Credit goes to Giuli333.
Source:
Sources:
Benz, Wolfang/Cate, Johannes Houwink/Otto Gerhard (Hg.): Die Bürokratie der Okkupation. Strukturen der Herrschaft und Verwaltung im besetzten Europa, Berlin 1998.
Boehm, Hermann: Norwegen zwischen England und Deutschland. Die Zeit vor und während des zweiten Weltkrieges. Lüneburg 1956.
Klijn, Edwin/Te Slaa, Robin: De NSB. Onstaan en opkomst van de nationaalsocialistsiche beweging 1931-1935; Amsterdam 2009.
Koll, Johannes: Arthur Seyß-Inquart und die deutsche Besatzungspolitik in den Niederlanden (1940-1945). Wien 2015.
Kwiet, Konrad: Reichskommissariat Niederlande. Versuch und Scheitern
nationalsozialistischer Neuordnung; Stuttgart 1968.
Nestler, Ludwig/Schumann, Wolfang (Hg.): Europa unterm Hakenkreuz.
Belgien Luxemburg Niederlande, Berlin 1990.
Picker, Henry: Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führer Hauptquartier. Hitler wie er
wirklich war. Seewald 1976.
Romijn, Peter: Der lange Krieg der Niederlande. Besatzung, Gewalt und
Neuorientierung in den vierziger Jahren. Weimar 2017.
Do I disagree with what he's saying? Maybe, maybe not. The biggest barrier to is the inadequacy of the common vocabulary, since the vocabulary didn't necessarily emerge from people who wanted clarity, but from people who saw the world from a certain ideological predisposition and with limited energy and effort.
I've come to the realization that in order to explore new concepts, you probably need to develop a new vocabulary. The people who came up with the word "state" weren't thinking about polycentic and monocentric law, and they weren't thinking about what precisely a state is. The vocabulary that we inherited was what was simple enough for the average person to understand and get by with at their level, in addition to some politically motivated meme pushers.
If we want to deconstruct the world around us, we need a new vocabulary, because the one we have didn't emerge in response to these kinds of tasks.