KUNSTENAAR ROB SCHOLTE ONDER DWANG UIT ZIJN MUSEUM GEZET “luctor et emergo” zo weten de geuzen in de kunst….
… tevens kunstroof door de strandjutter van Den Helder burgemeester Koen Schuiling…..

Zie: https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/kunstenaar-rob-scholte-onder-dwang-uit-zijn-museum-gezet~a4593835/

Zie ook: ROB SCHOLTEN’S SLAG OM DEN HELDER, April 16, 2018

Rob Scholten’s SLAG OM DEN HELDER is tot nog toe niet meer dan gebulder van pers-cannonades… wil Scholtens museum heelhuids uit de strijd komen, zoals bij de zeeslag bij Den Helder beter bekend als de ‘Slag bij (het Fort) Kijkduin’ van 1673 – dan behoeft hij meer munitie….
Teken de petitie via: http://robscholtemuseum.nl/teken-open-brief/

PS het schilderij links laat de Slag bij Kijkduin/Den Helder zien, rechts is een Turniaanse remake van de brandende kwestie van het Den Helders gemeentehuis... waar onbetrouwbare wethouders en zwakmoedige gemeenteraadsleden hun laffe beleid bepalen… de lokale kongsi’s en rotary-clubs regeren dit stadje in de kop van Noord Holland… het kanon is een bruikleen van het Rijksmuseum Amsterdam…

tijd voor een frisse windvlaag daar… die permanente tegenwind beloofde Scholten in juni 2017 in een interview en artikel over zijn museum in de Volkskrant, geschreven door John Schoorl:

Den Helder is de meest gezagsgetrouwe stad van het land, nergens anders dan in deze marinestad is het geloof in koning en autoriteit groter dan hier. Daar moet iets tegenover staan, zegt hij: opstandige kunst van een vertegenwoordiger van de tegencultuur. Daarom past hij hier, als Rob Scholte, hij is de andere kant die ze nodig hebben om alles in balans te houden.

I republish this news-tableau originally launched on 4 September, 2013 on my Flickr page. It had 11,965 views since then.  It takes part in a debate in the aftermath of  a retaliation attack of USA and allies on Syrian governmental targets, as a punishment for the use of chemical weapons on the city of Ghouta on 21 August, 2013, allegedly by Syrian government forces. An attack that caused over seven hundred deaths. This was not the first and not the last attack with chemical weapons. A useful overview of all 80 or so cases – since October 2012 – can be found on a dedicated Wikipedia page “Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War” whereby it becomes clear that some cases are disputed and often the perpetrator of an attack using chemical weapons can not with full certainty be pointed at. Indeed the ‘news’ or ‘fakes news’ battles around these chemical attacks are poisonous themselves. When we take the highest estimation of casualties of the Syrian Civil Ear, since its start in the year 2011 then – according to the United Nations and the Arab League envoy to Syria, the total number of death is 400.000
The total number of deaths by the use of chemical warfare in Syria using the data of the list on Wikipedia cited above, plus the latest (alleged) attack on Douma is 2002 (again I take the highest estimates). Bombardments and (other) usage of high explosives may have caused – directly and indirectly – the highest death toll, whereby it is irrelevant for a victim if she/he was targeted or an unwanted side effect of an attack, a “collateral victim”. As my argument below is about the hysteric hypocrisy in the media and by ‘Western governments’, here the three chemical weapon attacks that did produce the highest numbers of deadly victims:
1) Ghouta (area) 21/8/2013: 800 + (numbers differ enormously: lowest 281, highest 1729)
2) Khan Shaykhun 4/4/2017: 100
3) Douma 7/4/2018: 70


There Are No Humanitarian Weapons – biggest lie of these days “THE GRADING OF KILLING METHODS IN SYRIA” as if Chemical Weapons are worse than Conventional Weapons as if there is a humanitarian red-line that must not be crossed in warfare.

Pondering for days how to expose THE BIGGEST LIE OF THESE DAYS “THE GRADING OF KILLING METHODS IN SYRIA” as if death by the dagger, sword, machete, pistol, riffle, mortar, land mine, machine gun, cannon, missile, aerial bombing, napalm, arson, dynamite, nitro glycerine, and hundreds of other explosives, electronic shocks and nuclear explosion, are any better. Dead is dead, also for those who remember the killed ones personally, those who stay behind.


HOW BRAINWASHED IS EVERYBODY that many start to doubt if they should support a military intervention of the Americans and their Allies in Syria. How brainwashed they must be when using the big number of violent death (just over 100.000) in Syria from the UN Human Right Research WITHOUT TAKING IN ACCOUNT WHO HAS BEEN KILLING WHO, how many of these killings were the result of all kind of inner strives and crimes by all sort of freedom fighters equally repulsive as committed by the governmental troops of Bashir Al-Assad. How naive to think that after the launching of missiles on Assad regime targets, civil war and terrorism will end in Syria.

The most massive use of chemical warfare in the narrow sense was last century in a war between Iran and Iraq that lasted 8 years and took over one million victims, of which tens of thousands died because of the use of chemical warfare methods, mainly against soldiers, but also in some cases against civilians, mainly in Iran, but also in Iraq itself, whereby also Iran attempted to use chemical warfare agents. The Iran Iraq War of the eighties last century did not trigger any call of ‘intervention’ and hardly any protest in the world. In the years 1987/88 there has been – well documented – tactical support by USA military and CIA personal for Iraq gas attacks on Iranian troops. There was no red-line then under that geo-political circumstances.

Because napalm, agent orange and depleted uranium weapons, and several kinds of so called nerve gasses for crowd control do fall outside of the international acclaimed definition of ‘chemical warfare’, the Western democracies think they can proudly pose as humanitarian warriors. Less forget the massive use of these human killing substances and devices in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Algerian War, Madagascar, the Gulf War, the Iraq War… by all those humanitarian generals of the USA and its allies.

Let alone that we recall all the devilish plans that have been prepared, but not executed, or only partly, of devastating large agricultural zones, of breaking irrigation dams, of bombing hydro-electrical dams, drowning thousands, triggering famines, ill health and massive death of illnesses like TB and Cholera, from Korea to Indochina.

Miles of historical, juridical, medical and military books and reports can be dragged in to support this kind of argumentation, to rip away the blindfold of public opinion as it is daily put in position and fastened by the major media.


This tableau picture and essay has been published first at my Flickr news-tableau page on the 18th of november 2012. It had over the years 96,875 views. I republish it today on this blog to be used as a reference in the never ending discussion on social-media on who and what is right and wrong in this part of the Middle East. Tjebbe van Tijen 10/4/2018

HOW TO REPRESENT THE ISRAEL/GAZA CONFRONTATION or if you want GAZA/ISRAEL confrontation of mid november 2012.

This has been on my mind the last days, seeing the usual Pavlov reactions to the conflict of people taking sides for what clearly are the underdogs, without much thought though of the consequences. There have been several demonstrations already that had as their main slogan STOP ATTACK ON GAZA (1) without even mentioning the attacks the other way around, however primitive the missile technology employed by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades the official military arm of Hamas and other para-military groups.

I am neither pro-Israel nor pro Hamas and see with dismay how each time the warriors from both camps take over. As for Hamas they not only endangers others, but also themselves or their dear-ones and neighbours, because Israeli counter-attacks always come. Forgotten in the turmoil of war is, that the exchange of rockets, missiles and bombs does not only sow fear, kill people and damage buildings and infrastructure, it also is an attack on the many good willing initiatives between citizens of Israel and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

Their activities are not catching the headlines of the world press. Less deadly, less sensational activities that aim at diminish suffering and easing tension: support of joint economic projects and zones; promotion of free border crossing and travel; helping reconciliation; sharing of suffering by parents from both camps who lost their children in the conflict; joint environmental actions especially about water resources; arabic/hebrew language learning in schools; promoting fair trade products from Palestine in Israel; medical assistance; mixed summer camps for kids from Israel, Palestine and other arabic countries; joint academic research and education opportunities; mixed orchestras and theatre companies; training for conflict resolution; face to face dialogues initiatives; to sum up just a part of this positive spectre. (2) All these good willingness from West Bank/Gaza and Israel added by international partners, attempts to resolve the stalemate, are brutally brushed aside, once more.


Was it the summary execution by a missile fired by the Israel Defense Forces on a Hamas leader, Ahmed Jabari, last wednesday November the 14th? A missile hitting him in his car while driving along Omar Mukhtar Street in Gaza City, in the middle of a crowded neighbourhood, killing also his bodyguard. The 8th remote control assassination by the Israeli Air Force since January 2010 in the Gaza strip. (3)

Was it the barrage of 26 rockets from Gaza on the 29th of October into the South of Israel, which – by sheer chance – did hit no Israeli people or property? A rocket launch that – according to the BBC message of that day – was in response to an incident whereby a Gaza man at the border had been shot by Israeli troops, because he was – allegedly – attempting to fire a mortar at Israeli troops? A series of incidents that was summarised by this BBC news item with the header: “Violence ends Israel-Gaza truce.”

BBC correspondent Jon Donisson (based in the West Bank) noted on October the 29th. how precarious it is….

“to pinpoint when a specific escalation in violence started – both sides will always remember what they see as a previous act of aggression by the other which enables them to justify their attacks as retaliation” (3)

There are many other sources that tell the story of how it began in differing ways, from the ‘Palestinian Centre for Human Rights’ to the ‘Electronic Intifadah’ website, and the British group ‘Media Lense’ specialised in scrutinising what they call the “biased” war reporting of the BBC. (4) The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights sums up a whole range of events starting on Saturday November 10th with Israeli army firing an artillery shell at a group of children playing football on a hill 1500 meters away from the border near the east part of Gaza City, killing two of them and a whole serious of subsequent incidents one involving the killing of two “Palestinian resistance” members by Israeli warplanes.

Apart from what has been the real chain of events (5), with each item added or left out, resulting in a change of classification – assault or retaliation – there is the extra input of political scheming on the Israeli political front in the preparation for legislative elections in January 2013. This – cynically – always stimulates the ‘hawks’ in power or the ones aiming at that, to give or call for ‘a good pre-election military show’ in the occupied territories.

—- interlude —-
It was less than a century ago we could still speak of ‘The Levant’ and see a future beyond the vague historical memories of the Mamluk Sultanate and the more recent Ottoman and British empires. The Levant having regional mixed ethnic and religious demarcations that still carried the potential for a new future with very different borders and states as we know them now. There were many plans of reconstructing ‘imagined nations’ from a past that never existed in the way as imagined by all those ideologists, the historical parade of religious and political leaders with their: Zionism, Greater Syria, Greater Arabia, and similar bordering visions of unity and hegemony like Pan-Arabism and Pan-Turkism, or the even greater idea of Pan-Islamism, the ‘Ummah’ as a unification of all countries in the world, deemed to be or become Islamic States.

The positive potential of the actual population of the East Mediterranean countries with its diverse ethnic and religious mix, has hardly been used as a source of inspiration. Each party seeking, finding and proving by means of archeology their favourite slice of historical time to lay a unilateral claim on the land. Political and religious particularism fired by the disasters of two World Wars have created the violent carving up, expulsion and mass migration that ended in fortification and imprisonment of divided populations, we know now.

So the question in the once more flaring up conflict is:


Beyond the flood of ‘psychological warfare’ and ‘internet disinformation’ campaigns, that overwhelm us once again, each trying hard to force a singular ‘truth’ on us, there still is the space for multiple visions, a space that needs to be defended.

There is not only war in Israel and Gaza, there is a related ‘cyber war’, invading our social-networks in countries far away from the actual conflict zone. The Israeli army is real-time on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. Partisan web initiatives for the Palestinian cause are counter attacking. ‘Ready Made’ arguments are produced by all sides, that multiply and circulating with just a click of a mouse. It is as if we need to make a choice: for of against israel; for or against Palestine. No other options. No ‘middle ground’. A ‘mass mediated dichotomy’ with many reminiscences of ‘Cold War rhetoric’.

We all know that the state of Israel is many times more powerful – in military sense – than any of its subjected regions and neighbours. This does not imply that we should neglect the relative small violent and criminal acts of its adversaries. Hiding or explaining away a smaller crime because of a related bigger one does not help to overcome what remains to be wrongdoing.

The fact that the confrontations between Palestinians in Gaza and Israelis in Israel tends to be mostly through the air by both advanced and primitive forms of artillery, says it all. Direct communications are failing. Israel certainly is responsible for a great deal of the actual stalemate, but not solely so. Israel persistently – for decades – using hard core military tactics only, failing totally in diplomacy, in social and economic measures to ease the situation of the Gaza-strip inhabitants. Murder having become a state endowed practice with remote control assassination as the highest Israel Defense Force attainment. The opposite side presents us – one can not be surprised – with a mirror image of such practice and mindset.

We are once again flooded with images of the shock and awe of modern weaponry, of fear and death, also similar photographic documentation of the terror spread by the uncontrolled launching of home-made rockets.

Weapons of peace are less spectacular. They are also more radical, in the sense that what is demanded is ‘compromise’, series of small temporary practical solutions that ease the life of the Palestinians, no more great and detailed ‘Peace Plans’ but small steps that need to prove themselves in practice, before the next one is taken. The actual self-righthousness, the shining historically polished positions – diamond hard – on both sides will only lead to further killing and destruction. Many say there is no space for such compromise, that the violence perpetrated now is the only thing that is left to the Palestinians.

I think that is just lazy thinking and it will leave people who have of another opinion trapped within a spiralling violence fired by sequences of misdeeds and retaliation that have become so frequent and continuous that any finger pointing to who started first will be countered by the other party with a reference to an earlier incident or act.

Taking sides in the actual conflict for either the Israeli Army or the Hamas military brigades and associated para-military groups, is equal to abandoning people on both the Israeli and the Palestinian side, who are long fed up by these warriors, who have another agenda, without the force of weapons. They need support. They need space to breath, They need some safeguards – especially within Gaza – to be able to speak out without being threatened or even liquidated by the reigning regime over there. (6)

The creation of a new union of nations forming a 21st century Levant / بلاد الشام Bilād ash-Shām may sound as a totally utopian idea, but anybody can see that the group of nation states that have been created in this part of the world are totally unstable and not able to offer their citizens the minimal level of peace each human should be able to enjoy.

An association of nation states into a Union of the Levant – in some way comparable to the European Union – is not a new idea and it may take a long time to come into existence. Still it will give a positive perspective for the whole region.

There are of course pre-formations of this idea in the Arab League which includes the Palestinians with a special status, with the ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ of 2002 which would normalise the position of Israel if it will withdraw from all occupied territories and make arrangements for the return of Palestinian refugees. This plan has only be sniffed at by some Israeli politicians and for the rest been refuted as a plan that has been made about israel without Israel. Still it has some formal status, not in the least with the Obama administration.

There are major shifts taking place in several of the Arab states that are members of the Arab League, other regional and supra-regional associations of countries could be formed. Circum Mediterranean countries have a potential to associate from Spain to Lebanon, Israel and Palestine. Turkey could over time become a member of both the European Union and such a new Union of Levant countries. These are the macro weapons that need to be forced by diplomacy.

Small arms are needed also for construct a peaceful situation. Opening of borders. Relaxing of social economic interaction between areas that are now sealed off. Freeing ways for all forms of assistance and cultural exchange. De-militarisation and reconciliation initiatives, employment opportunities for all those active in weapon production and military activities, and so on… It all may sound too idealistic and silly… still these are the kind of weapons needed for the self-defence of people against the all overruling violent forces of fear and hate.

NB several years ago the then owner of Flickr (Yahoo) classified all my 700 and so news-tabelaus as ‘adukt material’. Completely wrongly as I do no porn, not even erotics, my tabelaus are well studied picture colages and my texts are all in a well controlled non-onscene language… I have protested this indirect censor measure, but only macjibes did answer me… I do not have the time and money to hire a lw firm to deal with the unjust classification of my materials… so bear with e with some of the links, you may need to click and say that you are aware of the (imposed and wrong) status of my visuals:

1) See my news-tableau on Flickr dated November 16 2012, which is a reaction on a call of the Dutch Palestina Komitee fro a demonstration: “Stop Attack On & From Gaza” stop supporting either war mongers side in the conflict”

Also another reaction on singular views of the conflict, starting with a cartoon by Simon Farr published in The Guardian in 2008 and used again for a call to demonstrate on November 17, in Amsterdam: “Gaza: Israeli Overkill does not legitimise Palestinian Terror Rockets”

2) List of fifty or so ‘Arab-Israeli peace projects’ that will be hampered by the “defending” warriors on Wikipedia

3) 29 October 2012 Last updated at 19:34 GMT “Violence ends Israel-Gaza truce – Militants in Gaza have fired 26 rockets into Israel, officials say, amid a flare-up in fighting which shattered a brief ceasefire between the two sides.”

4) Here short indications and links to non-main stream news sources that challenge the BBC reporting, though I must say that we can not expect a world news organisation to continuously report on each incident. Even when a local correspondent would send in such reports we can be sure that often things more fashionable or deemed more important will come first. In fact is the dilemma of our whole news systems that they only report when something grows out of hand grossly and than time restrictions and the haste of ‘the news’ as such make that the events that did lead up to a crisis deemed big enough to be represented, are simply left out. Social internet media, that is the good part of it, tend to fill up now-a-days the gap. Blaming of mainstream media is understandable and also helpful to keep up the quality of news broadcasts, but the problems are more structural in the whole idea of having ‘world news in half an hour or so’.

– Palestinian Centre for Human Rights: “New Israeli Escalation against the Gaza Strip, 7 Palestinians, Including 3 Children, Killed and 52 Others, Including 6 Women and 12 Children, Wounded; Sunday, 11 November 2012 – 00:00

– Electronic Intifada: “As Israel assaults Gaza, BBC reporting assaults the truth” by Amena Saleem; London 16 November. “On the morning of 15 November, the day after Israel carried out the extrajudicial killing of Hamas military leader Ahmed al-Jabari and unleashed a wave of terror against Gaza’s civilian population, the BBC put an article onto its website headlined: “Gaza rocket arsenal problem for Israel.” / The article goes into minute detail about what the BBC’s diplomatic and defense correspondent Jonathan Marcus describes as “the Palestinian rocket arsenal.” / Nowhere in the article, or elsewhere on the BBC, does Marcus investigate Israel’s weapons stockpile, which is funded to the tune of $3 billion a year by the United States. / There are no reams of paragraphs devoted to describing the different types of bombs, mortar shells, drones, fighter jets, gunboats, tanks, guns, nuclear warheads or white phosphorus shells that are in Israel’s arsenal. Yet, with the exception of nuclear missiles, all of these have been used at some point against the people of Gaza with devastating consequences.”

– Media Lens: “Gaza Blitz – Turmoil And Tragicomedy At The BBC” by David Cromwell and David Edwards; November 16, 2012. “The Israeli attacks have routinely been reported as ‘retaliation’ for Palestinian ‘militant rocket attacks’ on southern Israel. In a study of news performance in 2001, the Glasgow Media Group noted that Israelis ‘were six times as likely to be presented as “retaliating” or in some way responding than were the Palestinians.’ A BBC correspondent in Gaza said ‘there are now fears now (sic) of a major escalation of violence’. But the Israeli execution of Ahmed al-Jabari was a major escalation of violence. BBC News reported three Israeli deaths by rockets fired from Gaza with the briefest mention of the earlier deaths of ‘eleven Palestinians – mainly militants but also children’. As ever, there was no explanation of how a Gaza civilian is distinguished from a ‘militant’.”

5) A “List of Israeli assassinations” from the 1950s onward can be found on Wikipedia

There are of course a whole series of lists that involve killing by all sides, from Palestinian rocket attacks to suicide attacks, the index page of these lists can be found at:

6) The non-biased Israeli peace organisation B’Tsalem keeps for many years a refined classification of casualties that helps to understand this point.. For the period 19/1/2009 to 30/9/2012 for the Gaza strip and the West Bank. For the Gaza strip it lists: “Palestinians killed by Palestinians = 45”; “Palestinians executed by the Hamas Government = 14.” The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces over this period for Gaza = 271, of which 158 are detailed as “Palestinians who took part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces.”


LET’S FACE IT LUBACH OVERSPEELT ZIJN HAND met de actie BYE BYE FACEBOOK immers ‘het medium’ is – anders dan McLuhan ooit riep – niet THE MESSAGE. Het medium (Facebook in dit geval) is de boodschapper. Je kunt die afschieten, maar dan schiet je het het doel van tegen manipulatie en spionage zijn ver voorbij.

{ TOEVOEGING Zo begrijp ik uit verschillende artikelen in de pers dat Lubach op 11/4/2018 een gat van 140.000 (volgers) in eigen voet schoot… ik ontleen dat getal aan een artikel van Volkskrant journalist Menno van Dongen, die daarin de hoofdredacteur televisie van de VPRO citeert: “Zelf heeft Van Engelen woensdag zijn pagina opgeheven. ‘Ik denk niet dat ik Facebook ga missen, het boeide me steeds minder. Wat ik veel moeilijker zou vinden is stoppen met Twitter.'” Bron: https://s.vk.nl/s-a4592072/ …waarbij ik mij afvraag wie dan de Facebook vrienden van deze media-manager waren. Of wist hij zelf niets eigens in te brengen en kreeg hij daarmee & daardoor ook niets “boeiends” terug? “The medium is NOT the message” zeg ik al vele jaren, omdat het betoog van Marshall MacLuhan “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man” (1964) vaak onvoldoende begrepen wordt. Het moge zo zijn dat het karakter van een medium (krant, radio, televisie) bijzondere kenmerken heeft, maar die kenmerken zijn veranderlijk door de tijd, zeker ook met de komst van ieder nieuw massa-medium en dat karakter op zich mag dan wel de boodschap die doorgegeven wordt kleuren, het is niet zo dat er slechts één boodschap is die van het medium zelf. MacLuhan zijn stelling was vooral een por in de academische onderzoekbuiken… ‘leer het belang van de vorm van het medium dat je onderzoekt tot onderdeel van je studie te maken’. Zo gaat het op Facebook dikwijls, maar niet altijd over: – poezenfoto’s;  – kijk eens ik ben op reis en wel hier; en delen van grappige zaken die je niet zelf gemaakt hebt… het ligt aan de gebruiker en haar/zijn kringen wat er aan ‘message’ geboden en uitgewisseld wordt. }

Alles wat Lubach afgelopen zondag opsomde als zijnde kenmerkend voor Facebook, zijn algemene kenmerken van heel de communicatie op/over het internet: het protocol waarop het allemaal draait TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol + Internet Protocol) is gebaseerd op het nummeren, codificeren en bijhouden van alle berichten die er verstuurd, ontvangen, gezien, becommentarieerd, beoordeeld en wat al niet meer worden. Alle computers en onderdelen daarvan hebben daartoe eigen/aparte unieke adressen: MAC-adres voor apparatuur & onderdelen (Migration Authorisation Code) en een IP-adres voor contactpunten met het internet (ja dat is traceerbaar tot je provider en als het moet tot op je kamer en welke computer). Dit verkeer wordt verzorgt door een oneindig aantal computers die werken op basis van gesynchroniseerde codes en protocollen. Niets van al dat dataverkeer kan verborgen blijven voor hen die toegang hebben, krijgen of zichzelf verschaffen tot dit stelsel van oneindig vertakte gekoppelde apparaten.

Wat Facebook deed en wat met Facebook gedaan werd door anderen, afgezien hoe dat nu precies inelkaar steekt, is op geen enkele wijze exclusief voor dit bedrijf. Dat te denken is dom & naief, dat suggereren via een publiek medium en een actie is journalistiek gesproken malafide.


Door het geheel van de geschiedenis is ieder communicatie-medium dat de mens bedacht, gemaakt en verder ontwikkeld heeft, ook voorwerp geweest van ander gebruik dan dat wat de bedoeling ervan was of leek. Dit van het onderscheppen van boodschappen en boodschappers tot het geheim maken van boodschappen middels allerlei ingenieuze vindingen en codificaties, die op hun beurt weer voorwerp van de-codificatie, ontrafeling, werden.

Sociale registratie en spionage is in weze de grondslag van onze samenleving, van levenslang invullen van formulieren, opiniepeilingen, kaartenbakken, registers, databases. Een nooit aflatend proces van registratie ter vervolmaking van controle.

Facebook is slechts één van de vele moderne vormen hiervan. Wat te denken van het telefoonverkeer in een landschap bezaaid met tappunten. Wat te denken van de bonuskaart bij Albert Heijn, de OV-chipkaart, de giropas, het contactloos betalen, de radio-frequentie-transponders in onze voertuigen, zelfs in de verpakking van yoghurt bekers die signalen afgeven die weer door al die duizenden radio-poortjes opgevangen en verwerkt worden, poortjes die we dagelijks doorkruizen? Wat te denken van bewakingscamera’s alom, CTV en andere loerende digitale ogen, die ons volgen van hoek tot hoek, van ingang tot uitgang… de digitale bus- en tram conducteurs in camera-vorm die ons constant filmen en automatisch herkennen en vergelijken met een wangedrag tabel, terwijl wij ons verplaatsen? De camera’s op ons werk, de toetsaanslagtellers verborgen in de sofware die onze productiviteit meten op de werkplek.

Een volledige opsomming van registratie met als doel controle en beïnvloeding zou een marathon-uitzending van Lubach nodig maken die op zijn minst een hele week dient te duren en niet enkel een half uurtje op de zondag, met enkel één casus, die van Facebook.

Als je echt niet bespioneerd wilt worden, dan moet je op de eerste plaats heel dat internet en al wat ermee verbonden is NIET gebruiken, dan moet je ook niet pinnen, niet in het openbaar vervoer gaan, ja wat al niet niet niet.

Kijk als Lubach daatoe had opgeroepen dan was hij even dwaas als geloofwaardig geweest. Enkel een slecht inelkaar geknutselde Facebook-opzegactie is een lachterje.. voordat je het weet comuniceren we me Peesboek of wat er maar voor Facebook in de plaats gaat komen.

Communicatie-media zijn niet enkel manipulerend en onderdrukkend, wij kunnen voor een flink deel zelf bepalen hoe en wanneer en waarom wij ze gebruiken. Verstuurden vroeger mensen maar geen brieven omdat er censors met stoomapparaten en brievenopeners in het traject tussen hier en daar zaten? Telefoneren wij maar niet omdat we afgeluisterd kunnen worden?

En… wat betreft manipulatie, waren onze kranten niet altijd al vergeven van advertenties, onze straten met licht- en wat voor andere reclames dan ook… is die industrie van ‘verborgen verleiders’ (waarover eind vijftiger jaren al schande gesproken werd door Vance Packard in zijn boek “Verborgen verleiders”[*]) niet al meer dan een halve eeuw met ons, zijn wij niet vrouws, mans en kinds genoeg om daar mee te leren omgaan? Kunnen wij een medium niet naar onze hand leren zetten, gebruiken op een andere manier als bedacht is door de industrie die ze verzon?

Hoe effectief zijn trouwens die beïnvloedingscampagnes, hoe doorzichtig die holle leuzes en valse beloftes van advertenties, met bekerinsgdrang, met partijpolitieke werving, overheidsvoorlichters, commercieel getinte activiteiten van welk soort dan ook? Hoe vatbaar zijn we daarvoor?

Ik zeg BYE BYE LUBACH ga weg van het internet, verdwijn uit de ether… neem een sabatical… en kom weer terug fris en met beter inzicht en een ander tv-formaat -wel zonder dat publiek dat ingeblikt applaus levert & zonder dat decor – in een geheel nieuwe vorm… want er is talent bij die man, zij het niet genoeg voor wekelijkse afleveringen… dat leidt tot afgeraffelde ideetjes en acties zoals die van BYE BYE FACEBOOK



[*] I heb hier een paar citaten gekozen uit een academisch artikel in ‘The Journal of advertising’, maart 2913 van Michelle R. Nelson, waarin ze in het 50ste jubileum jaar van het boek van Vance Packard, “Verborgen verleiders” (Hidden persuaders) analyseert hoe zijn spraakmakend boek destijds niet enkel bewonderd werd om de kritiek op nieuwe reclame methoden, maar ook door wetenschappers bekritiseerd werd. Ook hoe elementen van zijn kritiek, zoals die van de subliminal perception (verborgen verleiders) die zouden inspelen op het onderbewuste, destijds niet echt begrepen en toegepast werden, maar nu met onze nieuwe media technieken en inzichten in de werking van de menselijke geest en zijn handelen, alsnog relevant zijn. Het is een echte academische tekst bezaaid met verwijzingen naar andere onderzoekers, maar door met de ogen te knipperen kom je er wel door heen en komt er – hoop ik – toch wat van het gezegde over.


Fotobijschrift: “Vance Packard (sitting) at book signing for The Hidden Persuaders, State College, PA, April 19, 1958.” De eerste Amerikaanse editie dateert van 1957. In 1958 kwam de Nederlandse vertaling uit. De aanprijzing van de uitgever bij de eerste editie verraadt een echte copywriter met gevoel voor drama: “A PENETRATING LIGHT INTO THE MURKY WORLD OF THE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCHERS. IT TELLS HOW THESES SHOCK TROOPS OF THE ADVERTISING WORLD ARE SUBTLY CHARTING YOUR INNER THOUGHTS, FEARS AND DREAMS SO THAT THEY CAN INFLUENCE YOUR DAILY LIVING. WRITTEN WITH HUMOR AND IN NONTECHNICAL STYLE, THE HIDDEN PERSUADERS WEIGHS THE SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF THEIR PERSUASION WHERE THEY ARE AIMING TO TAKE YOU AND HOW!” Let op de overeenkomst met de sensationele berichtgeving over de Facebook-praktijken anno 2018.

THE HIDDEN PERSUADERS Then and Now Michelle R. Nelson
ABSTRACT: It has been 50 years since Vance Packard wrote about psychoanalytical techniques employed by the advertising industry in The Hidden Persuaders. This book, published in the post–World War II consumer boom, exposed a mass audience to motivational research at a time when advertisers used new techniques and a new medium. Yet The Hidden Persuaders was highly criticized and became a scapegoat for purportedly promoting subliminal techniques (onbewust ontvangen advertentie-beelden door deze razendsnel – met enkele frames – te vertonen binnen een gangbare filmvertoning tj.] . Nonetheless, the book helped shape public opinion, advertising regulation, and advertising research and practice. This paper provides a historical approach to Packard’s contribution and ideas in the context of recent theoretical insights into psychological processing and new persuasion practices.
“Packard observed this trend when “corporate leaders had shifted ‘from being maker-minded to market-minded’” (Horowitz 1994, p. 106) and wrote about it. He was not the only one. The Hidden Persuaders has been lumped with other popular culture works (e.g., fiction: The Hucksters, The Lonely Crowd, The Organization Man) and academic critiques (e.g., The Affluent Society) of advertising and consumer culture writ- ten during this era. The moral tone and ambivalence toward consumer culture reflected in these books resonated with the public. This was the first sustained assault on advertising since the 1930s. In particular, people were fascinated and fearful of the power of advertising as they found themselves targets of new advertising techniques in a wider variety of media. Television rapidly introduced moving-picture emotional advertising and used commercial forms developed in radio, such as the sponsorship of entire programs. Whereas only 9% of American households owned a television in 1950, almost 80% of house- holds owned a television by the time The Hidden Persuaders was published (Sterling and Haight 1978). Packard’s readers could see and hear the persuaders in their own living rooms.” [Ibid.; p. 114.]

“Rather than focusing on techniques for the creation of embedded messages in advertisements, the book mostly concentrated on research, especially the work of motivational researchers such as Ernest Dichter, president of the Institute for Motivational Research, and Louis Cheskin of the Color Research Institute of America. These men brought psycho- analytical techniques to the study of underlying consumer motives. Dichter in particular was considered the “Father of Motivational Research” (Stern 2004) and one of the founding fathers of advertising research (Bartos 1977). Although Dich- ter eventually published his own books (e.g., 1960, 1964), it was Packard who successfully brought these ideas to a mass audience. Through conversations with these men and other advertising professionals and exemplar case studies, Packard exposed the use of depth interview techniques. The goal was to get consumers “musing absentmindedly about all the ‘pleasures, joys, enthusiasms, agonies, nightmares, deceptions, apprehensions the product recalls to them’” (Smith quote, in Packard 1957, p. 31). With such insight, the creatives could produce more effective advertising.” [Ibid.; p. 115.]

“A market power view suggests that advertising emerged as a way for producers to avoid price competition by “differ- entiating” products—to make consumers less price-sensitive and more brand loyal (Norris 1984). Certainly, branding has taken on a whole new meaning since Packard’s time. In addition to communicating functional attributes such as quality, brands convey an emotion, an experience, and a lifestyle (Klein 2000). Today, observations of market power are observed with reference to Starbucks, a leading global brand: “Nobody buys a 40-cent cup of coffee for $4 unless they’re buying a brand” (Levine 2004, p. E3).” [Ibid.; p. 119.]

“The final chapter, “The Question of Morality,” discusses im- plications of persuasion practices for society beyond selling consumer products and suggests a reexamination of advertising ethics. On the societal level, Packard asked, “What does it mean for the national morality to have so many powerfully influential people taking a manipulative attitude toward our society?” (1957, p. 219). In particular, Packard, like his contemporaries (e.g., Haiman 1960), was concerned when hidden persuaders were used in politics. Specifically, Packard warned that a threat to democracy could occur when public officers appealed to the irrational, emphasized image and personality, and treated public issues like items in a supermarket (Horowitz 1994). Similar contemporary critiques about the marketing of politics and the branding of issues have been made in re- cent years (Goodman and Rushkoff 2003; Newman 1999). In addition, neuroscience has entered into politics with the use of MRI technology to peer into partisan brains (Tierney 2004). Indeed, the question posed by Packard appears even more relevant today, as Washington Post columnist Robert L. Samuelson asked of the state of modern democracy, “Did the result reflect what voters wanted—or the cleverest marketing campaign?” (2004, p. A17).” [Ibid.; p. 121.]

De volledige publicatie vond ik op Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261641698_The_Hidden_Persuaders_Then_and_Now

CECIL TAYLOR 1929 – 2018


1960 was het en mijn oren waren al een beetje gewassen door het grijs draaien van bebop platen: snelle riedels, dwarse akkoorden, huppelende tempi wisselingen; Charlie Parker, Art Tatum, Thelonius Monk… daarna kwam Ornette Coleman die “The shape of Jazz to come” verkondigde met het snerpende geluid van zijn plastic saxofoon. Het was in dezelfde tijd dat “The world of Cecil Taylor” de onze binnendrong met razendsnel kruiselings gehamerde motiefjes, nu eens hoog de lucht ingeslingerd, dan weer met voetpedaal de grond in gestampt… Cecil Taylor, mijn nieuwe held die ik nooit in echt heb horen spelen, maar des te meer gedraaid heb op mijn draagbare pick-up in de jaren dat ik als jonge kunststudent steeds maar van woning en woonplaats verwisselde….

Het deed me terugzoeken naar wanneer hij dan wel voor het eerst in Nederland optrad en dat was zo te zien in 1967… mijn vriend Pieter Boersma was erbij toen in een Hilversumse radiostudio Taylor een soort master-class gaf, georganiseerd door onze eigen radio-hoogpriester van de jazz Michiel de Ruyter… [niemand heeft die sessie destijds opgenomen, zo blijft er enkel beeldmateriaal in het archief van Pieter Boersma] Hij stuurde mij zojuist een aantal foto’s van de workshop in de AVRO studio in augustus 1967 waarvan ik er hier twee plaats…

Cecil Taylor ,Han Bennink Hilversum 08-1967

Cecil Taylor met Han Bennink, AVRO stuio augustus 1967 (copyright Pieter Boersma)

Cecil Taylor Avro studio Hilversum 08- 1967

Cecil Taylor, AVRO studio, augustus 1967 (copyright Pieter Boersma)

Vond drie interessante krantenstukjes (op delpher.nl staan er meet, aak enkel aankondigingen) van dat jaar en een ieder die zijn muziek herinnerd en een halve eeuw terug in de tijd wil gaan, mag ik deze aardige documentatie niet onthouden (ik laat de door de computer gelezen (OCR) krantenversie ongewijzigd):

Het Parool 28/06/1967:
(Van een onzer verslaggevers) AMSTERDAM, woensdag. — Jk gooi het hele programma om”, roept Boy Edgar.-„Je kunt na Cecil Taylor niemand anders meer laten spelen. Hij moet maar als laatste voor de pauze’ optreden.” In AVRO Studio 1 heeft pianist Cecil Taylor zojuist bijna een uur achter de vleugel gezeten. De resultaten zijn velerlei: er zijn twee snaren gebroken, Cees Slinger (pianist van Boy’s Big Band) is weggelopen, de rest van het publiek zit verwezen voor zich uit te staren, totaal ondersteboven van het muzikale krachtsvertoon van de 34-jarige Amerikaanse jazz avant-gardist.
Taylor zelf zet zijn donkere bril weer op. reageert met een korte hoofdknik op het aarzelende applaus en loopt onbewogen terug naar de stoel op de achterste rij. waar hij de hele avond, roerloos heeft zitten luisteren naar de prestaties van de beste Nederlandse avant-garde-combo’s (Misja Mengelberg met Willem Rreuker, Nedlv Elstak, Dick van der Capellen). De eerste dag van de workshop, bedoeld als voorbereiding op de jazz-concerten van donderdag in het Amsterdamse Concertgebouw en zaterdag in de Rotterdamse Doelen, is met een overdonderende climax besloten. Later op de avond zullen Misja Mengelberg en Cecil Taylor nog een lang gesprek voeren, maar pianiste-vocaliste Judy Roberts — een 22-jarig meisje, dat in Chicago door Boy Edgar is ontdekt — is na een half uur nog niet bekomen van d<> schokwerking, die Taylors muziek op haar heeft gehad. Met het hoofd voorover en haar handen bij de oren zit ze verbijsterd aan een tafeltje in een Hilversums muzikantencafé.
CECIL TAYLOR blijkt een welbespraakt en uiterst intelligent man; alleen op vragen over zijn eigen muziek reageert hij terughoudend. ~Heb ik al die pianisten de stuipen op het lijf gejaagd? Nou. dat spijt me dan”, verklaart hij met een malicieuze glimlach. „Wat kan ik eraan doen? Het is htin probleem”. Anders dan veel andere Amerikaanse jazz-musici, die naar Europa komen, heeft Taylor weinig illusies over de mogelijkheden in ons werelddeel. „In Europa krijg je makkelijker de beschikking over goede instrumenten en faciliteiten van radiostations:, maar verder zijn de problemen dezelfde als in Amerika”, zegt hij, „alleen zijn de tegenwerking en de discriminatie, die je in New Vork ondervindt, veel sterker, veel slimmer ook, dan hier. Maar je hebt daar dan ook de mogelijkheid om er meer tegen te doen, om er kracht en inspiratie uit te putten”.
Martin Schouten in het Algemeen Handelsblad 30/6/1967:
Cecil Taylor: Pianist van uitzonderlijk niveau
%OALS alle grote jazzmusici is de Amerikaanse pianist Cecil Taylor iemand die uit veel uiteenlopende invloeden een onmiskenbare eigen stijl heeft opgebouwd. Maar in Taylors spel klinkt, in tegenstelling tot dat van veel van zijn voorgangers en tijdgenoten, niet alleen de hele jazztraditie mee, maar ook een groot deel van de Europese traditie (grofweg: van Chopin tot Stockhausen). Gisteravond, in de grote zaal van /iet concertgebouw, waren het vooral Liszt en Ravel die Taylor duidelijk ravitailleerden: virtuose oktaven- en tertsenpassages, fel ratelend vingerspel, terwijl het ontbreken van een duidelijk melodisch verloop èn Taylors harmonische en ritmische stoutmoedigheid associaties op riepen met Scriabinetudes
HET jazzmatige aan Taylors spel was minder manifest, althans niet in die zin dat even duidelijk uit het werk van bepaalde jazzmusici of uit bepaalde genres was geput. Maar het improvisatorische karakter van zijn spel en vooral de enorme emotionele inzet waarmee hij musiceerde stempelden Taylor’s drie kwartier durend recital tot een onmiskenbare Jazzsolo. Een solo, het enkelvoud is geen vergissing, want het hele recital was gewijd aan de uitvoering van één werk: Carmen with rings. Een stuk dat gebaseerd is op twee motiefjes en dat bestaat uit een min of meer vastgelegde doorwerking, die in dezelfde gedaante voortdurend weer opduikt, en een serie geïmproviseerde variaties; de opbouw is zo ongeveer die van Moussorgky’s Schilderijententoonstelling. Werd die doorwerking op den duur wat monotoon, de in grote spanningsbogen verlopende variaties zaten
voortdurend vol verrassende vondsten. Zelfs het metalige getinkel van de in de eerste minuten gebroken piano-snaar (Taylor is een typisch Amerikaanse virtuoos van het type Van Cliburn) werd ogenblikkelijk op een logische manier in de improvisaties geïntegreerd. VEEL meer valt er na twee maal horen — de besloten uitvoering van hetzelfde werk, maandag in Hilversum, viel trouwens totaal ‘anders uit: Bartökachtig en met veel boogieen blues-ingrediënten — niet over te te zeggen. Het werk is zo rijk dat het eenvoudig nog niet te overzien is. Taylors unieke positie in de jazz (de grootste pianivirtuoos uit de hele geschiedenis van de muziekvorm, de belangrijkste animator van de huidige avant-garde, de meest meeslepende improvisator sinds Parker en Monk) werd overigens ondubbelzinnig bevestigd
door dit optreden, het eerste in Nederland. Voor een zeer slecht bezette zaal, merkwaardig genoeg, die na afloop van het recital een zeldzame combinatie van vermoeidheidsverschijnselen, uitbundig enthousiasme en verbijstering vertoonde. , Dat de rest van het programma wat bleek afstak naast deze gebeurtenis spreekt haast vanzelf. De pinao-solo van Taylor werd omlijst door een optreden van Boys Big Band, in vertrouwde repertoire-stukken en een nieuwe Loevendie-compositie, van de pianiste Judy Roberts — erg vrijblijvend, technisch heel zwak — een gelegenheidscombinatie met een aantal bekende Nederlandse musici en de sax-sectie uit de Big band. Bij de solisten blonk vooral altsaxofonist Piet Noordijk uit; als vanouds. De nieuwe Loevendie-compositie, Taburuh geheten, verdient meer dan alleen maar gesignaleerd te worden; hopelijk is er
binnenkort gelegenheid uitvoeriger op dit werk in te gaan. Zaterdagavond wordt dit programma in de Rotterdamse Doelen herhaald, althans het niet geïmproviseerde gedeelte. M. SCHOUTEN

Ref: gebruikte beeldelementen:
– Foto Cecil Taylor in het Amsterdamse Concertgebouw in 1987 (Pieter Boersma).
– Screenshot van video op Youtube ter gelegenheid van een een manifestatie ter ere van Cecil Taylor in het Whitney Museum in New York, 2016.
– Score (een transcriptie bij benadering, want Taylor behoeft een eigen methode van notatie om de complexiteit weer te geven) van een piano-concert door Cecil Taylor in de zeer technische, en even interessante studie ‘Cecil Taylor: Life As . . .Structure within a free improvisation’ van Kaja Draksler, Trboje, Slovenia, june 2013, p.63.
Hier te downloaden: http://www.kajadraksler.com/Taylor.pdf
– Record sleeve (oktober 1960) “The world of Cecil Taylor” (dimmed in background)… a public version of that record can be listened to via Youtube…

Tot slot nog een toegift over de receptie van Cecil Taylor in Nederland in de vroege zestiger jaren… een interview uit 1962 in het Vrije Volk met Misja Mengelberg door Ben Bunders.


De vernieuwingen die zich in de jazz aan ‘t voltrekken zijn, volgt hij op de voet. ‘Er is wat betreft de piano een lijn in de jazz te ontdekken-die loopt van Duke Ellington over Thelonirus Monk naar Cecil Taylor. Ellingtons muziek, die aanvankelijk keurig de harmonieleer volgde, begon de opeenvolging van het geluid aan te tasten: klanken of klankgroepen kwamen, geïsoleerd te staan, omringd door stilten.
Bij Monk, met John Coltrane (tenorsax) en Ornette Coleman (altsax), de bekendste vernieuwers van de jazz in deze tijd, is deze ontwikkeling veel duidelijker hoorbaar. Schrille met emotie geladen klanken. verscheuren als kreten de stilte.
Cecil Taylor ten slotte, hier weinig bekend, gaat nog. verder dan Monk in het afbreken van de melodie, zijn aanslag is kort en fel, klanken en klankgroepen staan asymmetrisch ten opzichte van elkaar. (mijn benadrukking tj.)
Zijn gedachten’ aarzelend formulerend, moeilijk pratend, naar. woorden zoekend, probeert hij duidelijk te maken hoe de jazz zich naar zijn mening ontwikkelt.



[iHitNews no.36 2/4/2018].

Most of her life dedicated to the struggle against Apartheid, a violent system, a violent struggle, more alone than together with her husband Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned from 1963 to 1990. She has been instrumental in years of mobilising campaigns for the ANC and the end of Apartheid. It made her a symbol of that struggle. That role was all fine when it was about community support (founding local medical clinics) and political attacks on the Apartheid regime, but became problematic after the mid 80s of last century when regime violence, counter-violence, spying and infiltration by the secret police, lead to distrust, suspicion, and accusation. Some suspicions of infiltration and betrayal proved to be right, others remained non proven or were simply false. Brutal reactions to state violence. Beatings, arson and murder became tools to forge ‘unity’. Most brutal the execution by burning people alive, with car tires in flames around their neck (necklacing). Winnie Mandela refrained from calling a halt to such methods, she even endorsed it.

13 April 1986 video recorded statement in Munsieville, South Africa she said:

‘We have no guns—we have only stones, boxes of matches and petrol. Together, hand in hand, with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.’

Emma Gilbey, The Lady: The Life and Times of Winnie Mandela, London, Jonathan Cape, 1993, pp. 145–46.

[NB Violence was official ANC policy in those days. At its Kabwe Conference in Zambia in June 1985 Joe Slovo, chief of staff of ‘Umkhonto we Sizwe’, para-military wing of the ANC, affirmed that there was ‘No Middle Road’, and the only acceptable strategy was the revolutionary overthrow of apartheid. Quoted in “Trust in the Capacities of the People, Distrust in Elites” by Kenneth Good (2014), p.71]

This statement on necklacing, dating back to 1986, is one of the most quoted endorsements of disciplining violence against ‘traitors to the cause’ by Willie Mandela. It is not the only time – though – she said it publicly, as can be seen on this video of her speech for a crowd in Soweto which is most probably at the day of her return to Soweto in 1985, from which she was officially still banned. The image and sound quality of this video are very bad, and there is no proper source, but still it serves it’s purpose as a historical document of those times.
We seeWillie Mandela addressing a huge crowd, speaking in English, pausing after each sentence for a translation (could be Zulu or Sotho). Her discourse as show starts of with:

You are not going to fight this government with AK47s because you do not have any. We are not prepared for any reform of Apartheid. You can not reform sin. Apartheid is a criminal act against mankind. We are not able anymore to accept that criminal act by a minority…we are 30 million… Power to the People!… 

It is often difficult to hear what she says…

…we have no arms but boxes of matches…

and then when you click the video-player once again there is the sentence:

With our necklaces we will liberate our country

It is in this suppressive atmosphere that the abduction, torture and murder of a young boy – Stompie Moeketsie – took place in 1988. The boy, 14 year old, was suspected of being a police informer and his abduction and murder was the work of the strong hand gang – and personal security force of Winnie Mandela – know as the ‘Mandela United Football Club’. It lead to several court cases against Winnie Mandela. In 1991 she was acquitted for the murder, but not for the kidnapping. It was proven that she had witnessed the torture of the boy before he was found killed. This was not the only case of civil terror during the 80s linked to Winnie. It hurt her public image. It also hurt her political career in post-Aparheid society. Attempts at reconciliation during hearings in 1997 failed. She did get government positions in the first ANC governments, during which there were allegations of corruption. Still she kept a large following among the ANC electorate. In 2009 she was second on the ANC list, after Jacob Zuma.

The depiction of Winnie Mandela in several movies tend to focus on the more glorious aspects of her life. Her role in the decades of struggle – some say – has been more important then that of her imprisoned husband Nelson Mandela.

It must be noticed that later in her live Winnie Mandela did condemn the outburst of communal violence against black immigrant workers from Zimbabwe, Mozambique and the Congo in the year 2008 in the Johannesburg and Pretoria area. Violent xenophobic riots whereby necklacing, did appear again.

It is the old question of means and ends, if violent acts can be used for constructing a beter and peaceful society. It certainly is questionable if the Apartheid regime would ever have collapsed without counter-violence. Was it no the utter dangerous situation in the townships that made them into no-go-zones beyond direct Apartheid regime control?

Post Apartheid euphoria has long faded away and the question of tactics for change are posed again. The controversies about the role of Winnie Mandela in this proces of change – flaming up again at the moment of her death – will not come to any conclusion, the camps of those for and against her seem to be in balance. Still this debate may lead to reflection on the importance of finding ways of social change whereby means and ends are more closely related, some may call it a luxury to be able to do so. This I will illustrated by a citation from a review of a movie on South Africa, the ANC and the Mandela’s, “Long Walk to Freedom” by Justin Chadwick (2013), by Gugulethu oka Mseleku in the Guardian (several years ago), in which Willie Mandela’s apology of violence is noted and also explained:

The fact is that, for South African women, Winnie’s role was more fundamental than her husband’s. Though the world’s leading opinion formers have been all too keen to demonise her, Chadwick’s film is a reminder that Winnie, with the help of her daughter Zindzi, was largely responsible for perpetuating Nelson’s image as the embodiment of the liberation struggle.
More importantly, the Mother of the Nation suffered, not only because of Nelson’s incarceration, but also through her own constant arrests and torture. Despite the cowardly, misogynistic regime’s torment of a single mother and her daughters, Winnie remained strong and resilient in her defiance.”

The article also mentions the case of the murder of Stompie and reacts on it like this:

Our hearts bled for Stompie and his mother, and recognised the brutality of his killing. But we understood that the system she was fighting against was brutal and brutalising. Where was the reconciliation that had been so freely offered to Europeans, for Mama Winnie? After all she had been through, could Nelson and the ANC really not be reconciled to the fact that she had been fighting a war “by any means necessary”?

There are 428 comments on this article which you can read for yourself. I just cite this one (number 110):

Habakuk 3 Jan 2014 15:26
“Her reputation was damaged by such rhetoric as that displayed in a speech she gave in Munsieville on 13 April 1986, where she endorsed the practice of necklacing (burning people alive using tyres and petrol) by saying: “With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.”
No thank you Winnie. Shove off.

And this one more moderate (Number 11):

Keo2008 3 Jan 2014 17:57 11 12 The writer is pointing out that Winnie hasn’t received the same clemency that has been enjoyed by other perpetrators of brutal violence during Apartheid. Personally I’m not so sure about this peace and reconciliation business and seeing thugs on both sides getting away with the most atrocious acts is sickening (and not just in South Africa…remember the Good Friday Agreement…?) but in the name of fairness I think the writer does have a point…

The full article can be found at:

ref. image elements:
(1) Photograph at top, Winnie during her seven year banishment and house arrest in Brandfort (free State) starting in 1977 (the house had no floor or ceiling, no running water and no electricity, no visitors allowed as well).
(2) The painting left under us by the artist Noel Hodnett (born in what was then Southern Rhodesia in 1949, later moving to South Africa).
(3) Winnie Mandela is a 2011 drama film adaptation of Anne Marie du Preez Bezrob’s biography Winnie Mandela: A Life. The film is directed by Darrell Roodt, and stars Jennifer Hudson, Terrence Howard, Wendy Crewson, Elias Koteas, and Justin Strydom. Image Entertainment released the film in theaters on September 6, 2013
Film citic of the Guardian Ed Gibbs had this comment: “This syrupy biography of the former wife of Nelson Mandela seeks to sugar-coat South Africa’s complex history.”