have the big role in this democratisation of the world. The thing is, they only communicate with the Rich. The movement from Saddam to Democracy has been a nice play. But the Iraqi are not stupid. In 20 to 30 years Iraq will probably be a nice boy, like Egypt, or maybe even Korea, but.....India, China are by then rich and powerfull enough to sit at the big table. This will continue, unless Iraq, would, for some reason, become economically unsound. Maybe its biggest Export-product, Oil, will no longer sail. Not that there won;t be consumers. There won't be stock to sail. Will Iraq become some sort of Spain? How will this happen and in what international structure?

The most obvious solution is to avoid this is to decide to startover. Democratise the United Nations' Military and Economic wing. Now, military over time has become to us something of fear, and destruction. That has not always been the case. In tolerate empires army served security and expansion. Now, expansion isn't possible the military are mostly security. All other military efforts (such as invasions) are inspired by Fear. This is not to be blamed to anyone. Maybe Americans are invasive by nature, maybe Europeans are only able to talk, maybe Chinese only stare at the mirror the entire day – could be the wisest thing to do, maybe Saddam wasn't exactly a diplomatic genius, by getting all messed up within the powerful weapons-trade-maffia. In the end, it could be our fault.


But how are we supposed to know good and bad? We can look at our own lives and calculate the political situation we are supposed to favor. We can look at history and decide from our gut-feeling those arabs are only lazy people so what does it matter to me. We can consider it the War on Terror.
So in the end the United Nations, being the security body of the world has been played by the leaders of the world since WWII. From the battlefields of Europe to the battlefields of Afgahnistan, Russia, New York and Amsterdam.Yes, there is a mental battlefield as most of the worlds democratic people is somesense reflects on current world-affairs. In order to live in peace everyone must govern everyone. Utopia is always like Ice Cream. In reality it's cold and it looks like shit, but it tastes good and sweat, so we eat it in the summer.

Iran, Israel, Syria, Irak and Us

For some time now the Middle East has seen the blood of the innocent shed. Whether these were liberation-warriors, suicide-commando's or terrorists, it is still all about money. In Israeli public opinion there isn't much doubt on the origins of military funding. The United States backs up the Israeli military system, and since recently the Iraqi government, and Iran-Syria pay Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah. All proparly based in Syria-controlled Libanon.




Now it is interesting to see how coming events will unfold, since Israel suspects Syrian involvement in the assasination of the Libanese former-premier Harari. In material military means, the US is probably unable to invade another country, but then again Libanon and Syria are not Dictatorships like Good ol' Iraq used to be under Saddam.

It is undeniable that public opinion in the arabic Middle East is turning towards democracy. This could well be Dollars at work, as it could be Euro's. We simply don't know. But we can clearly see in history that the US-policy makers, as do their European Imperialist predecessors, have no problem with governing world politics with money. (That is what started fundamentalism, Nationalism and Religion met up to free a poor civilisation.)

Now let's not misjudge the overpresently grudge Arabs may have against their direct threats: The state of Israel and the Questionable US-led Iraq. These may still be perceived as threatening because the future plans remain vague. Some arabs are still afraid of Bigger-Israel. and as long as 200,000 soldiers are stationed in Iraq, US forces are deployable throughout the Middle East.

So moving along the Arab world makes an interesting view. Marocco and the other North-African States have large interest in the upcoming EU-neighbour-policy. Kahdafi becomes enlightened, Egypt will have free elections. There are people on the streets of Libanon. Turkey may join the European Union. Indonesia is recovering from national loss and is a grieving nation. Afgahnistan is unclear. But then there is Iran. And there is Putin. This is where everything becomes complicated and we are back to the essence of World-Governence: Money and Energy and the ending of the Oil-era. World Politics are covered in secrecy, but I'm sure matters are now being taken care of. The European Union is hoping to move into the Eurasian land-mass, while Russia is hoping for the Middle East. Fortunatly America still governs the World, so we'll see. Interesting times, we live in.

The basic Surrounding

Walking around the relatively old town of Leiden every now then and boredom during workhours in The Hague resulted in these following pictures. I haven't figured out how to link form Flickr, so for now, click this.

The Dutch and the failure of social analysis

The last couple of years have been hard on Dutch society. Various political opinion have manifested themselves through murder. On the 6th of May 2002 Pim Fortuyn, who was running for parlement, was murdered by Animal-Rights activist Volkert van der G. On the 2nd of November 2004 Filmmaker and Column writer Theo van Gogh was murdered by Musilm-Fundamentalist Muhammed B.



Now, both of these events followed a certain pattern, concerning the public opinion and attention. At first people were shocked. As usual the politician were shocked on a larger scale then the people. But nevertheless the public opinion was fierce and the social pressure on reaction was high.

I think that the dutch, being an overwhelmingly urban population, are suffering from media-anxiety. This effects the overall well-being of the country. The Politicians feel they are able to respond to this anxiety, but offcourse themselves are as dutch and as full of opinion on everything as the rest. The media hope they can put the truth on the table through endless debates and discussion with even more people with even more expert opinions.

Look, i see no harm in discussion between people. I do see harm in extensive discussion in national media, on daily basis! It is possibly so that the multicultural society needs better integration statewise. By learning the ways of the native dutch, the immigrants might have better job-prospects and maybe they will have better participation, but this is not achievable by sending the rotten ones home without an excuse (this method actually closely resembles terrorism). This is only achievable by peoples own actions's and words.

The assassins of the politician with a fresh view and the film maker with a pessimistic view are part and parcel of the dutch illneed in society. Taking matters into your hands can be heroic in some historical contexts. This depends on the motives. In the dutch case the motives are vague and abstract. The muslim-fundamentalist is easily linked with obscure terrorist networks and the Animal-Rights activist has also declared he wanted to protect the dutch society.

These murderers stepped beyond an obvious boundary, but this same type of boundary is crossed by thousands or millions of dutch people on a daily basis through their 'Freedom of speech', but have they ever considered 'Freedom of thought before speech'. This would make the debate less anxious and more helpfull. This method of 'societing' should be stimulated.