“Onrust” is dutch for “restless” so this is about me.
Fundamentally, my position is: judge me on what I write, look at the content not at the person. Elsewhere I have said that anonymity (of author or official) could be an important element in truly democratic systems.
As these days the preoccupation with personal matters seems to have no limit I will briefly expand on some relevant information. From the beginning of my college days, I kept myself busy with the issue of how “people” as much as possible could themselves decide on community issues. Starting with the built environment. It soon became clear that issues such as participation and referenda were there no answer. Without knowledge (alternatives, costs) and actual delegation of power, it’s impossible to decide something. Moreover, one is only able to communicate with a limited number of people over something meaningful. Exit all forms of “direct democracy” and “participation”.
Around 1975 I began to understand that the “decision-making entity” weather they were voters or elected officials, do not make rational or scientific decisions but that they, as products of ideological systems function on that basis. So before I continue telling something about “myself” I will have to examine what is constituting a “self” or more philosophically, “a subject”. An old Marxist and often misunderstood term is applicable here: “The necessary false consciousness”. With an emphasis on necessary, indicating that the nature of the (human) consciousness is that it is colored, is ideologically determined. There is no way in which one can obtain an “absolutely true” consciousness. The only possibility is to exchange a false ideology for one a little less false and this often proves difficult enough. Especially if one appears to believe in a strong and free individual that always decides for itself, including what he will believe and what not. The critical approach of ideologies, especially your own, is the only way to change.
The belief in a strong and free individual, free to choose anything when starting out in the world is the core of the humanist liberal attitude to life, culminating in the neoliberal narcissistic cult that you own your own fate (and in fact your world) and by definition are personally guilty if that does not work so well. Politically, this meant for me the end of any kind of idealism in the sense of “If we all will the good things to happen they will happen”. I became active in the Labour Party hoping to do something useful with my insights. After six years in a local branch, I decided that this was a dead end. End of membership.
After many years of political homelessness and political inactivity, I was awakened again by the murder of Theo van Gogh (2004). Main theme: religion is far from dead, and calls again. This concerns not only the rise of the (political) Islam but also the seemingly innocent something-ism and various other forms of “floating”, the unprecedented influence of right-wing religious thought in the US and the idiotic flowering of Jewish orthodoxy. The need for a meaningful story continues to exist. The demise of the socialist (/ Marxist / communist) narrative doesn’t take that need away. Many are not charmed by the liberal humanist ideology. Quite justified. Ergo a return to religion, or the turn to all kinds more or less “floating” (light-headed) sects. This is the main motive for my attempt to interfere with the world again: the ideological deficit of the left needs to be resolved if it will ever stand a chance in front of the vague promises of religions. There is need for an organization apart from political parties going into direct competition with other forms of belief.
So I resumed my somewhat dusty study of ideology and the subject. In the meantime, my notions of control and democracy had developed further. Receiving impetus from the increased possibilities of electronic communications, somehow parallel to my thinking about ideology, resulted in attempts to interest parties in a platform for (political) program development that I baptized “Radiant”. Unfortunately without success. Around 1984, after all sorts of disappointing experiences as a researcher, I came to the conclusion that even the slightest suggestion that something similar to a structural change (in economic structure or legal system) is taboo. Not only the for the ones ruling but even for the so-called opposition. Everyone is caught up in the dominant ideology. Even the leftmost party can’t escape checking the financial basis of their programme by the CPB (Dutch “Central Planning” Agency) . This too was an important reason to stop direct political activity and concentrate on ideological development. Because of these activities more political and economic ideas were also activated and developed further.
I hope you will respect my good intentions in using a pseudonym.