A. Selections from August 16, 2017
This is a Nederlog of
This is a
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last four years:
I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch) and about
the enormous dangers of surveillance (by secret services and
by many rich commercial entities) since June 10, 2013, and I probably will
continue with it, but on the moment
I have several problems with the company that is
supposed to take care that my site is visible 
and with my health.
explained, the crisis files will have a different
format from July 1, 2017: I will now list the items
I selected as I did before (title + link) but I add one
selection from the selected item to give my readers a bit
of a taste of the item linked.
So the new format is as follows:
Link to an item with its orginal title,
One selection (usually) from that item
Possibly followed by a brief comment by
me (not indented).
This is illustrated below, in selections A.
2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
A. Selections from
August 16, 2017
items 1 - 5 are today's selections from the 35 sites that I look at
every morning. The indented text under each link is quoted from the
link that starts the item. Unindented text is by me:
Trump Has Been a Racist All His Life — And He Isn’t Going to Change
This article is by Medi Hasan on The Intercept. It starts
I think I agree that Trump "is, and always has been, a racist" - where the reader should realize I am European
and not American, and that I knew very little about Trump until
2016, who besides is, for me, at least, a quite uninteresting
man (as a person).
“Racism is evil,”
declared Donald Trump on Monday,
“and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs,
including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups
that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
OK, “declared” may be too
strong a word for what we heard from the president. “Stated” is perhaps
a better descriptor. “Read out” might be the most accurate of all.
Trump made these “additional
remarks” with great reluctance and only after two days of intense
criticism from both the media
Republicans over his original remarks blaming “many
sides” for the neo-Nazi
violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. The words were not his own:
they were scripted by aides and delivered with the assistance of a
teleprompter. The president reserved his personal,
off-the-cuff ire on Monday for the black CEO of Merck, not for the
white fascists of Virginia.
Much of the frenzied
media coverage of what CNN dubbed “48
hours of turmoil for the Trump White House” has overlooked one
rather crucial point: Trump doesn’t like being forced to denounce
racism for the very simple reason that he himself is, and always has
been, a racist.
As to Hasan's reasons for stating that Trump is a racist, here is about
half of one paragraph of Hasan's text:
Over the next four
decades, Trump burnished his reputation as a bigot: he was accused of
the black [employees] off the floor” of his Atlantic City casinos
during his visits; claimed “laziness
is a trait in blacks” and “not anything they can control”;
requested Jews “in
yarmulkes” replace his black accountants; told
Bryan Gumbel that “a well-educated black has a tremendous advantage
over a well-educated white in terms of the job market”; demanded
the death penalty for a group of black and Latino teenagers accused
of raping a jogger in Central Park (and, despite their later
the use of DNA evidence, has continued
to insist they are guilty); suggested a Native American tribe “don’t
look like Indians to me”; mocked Chinese and Japanese trade
negotiators by doing an impression of
them in broken English; described undocumented Mexican immigrants
compared Syrian refugees to “snakes”;
defended two supporters who assaulted a homeless Latino man as “very
passionate” people “who love this country”; pledged
to ban a quarter of humanity from entering the United States;
proposed a database
to track American Muslims that he
himself refused to distinguish from the Nazi registration of German
Jews; implied Jewish donors “want to control”
politicians and are all sly
There is considerably more in
the article, that is recommened .
Is Hooked on the Drug of White Supremacy—We're Paying for That Today
This article is by Carol Anderson on AlterNet, and
originally from The Guardian. It starts as follows:
The United States is in a
tailspin. White supremacists are on the march – and have left a trail
of blood and destruction in their wake. A march in Charlottesville,
Virginia, filled with torches, Nazi flags and chants of “White Lives
Matter” culminated in violence that claimed at least one life, and left many more
This is just what many
feared the Trump presidency would unleash. David Duke, the former
leader of the Ku Klux Klan, supported that view when hesaid on Saturday that
the march “fulfills the promises of Donald Trump” to “take our country
It took more than 36 hours –
and a killing believed to have been carried out by a neo-Nazi – for the
White House to denounce white supremacists. Although the president
prefers to communicate directly with the American people through
Twitter, he didn’t do that this time. Instead, the delayed statement
was attributed to an unnamed White House spokesperson.
None of this makes sense.
Unless, that is, we come to grips with the reality that we are seeing
the effects of far too many Americans strung out on the most pervasive,
devastating, reality-warping drug to ever hit the United States: white
This is here because - even
- The Guardian has concluded that Trump is a white supremacist. Then
again I much dislike The Guardian since it was taken over by a new
editor - see e.g. here and here - and I find it completely
(insane, extremely unreasonable) that now one cannot even
copy internet links from The Guardian's site.
I think I will remove them
from the list that I daily consult for writing my crisis series:
The leftist Guardian is completely
dead, and has been replaced by a
Guardian of rich wannabe Blairite millionaires, who are only
(for the most part) in their own financial well-being.
Thankless Task of ‘Saving’ Trump
This article is by
Paul R. Pillar on Consortiumnews. It starts as follows:
About the "Optimism"
(about Trump's chances to become a real and qualified president) with
which this article starts, I can be very brief: If you believe that a
man of 71 can change his character, you believe in myths.
Optimism has repeatedly
been expressed, especially after any qualified and respected person has
been appointed to a senior position in the current administration, that
the “adults in the room” will check the excesses and compensate for the
deficiencies of a blatantly unqualified president.
Repeatedly the excesses of Donald Trump have escaped any attempt to
check them. Trump’s fire-and-brimstone threats against North
Korea, which surprised
his foreign policy advisers, are the latest example.
Trump’s emulation of Kim Jong-un’s scary rhetoric played into the hands
of Kim’s regime, whose propaganda emphasizes threats from the United
States, and escalated tensions to the point of shaking global stock
markets. The rhetoric was the sort of thing Trump turns to when he
evidently does not have any better ideas for addressing a problem.
Then again, Paul Pillar doesn't believe in myths. Here is is his
appraisal of Trump:
The reasons the
adults do not have any greater influence in preventing or limiting the
damage Trump inflicts are centered primarily on the qualities of Donald
Trump himself. An insecure narcissist who has used demagoguery to
get where he is today is not a good subject for guidance and restraint
by subordinates. Trump’s lack of self-control, and resistance to
anything that looks like control by others, manifests itself especially
in how much his presidency is defined by after-hours tweets.
Yes. There is
considerably more in the article, that is recommended.
Is Sick': Unscripted and Unhinged Trump Reverts to Defending Neo-Nazis
article is by Jake Johnson on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
After largely sticking
to the script on Monday, President Donald Trump "showed
his true colors" once again at an impromptu press conference
Tuesday at Trump Tower, where he suggested that white supremacists and
counter demonstrators were both to blame for the deadly violence that
broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend, and argued
that torch-wielding neo-Nazis were merely expressing
peaceful disagreement with the planned removal of a statue of
Robert E. Lee.
In what many
observers characterized as an "unhinged"
display for a president, Trump repeatedly assured reporters that he
watched the events that unfolded over the weekend "very closely," and
came away with the conclusion that anti-racist protesters—who Trump
claims "came charging in without a permit"—were "very violent," and
argued that there were many "good people" among the white supremacists
who participated in the so-called "Unite the Right" rally on Saturday.
"I think there's blame on
both sides and I have no doubt about it," Trump said of the violence
that left one woman dead and dozens injured.
There is more in the article, that is recommended.
This article is by Alexander C. Kafka on Chronicle.com.
It starts as follows:
Promethean revealer of the unconscious;
dedicated healer of the neurotic; self-effacing scholar; beloved
husband; brilliant protégé; devoted mentor; endearing literary stylist;
bold cultural explorer.
I agree that Frederick Crews
is an important opponent of Freud, as in fact was Richard Webster
(1950-2011), who is also recommended by this psychologist and
Sigmund Freud may be out
of fashion, but who could dispute his profound contributions to science
Frederick Crews could —
and has, for close to four decades. He has urged a clear-eyed view not
just of psychoanalytic theory but of the integrity, process, and
motivations of Freud the man. Now, 11 years in the works, comes his
capstone biography of the Master, Sigmund Freud: The Making of an
Illusion (Metropolitan Books). It offers, not including notes,
666 pages — what would Freud the occultist make of that? — of
diligently documented ugliness. The prose is brisk — neither
sensationalized nor ranting. The result feels like a scorching
summation for the prosecution.
Also, I should add that I never believed in Freud, which may
have to do with the facts that I am younger than Crews (who started as
a sort of Freudian) and that I bought "Oedipus - Myth and Conflict"
when I was 16, simply because I was interested in what
psychoanalysis/psychiatry had to say about me:
The book was a fair summary of Freudian thinking from 1900-1950
or so, but the theories it propounded struck me as utter nonsense
for the most part (and also quite amazing nonsense in 1966: How
could anyone be convinced of this bullshit?!?!)
this diagnosis stayed the same or got worse after I studied psychology.
That is, I really thought Freud was a fraud 
in 1966, and I still think so over 50 years later - and I am
a psychologist. I am glad that Frederick Crew - at long last, for he is
in his 80ies - published this book, that I did not read, but with which
I probably agree
with for the most part (and I did read essays by Crew, so I know what
he is like).
This article is fair in the sense that it gives considerable space to
Freudians and psycho- analists. I will not discuss their opinions,
except for this bit:
psychoanalysis is so rickety, Harris asks, why do humanists who
discover it in academe so often want to pursue training as therapists?
And why are psychoanalytic institutes in Eastern Europe, China, and
elsewhere so hungry for it?
Because humanists know
rarely much or anything about real science; because nobody
the brain generates human experience; because being a psycho-
is a very easy totally uncontrollable job that pays very
well; and because most human beings are prone to believe all
kinds of mythology,
if they are academics, and especially if they are academics
without much or any idea about science,
philosophy of science or logic
- to name a few reasons.
There is this on the career that the young Freud carved out for himself:
The young Freud
did make a name for himself, it’s true — but as a foolhardy shill for
cocaine’s much wider and more indiscriminate medical application. That
stance came to embarrass him and drive him even harder to seek some
magnificent accomplishment that would eclipse it.
He also takes a lot of
cocaine for a long time (no less than 15 years). And here is
some more on Freud's character:
subsequently that psychoanalysis could be that breakthrough, Freud
elaborates and reshuffles case details when not making them up whole
He is a reckless, greedy,
bullying, inept, and monomaniacal clinician. He fosters some patients’
addictions to morphine, cocaine, or both. He treats symptoms with
possible physiological causes — arthritis, say, or ovarian cysts — as
obvious consequences of hysteria. He bilks rich but hopeless clients
for whom he has no sympathy or coherent treatment plan. He sleeps
through his afternoon sessions, confident nonetheless that he’s
absorbing some psychic gist of his analysands’ complaints.
Yes indeed. There is a
lot more in the article, which is recommended.
Crews’s Freud is also a
backstabbing protégé and colleague — groveling for the attention of the
physician Wilhelm Fliess, for instance, then blurring the record to
suggest that Fliess’s notion of a universal bisexuality was Freud’s own.
He is a tyrannical
husband, belittling and possibly cheating on his wife, Martha. He is a
snob, notably toward Jews of a lower social order than his own. He is a
depressive who self-medicates with cocaine on and off for 15 years,
lofting himself into many of the grandiose flights of sloppy theorizing
that become psychoanalysis.
It will probably not convince you if you are an
academic with little real knowledge of real science, but then you can
read the book by Crew, or papers and books by Webster, that do outline,
in a quite rational fashion also, why Freud
was an irrational fraud.
are links to two articles on psychiatry that I wrote in 2011: On natural
philosophy, philosophy of science, and psychiatry, which lists some of the philosophy and philosophy of
science people should know if they want to judge Freud
rationally (only very few do), and More on Freud and psychiatry that gives further criticism of Freud,
e.g. as given by Thomas Szasz and by Richard Webster.
I have now been saying since the end of 2015 that xs4all.nl is systematically
ruining my site by NOT updating it within a few seconds,
as it did between 1996 and 2015, but by updating it between
two to seven days later, that is, if I am lucky.
They have claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie.
They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.
And they just don't care for my site, my interests, my values or my
ideas. They have behaved now for 1 1/2 years as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I will
from now on suppose they are (for truth is dead in Holland).
The only two reasons I remain with xs4all is that my site has been
there since 1996, and I have no reasons whatsoever to suppose that any
other Dutch provider is any better.
remind you (again) that when I say
"an article is recommended" I mean that I recommend you to read it all
(which you can do by clicking its title).
 That is, he told fairy tales and myths
in order to make (a lot) of money, and he was fundamentally dishonest
and a cheater. It is somewhat interesting that the page on fraud in the
Wikipedia starts as follows: "In
is deliberate deception
to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a
victim of a legal
seems quite right.