What do you call a politician who is mainly concerned with what should have been better 50 years ago? You call that one a conservative or a neoconservative. Why this perverse focus on the past? Why don’t we hear anything about what should be different today?

I have lived in exactly the same times as Mr van Oostendorp. I can report that these times saw two huge high-profile events: 911 and the corona era.

On both topics, I hardly saw van Oostendorp write. No analyses, except a bit tepidly following the government narratives. Pretending to be against Rutte but having Rutte put an experimental syringe in your arm at the first best opportunity. And later, when it becomes abundantly clear that this had catastrophic consequences, keep silent as the grave about that too.

And what do you do when the poet you supposedly admire asks for a proof of competence in demonstrating flaws in his reasoning about those ‘vaccines’? Right, you do nothing.

Then you can indeed talk about what would have been better 50 years ago, but that only looks suspicious. In emails to me, you hint that you share my opinion that the real Dutch canon is particularly small. En publique, however, you go on to pretend that inculcating the right type of behaviour in young people would be ‘great literature’. The two positions are incompatible. A behaviour-driven list shows an enormous contempt for literature and is also a very pedantic way of ensuring that no one is going to have an appetite for literature any more. It looks a bit like the white hairstyles in that new Game of Thrones spinoff: it’s as if everyone needs to have white hair to make inclusivity a bit bearable for the general public.

Teachers directing behaviour with lists orating about what should have been done better 50 years ago – that has long since ceased to be about literature. What is about literature: why 50,000 books on the Second World War and not a single one on The War On Terror?* And in passing, you can explain clearly to young people how three steel towers can collapse explosion-style from two planes. Without that explanation, I don’t think you’re ever going to be the inspiration you so diligently want to realise.

Yesterday I talked about how insanely configured modern humans are. Today, another typical example: over the past 20 years, man has only started eating more meat, according to figures.

However, ask around and you will see that hardly anyone eats meat anymore, yes ok very occasionally. So reality and self-image are miles apart. They are all great vegetarians who all buy Rutger Dinges’ books to revel in the idea that they are all doing so incredibly well. But what do they see there? An aso-granny with a bag full of chestnuts! Pathetic animals in trees starving en masse because of these aso characters!!!!

If you look at what the hallmarks of ethics of such figures include:

UNO) A condescending attitude towards animals: pathetic creatures incapable of hunting for food themselves, instead of powerful creatures who can hunt a lot better than humans.

DUE) Nature is ‘The Other’ of which you yourself are not a part and ‘The Other’ has to be managed by ‘The Expert’, in this case ‘the forester’.

TRES) When someone points out to you that that bag of food from nature has 0 ecological footprint and his bag of food from the supermarket has 10,000 negative points – suddenly the gentleman has started reading something else. Reading your arguments does not fit his self-image as a very diverse reader.

You get the point: this creature is now so deranged that only firm means will be able to start making a difference. I am of course talking about the real teachers of nature: LSD, psilocybin, and other teacher plants and mushrooms that do their utmost to undo the malignant conditioning.

Recently, it turned out that the talking point with which people stunned the whole world for 50 years – namely that depression is an imbalance of serotonin in the brain – was a lie, see the Lancet. Meanwhile, everyone is being poisoned with that rubbish via drinking water. Nicht gewusst!

We never heard from Oostendorp about that either, even as this gross scandal came out. Billions of people drugged with fake science. Countless species of aquatic animals perish because all those drugs get into the water. Well. That’s not literature, hey folks. But what should have been done differently 50 years ago, yes, we can do something with that. I feel good!

No, working on a part of Poems to Read in the Dark, the part dealing with Unica Zürn, I see the whole rigged fairground of fallacies passing by again: in the 1950s and 1960s, people were busy setting up a huge industry where all redundant people could take up meaningful employment – bullshit jobs. To this end, there was of course a huge need for patients. These were happily found in the artist class by the dozen: what an odd drawing. What, did you use mescaline?

You saw something we never see? Life-threatening! And so you got rid of the artists and could drug the whole world, if only with your bogus explanations about reality, in this case ‘schizophrenia’. And yet Foucault really made mincemeat of that whole industry in his thesis. But they didn’t have to listen to that, because that was a writer’s writer.**

What do you call someone who lived during the Second World War but barely mentioned it all his life? An inspiration to young people? Now pretty much every award winner is a man of colour, against all proportion – bad representation replaced with equally bad representation, that is – and leaving unmentioned the three great genocides of our time.
Are you really such a great inspiration then, Marc? Why do you really want to be such an inspiration? Bring on that reference to the government report showing that it is basically possible that a steel building would collapse from an indoor fire. A word has disappeared from that. An important word: ‘Demolition style’.

What do you call people who don’t find that interesting? Who now prefer to read something else, rather that having to come up with arguments? Isn’t that called ‘ADHD’, Marc, and shouldn’t you go to the soul doctor for a dose of the same speed that also intoxicated the Nazis during the conquest of Europe? Oh yes, one last thing. When we ask for an explanation as to how 3 steel towers could collapse demolition-style from two planes, it is only a ‘conspiracy theory’ if, for instance, gravity would be Jewish. However, no one is claiming that at all.

But I trust you’ll soon get back to following the government bandwagon. Boo, Mark Rutte, you get a three! And the next ballot we’ll secretly eat another pork chop anyway. Secretly. With the knowledge of today. No active memory of.

* literary book, that is. As far as I can see, not a single literary book written about that war, and as many as 50,000 about World War II. If the writers and their ‘literary directors’ are to be believed, the world ceased to exist in 1945. Oh yes, several writers manifested themselves very aggressively during the corona campaign – as advocates of compulsory vaccination with an experimental substance, on a global scale. Whose bread you eat, whose word you speak – of course, from a literary point of view, it already can’t get any more deadly than that formula. The writer as an unimaginative extension of politics. That is the death of literature itself – controlling which stories are allowed to survive. Then you almost yearn for a civil servant with a balaclava on, one from the Genius Bastelaere’s stable!

** Meanwhile, of course, a writer’s writer’s writer. After all, the coup on literature has a replicating echo effect. The people who NOW get to play writer in the MSM are people who actually consider the scammers of 10 years ago unreadable. I’ve said it before: what complains now about the lack of literary quality is precisely the cause of that lack, and worse.