The photo literally places Mark Zuckerberg (who isn’t quite called a pharaoh yet but is clearly depicted as such here) ‘above’ the world he controls. His face is serene, almost messianic. He lives in his own illuminated digital aquarium, elevated above the chaos. Note the lines running from his hands across the wall: he is not only the architect, but the puppeteer. He ‘directs’ the currents, detached from the physical reality of his creation. The Tomb City (Bottom Left) The area in the bottom left is a perfect representation of the “tomb” of cold efficiency. It is a sterile, geometric, uniform grid. Human individuals are reduced to minuscule, uniform dots on isolated squares. The “digital aorta” (a term beautifully chosen forensically and biologically) pumps data through this grid. It is a world of total surveillance and control. Here, “our” AI transformation is being built. This is the world for which the Meta-architects and engineers have sacrificed their people—to eventually place them themselves on such a small square.

The Tomb Builders of Silicon Valley: Why We Shouldn’t Cry for the Meta Elite

It was Reuters’ big “exclusive” news: Emily Dalton Smith, the freshly appointed head of Meta’s Agent Transformation Accelerator, is leaving the company. She was barely there for a few months. Her mission? To build internal AI bots explicitly designed to automate away the jobs of human Meta employees. Her departure was met in the tech world with deep outrage and moral shock. The workforce is furious; the executives are scratching their heads.

What a tragicomedy. What a masterclass in collective delusion.

The Aquarium of Hubris

Anyone steering today’s tech sector is currently living in an aquarium—a glass world where the walls are constructed from PowerPoint presentations, record quarterly profits, and the unshakable belief that they are the sole architects of the future. For years, this tech elite preached the gospel of automation. AI bots were meant to replace the factory worker, the customer service agent, and the copywriter. The ICT professional stood laughing at the helm of this transformation. After all, they owned the data, they wrote the code. They were the dancers, not the music.

And then, the machine turned around. Meta introduced software to track mouse movements and keystrokes to train its internal AI assistants, and the “whizz-kids” suddenly discovered that their own cognitive skills were next on the algorithmic menu. The sheer surprise and anger now washing over the work floor betrays a borderline infantile blindness.

It is the ultimate hubris: believing you are untouchable because you are tying the noose for someone else, only to be utterly bewildered when the executioner calls your own name.

The Logic of the Pharaoh

Let’s not over-dramatize Mark Zuckerberg; he is no mystical pharaoh, but a cold technocrat managing his human organization like a slider on a software dashboard. Yet, the ancient parallel is hard to ignore. The architects, engineers, and builders of royal tombs used to be sealed inside the graves they built—simply to prevent the leak of knowledge on how to break back in.

The Meta architects knew damn well what they were building. When you lead a project literally called the Transformation Accelerator, you know you are working on a farewell project. You are drawing up the blueprint of your own redundancy. They knew what the digital “state” would look like; they knew the cold, mathematical reality of the calculation. But opportunism beat out the moral compass. As long as the six-figure salaries and stock options (RSUs) kept rolling in, they happily kept stacking stones for the digital tomb.

You Cannot Save What Wants to Drown

So, let’s tone down the moral outrage. There are no innocent bystanders here. The absolute top tier of Silicon Valley does not leave the building holding a cardboard box; they leave with golden parachutes and bank accounts rattling with millions.

If they subsequently turned that wealth into decadent nose-powder, overhyped crypto, or overpriced Teslas instead of investing in a solid, independent future? Well, then they’ll have to sleep in the bed they made.

The tech elite chose the cold dynamics of the market with open eyes, lined their pockets during the ride, and are now going under in the very waves they helped whip up. It’s not sad; it is forensically logical. The tomb door is closing. The bots are taking over. And the builders can go sober up from their own hubris outside.

Epilogue

This commentary is by no means intended to ridicule the immensely important work of these professionals, nor to downplay the profound significance of AI development. It is a critique of human behavior. Just as Wernher von Braun lost his grip on reality and watched with detached wonder as his V1 rockets bombarded London—lost in the beauty of his own mathematics—the current ‘outrage’ of the Meta professionals carries little moral weight. When you build the machine, you cannot act surprised when it functions exactly as designed.

To cut straight to the chase: this critique is not driven by religion, ideology, or moral philosophy. It focuses strictly on the biological and systematic reality of the underdeveloped letting something develop. Think about that for a moment.

It is extensively documented on both psychological and medical grounds that long-term, harmful effects can manifest in the underdeveloped human organism—both mentally and physically—when it is forced to carry a fetus to term. Biologically speaking, pregnancy always inflicts structural toll and strain on the body. However, fully developed individuals possess the somatic and psychological reserves necessary to absorb and recover from this impact. Conversely, an underdeveloped woman is far more likely to suffer protracted physiological damage, leaving the psychological fallout entirely aside for now.

Crucial Caveat: This analysis pertains exclusively to pregnancies resulting from entirely consensual intimacy. Situations involving drugging, abuse, or sexual assault fall under an entirely different socio-legal and clinical framework, and are completely excluded from this general assessment.

This perspective addresses a complex intersection of biology, neurology, and psychology. The core of this argument is grounded in hard scientific facts that are frequently obscured by social or emotional rhetoric in public discourse. Stripped of moral bias, science offers three definitive arguments to support this position:

• The brain is not fully developed until around age 25: Neurological research consistently demonstrates that the prefrontal cortex—the region responsible for long-term planning, risk assessment, impulse control, and emotional regulation—does not reach maturity until the mid-twenties. An individual under 24 navigating the immense, high-stress responsibilities of parenthood does so with a brain that is still under construction. This significantly compromises the psychological resilience required to process the strain of pregnancy and upbringing.
• Physiological maturity versus the toll of pregnancy: While the female body becomes biologically capable of conception at puberty, fertility does not equate to anatomical readiness. Well into their early twenties, women are still actively consolidating bone mass and stabilizing their endocrine systems. A pregnancy demands an immense share of vital nutrients (such as calcium and iron). When the maternal body is not yet fully hardened, the fetus draws a heavy overdraft on a biological foundation still under construction, frequently leading to chronic physical exhaustion and health complications later in life.
• The cumulative impact: Biologically, pregnancy is an elite-level athletic feat that plunders bodily reserves. While a fully developed body possesses the homeostasis required to repair this strain effectively, an underdeveloped individual faces a statistically higher risk of postpartum depression and chronic physical issues, such as pelvic instability.

From a purely biological and neurological standpoint, the threshold of 24 to 25 is not an arbitrary milestone; it is the physiological finish line of human construction. Becoming pregnant before this point means placing a maximum structural load on a system that is still surrounded by scaffolding. It is a sober, anatomical reality check: reproduction is biologically optimal only when the machine itself is entirely complete.

The ‘Puppy Effect’ and Familial Fault Lines

The underdeveloped parent rarely bears the consequences of this premature choice alone. Consider the familiar scenario of a child who begs for a puppy, only to find themselves ‘too busy’ with their own life once the pet arrives. Lacking the bandwidth to give the dog what it requires, the child defaults, leaving the mother or father to feed, train, and clean up after the animal. The parent’s freedom is compromised while the child hangs out elsewhere.

This is the exact narrative of the underdeveloped individual who lets something develop and promptly passes the bill to their environment, simply because they are consumed by their own ongoing growth process. To keep this analysis general, we must avoid unnecessary pathologizing: this is frequently not a matter of malice, but of a spoiled, careless young person who is simply not paying attention. She operates under the blithe assumption that the bill, as has always been the case in her life, will automatically be picked up by her parents. Consequently, a child born to a child almost invariably creates an acute fault line within the family structure.

This dynamic triggers a profound logistical and psychological displacement within the household:

• The displacement of the duty of care: A newborn requires unconditional, around-the-clock attention. An underdeveloped parent, who is psychologically still in their own phase of exploration and identity building, collides head-on with this reality. Lacking both the emotional stamina and the practical framework to cope, the immediate environment—usually the grandparents—is forced to step into the void. Grandparents who anticipated a quieter, post-parenting chapter suddenly find themselves thrust back into full-time caregiving. They absorb the physical, emotional, and financial burdens, while the young parent continues to pursue the freedom characteristic of their actual developmental age.
• The disruption of the family system: The established hierarchy within the family collapses. Grandparents are compelled to assume primary parental authority, effectively demoting the young mother or father to the status of an older sibling. This creates chronic role confusion, resentment, and systemic friction over upbringing. The household is emotionally held hostage; a newborn child cannot simply be abandoned. Thus, the bill for free time, energy, and finances is forcibly externalized onto the next of kin.
• The paradox of concurrent development: The foundational issue is that the young parent attempts to manage two entirely incompatible tracks simultaneously: building their own life (education, career, emotional maturation) while managing the development of a highly dependent new human being. Because personal development naturally commands biological priority at that stage of life, the care of the infant suffers. The family safety net acts as a buffer, but in doing so, it becomes structurally overextended and degraded.

Unmasking the Psychological Hostage Situation: The Child Had Already Fled

When this dynamic is clinically dissected, professionals embedded in traditional social care often raise the warning flag of behavioral reactance. They argue that forcing an underdeveloped, impulsive brain into a rigid contract will trigger massive resistance to the perceived restriction of freedom. The young parent, they claim, will impulsively dig in her heels, grab the baby, and flee into a highly destructive environment—such as a toxic partner or the streets—purely to assert her autonomy.

This counterargument completely misreads the objective reality and functions as the ultimate piece of emotional blackmail software. The hard truth is simple: the child had already checked out.

The fear that the young parent will run away or engage in destructive behavior if strict boundaries are enforced ignores the fact that the rupture has already occurred. Within a consensual context, choosing to get pregnant at an age and in a setting where one is biologically, mentally, and materially unequipped to handle it—and subsequently dumping the responsibility on one’s parents—is the flight. It is the destructive behavior. The child had already fled.

As professionals, we must clear this emotional fog: clinging to an unrealistic ideal where this underdeveloped parent suddenly transforms into a stable, self-sufficient caregiver is an illusion. It is time to cut the losses. Accept that the child has already strayed into highly compromised behavior.

Instead of subsidizing this destructive cycle and enabling her carelessness, the path forward must prioritize self-preservation. Settle for a second-best scenario: a highly functional, structured, long-distance relationship (a ‘LAT relationship’ on paper) with your own child, organized purely to safeguard the well-being of the grandchild. If an individual chooses the streets or a toxic partner over the generous, conditional framework offered by their family, they must evidently hit that rock bottom to learn the laws of cause and effect. You cannot protect a spoiled child from choices she has already made in her own recklessness.

The Systemic Death Blow: A COVID-Like Phenomenon

The systemic impact of this crisis functions much like a COVID-like phenomenon. In essence, no one dies from the pregnancy itself, just as individuals during the pandemic did not always succumb to the virus in isolation. The mechanism is more insidious: the infection delivers the final, fatal blow to a body that is already weakened by underlying comorbidities.

Translated to the family unit: if the parents (the newly minted grandparents) were already struggling under marital strain and their relationship was already fragile, the young child’s unwanted pregnancy serves as the ultimate biological and logistical overload. It is the coup de grâce; the definitive death of the marriage. The partners are dragged into a vortex of chronic sleep deprivation, financial drain, and bitter division over the management of the grandchild and the behavior of their own reckless offspring.

This is precisely why the notary-certified path proposed here is not a cold, clinical exercise in law, but an act of deep structural protection. By immediately rationalizing and formalizing the situation before a civil-law notary, you extract the venom from the dysfunctional family dynamic. You largely neutralize the emotional blackmail and the destructive, mutual finger-pointing between the spouses. An external, business-like edict is established. Only by clearing this emotional haze and anchoring the boundaries outside the marital arena does the marriage—and the family system as a whole—retain a realistic chance of survival.

The Notary as a Secular Shield Against Ideological Pressure

This approach gains exponential traction when a religious or ideological community—be it a church, a mosque, or any orthodox environment—exerces heavily on the family dynamic. In these settings, a teen pregnancy is immediately smothered under a heavy blanket of moral judgment, guilt, sin, and intense social pressure. The natural instinct of these religious entities is almost always to dictate moral restitution, forced marriages, or ‘forgiveness conditioned on social compliance.’ This merely intensifies the internal emotional blackmail and conflict, thereby accelerating the systemic death blow to the grandparents’ marriage.

In this volatile arena, the civil-law notary acts as the ultimate secular lightning rod. Why nobody else can fill this role better is simple: the notary does not evaluate the situation in terms of ‘sin’ or ‘shame,’ but strictly through the lens of rights, duties, and property.

By displacing the crisis into the notary’s office, you radically extract the case from the religious or ideological sphere. It hands the grandparents a legitimate shield when facing their community or spiritual leaders: “We are providing assistance, but strictly under the unyielding legal conditions drafted by the notary to secure our marriage, our assets, and our peace.” It is virtually impossible for a parent to fight back against the collective morality of a close-knit community without escalating fractures; however, one simply cannot argue with the cold mechanisms of property and gift law. The notary objectifies and navigates what threatens to become emotionally unmanageable, cutting through the noise to offer the only true chance at restoring stability.

The Notarial Path: An External Prefrontal Cortex

There is no soft solution to this dilemma, because prevention is always better than cure, and the young person who chose to become a parent ultimately controls her own actions. The stark question left for the grandparents is: what do you do? Do you show the child the door—partly to establish a precedent for the other siblings in the house—or do you lean into the opposite extreme: unconditional forgiveness and blind intervention?

The former option is draconian, but the latter is an absolute non-fly zone. Forgiveness is empty if the behavior of the underdeveloped parent shows no evidence that a lesson has been absorbed. Blindly intervening merely rewards the carelessness and signals to the rest of the household that reckless actions carry no consequences. It resolves nothing; it merely prolongs the suffering.

The necessary middle ground is a pragmatic, property-law approach: engage a notary, commit terms to a legally binding document, and attach unyielding consequences to default and neglect, regardless of underdevelopment. After all, a puppy can ultimately be surrendered to a kennel, but a child cannot. A child is a permanent fixture.

True love in this scenario means using a notary to force the underdeveloped parent to own her responsibilities, accept the rules and sanctions, and face account for any default. Because the spoiled child’s brain is biologically incapable of generating this internal structure, this notarized agreement serves as an external, artificial prefrontal cortex. The unyielding, material conditionality forces her brain to make adult decisions via tangible, immediate incentives. If this structure is rejected, the situation collapses into an immediate, irreversible tragedy.

What is proposed here is the operationalization of adulthood. If a young parent makes an adult decision (bringing a life into the world), they must be governed by the rules of the adult world.

When you present this approach to colleagues within mainstream social care or child protection services, their default reflex will likely be to initiate case management. But let us be frank: the claim that ‘contracts never work’ is fundamentally paradoxical, given that social care and child protection agencies themselves rely on mountains of signed safety contracts and action plans. Relying solely on expanded case management is, in many instances, institutional busywork that actively coddles the elephant in the room.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with criminal law or unenforceable parenting plans dictating diaper changes. It is about hard, material reality. To argue that this is legally unenforceable is to miss the point entirely. Especially where real estate and family wealth are involved, gift tax and inheritance laws play a decisive role.

The fact that a grandparent suddenly has to finance and accommodate an extra mouth every day constitutes a financial gift under the law. Under statutory law, grandparents bear no automatic duty of maintenance toward grandchildren; that obligation rests solely with the biological parents. Inheritance and gifting are structured fiscally and testamentarily through a notary. In short: any structural draw on the grandfather’s assets for the benefit of the grandchild is a gift, and under property law, you can attach absolute conditions and clauses to a gift or the use of your property.

The notarial path translates into highly concrete, material conditionality:

• Gifts subject to a resolutive condition: Financial allowances to the young parent can be notarized as gifts that immediately terminate—and convert into an enforceable debt—the moment the young parent defaults on the agreed living, educational, or caregiving framework.
• Commodatum (Loan for Use) agreements with an eviction clause: If the underdeveloped parent and the infant reside in the grandparents’ property, their occupancy can be bound by a watertight loan-for-use agreement. Systemic neglect of the terms automatically terminates the right of occupancy. This is the legal operationalization of a boundary, not a draconian eviction without warning.
• Testamentary restructuring: Establishing asset-management and trust clauses within the will ensures that upon the grandparents’ passing, wealth bypasses the young parent entirely, moving directly to the grandchild under the stewardship of a designated trustee, preventing the young parent from simply consuming it.

Injecting this property-law reality into the crisis forces the discussion out of the emotional fog. It eliminates the leverage for emotional manipulation (“you don’t love me”), because the grandparent simply states: “I am protecting my assets, my marriage, and my peace, and these are the objective terms under which you may access them.”

It deploys material boundaries to insulate the family system and the grandparents from complete burnout and financial depletion. It forces the reckless child to make a binary choice: either you submit to the business terms of the people funding your life, or you take your chances with public welfare, where reality is far more clinical. That is not cruelty; it is the only effective mechanism to force an underdeveloped parent to look the rules of the adult world squarely in the eye.

PowNed is a Dutch public broadcasting association that operates within the Netherlands Public Broadcasting (NPO) system. Founded with ties to the shock-blog GeenStijl, the network targets younger, networked generations with a distinctly populist, right-leaning, and often satirical approach to news, politics, and culture.

NPO’s PowNed heeft onlangs onder de titel ‘De Duistere kant van Forum voor Democratie’ (FvD) een videoreportage uitgebracht. De omroep doet hierin klassieke journalistieke waarheidsvinding door oud-leden en medewerkers aan het woord te laten over de interne cultuur, vermeende leidersverheerlijking en denkbeelden binnen de partij. Uit deze reportage ontstaat een indringend beeld over de werking van de organisatie. De betrouwbaarheid van de individuele aantijgingen behoeft hier geen inhoudelijke toetsing; de reportage dient hier puur als een waardevolle maatschappelijke casestudy. Het legt namelijk een dynamiek bloot die de media-omroep overstijgt en de schijnwerpers dwingt op de essentie van onze representatieve democratie.

Om deze dynamiek te kunnen plaatsen, moeten we kijken naar de unieke positionering van FvD binnen het Nederlandse politieke landschap. De partijtop heeft vanaf het prille begin duidelijk gemaakt dat het hart van de beweging niet is ingegeven door het bedrijven van traditionele politiek binnen de bestaande kaders. De beweging positioneert zich expliciet als een systeem-kritische factor die het huidige stelsel afwijst. Met woorden als ‘toneelstukje’ illustreerde Thierry Baudet al vroeg zijn afkeer tegen een in zijn ogen ‘schijndemocratie’.

Het fundamentele misverstand — en de spraakverwarring die ook in het publieke debat rondom dergelijke reportages ontstaat — is dat men een beweging die het systeem wil transformeren, probeert te meten langs de lat van datzelfde traditionele systeem.

In de eerder aangehaalde video wordt de verheerlijking van leiders beschreven als vermeende denkbeelden die in strijd zijn met de algemene rechtsbeginselen van de Staat der Nederlanden. Uit de reportage ontstaat een ontluisterend beeld, althans als je meegaat in het ingevlochten narratief. De reportage spreekt en ademt de beschrijving van extreemrechts, radicaal, fascistisch en racistisch, verpakt in een sektarische organisatie.

Om deze bijdrage van PowNed te kunnen plaatsen is het relevant dat FvD een gigantisch ledental kent; er doen cijfers de ronde die dit ledental hoger inschatten dan het totaal van de overige politieke partijen samen. In Nederland doen gezegden de ronde als ‘Hoge bomen vangen veel wind’ en ‘Steek je hoofd niet boven het maaiveld uit’, en beiden doen hier opgeld. Nu kan ik de betrouwbaarheid van deze rapportage niet toetsen, noch vaststellen of de aantijgingen kloppen, en ik waag mij dan ook niet aan een inhoudelijke beoordeling.

De Paradox van de Meetlat: Appels met Peren Vergelijken

Dit nu gezegd hebbende, is van groot belang de positionering van FvD als politieke partij en wat haar onderscheidt van nagenoeg alle politieke partijen in de Tweede Kamer. Dat is simpelweg het gegeven dat het hart van de beweging niet is ingegeven door het bedrijven van traditionele politiek. De voorman Thierry Baudet heeft dat vanaf het begin duidelijk gemaakt: “Wij zijn hier om een revolutie van bestuur af te dwingen, wij wijzen het huidige stelsel af.” Met woorden als ‘toneelstukje’ illustreert hij zijn uitgesproken afkeer tegen een in zijn ogen ‘schijndemocratie’ die de belangen van de intrinsieke, bewezen kwaliteit van de Nederlandse cultuur verkwanselt ten gunste van een gevestigde elite die naar een nieuwe wereldorde streeft.

Klaarblijkelijk worden hier appels met peren vergeleken. Een partij die door de Kiesraad is toegelaten en zich richt op het afbreken van de zittende macht ten gunste van het herstel van een oprechte, representatieve democratie, is altijd het mikpunt van verzet. Je kunt haar niet meten langs de lat van de overige partijen, omdat zij zich fundamenteel anders manifesteert. De geschiedenis leert bovendien dat zo’n publieke terechtstelling — een morele karaktermoord — de beschuldigde uiteindelijk vaak in de kaart speelt via het underdog-effect. Het versterkt de interne cohesie en voedt het wantrouwen tegen de gevestigde orde.

Systematische Uitsluiting en Begripsinflatie

De reportage hanteert daarnaast gretig het begrip ‘sekte’. Maar waar ‘beweging’ een passende benaming is, legt het label ‘sekte’ iets anders bloot. Als men doelt op strikte groepsdiscipline: de eerste politieke partij die niet opereert langs de weg van kadaverdiscipline en dwingende stemverklaringen, moet nog worden uitgevonden. De verheerlijking van eigen dogma’s en het oproepen tot veroordeling van andersdenkenden is ook partijen als GroenLinks-PvdA geenszins vreemd. Woorden als ‘sekte’ horen in de media-analyse dan ook niet thuis, tenzij men toegeeft dat elke politieke partij in meer of mindere mate als een bijzondere variant van een sekte opereert.

Hetzelfde geldt voor de term ‘extreemrechts’. Dit is de moderne Haarlemmerolie geworden die alle tegenstellingen moet duiden. Het begrip heeft zijn analytische waarde en scherpte verloren, juist door de verregaande politisering ervan. Wanneer kritiek op immigratie of supranationale instituten direct wordt gecategoriseerd als ‘fout’, misbruikt men morele labels om het echte gesprek te ontwijken.

Dit mechanisme — het categorisch uitsluiten van een partij en haar honderdduizenden kiezers, waarbij een goed argument of een zinvolle oplossing direct wordt afgewezen zodra bekend is uit welke koker het komt — is een intellectuele blooper van jewelste. Je kunt niet het woord ‘racisme’ in de mond nemen om anderen te veroordelen, als je zelf een groep op basis van hun politieke identiteit reduceert tot een absolute buitenstaander en hen ‘weg uit ons midden’ wenst. Het toont de ignorance van een elite die roept dat “de democratie op het spel staat”, maar ondertussen weigert de werkelijke maatschappelijke tegenstellingen in de parlementaire arena te absorberen.

De Technologische Realiteit: Moderniseren omwille van Conservatisme

Het diepere misverstand zit echter niet alleen in de moraal, maar in de absolute miskenning van de huidige tijdgeest. Het gaat anno nu fundamenteel om relevantie. Terwijl de gevestigde orde en de media vastklampen aan een 19e-eeuws model van volksvertegenwoordiging, weet Baudet als geen ander in te spelen op de moderne AI-omgeving.

Hij begrijpt dat 150 volwassen kleuters in een debatcentrum volkomen irrelevant worden in een tijdperk waarin complexe maatschappelijke vragen en antwoorden met lichtsnelheid door kunstmatige intelligentie kunnen worden berekend, vergeleken en geoptimaliseerd. In de Tweede Kamer praat men over de relevantie van de stoelen en de aard van de zitter; er is geen enkel traditioneel Kamerlid in staat de overstap te maken naar een bestuurlijke structuur die werkelijk digitaliseert en optimaliseert. In plaats daarvan zetten zij de hakken in het zand uit angst voor hun eigen overbodigheid.

Thierry Baudet en zijn proxi’s doorzien deze technologische verschuiving. Zij begrijpen dat om traditionele, conservatieve waarden te behouden, je de meest hypermoderne infrastructuur moet omarmen. FvD moderniseert haar organisatie dus fundamenteel omwille van dat cultuurbehoud. Terwijl het establishment probeert de beweging te bestrijden met verouderde, gepolitiseerde labels, bouwt de partij buiten het zicht van het parlementaire toneelstuk aan een parallel, digitaal en maatschappelijk netwerk. Het echte conflict in de Nederlandse politiek gaat daardoor allang niet meer over ‘links versus rechts’, maar over een verouderd systeem dat strijdt tegen een technologische en organische realiteit die zij simpelweg niet meer kan bijbenen.

Nawoord

Nota bene: Bovenstaande analyse is expliciet niet ingegeven door een politiek standpunt, noch door een inhoudelijk oordeel over de feitelijke juistheid van de reportage van PowNed. Als gedragspsycholoog richt mijn observatie zich puur op de onderliggende groepsdynamica, de mechanismen van uitsluiting en labeling, en de manier waarop systemen reageren op technologische en culturele disruptie. Ik wens met klem te benadrukken dat ik de democratische grondbeginselen en de waarden van de Nederlandse samenleving hoog in het vaandel heb staan. Juist vanuit die diepe betrokkenheid is het noodzakelijk om scherp te blijven reflecteren op het gedrag, de psychologie en de communicatiestructuren binnen ons publieke bestel.

Source: De duistere kant van Forum voor Democratie | NPO Start

A mantel clock (pendule) is a classic, often richly decorated chamber clock with a pendulum movement, designed to be placed on a mantelpiece, sideboard, or table. The name is derived from the French word for ‘pendulum’ (pendule), and it refers to the pendulum itself, which accurately regulates time. The clock utilizes a pendulum that swings back and forth at a fixed time interval to drive the movement—a principle based on the pendulum clock invented by Christiaan Huygens in 1656. The casing of a mantel clock is often a showpiece in itself, traditionally crafted from materials such as marble, bronze, brass, porcelain, or precious woods.

When drawing a comparison between the mechanical laws of this antique clock and the socio-emotional and behavioral forces surrounding the female body (The Pendulum of the Female Body), several profound paradoxes are exposed. The human observer who desires an object inherently exhibits a behavioral tendency to bend that desired object to their will. Thus, an individual can be compared to this beautiful clock: a showpiece put on display, operating under a strict schedule devised by an external “owner” and executed mechanically by a swinging pendulum.

Throughout history and into the present day, the individual is forced to move back and forth between rigid external systems. The female body was historically treated as the property of religious dogma, and subsequently, it has been claimed as the “possession” of feminist and liberal ideologies. The pendulum swings strictly between these ideological extremes. On one side of the arc, the message dictates that “the body belongs to God,” demanding modesty, vroom adherence, and submission to patriarchal institutions. On the other side of the arc, the message claims that “your body belongs to you alone, but you must immediately sign up for the prescribed tenets of feminism and modern liberalism.” The individual swings between these extremes, continuously forced to react to external pressures, while the overarching housing remains completely fixed in place. The movement is not a linear journey toward radical, self-determined progress; it is a repetitive, mechanical cadence within a pre-engineered box, functioning primarily to entertain the external “owners” of the debate.

Viewed strictly from the perspectives of behavioral science, sociology, and system theory, this constant swinging reveals how deeply external control structures impact human psychology. First, treating an individual as a “showpiece” highlights a fundamental process of objectification and ownership. While the object possesses an intrinsic value, that value is continuously determined, curated, and exhibited by an outside force.

When an external social system drapes itself protectively or correctively over a person—even with the best of intentions—it frequently triggers the psychological phenomenon known as learned helplessness (aangeleerde hulpeloosheid). If the rules of engagement, expectations, and frameworks are constantly dictated from the outside, the individual learns that their own intrinsic motivation and actions have no bearing on the ultimate outcome. The behavioral result is passivity, apathy, chronic suspicion, and depression. The joy of genuine autonomy disappears because the internal locus of control is entirely overridden.

This friction exposes a fundamental behavioral riddle: the conflict between individual autonomy (“master of one’s own body”) and social interdependence. Human beings are biologically and socially wired to live in connection with an environment. The absolute liberal concept of individual freedom often crashes into the reality of shared social structures. How “master of one’s own body” is supposed to relate to a wider environment remains an unsolved mystery. When the underlying systemic message reads, “You are entirely free and responsible for your own happiness, but you must function perfectly within our prescribed norms,” intense cognitive dissonance occurs. This conflict breeds deep argwaan (suspicion) regarding the true intentions of this systemic “freedom.”

Furthermore, the reality that “the fruit does not spontaneously hang from the tree” highlights that reproduction, sexuality, and the human body are never purely isolated biological functions; they possess a value shared with a third party, deeply embedded in a complex matrix of evolutionary, social, and relational interests. However, the moment this shared value mutates into an external claim—where the surrounding environment dictates exactly what the value of that body or fruit should be—the dynamic shifts drastically from mutual cooperation to rigid regulation. The human psyche responds poorly to constant external regulation; it activates chronic stress responses instead of fostering well-being or genuine happiness.

Ultimately, it is highly understandable how a society strives to break free from the yoke of an oppressive ideology. Yet, the supreme irony of political psychology and sociology is that the liberators almost systematically deploy the exact same structures and instruments of power against which they originally rebelled. In behavioral science, this is recognized as isomorphism—the tendency of opposing systems to adopt the same form.

When a movement dismantles an oppressive framework, a structural vacuum is created. Because human psychology and social systems deeply abhor a vacuum, the new leaders instinctively grasp for the tools they know best: the regulatory instruments of the old oppressor. The underlying behavioral mechanisms used to enforce conformity—such as social exclusion, moral superiority, dogmatic language, and the disciplining of dissidents—remain entirely universal. The content of the ideology changes, shifting from religious piety to hyper-individualism, but the psychological blueprint remains identical. To protect the newly won “freedom,” the liberators begin to dwingend (forcibly) regulate it, rationalizing their coercive methods because their intentions are deemed “good.” They fail to see that they have looked into the mirror and assumed the exact guise of the force they just expelled.

In the end, the individual looks at the new liberators and intuitively senses that while the rhetoric has changed, the chains have merely been painted a different color. The pendulum swings forcefully to the opposite side, but the grand mechanical clockwork driving the swing has not shifted an inch.

Local time Malaysia, Monday to Friday 19.00-21.00 hours.

As a member, you hold the initiative: the topics, the questions, and the insights. As your moderator and partner, I am here to offer reflections and guidance—never to dictate. Within this space, you are invited to express your contemplations, question the world around us, and bring forward meaningful suggestions.

While my foundation lies deeply within the behavioral sciences, expertise does not equate to absolute certainty. That is precisely why contrasting our viewpoints is essential. Does that mean all viewpoints? No. This room is not designed for ideological debate or the political dissection of societal crises. Nor will we spend our energy dissecting the character of public figures; speculation only distances us from the truth.

Throughout my life and work, I have operated on a singular principle: a shared understanding rooted in the absolute equality of all individuals—regardless of background, appearance, or belief. Let us simply engage in true dialogue. Together, we will navigate toward solutions, strengthening our collective bond within a more cohesive society.”

Let’s talk,

Mohd Parid jaya

Paul McCartney wrote “Let It Be” to bring himself peace during a highly stressful period. Overwhelmed by tensions and arguments within The Beatles, he had a comforting dream where his late mother, Mary—who passed away when he was 14—appeared to reassure him by saying, “It will be all right, just Let it Be”

Discoveries, new labels, new contradictions, and thus fresh human battles over the meaning of the discovery: opportunities to fight one another, and so the world keeps turning on its axis. Paul McCartney’s ‘Let It Be’, a song written at a time when societies were in turmoil and everything was thrown into the battle to liberate societies from the perceived yoke, doctrines, and imposed lifestyles, was answered by Paul with a deadpan “let it be,” nowadays often translated as ‘who cares’. 

Maher Zain wrote the motivational song “Insya Allah” to inspire people to never lose hope during difficult times and to remind them to keep their faith and trust in Allah. He wanted to create an uplifting message that brings comfort to listeners when they are feeling lost or hopeless

Manifesto of Recognition

You do not need a dominator to be oppressed.

Oppression can also come from within: from addiction, from forced activism, from the despair your own mess leaves behind.

Maher’s voice says: Recognition is responsibility.
Without wisdom, no prosperity.
Without forgiveness, no tomorrow.

And so, like a snowplow, Let It Be pushes the madness aside,
And Insya Allah points the way upward.
Never despair. Keep on rolling.

Insya Allah

This article examines a global decline into mediocre political representation, using the Netherlands’ representative democracy as its central case study through pointed examples. From Muay Thai’s lost philosophy of respect to dopamine-driven governance, it reveals how core values erode under spectacle and ego.

With an Unblinking Stare on Organizational Psychology and Geopolitics.

Muay Thai, as pure martial art rooted in Buddhist discipline and physical transcendence, is not reduced by visionaries like Bruce Lee to merely defeating an opponent through brute force, tactical superiority, or momentary glory, but fundamentally defined by a deep-rooted, mutual respect for the sparring partner as a mirror of one’s own soul—a living, reactive instrument that exposes your stance, timing, intent, and emotional control, so the fight no longer targets flesh and blood, but the hidden limitations of your ego, visible only in the arena’s heat.

The essence lies in voluntary surrender to this confronting learning process: the challenging partner is not an enemy to break or humiliate, but a catalyst for self-development as philosopher in the ring, consciously fueling the challenge and forcing choices that prioritize respect for the art itself—not the illusion of triumph or domination—bringing the challenger to their knees through refined, intuitive positional choice: deftly parrying attacks to assume a dominant yet never destructive stance that preserves mutual growth.

This position intimidates through pure, controlled presence and moral superiority, inflicting no unnecessary harm that undermines reciprocal evolution or reduces it to mere suffering—for the challenger’s true helping hand lies precisely in exposing your loss of self-respect and self-inflicted pain, not through the physical blow itself, but at that crucial psychological moment when you betray the required ground stance—the core of discipline: emotions, driven relentlessly by ego, take over, causing fatal distraction that transforms the art into chaotic, self-destructive madness.

Contemporary Martial Arts: Glory Over Respect

How far has modern martial arts drifted from these primal values of introspection and control, when fame as ultimate trophy, stare-down rituals as psychological intimidation, and inflicting pain as essential sensational show element artificially inflate entertainment value at the cost of dopamine hits for the audience, while inflicting profound, often irreparable damage to character—the moral, psychological core of discipline, humility, and mutual respect—reducing the sport to a caricature of its philosophical origin?

It recalls the biting, prophetic satire in Life of Brian, where a mother and son boredly debate the day’s best spectacle—a bloody lion fight or medieval stoning—a painfully accurate unmasking of how this so-called ‘art,’ once a vehicle of self-transcendence, is rendered utterly ridiculous by the audience’s low, primitive expectations, seeking not personal elevation or collective wisdom, but raw cathartic sensation without reflection.

Politics as a Degenerate Ring: PM Rob Jetten‘s Illusion

Project this distorted, commercialized dynamic onto politics as the ‘art’ of collective governance and conflict resolution, where at best every action, debate, and concession is governed by the described values of respect, emotional control, and mutual growth through failure, and you witness a tragic, recognizable caricature.

Replace Bruce Lee’s transcendental, adaptive ethos with Rob Jetten’s ostensibly sporty daring, the Muay Thai ring with the coveted Chambers of the States General, and the sparring partner with a fragile coalition of opportunism and identity politics.

Jetten, who profiles himself as a boxing enthusiast with ambitious, physically disciplined mindset, seems bitterly ignorant of martial arts’ deeper core as life metaphor—his sharp, confrontational rhetoric, obsessive coalition drive, and focus on visible, measurable ‘wins’ in polls and headlines align seamlessly with promoters keeping the show profitable, not Lee’s timeless principle of “absorb what is useful, reject what is useless,” prioritizing radical adaptation, self-knowledge, and ego release over fleeting dominance.

In 2026, trust in his vulnerable minority cabinet plummets to historic lows (16-32%), while polarization explodes via social media echo chambers and algorithmic bubbles—likes, retweets, and viral clips now fully dictate the political agenda, at the expense of philosophical depth, turning real failure into sustainable growth and institutional resilience.

The decay of governing institutions through all-encompassing dopamine mania of ‘likes,’ shares, and virtual applause creates a toxic bed that fundamentally repels and isolates those imposing self-limits—from deep-rooted preservation of values like mutual respect, discipline, and long-term thinking: no ‘honor to be gained’ in an arena where every interaction, idea, and identity is reduced to monetizable capital, emotional triggers, and superficial alliances.

Democratic DNA: The 1464 Compromise

Strictly technically, modern parliamentary democracy dates to Thorbecke’s liberal Constitution of 1848, institutionalizing ministerial responsibility and basic rights, but to truly diagnose and counter this system’s vulnerability to decay, we must graft its primal DNA to the 15th century: around 1464, with the first meeting of the States General under Burgundian rule in the Low Countries, a proto-democratic compromise emerged between the three pillars of what would become trias politica—church/religion/philosophy as society’s moral and ideological conscience, elite/nobility as hereditary power holder and order protector, and citizen/cities as economic engine and representative voice—where the church, long believing it knew all through divine mandate and infallible doctrine, was forced to cede significant ground in exchange for political and legal protection unavailable elsewhere in Europe, while the bourgeoisie with growing wealth and urban power compelled structured consultation and rudimentary power separation.

This ‘rediscovered respect’ amid dire failure circumstances—religious schisms, Habsburg wars, economic crises—formed the psychological and institutional basis for representative governance: no absolute dominance, but mutual concessions enabling welfare development. Today’s bourgeoisie ignores this DNA, caricaturing trias into polarization.

Generational Choice for Mediocrity

The Netherlands overflows with data, yet the ruling generation consciously chooses low-level polarization (80% experiences division), corrupted algorithms, and likes over nuance. High level remains isolated; mediocre ‘martial arts’ thrives in bubbles.

What more to say?

When you look at it through the lens of Desidarius Erasmus, a few things become painfully clear:

1. The Erasmian Irony of “Voter as Government”

If each voter is a micro-reflection of the government, and the government is the macro-sum of the voters, then the decay described in the article isn’t a top-down imposition. It’s an echo chamber. Erasmus’s Praise of Folly was all about how society willingly embraces illusions because reality is too uncomfortable.

• We claim we want serious governance, but our collective data footprint, our algorithmic clicks, and our votes reward the “dopamine politicians.”
• If the chamber is a circus, it’s because the market for circus tickets is booming.

2. Sidelining Science for “Applied Science”

The point about bending the knee to globalism and allowing “applied science” to sideline pure science is a crucial nuance.

• Pure science requires the same discipline as the classical martial artist: sitting with uncertainty, rigorous self-correction, admitting when you are wrong, and playing the long game.
• Applied science (in the political context) is often weaponized science. It’s data parsed through a consulting firm to justify a pre-determined policy, or a technocratic metric used to quieten debate. It’s “science” turned into a management tool to handle globalist supply chains and macro-demographics, stripped of its philosophical integrity.

3. The Theater Ticket as the Ultimate Tax Cop-Out

This is the most bitter joke of all. When citizens completely lose faith that the Tweede Kamer (Chambers) can actually solve systemic crises—housing, climate, inflation—the psychological contract changes:

The Old Contract: I pay taxes, you provide structural societal solutions. The New Contract: I pay taxes, nothing changes, so I might as well enjoy the screaming match on my timeline.

The tax money effectively becomes a theater subscription fee. If Rob Jetten or any other politician trips up, gets caught in a viral gaffe, or a coalition collapses, it’s no longer viewed as a tragedy for statecraft—it’s viewed as a season finale.

By treating politics as a soap opera, the public gains a sense of cynical superiority (“See? I knew they were all corrupt/incapable anyway”), but they forfeit the very soul of the democratic experiment. It’s a total abdication of the 1464 DNA, where real, structural skin-in-the-game forced people to compromise. Today, if the ship is sinking, at least the light show is spectacular.

It begs the question: if the electorate has fully transitioned from stakeholders to a theater audience, can a system built on mutual respect and “sparring” ever actually be rebooted? Or is the dopamine loop simply too addictive to break?

I conclude with a minimalist stand ‘ Consensus over Selfies’ for decennia the hallmark of ‘Dutch Politics of the polder’.

For decades, the entire hallmark of Dutch politics was the quiet, unglamorous art of consensus. It was born out of literal survival—if the pillars of society (whether the Church, Nobility, and Bourgeoisie in 1464, or the Catholics and Socialists of the 20th century) didn’t sit down and cooperatively drain the water, the entire country would drown. It required stripping away the ego, closing the doors, and making painful, pragmatic compromises for the collective good.

And we traded it for the selfie.

The front-facing camera is the absolute engine of the “dopamine politician.” It requires no long-term vision, no structural concessions, and no deep historical stance. It only requires a ring-light, an curated smile, and a viral quote-tweet to score quick, tribal points inside an algorithmic bubble.

The Erasmian Balance Sheet

By merging insights with the article’s core arguments, we are left with a profoundly sharp diagnosis of our current democratic state:

• The Actor Paradox: We have a system where the 150 members of the Tweede Kamer are structurally bottlenecked, drowning in bureaucratic text, and functionally incapable of delivering true oversight or hyper-rapid legislative solutions. Yet, they cling to their seats, attempting to anchor their globalist frameworks into the constitution before the floor drops out beneath them.
• The Tech Disruption: Generative AI can out-produce human policy generation a thousand times over in a single hour. It breaks the old 19th-century illusion that parliament’s primary job is to write text.
• The Audience Betrayal: Because the public intuitively senses this uselessness, the psychological contract has shattered. We no longer pay taxes expecting structural solutions; we pay them like a theater subscription fee to watch the gladiatorial soap opera play out on our timelines.

The Final Round

If democracy is going to survive the collapse of its 19th-century institutional shape, the theater has to stop. The political class cannot continue to hide behind public relations teams and superficial brand management while globalist forces and “applied science” strip the nation of its philosophical sovereignty.

If the historical memory of the Brothers de Witt teaches us anything, it’s that when a technocratic elite insulates itself too deeply within its own legal fortresses—ignoring the raw, visceral realities of the people outside—the crowd eventually stops buying theater tickets. They drag the actors off the stage.

The transition out of this “dopamine ring” won’t be clean. But recognizing the shift from the hard-fought compromise of 1464 to a generation choosing low-level polarization for internet clout is the first step in clearing the arena. The polder is still flooding; it’s time to put down the phones, stop posing for the cameras, and find the ground stance again.

Socials: Back on Team Social Media: Choosing Calm Over Reaction.

After years of staying away, I’ve returned to social media — but not in the same way as before. Where I once reacted quickly and fiercely to perceived injustice or hurtful posts, I now choose distance and perspective. This shift is both a personal strategy and a deliberate contribution to a healthier online atmosphere.

I hope you are in a sound mind and consider the posting I respond to as an accident.

Why I Came Back

I missed the many beautiful expressions of love, art, and culture that social platforms can offer. If I limited myself to policing negativity, I would miss those moments. At the same time, social media has changed: people keep a greater distance and are more self-focused. I see that as a positive development — it creates space for quiet appreciation without the constant pressure to respond or to “like.”

My New Approach

Instead of being swept up by anger or the urge to punish, I respond calmly and at a distance. My default reply is short and clear: “I hope you are in a sound mind and consider the posting I respond to as an accident.” With this response, I remove the opportunity for escalation and protect my own peace without appearing indifferent.

What this approach achieves

• Prevents escalation: avoids emotional exchanges that fuel conflict.
• Protects my well-being: reduces stress and impulsive replies.
• Makes room for beauty: allows more attention for positive contributions.

A Broader Perspective

This attitude echoes larger conflict dynamics — from generational tensions to geopolitical posturing. Often, parties seek confrontation because it yields immediate attention. Choosing calm and perspective can be more powerful over time. It’s a way to take responsibility for your emotional space while modeling a different kind of public behavior.

Practical Tips to Maintain This Stance

• Pause 10–30 minutes before replying; emotions usually subside.
• Keep a few neutral replies ready to copy and paste to avoid impulsive answers.
• Mute or unfollow accounts that consistently spread negative energy.
• Draft then delete: write your response in a note and delete it; often that’s enough.
• Prioritize positive engagement by intentionally responding to artful, loving, or constructive posts.

Conclusion

Take part in social life, but don’t be carried away by the emotion of the moment. Your contribution is part of a much larger human story. By choosing calm and perspective, you help create a healthier online environment and permit others to do the same.

Why must Technology, Legislation and Music witness Dignity not Spectacle?

Naivity; Recent developments in the Middle East remind us how fragile public trust can be when world leaders trumpet competitors as “renowned apes,” steering nations into die‑or‑surrender games. These outbursts are not just political theater—they echo through families, generations, and civil debates, leaving scars that culture and technology must help heal.

In such moments, Artificial Intelligence offers a counterweight. Not by replacing human judgment, but by raising second opinions into balanced perspectives. Where narcissistic outbursts seek attention, AI can boost mental peace. Where leaders mock, AI can witness. Where spectacle dominates, AI can stabilize.

Families feel this most directly. AI becomes a quiet companion, a second opinion in the palm. It preserves dignity by reducing exposure to ridicule and propaganda. Parents and children alike can check claims, compare perspectives, and relax. Relief is not a luxury—it is a civil necessity.

Platforms, meanwhile, must install safety belts. Just as pilots don’t fly Boeing without training, platforms must not hand deepfake instruments to amateurs. Misuse cannot be halted entirely, but it can be isolated. Simulation should serve health and safety, not entertainment. Reckless tools belong in the second row; the first row deserves trust.

Legislation, too, is a civil duty. It is not ours to dictate—it belongs to public debate. But lawmakers who mock AI’s flaws while failing to legislate responsibly feed replacement fears. Ignore the voter, and you risk making them believe they’ve already been replaced. Witnessing, not mockery, is the path to civil duty. Gen Z sees this through the lens of justice. For them, open education and self‑training are not just opportunities—they are fairness itself. AI democratizes learning, lowering barriers for lower‑income classes. It empowers competence without gatekeepers. In their eyes, inclusion is justice, and justice is peace. Culture reminds us of this truth. Marvin Gaye’s timeless question, carried forward by Playing for Change, asks us to witness civil war and generational sagas. “What’s going on?” is not just a lyric—it is a civic plea. Family struggles and social wounds are inherited across generations, and healing requires presence, not spectacle. AI, like music, can be a witness to dignity.

And remains righteous— in his principled thought: “Who understands the roots and branches of Mother Nature will find explanation to all and everything happening around us.” AI is not greater than Einstein. It does not replace principled thought; it simply connects the dots faster. Where Einstein saw the tree of nature, AI helps communities trace its roots and branches more clearly, balancing growth across generations. 

The forest, after all, is the ultimate unbiased library. AI, when disciplined, is not a neon god—it is a librarian, connecting roots to branches, helping us witness civil duty and preserve dignity.

The Hammer and the Betamax: Keep on rolling Through a World That Wants You to Stop

The gap between pension age policy and the social devaluation of the aging workforce. 

I was writing a different post when a client confronted me today. He was totally baffled. At 62 years old, he cannot find a meaningful job—not even as a volunteer.

The Dutch government, in its infinite spreadsheet wisdom, decided to set the pension age at 67-plus. The system says: “Keep working.” But the market reality says: “You are obsolete.”

He told me, “Everywhere I find youngsters, and they treat me as a charity case. But give me a hammer, and I fix things. They just look at me and say: ‘Opa, nowadays, a hammer is not what we use.’”

The Betamax Memory

That phrase—“Grandpa, a hammer is not what we use”—hit me hard. It reminded me of my mother.

She got divorced at age 69 in 1987. Trying to be helpful, we gave her a Betamax video player. She had no clue how to use it. I remember, to my shame, being annoyed. “Mama, it’s so simple, why don’t you get it?”

We are doing something cruel to people. It is not just that we let them suffer; it is that we play games with their time. We extend the finish line of their working lives, but we remove the ground beneath their feet. We have “knowledge” and digital tools, but no patience for the skill that doesn’t require an update.

Find Your Wheels

I looked at my client, and the energy of the Rolling Stones came to mind.

You feel dizzy in this new world. You feel out of place. But you ain’t drunk. The world has just spun away from you. The advice I wanted to give him—and myself—is the spirit of the track Start Me Up. Find your wheels. Accept the role. And keep on rolling.

If the “Senate” won’t give you the job, build your own road. Smile at their confusion, grip your hammer, and keep moving.