Usually the noun “demasculinization” has two meanings:

1. The removal of the testicles.
2. (biology) The suppression of a male-orientated function by repressing male hormones.

However, there is a cultural form of demasculinization, and in this article I’m addressing this specific phenomenon. Cultural demasculinization occurs in every society, but most significantly in countries which have been at war for several years (and won), countries with a strong masculin culture.

One of those countries is the United Kingdom. Ever since World War One, the range of roles open to women was immense: besides looking after their children they manned factories, invested in war bonds, harvested crops, and cared for troops on leave, while their husbands were fighting abroad. After their victorious wars the men returned home, alienated from family life. Their women were used to run the family. The wars had made them strong and independant. Men were useful if they were working and providing the money, but apart from that they were completely useless. Children grew up with strong mothers, and with fathers who spent more time in the pub than at home and were more familiar with their “page 3 pin-ups” than with their wives. The British sitcom couple George and Mildred Roper are a good example of the relationship between a strong woman and a demasculinized man. It was funny because everyone recognized it; everyone knew people like George and Mildred. Another example are Al Bundy and his wife Peggy, who uses every opportunity to humiliate Al about his job, his meager earnings and even sexual abilities. Actually she doesn’t want to have sex with him at all, but it’s fun to watch him being confronted with his impotence every time she asks, so she asks him often.

What makes you a perfect victim to demasculinization?

1. If you have a strong positive mother complex. Such a mother complex is usually the result of a childhood with an absent or unloving father and a loving, caring mother.
   If a man has a positive experience overall with his mother, then such a man would have a positive mother complex and would most likely be comfortable with being mothered (read: domineered) by other females.
2. If you’re significantly less successful in your profession than your female partner.
3. If your female partner is significantly wealthier than you.
4. If you got problems with your sexual performance, especially when you’re together with your female partner.
5. If you’re not able to look after yourself, i.e. if you can’t cook, if you don’t clean the place, if someone else needs to tell you that you need a shower, if you don’t pay the bills, if you don’t know how to look after the kids and the pets.
6. If you have (probably as a result of the above) have a low self-esteem.
7. If you think you did something wrong by standing up for yourself and submit to a lifetime of servitude as punishment for this “unacceptable” behavior.

Beware! There are women who want to change you!
For four years I had a relationship with an English woman while I was living in Nice, in the south of France. I met her in our little community of English speaking expats. I had my own apartment in the city center, I was a  painter, I was financially independent, I had many friends, both male and female, I was perfectly able to look after myself, I cooked for my friends and entertained them, and she was attracted by all this.

It only took a couple of weeks before she moved in with me. I never invited her to do so, but one day she just went to pick up her stuff from her own apartment and made space for it in my place.

She was relatively wealthy. She owned an apartment in England and the apartment in Nice, both mortgage free. She bought these apartments with the money she inherited from her parents. Also she was early retired and had a nice pension. I should have been watchful, but I wasn’t. We lived a luxurious life in the Côte d’Azur. Most of the time it was me who payed the bills of this life style; sometimes she picked up the tab.

After a month or two she decided that my apartment was too small for the both of us and that we needed a bigger place. However, square meters are very expensive in the city of Nice, so we agreed that we would share the costs. Since my income was variable and hers wasn’t, the new apartment was registered in her name. After we moved in, the kitchen proved to be the only place in which I was able to arrange things the way I wanted to. This was an omen.

We still visited our mutual friends and met in an Irish pub which was frequented by English speaking expats. This pub was my local (or my “living room” as she expressed it ever more often), and I loved to come there. “You wanna go where everybody knows your name.” Until she caused a row with the land lady, after which she was barred. My sence of solidarity told me I couldn’t go there on my own, while my parther was barred.

Within the following months my life changed dramatically. I stopped meeting my friends and instead the two of us stopped by a local restaurant every now and then to have one or two drinks, after which we went home for an early night. She had decided to rent out her own apartment for holiday rentals, and I took care of that business from A to Z, because she told me the apartment was “ours”. I did the meet and greet, I cleaned the apartment in between visitors, I redecorated the place, and I made sure the money went into her bank account. Since she told me that the money was “ours” and I trusted her, I didn’t have any problem with that. How stupid I was…

Now she had succeeded to detach me from my old milieu, she needed to detach me from my beloved Côte d’Azur as a whole. All of a sudden she became ill. She told me the doctor had told her that she suffered from COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease),  a limitation of the flow of air to and from the lungs, causing shortness of breath. This limitation is poorly reversible and usually gets progressively worse over time. So we decided to move back to England, to be close to an NHS hospital.

Miraculously there was no sign of any COPD once we were settled in England.

She had several relationships and marriages before she met me. The first was with a successful artist, an older guy with a high self-esteem, so this marriage ended when she realized that she couldn’t change him. During her second marriage, to a would-be artist with whom she had two daughters, she only managed to demasculinize him after she inherited a significant amount of money from her parents. After he was forced to move out of the newly bought house (in her name only), she found loads of empty wine bottles and porn magazines in the attick, where he used to “work”. Poor chap.

Her third marriage was with an equally unsuccessful guy, who worshipped her. To prevent him from becoming successful as an artist, she forced him to work in a garage, and this was not because they needed the money. She was at the time a wealthy woman with a successful career. She demasculinized him by making him feel useless, while in the mean time she had several secret affairs with married men – colleagues and guys she met in the pub or on holidays. She admired the men she couldn’t demasculinize.

She was never able to ruin my self-esteem. After all her manipulation I was still able to look after myself, to live my life without her. And when I told her that I loved her, but that I never worshipped her, or even admired her, she decided to take away my financial independence. All of a sudden the money we made from the holiday rental business was no longer “ours”, but hers. Besides the fact that this effort to demasculinize me was meant to hurt me for not worshipping her, she needed this money for her own financial independence, one of her last attractions.

There’s much to learn from this story. I have been very gullible, and that was a huge mistake. I am to blame for everything that happened. I realize now that this particular woman is attracted to men who can’t be demasculinized, while at the same time she will try — over time — anything to demasculinize and domineer them. This is a mechanism I don’t understand, but nevertheless it exists.

Could it be that she just tried to turn you into a metro man?

“A metro man is a heterosexual man whose masculinity goes beyond the stereotyped masculine, thus, he is not confined to a normative definition of masculinity, defining and expressing his sexuality creatively. A metro man is secure in his sexuality and sensitivity, intuition and penchant for grooming, style and fashion doesn’t make him feel any less masculine or any less heterosexual.”

I have been a metro man for all my adult life. Apart from that I have done the cooking and the shopping on a daily basis all my life (the women I lived with weren’t very good cooks), and I never had any problem with cleaning the place. So no, it couldn’t be that she tried to turn me into a metro man.

I believe that she wanted me when it was hard to get me, and once she had me she wanted to make sure that no-one else would be attracted to me, and that’s why she tried to demasculinize me. However, she failed. Another thing that comes to my mind is the fact that her father, although he had a good marriage with her mother, loved to flirt with other women. Could it be that this is the reason she needs to demasculinize men? 

More than ever I’m aware of the dangers of demasculinization and the mysterious ways the brains of some women are functioning.

Van de kant van mijn biologische vader kom ik uit een “gegoed gezin”. Van mijn moeder en mijn stiefvader heb ik uitsluitend slechte herinneringen. Ik heb tijdens mijn jeugd beide kanten, zeer afwisselend, intensief beleefd, als de prins op de erwt.

Op mijn veertiende trok ik de wijde wereld in, met 8000 gulden op zak. Toen dat geld op was, was ik aan mijzelf overgeleverd. In de familie van mijn biologische vader verwachtte iedereen dat ik “op hangende pootjes” zou terugkeren zodra het geld op was, maar daar was ik te trots voor, dus ik werd manusje van alles, zeeman, scheepskok, politiek activist, fotograaf en kunstschilder.

Op mijn zestiende was ik vader van drie kinderen, van drie verschillende moeders, in Nederland, Portugal en Italië. Op mijn twintigste werd ik uitgenodigd om politicologie te studeren in Moskou. Toen ik drieëntwintig was smokkelde ik wapens naar Zuid-Afrika, voor het ANC. Een jaar later adviseerde ik de IRA op organisatorisch gebied, want ze konden de grote toeloop van nieuwe leden en de slechte pers niet aan. Dit alles via Moskou.

Op mijn vijfentwintigste kocht ik een grachtenpand, cash, hypotheekvrij. Op mijn zesentwintigste ging ik studeren, maar omdat mijn Russische titel niet geldig was in Nederland moest ik helemaal van de grond af aan beginnen. VEMSA (Voorbereidend Examen Middelbare Sociale Arbeid), MBO Sociale Arbeid, HBO Maatschappelijk Werk, VO Maatschappelijk Werk, en op kosten van de baas, het Ministerie van Justitie, de universitaire opleidingen psychologie, sociologie, criminologie en strafrecht. Veertig uur per week werken en veertig uur per week studeren. Het kon allemaal.

Het grachtenpand werd verkocht en een boerderij werd aangeschaft, met kippen, ganzen, varkens, geiten en honden. En een wolf, die ik in Polen had gekocht toen hij zes weken oud was, terwijl men mij verzekerde dat het een “Poolse herdershond” was. Inmiddels had ik een vierde kind; het totaal stond op één zoon en drie dochters. Ik trouwde een prostituée om haar uit het leven te halen en van de drank af. Ik leidde een goed leven en oldtimers – Volvo, Triumph, Mustang, Citroën – waren mijn hobby.

Hoewel ik mijn verdere beroepsleven achter een comfortabel bureau in het centrum van Den Haag had kunnen slijten, wilde ik contact houden met de werkvloer, had ik altijd persoonlijke cliënten (de grootste criminelen van Nederland, die hadden gehoord dat je strafvermindering kreeg als je zei dat je verslaafd was) en genoot ik van dat uitdagende en spannende aspect van mijn werk. Maar ik werd in toenemende mate onder druk gezet, en op een gegeven moment werd ik zwaar overspannen en uiteindelijk volledig arbeidsongeschikt.

Als freelance literatuurvertaler en extern bureauredacteur vertaalde en bewerkte ik vervolgens 74 non-fictie boeken, werkte ik samen met mensen als Peter Arnett, Bob Woodward, Edward Radzinsky, Markus Wolf, Michael Lewis en Harry Wu. Met Ger Klein, voormalig staatssecretaris onder Den Uyl en hoogleraar te Delft, werkte ik samen aan zijn boek “Over de Rooie”. Met diverse andere politici, die nu nog leven dus waarvan ik de naam niet kan noemen, werkte ik samen aan hun autobiografieën. Dit alles vond plaats tijdens de manische fasen van mijn bipolariteit. Er was een gigantische productie en ik verdiende veel geld.

Inmiddels had ik een geadopteerde zoon uit Indonesië en was ik voor de tweede keer getrouwd, met een vrouw die twee dochters uit een eerder huwelijk had. Dat was even wennen, want toen ikzelf dertien jaar was wist ik alles van politiek, leidde ik protestacties, nam ik deel aan discussies op de radio en zorgde ik er zelfs voor dat ridder Van Rappard kwaad de studio verliet omdat ik zei dat het leger net als een hoerekut was: elke lul past erin. De meiden uit mijn tweede huwelijk hadden geen flauw benul van politiek en speelden Madonna na voor de spiegel.

Toen ik mijn boek “Lexicon van de watersport, visserij, koopvaardij, marine en bruine vloot” op de markt bracht, zei mijn vaste uitgever: “Jaap, dit wordt een enorm succes. Dit is je pensioen.”

De verwachtingen waren derhalve hoog gespannen. Ik kocht een zeiljacht van het eerste voorschot en genoot van het leven. Echter, de uitgever en ik hadden er geen rekening mee gehouden dat de markt van nautische boeken werd gedomineerd door het bedrijf van Maarten Muntinga, die zijn personeel erop uit stuurde om alle watersportwinkels regelmatig te bezoeken en de verkochte boeken aanvulde met nieuwe exemplaren.

De watersportwinkels wilden mijn boek graag in de schappen hebben, maar alleen wanneer Muntinga de distributie verzorgde, en mijn uitgever en Muntinga konden niet tot een akkoord komen. Het resultaat was dat er maar 4000 exemplaren werden gedrukt en dat er geen volgende editie kwam.

Desalniettemin bleef ik altijd de verwachting of de hoop koesteren dat ooit iets van mijn hand, een boek, een schilderij, een Labrador kennel, whatever, zou leiden tot succes. Die drive heeft ertoe geleid, leidt er nog steeds toe, dat ik weinig aandacht heb voor relaties. Waarbij ik moet aantekenen dat ik dat succes ook wil om de opbrengsten daarvan te kunnen delen met de mensen waarmee ik leef.

Dat is de paradox. Ik heb de mensen om mij heen verwaarloosd om ze – na het “grote succes” – te kunnen laten delen in dat succes. Mijn ambities zijn beperkt. Zou ik morgen een miljoen in de staatsloterij winnen, of gewoon genoeg om de rest van mijn leven – waar ook ter wereld – zorgeloos te kunnen leven, dan zou de drang om mezelf te bewijzen als sneeuw voor de zon verdwijnen. Maar ik zou de weelde zeker willen delen met de mensen die mij lief zijn.

Omgekeerd geldt hetzelfde, en daarmee komen we bij het afstoten van mensen, iets wat ik doe onder bepaalde omstandigheden. Nu ik mij – alweer – op een dieptepunt in mijn leven bevind, wil ik anderen daarmee niet belasten, wil ik hen niet met mij naar beneden halen. Ik voel me bezwaard. Ik wil graag een goede gastheer zijn, maar wanneer ik mij dat niet kan veroorloven ontvang ik liever geen gasten, om maar te zwijgen van het onderhouden van een gezin.

Als je voor een dubbeltje geboren bent kun je met je talent proberen een kwartje te worden, en als dat niet lukt ben je toch nog altijd gewoon een dubbeltje temidden van je mede-dubbeltjes. Maar wanneer je voor een kwartje geboren bent en het kwartje devalueert dramatisch, door omstandigheden, dan ligt de zaak anders. Je behoort niet langer tot de kwartjes, en de dubbeltjes, waartoe je nooit hebt gehoord, accepteren je ook al niet. De drang om weer een kwartje te worden kan derhalve obsessief-compulsieve vormen aannemen, zeker wanneer je zoals ik het geloof in jezelf niet verliest.

Mijn bedoelingen zijn altijd goed geweest, maar, om met een voormalige schoonzoon te spreken, “het komt zo verrekte rot je strot uit”. In paniek heb ik om mij heen geslagen als een wildeman, heb ik mensen (bijna) bewust van mij afgestoten, geschreeuwd om duidelijk te maken dat ze niet bij mij, het zinkend schip, moesten zijn. Want een zinkend schip heeft een enorme zuigkracht en sleurt je mee de diepte in.

Deze keer – en hoeveel keren nog? – heb ik in de diepte van de oceaan houvast kunnen vinden aan een stuk wrakhout, een levensloze lotgenoot, en ben ik weer boven komen drijven. De wind is gekalmeerd, het oppervlakte van de oceaan is glad, ik kruip op het wrakhout en de zon breekt voorzichtig door.

Land in zicht. Of is het een fata morgana?

• Dag Jaap, dit gaat ons derde interview worden, in acht jaar tijd. 
• Hoi Jaap, in tegenstelling tot mij ben jij in al die jaren niets veranderd. 
• Dank je voor het compliment. 
• In feite was het een belediging. Ik ben alleen maar gerijpt, interessanter geworden, milder ook. 
• Daar komen we zo op. Na bijna vijf jaar in Zuid-Frankrijk en de Engelse Zuidkust te hebben gewoond ben je in juli van dit jaar volkomen berooid teruggekeerd naar Nederland. Last van hangende pootjes?
• Nee, wel met een gevoel van vrijheid. Ik ben nu alleen nog maar verantwoordelijk voor mijzelf. Geef ik teveel geld uit en heb ik aan het eind van de maand niet te vreten, dan is er maar één die ik daar de schuld van kan geven en dat ben ik zelf. Ik heb de afgelopen jaren samengewoond met een partner (wij hadden een gemeenschappelijk budget) die er een gewoonte van maakte om dure tassen en schoenen te kopen en dan aan het eind van de maand het beschuldigende vingertje naar mij te wijzen wanneer we niet rond kwamen. Van die Kafkaanse toestand ben ik bevrijd. Ik heb al sinds 2005 niets meer voor mijzelf gekocht, dus aan mij kan het niet liggen.
• Toen je in juli uit Engeland naar Nederland kwam, na alweer een teleurstellende relatie, verwachtte iedereen dat je uit je bol zou gaan en de “schuldige” de grond in zou trappen, want dat heb je wel vaker gedaan. Waarom deze keer niet?
• In de eerste plaats omdat ik van mening ben dat er geen “schuldige” is. In de tweede plaats omdat ik mij terdege realiseer dat telkens wanneer ik van mij afbijt om mijn kant van het verhaal te laten horen, er altijd mensen zijn die hoofdschuddend en alleswetend zeggen: “Typisch Jaap, het ligt nooit aan hem.” Zo ken ik ook mensen die zeggen: “Waar rook is, is vuur.” Terwijl je voor hetzelfde geld kunt zeggen: “Waar rook is, is een pyromaan bezig.” En wie zegt mij dat jij die pyromaan niet bent?
• “Jaap in de schuldhulpverlening” heet een van je vele blogs. Hoe staat het daarmee?
• Het is een traag proces en het duurt lang voordat je alle benodigde documenten hebt verzameld. Ik kreeg gelukkig snel een huis toegewezen, daar heb ik ontiegelijk mee gemazzeld, maar toen moesten er spullen komen, en daar had ik het geld niet voor. Van heel goede vrienden van mij kreeg ik een fantastisch bed, een prachtige kast, een eettafel met stoelen, maar ik had ook andere spullen nodig en nadat ik vrijwel mijn hele budget had gespendeerd aan vloerbedekking van de Kwantum, ging ik op zoek naar gratis spullen. Bij het grof vuil vond ik een tweezitsbank, drie stoelen, een bureaustoel, een computertafel, maar wat ik het meest miste was een koel-vriescombinatie, al was het maar voor de luxe van een koud pilsje van de Plus (€ 3,99 voor 24 flesjes). Op een avond liet ik de hond uit en passeerde ik een leegstaand verzorgingstehuis. Op het terrein vond ik een dumpplaats waar diverse oude koelkasten stonden. Ik haalde mijn auto op en op goed geluk (het was pikdonker) laadde ik een koel-vriescombinatie in die er nog redelijk uit zag. Ik vervoerde het gevaarte naar huis, en vol spanning sloot ik het aan. Wie schetst mijn geluk toen alles perfect werkte (behalve het lampje), en wie schetst mijn verbazing de volgende ochtend, toen ik de koelkast schoonmaakte en ik erachter kwam dat er op de koelkast een sticker van Van Nievelt Goudriaan was geplakt. (Zie foto boven.)
• Heel bijzonder dat je uit dergelijke, ogenschijnlijk banale ervaringen nog enig geluk weet te putten en die nog zonder enige schaamte met het publiek durft te delen ook.
• Tja, ik heb wel vaker van die ervaringen. Van mijn op zich al karige WAO betaal ik al jaren ongeveer de helft af aan schuldeisers, dus mijn budget is klein en daar schaam ik mij niet voor. Intussen heb ik wel jaren op de mooiste plekken van de wereld gewoond, en dat is wat waard. En aan het eind van de maand ben ik er trots op dat ik mijn hond en mezelf de hele maand te eten heb kunnen geven en ook nog een zwaar sjekkie heb kunnen roken en een glas wijn heb kunnen drinken.
• Terugkijkend op de eerdere interviews: hoe denk je nu over de vrouwen in je leven en je kinderen?
• Die behoren allemaal tot het verleden. Ik draag ze een warm hart toe.
• Dat is me te gemakkelijk en te ontwijkend. Ik ga je trefwoorden geven en jij gaat erop reageren.
• Okay.
• Marry.
• Aardige vrouw, 18 prima jaren mee gehad, totdat ze veranderde van een creatief, vrij denkend persoon in een kloon van de collega’s in de ziekenverzorging waar ze mee werkte. Weg creativiteit, weg eigen mening, jammer.
• Pip.
• Tragisch verhaal. Ik kijk sinds kort naar de serie Overspel en realiseer me dat zij en haar echtgenoot daar niet naar kunnen kijken. Het moet enorm pijnlijk voor hen zijn. Maar ik weet dat ik niet de eerste was, en ik vermoed dat ik niet de laatste zal zijn, dus hoe groot de tragedie ook is, ik ben niet de enige schuldige. Als ik heel eerlijk ben kan ik zeggen dat zij van mijn midlife crisis een geweldige tijd heeft gemaakt. Waarvoor dank.
• Jean.
• Oh, da’s nog te vers. Het arme mens werd dement, en dat was het ergste niet, want tegelijkertijd werd ze enorm achterdochtig. Ze had een schriftje waarin ze alle drie conflicten die we in vier jaar hebben gehad opschreef, maar ze verzuimde om de honderden fijne ervaringen op te schrijven, dus door haar dementie was ze die vergeten en kon ze onze relatie alleen nog maar evalueren door de slechte ervaringen in het schriftje te lezen. Ze verloor regelmatig haar credit cards en door haar achterdocht dacht ze dat ik geld van haar rekening haalde, wat uiteraard niet het geval was. Ik had haar met alle liefde blijven verzorgen, maar ze deelde haar achterdocht met haar dochters, en die hadden niet de intelligentie om te begrijpen dat mam ze niet allemaal meer op een rijtje had. Dus werd de situatie voor mij onhoudbaar en moest ik vertrekken.
• Structureel pech met vrouwen?
• Welnee. Mijn probleem is dat ik heel goed voor mezelf kan zorgen, dat ik best lekker kan koken, dat ik de was en de afwas doe, en de boodschappen, dat ik heel goed alleen kan zijn, dat ik mij nooit verveel, dat ik altijd wel iets creatiefs te doen heb, dat ik in feite een happy-go-lucky vent ben, nooit volwassen geworden, en vrouwen meer waardeer om hun zelfstandigheid en intelligentie dan om iets anders.
• Seksualiteit?
• Daar zeg je zoiets. Ik ben altijd seksueel actief geweest, totdat ik in 2007 in Nice een liesbreuk kreeg, waaraan ik uiteindelijk in Liverpool ben geopereerd. Mijn verminderde seksuele gevoelens weet ik aan die operatie en ik ging ervan uit dat alles zich te zijner tijd zou herstellen. Maar dat bleek niet het geval. Er was iets mis gegaan bij de operatie en in 2009 vond er een hersteloperatie plaats. Maar ook die bleek de schade niet te kunnen herstellen. Een erectie kan ik dus wel op mijn buik schrijven.
• Wat doet dat met je seksuele gevoelens? Heb je die nog wel?
• Ik kan genieten van vrouwelijk schoon. Ik kan genieten van mooi vrouwelijk naakt. Ik kan daar alleen geen vervolg aan geven door geslachtsgemeenschap te hebben, en ik mis de behoefte daartoe. Maar ik ben niet gefrustreerd en heb er vrede mee.
• Ben je impotent?
• Nee. Ben jij impertinent? Zonder gekheid, wanneer ik mijzelf rust en ontspanning gun, en in de stemming ben, en niet op de klok hoef te kijken, kan ik mijzelf met behulp van een filmpje van Jenna Haze en een geduldige rechterhand tot ontlading brengen. Maar vaker dan vier keer per jaar hoeft voor mij niet.
• Okay, iets anders. Kinderen.
• Tja, dat wordt K.I. Zie boven.
• Leuk, je blijft ontwijken en dwingt mij tot confronteren. Typisch Jaap.
• Hé vriend, ik heb hier niet om gevraagd. Ik dwing jou tot niets.
• We gaan verder met associëren. Frank.
• Schat van een jongen, mij enorm dierbaar, gigantisch verpest tot zijn twaalfde jaar, bij zijn adoptiemoeder en haar gewelddadige echtgenoot en bij pleeggezinnen. Daarna bleef hij een hechtingsprobleem houden en richtte hij zich voornamelijk op zijn vele vrienden.
• Marlous.
• Voordat ik verder ga: ik zou heel graag het contact met al mijn kinderen, “echt” of niet, willen herstellen. Okay, Marlous. Typische oudste dochter uit een gebroken gezin. Altijd voor moeder willen zorgen, nooit volledig overtuigd dat de nieuwe partner van moeder goed voor haar is, altijd een loyaliteitsconflict ten aanzien van pa en ma. Pa of ma is beter uitgedrukt. Toen ze in Amsterdam moest bevallen van haar dochter Maria, vroeg haar moeder mij om haar naar Amsterdam te rijden, en hoewel we al maanden uit elkaar waren deed ik dat graag. In het ziekenhuis begroette Marlous’ partner Ruwald ons en Marry mocht mee naar boven, om Marlous en Maria te zien, maar ik moest beneden blijven. Ruwald zei tegen mij dat hij zou proberen om mij Maria te laten zien en zou mij halen als dat kon, maar zover is het nooit gekomen. Gelukkig hebben we de foto’s nog.
• Ingeborg.
• Fantastische vrouw. Kennelijk heeft ze ook een loyaliteitsconflict, want anders had ze wel contact met mij opgenomen, maar ik voel mij nog altijd heel verbonden met haar. Zij is de enige die ooit echt belangstelling voor mij heeft getoond, ooit echt bezorgd om mij is geweest. Tot huilens toe. Dat raakt mij, want houden van en affectie is nu eenmaal geen eenrichtingsverkeer.  
• Iets anders: hoe ziet de toekomst eruit?
• Goed. Ik kan niet zeggen “veelbelovend”, want ik word binnenkort zestig en ik verwacht niet zo veel meer van het leven, maar ik denk dat ik nog wel een jaar of twintig onder de mensen ben. Over een jaar of drie ben ik hopelijk van mijn schulden af en kan ik weer gaan en staan waar ik wil, maar ik denk dat ik mijn huisje in Rockanje aanhoud en zo nu en dan een tripje maak naar Frankrijk, naar Nice, om vrienden te bezoeken. Dan kan het er wel vanaf.
• Jaap, de eerste twee interviews die wij hadden vonden op het VK-blog plaats, dat nu is opgeheven. Kun je daar nog iets over zeggen?
• Het was een unieke ervaring. In een bepaalde tijd van mijn leven voelde ik mij gigantisch eenzaam en kreeg ik contact met mensen die minstens even eenzaam waren. In die tijd hadden wij een functie voor elkaar. Maar het leven gaat door en we worden allemaal ouder en vergeetachtiger. Bovendien ben ik (soms) een controversieel figuur, waar mensen het liefst een beetje afstand van nemen. Ook heb ik meer meegemaakt dan de gemiddelde Nederlander, en sommige mensen denken dat ik er maar een beetje op los fantaseer. Dus ik begrijp dat de relatie met de VK-vrienden van toen wat is bekoeld. Nu hebben we allemaal onze eigen WordPress en Blogspot dingetjes, en op de Facebook pagina zie je nog steeds dezelfde kinderachtige verschijnselen die op het VK-blog ook al plaatsvonden: hij reageert niet op mij, dus ik reageer ook niet op hem. Ik sta erboven, ik leef liever.
• Jaap, het is 5 uur ‘s ochtends, we hebben allebei een paar glazen wijn op, kan ik bij je blijven slapen?
• Flikker op gek, het Badhotel is hier om de hoek, ik doe geen oog dicht met iemand in hetzelfde bed.
• Mag ik je dan bedanken voor dit interview en voor je openhartigheid?
• Graag gedaan. Ik kan alleen maar openhartig zijn. Daarom ben ik niet welkom in katholieke en gereformeerde kringen, en in dorpen als Zetten, Opheusden, Boxtel en Urk. Tot over een jaar of drie.

I must say I was some sort of an expert before I met her. For several years my former mother-in-law lived in my house, and while my wife was pursuing her career as a nurse while I was working at home, taking care of my mother-in-law, I saw her deteriorate before my eyes, and whenever I would mention my worries to my wife or to her brothers and sisters, they would say, “Jack, you’re wrong, mother is just a little forgetful. She always was.”

Let’s call her Jane

I met her five years ago and we started a relationship. She was 8 years older than I. I have lived a full life, with many stories to tell, and pretty soon I realised that I told her a story I told before, and she didn’t remember anything of it. Having said that, she told me that she fell from a balcony on the 2nd floor when she was a teenager, which caused some brain damage. So I didn’t know what to think.

Then her older sister started to suffer from dementia, and I witnessed Jane struggling with it. We talked a lot about her sister’s dementia — what it does to you, how to deal with it, etc. — and Jane started to focus on TV quizzes, to test her memory. Problem is that most of the answers to these questions rely on your long-term memory, which is rather fine even if you’re suffering from dementia, and not on your short-term memory, which may be severely affected.

In these five years we had three rows altogether, and I found out that she kept a diary about these rows. Not only did she write down what happened — in her opinion — during these rows, she also read her experiences of the previous row(s) during the next one.

Also in these five years we had a great time together. We visited many places while we were living in the south of France and England, at least three times a week, but the problem was that she didn’t write anything about these lovely days in her diary, so she didn’t ”remember” them. Ergo, despite all my blogs about these trips, in her mind they never happened. Anything not in her diary wasn’t worth mentioning.

A situation like this makes your life difficult. You think you’re enjoying life with her, and you’re really enjoying it with her while it happens, but it’s such a dissappointment when she doesn’t remember anything of it the next day, or the day after that. So you plan a next trip, because you want to cease the day, enjoy her instant joy.

I loved this woman dearly and when she was 66 and I was 58 I asked her to marry me. She had been married three times before, and her memory of those marriages weren’t good, but she agreed, and I started to collect the neccessary documents. As soon as these documents arrived in the mail, she started to have second thoughts, because she was reading her diary, which only contained the memories of two rows we had in the previous 3 years. She had no good memories, because she hadn’t written them down. So the marriage was cancelled.

I realised what was happening to her and I really wanted to take care of her for the rest of our lives. So 18 months later, in May 2011, when we were very happy together and enjoyed life in our new home, I proposed to her once more. And once more I started to collect the neccessary documents, and so did she. We even started to look for a place suitable for the ceremony. To be able to take care of her after she was officially declared to suffer from dementia, we needed to be married. I wasn’t after her money, I didn’t want co-ownership of her properties in England and France, I just wanted to be able to take care of the daily business, like paying the rent, energy bills, etc., in other words to make sure that she didn’t have to go to a care home.

But then the same thing happened as before; she read her diary, only to find that there (now) were three rows in five years time, with all the details, and no records of happy times whatsoever. So she started to drink, far too much, for days and days, and once more the marriage was off.

I tried to explain what was happening to her, why I wanted to marry her, why I wanted to take care of her for the rest of our lives, but she said she didn’t want a carer, and she would kill herself rather before going to a care home.

Jane and I shared our expences. She wasn’t able to rent a place without my income, and I wasn’t able to rent a place without her income. It was a good agreement, as long as she trusted me. And if I was going to sacrifice the rest of my life to look after Jane, who became more and more demented, the one thing I needed to do this, was trust.   

And then she became suspicious, as demented people often do. In all the five years we’ve been together I never gave her a reason to believe that I was pursuing my own financial interests — to the contrary, I made her ten thousands of pounds and didn’t keep any of that money for myself.

So I had to make a choise, a hard one, and I chose for myself, for my future. I had to leave.

Immediately after this decision she went to visit her daughters, and I informed them about their mother’s situation. And then history repeated itself — mother was only a little forgetful, she always had been, so I was wrong. And on top of that they went along with their mother’s paranoia, and they accused me of being “fraudulent”. Two “suspicious” bank cards were connected to one of their mother’s bank account, and they suspected these cards to be mine. So I had to prove that the ”suspicious” bank cards belonged to their mother, who keeps losing her bank cards all the time, then calls the bank to block them, after which the cards are disabled, only to find out the same day that the cards are in one of her 36 designer bags. I could easily prove that I had nothing to do with it, that no money was drawn from those accounts by me or anyone else but Jane herself, and that I wasn’t to blame by her or her daughters.

However, if I would have stayed with her, this would have gone on until her death and after, and I couldn’t handle that. All I needed was her love, and with the increasing dementia her love for me faded and her paranoia became an aspect of our daily life. That was too painful for me. So I left.

Jane, may your gods be with you.

P.S.: No, I didn’t waste five years of my life. I had lovely years with Jane, and I have lovely memories of those years. Too pity Jane can’t share those memories with me.

P.P.S.: Sometimes, in a clear moment, she writes me an e-mail, to e-mail addresses I haven’t used in years. Then she writes that she misses the good times we had together, the conversations we had, and that she wants us to stay friends.

In everything she writes she shows her selective memory. If my own situation would be better, I would be able to give her my friendship, but due to the fact that she refused to pay me for all the work I did for her in the holiday rentals business, from 2007 to 2010, my dog Boris and I now have 70 pounds per month to spend on food, drink, vet, etc. I’m confronted with that situation every day of the week, every hour of the day, and it blocks me; I’m not able to pretend I’m her friend. She’s better off in her own world of illusion, where she’s the centre of the world.

Or maybe even three, if we consider the possibility that “Private” Detective B and Police Insider D were one and the same person (BD).  

Roughly we’ve got 6 parties in this little game.

1. The Newspaper Manager (A)
2. The “Private” Detective (B)
3. The Telecom Expert (C)
4. The Police Insider (D)
5. The Newspaper Management (X)
6. The Journalists (Y)

Our simple story starts with Newspaper Management X who want more profits, ergo more newspapers sold. This means that you need to publish more inside stories than the competition. But how do you do that? By playing little tricks. Newspaper Management X don’t need (and don’t want) to know what those little tricks could actually be. They leave the details to Newspaper Manager A.

Newspaper Manager A gets in touch with “Private” Detective B (who may be the same person as Police Insider D), because she doesn’t have any clue about the little tricks that could be played, but she’s certainly willing to pay good money for whatever tricks that could be played.

 “Private” Detective B gets in touch with Telecom Expert C, to find out what can be done to play little tricks, and how much that will costs.  

Telecom Expert C tells “Private”Detective B that it wouldn’t be too difficult, if he only would get some information that is only available to Police Insider D.

“Private” Detective B contacts Police Insider D and agrees to a price.

This means that our little trick can start working.

Newspaper Manager A starts feeding “Private” Detective B. I need this, that would be nice, blimey, if you would be able to get me this, etc.  

“Private” Detective B works Telecom Expert C and Police Insider D, and they come up with the goods, because the price is right. He presents the goods to Newspaper Manager A.

Newspaper Manager A tries to present the goods to Newspaper Management X, but they don’t want to have anything to do with it.

Newspaper Manager A tells “Private” Detective B to go ahead with the little trick.

“Private” Detective B approaches Individual Journalists Y, who have been put under extreme pressure by Newspaper Management X to produce and produce better, or else, and he drops stuff on their desk that no yellow paper journalist could resist.

Individual Journalists Y write their irresistable stories, which are edited by ignorant editors, or maybe even by Newspaper Manager A, and the dollars are starting to roll.

Newspaper Management X is very satisfied, until the truth about the little trick is about to be revealed. All of a sudden they don’t have a clue what everybody’s talking about.

Scotland Yard doesn’t know where to start, but then they read this little explanation written by Jack Vanderwyk.

Considering the fact that the USA forced the individual French citizen Dominique Strauss-Kahn to pay $6 million bail  and putting him under house arrest, while doing so the USA destroyed his present career (IMF Chairman) as well as  his future career (President of France), $60 million compensation is peanuts.

If a person like Dominique Strauss-Kahn is involved, it’s normal procedure to keep the press unaware of it, at least until the Prosecution are sure of their case. This hasn’t happened in the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

From the very beginning US officials have deliberately shamed and harmed Dominique Strauss-Kahn, up to the point where he was forced to resign from his job as Chairman of the International Monetary Fund.

Now we know that Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s so-called victim, 32-year old Nafissatou Diallo from Guinea, West Africa, has been lying about many things. She has used the crime of rape as a reason to be accepted as a fugitive in the USA, by lying about what happened to her in Guinea. In the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn she tried to use the same success formula to get more. The so-called victim lied about her whereabouts days before the so-called rape, and she lied about what she did right after the so-called rape.

One day after the so-called rape Nafissatou Diallo called her boyfriend, who is serving a prison sentence in Arizona. In this conversation she told her boyfriend, “Don’t worry, this man has lots of money, I know what I’m doing”.  

Any responsible government in any modern democracy would have checked the reliability of the so-called victim before even talking about arresting a man with the international stature of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The US government has failed to do so, and this failure has caused the destruction of Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s present and future political career.

This failure calls for compensation. $60 million at least. $300 million would be reasonable. $800 million would be fair.

The facts? All we know that Dominique Strauss-Kahn had sex with the chamber maid. There is no proof of rape, no proof of violence, no proof whatsoever that indicates anything else than Dominque Strauss-Kahn having sex with a chamber maid. By god, the man is a socialist, why not?

Moreover, paying Dominique Strauss-Kahn a significant amount of money as compensation, could be seen as a form of rehabilitation, and could thus diminish the damage that has been done to him.

Yesterday Sir Stirling Moss commented on the drive style of Lewis Hamilton, after letting himself being forced to do so by BBC Sport.

Former world champion Niki Lauda, commentating yesterday for German TV station RTL, labelled Hamilton “completely mad” and added: “You cannot drive like this as it will result in someone getting killed.”

If you would call a spade a spade, you would have said, “Hamilton was driving fucking dangerously, he should be suspended for life, he sets a bad example for every young driver.”

So what had Sir Stirling Moss to say about Hamilton’s driving?

“It’s always difficult to criticize a colleague. Let’s just say he did something that he shouldn’t have done.”

Right.

So when Sir Winston Churchill was asked about his opinion of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, he replied, “It’s always difficult to criticize a colleague. Let’s just say they did something that they shouldn’t have done.”

And when Tony Blair was asked about his opinion of Colonel Gaddafi, he replied,  ”It’s always difficult to criticize a colleague. Let’s just say he did something that he shouldn’t have done.”

And when a judge confessed he had sexually abused young children throughout his professional career, his fellow judges said, “It’s always difficult to criticize a colleague. Let’s just say he did something that he shouldn’t have done.”

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???

To “call a spade a spade” is to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity or embarrassing nature. 

Calvinists seem to have problem with calling a spade a spade. Catholics too.

While there are a great many moral systems, generally speaking, honesty is considered moral and dishonesty is considered immoral. There are several exceptions, such as egoistic hedonism, which values honesty only insofar as it improves ones own sense of pleasure, and moral nihilism, which denies the existence of objective morality outright. Honesty may also be challenged in various social systems with ideological stakes in self-preservation (many religious and national formations might be so characterized, but so too might be many family structures, and other small social collectives). In these cases honesty is frequently encouraged publicly, but may be retroactively forbidden and punished in an ex post facto manner if those invested in preserving the system perceive it as a threat. Depending on the social system, these breaches might be characterized as heresy, treason, or impoliteness. So ultimately, there are a great number of opinions about honesty. Even in moral systems which approve in general of honesty over dishonesty, some people think there are situations in which dishonesty may be preferable. Others would not define preferable behaviors as dishonest by reasoning that they are not intended to deceive others for personal gain, but the intent is more noble in character, for example sparing people of opinions that will upset them. Rather than dishonesty, that behavior is often viewed as self sacrifice – giving up one’s voice for the happiness of others. But it can hardly be a universal approach to either determining honesty or morality. In many circumstances, withholding one’s opinions can legitimately be viewed as cowardice, and a betrayal of those who will be hurt, discriminated against, or unfairly judged due to false beliefs left unchallenged. For this reason, many people insist that an objective approach to the truth, rather than an ideological or idealistic approach, is a necessary component of honesty.

It’s A Sin

English children are brought up with the idea that honesty is kind of okay, as long as it doesn’t hurt other people. As soon as honesty, calling a spade a spade, becomes embarrassing, it’s “not done”, “naughty”. English people want their children to be “nice”, not “naughty”, so they discourage them to be honest.

Because of the fact that English children are generally not encouraged to criticize their fellow citizens (“nobody’s perfect”), until the point that they learn how to debate, which is nothing but a little game, like cricket, which you can win or lose, and has nothing to do with real honesty, values, ideology, or whatever. Only in a debate are you allowed to call a spade a spade, and then everybody knows that you don’t really mean it, and you’re quite willing to get drunk with your opponent after the debate. After all, it’s just a game.

All the above is the one and only reason for the fact that “ordinary” English people don’t trust politicians and so-called “decent” people, who are unable to call a spade a spade.

Gaddafi will soon be gone, yet it will take at least one generation before the Libyan people who adored and worshipped him will be able to get rid of the shame and embarrasment that occurred after they start to realise what has happened to them.

The adoration of an archetypal symbol is not alien to the British people. When Princess Diana died, millions of Brits displayed behaviour that is rather exceptional to them. Mass psychology seems peculiarly receptive to certain archetypal symbols and – irrespective of who Diana really was – the public persona crafted around her visual image seemed to have hit one of those big red buttons in the collective unconsciousness. Most thinking people are immune (or at least resistant), but the evidence abounds. How else to explain the weird and spontaneous outpouring of Diana-mania, even a decade after the most photographed face went to dust?

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (1942) has ruled over Lybia as a dictator since 1969. In early February 2011, major political protests, inspired by recent similar events in Tunisia, Egypt and other parts of the Arab world, which quickly turned into a general uprising, broke out in Libya against Gaddafi’s government. After losing much of his country to rebels and experiencing mass defections, Gaddafi defiantly vowed to “die a martyr” if necessary in his fight to maintain power. On March 17, 2011, the U.N. Security Council voted in favour of resolution 1973, authorising all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack, in particular Benghazi. Rebels in Benghazi celebrated in the streets after the no-fly vote was announced. Gaddafi called the vote “flagrant colonisation” and warned of dire consequences. “This is craziness, madness, arrogance,” he told the Portuguese TV channel RTP. “If the world gets crazy with us, we will get crazy too. We will respond.” In a chilling message earlier, Gaddafi also threatened that no mercy would be shown to residents of Benghazi who resisted him.

Yet Gaddafi was able to mobilise thousands of fanatical supporters, especially in Tripoli. With his self-formed image of a celestial, he played the tune, he pulled the strings, and he declared war against all people who deny that he is God. And the crowds cheered. Why are there Libyans left who still support Gaddafi? In Tripoli they march the streets in his honour and he’s managed to arm enough of his fanatic supporters to form a small army. The same question has often been asked of Stalin and other dictators, like Idi Amin – why did people continue to support them, often devotedly so, when they knew the kind of regime they were running? One answer is fear – and for those living in Tripoli, a city still under Gaddafi’s control today (18 March 2011), fear of reprisals for the revolt must be high.

Gaddafi’s Revolutionary committees resembled similar systems in communist countries and reportedly 10 to 20 percent of Libyans work in surveillance for these committees, a proportion of informants on par with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Kim Jong-il’s North Korea. The surveillance took place in government, in factories, and in the education sector. Gaddafi employed his network of diplomats and recruits to assassinate dozens of his critics around the world. Amnesty International listed at least 25 assassinations between 1980 and 1987.

Until the uprising in 2011, the Gaddafi family held vast amounts of wealth outside Libya as well as full control of the Libyan economy. The main vehicle for the Gaddafi’s wealth is the $70 billion Libyan Investment Authority (LIA). Gaddafi’s sons, Saif, Muatassim and Hannibal were accustomed to live in luxury in the West, circulating with other rich people and gaining honour by giving money to causes that they supported. The London School of Economics was a beneficiary of this, as the LSE Libya Links affair showed. Many British companies have gained a foothold in the lucrative Libyan market by building relationships with the Gaddafi family.

So there is the factor of fear, and there is the factor of money. But there are other factors that kept Gaddafi in power for 42 years: crowd psychology and collective unconsciousness.

The main idea of crowd behaviour theory is that people who are in a crowd act differently towards people from those who are thinking individually. The minds of the group would merge to form a way of thinking. Each member’s enthusiasm would be increased as a result, and one becomes less aware of the true nature of one’s actions. Crowd behaviour is not a product of the crowd itself, but is carried into the crowd by particular individuals, like a despot.

 In his writings about charismatic authority, Max Weber applies the term charisma to “a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. How the quality in question would be ultimately judged from an ethical, aesthetic, or other such point of view is naturally indifferent for the purpose of definition.” Charismatic authority is ‘power legitimized on the basis of a leader’s exceptional personal qualities or the demonstration of extraordinary insight and accomplishment, which inspire loyalty and obedience from followers’. As such, it rests almost entirely on the leader; the absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority’s power dissolving. Some leaders may employ various tools to create and extend their charismatic authority; for example utilising the science of public relations.

Herd behaviour describes how individuals in a group can act together without planned direction. The term pertains to the behaviour of animals in herds, flocks and schools, and to human conduct during activities such as stock market bubbles and crashes, street demonstrations, sporting events, religious gatherings, episodes of mob violence and even everyday decision making, judgment and opinion forming. Crowd manipulation is the intentional use of techniques based on the principles of crowd psychology to engage, control, or influence the desires of a crowd in order to direct its behaviour toward a specific action. This practice is common to politics and business and can facilitate the approval or disapproval or indifference to a person, policy, or product. Gustav Le Bon’s work on crowd psychology became important during the first half of the twentieth century. It is arguable that the fascist theories of leadership that emerged during the 1920s owed much to Le Bon’s theories of crowd psychology. Indeed, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf drew largely on the propaganda techniques proposed in Le Bon’s 1895 book. In addition, Benito Mussolini made a careful study of Le Bon’s crowd psychology book, apparently keeping the book by his bedside. I suggest that Colonel Gaddafi may also have been influenced by Le Bon’s theories, directly or indirectly.

A significant part of the Gaddafi followers were not driven by fear or money, but by crowd manipulation of a charismastic authority. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and many other dictators, all had their admirers, who were not able to be critical of their “gods”. Instead of aiming at true understanding, people listen to thoughtless repetition, which gives them the delusion of understanding. They were mind-raped. Does that make them innocent victims? No.

The followers of Gaddafi are also guilty, as they were part of the offences… and enjoyed it!  They cannot say, “we only obeyed the orders,” which was the main line of defence of the Nazis tried at Nuremberg. With their “great leader” gone, they will feel ashamed and embarrassed. Embarrassed because they were involved in things they now regret. In time, Gaddafi’s followers will feel guilty, because they followed him like a herd, instead of remain truthful to their ideals, their integrity. This feeling of “guilt”, however, has many layers. First there is the “guilt” associated with “betraying the leader”, then – after quite some time – comes the “guilt” associated with their actions against the enemy of the leader, and they will say to themselves, “My god, what happened, what have we done?”

Having worked as a manager in probation services for more than twelve years, I have heard many arguments against the prison systems, social systems, and “mild” sentences in Western Europe, especially from social workers who are not directly working with (ex-)prisoners, but with people in their social environment, or close to it.

Some arguments are:

1. Prison sentences are too mild, because many offenders keep committing crimes after they have been released. They wouldn’t do this if prison sentences would be longer and harsher.

2.  Life is too easy for people who live on benefits, compared to those who have a job. If it wouldn’t be so easy, they would need to find a job and start contributing to society. Life is very difficult for people who have a job, and they pay a lot of taxes to support all the people who live on benefits.

3. All these prisons, social services, child protection services, probation services, etc. cost an enormous amount of money, and the people who use these services the most, are taking it for granted and keep abusing these services.

To be able to see where these arguments are coming from, we have to take a look at the history of our society. There have always been segments of the population who were deprived of jobs, and therefore of decent dwellings, decent neighborhoods, etc. After WWII governments tried to do something about these circumstances, after which the situation improved. However, it didn’t improve enough.

In a capitalist society there needs to be a certain balance between the wages of workers, the ability of workers to buy goods (which is good for the economy), and the profits of the companies they’re working for. This means that the profits need to be as high as possible, while, as a consequence of that, the wages of the workers need to be as low as possible — just high enough to buy the neccessary goods and to pay for loans and mortgages, but with a firm limit, to keep the workers dependant on their jobs, and to keep their employers’ profits as high as possible. In a capitalist society there is no balance between supply and demand on the labour market. There are only job opportunities for a limited part of the population. This means that there is — there was, and there will be in the future – a part of the population that has to live on benefits. In a capitalist society a huge part of these benefits, if not all, needs to flow back into the economy, in other words: if you cut these benefits, there will be less money flowing back into the economy.

As a result of our capitalist society millions of people have been living on benefits for generations. Many of these people have learned to believe that their chances of winning a significant prize in the lottery are bigger than finding a decent job with a decent salary. And they’re probably right.

In a capitalist society all people are encouraged to consume, and thus a lot of “needs” are created. Nobody would have thought of going on the street with headphones on and some musical playback device attached to it, until Sony invented the walkman. Some people are financially able to consume more than others, and when people are confronted with this inequality on TV, day in, day out, this creates relative deprivation.

Your grandfather may have been sent to prison for stealing a loaf of bread, to feed his family, and this was probably tolerated by the community he was part of. Nowadays it’s not hunger that’s driving you to commit a crime, but relative deprivation. You want what the others have and you don’t have. You want what capitalist TV is showing you day in, day out. And there is a good chance that the community you’re part of will tolerate this drive, because they understand where you’re coming from.

A significant segment of our population has grown up in communities of unemployed people. All people need their kicks, also when you have been unemployed all your life, and your father before you. Having kicks is a natural human need, like food, drink, sleep, shelter. If you can’t afford to get your kicks from skiing in the Alps, sailing in the Caribbean, living in a fancy neighborhood, or buying a new sportscar every year, you might get your kicks out of  buying a huge flatscreen TV (fallen off the back of a lorry or not), out of drinking your pint and smoking a fag, and/or out of getting high on illegal drugs.

Not being able to bring in the money that can buy your family all the things they see on TV, usually leads to frustration, so you need more kicks (more booze, more illegal drugs), which in turn leads to addiction and — more often than not — criminal behaviour. And criminal behaviour quite often leads to imprisonment.

So since generations prisons have been full of frustrated people, as a result of the dynamics of capitalist society. Your loss of freedom may be a terrible punishment, but for quite a lot of prisoners prison is a good place to be. Your responsibilities are limited, you are part of a community that doesn’t judge you, your daily life is structured — maybe for the first time in your life — and you can still enjoy your fag, or even your spliff, if you’re lucky.

Many young people, often grown up in institutions, are feeling more at home in prison than anywhere else. When they’re released from prison, not ready for life at all, they often commit crimes for one single purpose: to get back into prison, into their familiar surroundings. Capitalist society has created masses of people with nothing to lose.

Now let’s go back to the arguments we started with:

1. Prison sentences are too mild, because many offenders keep committing crimes after they have been released. They wouldn’t do this if prison sentences would be longer and harsher.

Answer: my arguments above indicate that making prisons harsher and prison sentences longer, will not lead to lesser crimes, nor to lesser criminals. And don’t forget: not everything that is rightful is also justified, not everything that’s legal is legitimate, or vice versa. The law is nothing but a set of rules made by people. People do make mistakes and their perceptions are very seldom all-embracing. In other words: the law can’t be all-embracing, and very often the defendant is a victim of that inadequacy. 

2.  Life is too easy for people who live on benefits, compared to those who have a job. If it wouldn’t be so easy, they would need to find a job and start contributing to society. Life is very difficult for people who have a job, and they pay a lot of taxes for all the people who live on benefits.

Answer: in a capitalist society people on benefits are contributing to the economy, thus to society. People in Western Europe are able to use their votes to vote against any government that encourages capitalism and allows companies and individuals to make billions in profits. If life is very difficult for people who do have a job, they shouldn’t take it out on the people who don’t, but they should blame the capitalist government that allows others to make their billions at the cost of people with small or relatively small salaries, even at the cost of people on benefits. Working people and people on benefits shouldn’t be divided — they shouldn’t fall into the capitalist trap of divide and rule – they should unite and form a real socialist government, which is quite something different than the Labour governments we’ve known for the last decades. Labour has alienated itself from socialism twenty to thirty years ago, when it tried to lure the new middle classes into its ranks and embraced capitalism as a consequence of that.   

3. All these prisons, social services, child protection services, probation services, etc. cost an enormous amount of money, and the people who use these services the most, are taking it for granted and keep abusing these services.

Answer: all these billionaires are able to make their billions at the cost of society. If money would be divided more equally, if we wouldn’t be living in a capitalist society, we wouldn’t have as much people living on benefits, and as a result (because of less frustration) we wouldn’t need as much prisons, social services, etc. And of course the people who use these services now are taking it for granted, as the majority of the people (you, you, and you) as a collective take it for granted that others are able to make billions at the cost of society, by voting for political parties that allow others to make billions at the cost of society.

Before I continue I need to stress that, contrary to what many social workers and others believe because of their selective perspective, most people living on benefits are NOT committing crimes, are NOT neglecting their children, are NOT addicted to illegal drugs, and are NOT abusing their benefits. But they are in a position created by capitalist society and frustrated because of it.

With all the billions going around in capitalist society, the majority of the electorate doesn’t protest against the fact that prisons are abused by the government. People from the downside of society don’t receive the treatment they need, they don’t end up in psychiatric hospitals when they need psychiatric help and — because of their situation – do something illegal. Instead they end up in prison, which has become a catchall of anything, anyone, capitalist society doesn’t tolerate. Shifting responsibility. Just ask any prison guard; he or she will confirm this immediately.

Children who were abused during their childhood, usually by a parent, a relative, a teacher or a priest, do not receive the treatment they need if they come from deprived families in deprived neighborhoods. When they, as a result of this, are trying to commit suicide — a crime in the UK — they do not end up in a psychiatric hospital, but in prison. Now imagine what this does to a person who has been abused by someone he or she trusted and depended on, and then been neglected by the police, by the court, by child protection services, etc., to finally been thrown in jail. Would you expect a person like that to be grateful, to act like a responsible, law abiding citizen? Or would you understand why this person wants to end his or her life, or become an angry person without respect for law and order?

Finally, would you agree with me that first of all we need to record that there’s something very wrong with this capitalist society, before we start to blame it all on the people who live on benefits, the people from the downside of society?

Bar chart of capitalist government in capitalist system

 This is a bar chart of a capitalist government in a capitalist system. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, tories, lib-dem, or labour, it still will be a capitalist government in a capitalist system.

Bar chart of socialist government in capitalist system

This is a bar chart of a socialist government in a capitalist system. Since we can’t change the system, we have to change the government to get more equality and less deprivation. So we need to vote for a truely socialist party, instead of labour. And if such a party doesn’t exist, we need to found it asap.

The consequences of this change will be that a lot of capitalists, individuals and companies, will leave the country, because profits in other countries will be higher, and the consequences of that will be that we will not be able to pay for fighting silly wars in other countries, which in return means that industries depending on warfare will make less money, and if all countries do that, they will make no money at all.

So, if there’s a war announced, and no-one shows up, what happens?

Peace man. Fuck the capitalists.

Ken O’Keefe, interviewed after the Gaza Flotilla massacre

Stadskanaal, of all places

Most people in The Netherlands know Ken O’Keefe as the Irish-American activist on board of the Mavi Marmara who bravely stood up against the Israeli commandos who hijacked the ship and assassinated 9 of its passengers. Few people know that Ken O’Keefe sought political asylum in Holland in the aftermath of 9-11 and that he spent some time in a refugee camp in the town of Stadskanaal, in the Arctic of The Netherlands.

In January 2002 Kenneth O’Keefe was still known as Kenneth Roy Nichols (he legally took his first wife’s family name O’Keefe), hence the fact that O’Keefe’s further life as an activist stayed pretty much unnoticed by the Dutch press corps, and they weren’t able to connect O’Keefe with Nichols, despite the Wikipedia article on him. Sloppy Dutch journalism.

Ken in Stadskanaal, 2002, overlooking the frozen canal

Stadskanaal in Winter is something completely different than Napa, California, where Ken was born on July 21, 1969, or Hawaii, where he used to live before he came to Europe. During the Winter of 2001/2002 a temperature of minus 17°C (1.40°F) was measured in the area. Taking into account that Ken wasn’t staying in a cozy little villa with open fires and easy access to the cultural centers of the country, but in a refugee camp alongside an endless, frozen canal, hundreds of kilometers away from civilized life as people from Amsterdam, Rotterdam or Utrecht know it, it must be clear that Ken wasn’t there for fun. Seeking political asylum in another country just ain’t fun.

So why did Ken O’Keefe come to Holland?

Ken served in the 1991 Gulf War and subsequently spoke out about the use of depleted uranium as a “crime against humanity” and the US military using soldiers as “human guinea pigs” with experimental drugs that were directly linked to Gulf War syndrome. “If you ask me, the United States of America are the biggest terrorists on this planet,” said Ken in January 2002. “The American Government is corrupt, and commits more crimes than any other country in the world.”

In 1995 Ken O’Keefe earned a scuba diving instructor certification and in 1996 he created a social enterprise in Hawaii ‘to protect and defend the marine environment we operate within”. In 1998 and 2000 he crewed with the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in anti-whaling and sealing campaigns in which he was mentored by Captain Paul Watson. In 2000 he became the regional director for SSCS in Hawaii, earned a US Coast Guard captain’s license and was branded the ‘ecopreneur’ by Skin Diver Magazine, the worlds largest selling scuba diving magazine.

In 1999 O’Keefe became an active supporter of the Hawaiian Independence Movement and began the process of formally renouncing his US citizenship. In November 2000 he naturalized as a Hawaiian citizen, served as the election commissioner for the Hawaiian Kingdom elections and professed his allegiance to the Kingdom of Hawaii and a “reinstated Hawaiian government”. Ken made a video documentary about Hawaii and its relationship with the USA, titled “Hawaii, the Tibet of the Pacific”. On November 30, 2000 Ken O’Keefe was issued with a bench warrant for his arrest in the amount of $11,000. O’Keefe claims that this warrant was unlawfully issued (not renewing his driver’s license in time, not wearing seat belts, etc.)  and that this was proof of US government persecution. “Now that’s the American justice I know,” Ken said. “To give some perspective, an 11,000 dollar bench warrant would generally be issued for someone charged with a violent crime such as assault with a deadly weapon. I was (falsely) charged with expired vehicle safety tags and registration!”  

Ken in Stadskanaal

“That’s the way they control you,” Ken told Nieuwsblad van het Noorden. “One more little mistake and they’ve got me by the balls.”

“Life became unbearable in the fever pitch of blind patriotism and vengeance in the wake of 9/11”, Ken wrote in his autobiography. “I lived on a military outpost (Hawaii) with Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines with 3000 plus nuclear weapons; arguably the most important strategic site for the U.S. Global Domination purposes. I was already legally guilty of ‘seditious conspiracy’ in the eyes of the American government for having sworn an oath to an opposing government and nation. I was responsible for exposing US terrorism and oppression in Hawaii and laying out in documentary form the process of legal remedy for the kanaka maoli in order to ‘reinstate’ the government and nation, the same nation that the US had admitted to stealing in US Public Law 103-150. I was also guilty of the purposely vague charge of ‘sedition’ and all tolled I was in the same category as Puerto Rican nationals who fought for their independence and ended up spending nearly two decades in a US prison for seditious conspiracy charges.”

“With post 9-11 legislation such as the so-called ‘Patriot Act’, I could literally be taken by federal agents and held without access to an attorney, no contact with family, held indefinitely in a secret location and even beaten; all in accordance with America’s new laws. I shit you not, this is America today. Of course I would have to be linked to ‘terrorists’ in some way, which is really not an issue of truth as much as it is a matter of how badly you are pissing off the dictatorship of America.”

“All the American government needed to do was link me to violence and I could be charged. Seditious requires violence, intent to use violence, I never planned any violence at all, to the contrary I was committed to peaceful means. But I was a prime target to be framed, perhaps some weapons or explosives would have been found in my home, which could easily be planted. That was a real danger for me, and that was part of the claim for asylum, but just part of it.” 
 

Ken officially entered this claim into his asylum request in The Netherlands. “In November 2001, just after the passage of the traitorous ‘Patriot Act’, under ongoing threat of imprisonment, after considerable research into international, asylum and human rights law, I left my paradise home of Hawaii, my family, my business and a life that most would kill for in order to officially seek political asylum in Holland.”  

Ken O’Keefe came to The Netherlands because “I thought this was a country with freedom of speech, where people can speak their minds.”  

When asked if he was genuinely afraid of what could happen to him in the USA, Ken replied, “Do you really think I would leave the most beautiful place on earth if I wasn’t scared? Come-on!”

In 2001 Ken tried several times to return his American passport to the State Department, but they just kept sending it back to him.

“In Holland I found a government as corrupt as any and a system that wanted to give asylum to an American as much as it wanted an American invasion, but based on the laws of Holland and International Law I felt it the best option I had. Upon arrival my first act was to sign all the renunciation documents once again, swear under oath to the truth of these documents and turn over my US passport to the US Government for the second time. After this I turned myself over to the Dutch Foreign Police and officially entered the asylum procedure. Despite the Dutch Governments best attempts to prevent this (Holland is all too friendly with the US), I survived the initial asylum phase even after Dutch immigration officials committed fraud in an attempt to have critical documents supporting my asylum request removed from my comprehensive file. They did this because the first phase of the procedure was their best chance to get rid of me, but this backfired big time as I am all too aware of how corrupt government systems are. All of this is now officially on record with the Dutch Minister of Justice. They reluctantly approved my application to the second phase of the procedure and I was sent to a refugee camp in the Northern most region of the country, Stadskanaal.”

The IND (the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Services) accepted Ken’s apply for political asylum after he produced documents to prove that he really was in danger. However, since the US wasn’t on the IND’s list of dangerous countries, Ken didn’t stand a chance. He knew about a fellow countryman who five years before tried to get political asylum in Sweden, but that went wrong because, according to Ken, the US and several European countries had made a deal not to accept each others refugees.

“It is there that I lived for two months in a small four bedroom flat with six refugees from African nations. All of whom would rather be in Africa were it not for war and lack of economic opportunity our Western raping and pillaging colonialist legacy has insured. Along with some of them I am still officially a refugee. One of the most despicable realities of refugee life is the fact that even as a legal refugee you are essentially not permitted to obtain legal work in Holland. Well not quite, refugees can work at the refugee centers, for 50 Euro cents an hour! I knew several who took this bullshit wage because it was all they had. I lived with a doctor from Ethiopia who was also licensed in Russia who descended into truly destructive alcoholism while in this welfare dependency. Contrary to what most antagonists of refugees think, not only would refugees not even for a second come to our cold northern countries if they had their way, the vast majority would work longer and harder for less just to have the same standard of life most of us complain about. Holland; a 21st century model state for tolerance and human rights.”

“My ability to deal with this system was much easier because of my familiarity with it, and with the help of a wonderful Dutch volunteer named Jan I was blessed to obtain pro bono services of Holland’s best asylum attorney, Pieter Bogaers. He has represented me ever since. This man has spent dozens of hours with me and countless others from all over the world who would otherwise be among the countless victims of the modern refugee system. He knows my story as good as anyone with substantial documents in support of my asylum claim and he serves as a credible source of confirmation of all that I have said.”

Thanks to Ken’s stay in the refugee camp in Stadskanaal, as the first American citizen ever who applied for political asylum in The Netherlands, he was interviewed by several Dutch national and regional newspapers, like De Volkskrant, Het Parool, Vrij Nederland, Gelders Dagblad, Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, etc. He didn’t expect to be able to convince Dutch politicians, but he set his hopes on the support of the Dutch people.

“The Americans are raping the planet,” said Ken. “Compared to the US, Europe is still a paradise. This is a nice, free place. People here need to wake up and try to stop total destruction, which could take place any moment now.”

In July 2001 Vrij Nederland reported that Ken was going to burn his American passport in front of the American Consulate in Amsterdam. This was broadcasted on Dutch national TV (NOS Journaal). Consul Jim Gray accepted Ken’s written statement, but refused to accept his American passport. So Ken decided to burn his passport outside the American Consulate, while the NOS and Al Jazeera cameras were running. However, Ken needed some practice. After all, you don’t burn your passport on a daily basis. So, with a little help of his friends (“Does anyone have a Zippo lighter?”) he finally managed to burn the damn thing. It was one of those Monday afternoons…

Amnesty International studied the case, and Ken’s lawyer Corry Dreessen stated, “This is a unique, yet complicated case.”

In an interview with De Volkskrant, Ken O’Keefe said, “I don’t hate the US, but I despise the US Government. The facts are speaking for themselves. Nowhere in the world so many people are imprisoned as in the US, and yet they’ve got the bloody nerve to call themselves the Land of the Free. It’s a bloody shame.”

Understanding that the process would take years and seeing the upcoming invasion of Iraq Ken O’Keefe  removed himself from the asylum process in The Netherlands and initiated the human shield action to Iraq in December 2002.      

Ken O’Keefe was right when he said that The Netherlands are just as corrupt as the US. The US, The Netherlands, as well as most other so-called “democracies” of the world, are not democracies at all, but dictatorships of the majority. Although The Netherlands seem to be very liberal, especially when you visit the bigger cities, you will find a significant part of the law makers and electorate in the huge Bible Belts of the country; the Calvinist Bible Belt in the North and middle, and the Catholic Bible Belt in the South. And because of the fact that no single party ever has enough votes to rule on its own, there’s almost always the need to establish a coalition with Bible Belt parties, and they are certainly not the ones who support legal drugs and legal prostitution.

Another thing that wasn’t working for Ken O’Keefe was his USMC background. Dutch bureaucrats are scared shitless of well trained marines and commandos. One of the reasons for this is that they lack the physical qualities that go with the job. When they think of marines and commandos, they think of Rambo. No Dutch bureaucrat would like to have an argument with Rambo. What to think of an ex-marine who is an activist? Immediately their thoughts go out to Ron Kovic (Born On The 4th of July), so that means TROUBLE, and Ken O’Keefe wasn’t even in a wheelchair.  

The refugee camp in Stadskanaal was another example of the Dutch bureaucracy. Nothing was learned from the Camp Westerbork experience, also situated in the North-Eastern part of the country. Camp Westerbork was initially used for Jewish refugees who came from Germany during the years preceding WWII. The Dutch bureaucrats kept track of where they came from, and where they went, so when the Nazis invaded The Netherlands in 1940, all they had to do was to confiscate the Dutch files and arrest the Jews.

The people in the East of Holland are more German-orientated than the ones in the West of the country. Their dialect is “Lower-German” and sounds more like German than anything else. They are more law-abiding than the rest of the Dutch population, and more inclined to follow the “Deutsche Gründlichkeit”. Also, there’s a lot of unemployment in these areas, so they would welcome a job in refugee camps, prisons, etc.

Ken O’Keefe was sent to a refugee camp like that. Hardly a place where heroes like him belong. Yet the Dutch Government put him there to discourage him, exactly for that reason.    

Meanwhile, and this will really disappoint Ken O’Keefe, the Dutch Government is more right-wing than ever before, and soon a government will be appointed that is “tolerated and supported” by Geert Wilders’ PVV party. Geert Wilders is a Dutch populist who opposes Palestinians (“Let them live in Jordan and have their own state there”), who opposes Islam, and who is best buddies with right-wing Israeli politicians and journalists. 

Jack Vanderwyk, September 2010

(Approved by Ken O’Keefe. Thanx brother!)

Further reading and sources:

Ken O Keefe’s official website

Ken O’Keefe’s autobiography