from May 19, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Saturday,
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was until 2013:
I have been
writing about the crisis since September
1, 2008 (in Dutch, but
since 2010 in English) and about
the enormous dangers of surveillance (by secret services and
by many rich commercial entities) since June 10, 2013, and I will
continue with it.
moment and since more than two years
problems with the company that is
supposed to take care that my site is visible 
and with my health, but I am still writing a Nederlog every day and
I shall continue.
2. Crisis Files
These are five crisis files
that are all well worth reading:
A. Selections from May 19, 2018:
1. Daniel Ellsberg: Whistleblowing is Needed to Avert
The 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:
War with Iran & North Korea
2. How the Left Can Gain Footing in White America
3. "Alarming": Facebook Teams Up With Think-Tank Funded by
4. You Would Think It Would Be Impossible to Lose Ground to
the GOP—But You'd Be Wrong
5. Gina Haspel and Pinocchio from Rome
Ellsberg: Whistleblowing is Needed to Avert Catastrophic U.S. War with
Iran & North Korea
article is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! It starts with the
Ellsberg is best known for leaking information about U.S. involvement
in the Vietnam War in 1971, but he also drafted plans for nuclear war
as a consultant to the Department of Defense and the White House as
detailed in his book, “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear
War Planner.” He joins us in Santa Cruz to discuss nuclear war, North
and South Korea and Iran. He says Trump withdrawing from the Iran
nuclear deal has “no imaginable benefit to anybody, except for those
mad men who want to see Iran destroyed,” referring to Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia.
Yes indeed - and
incidentally: I like it that Amy Goodman does mention
Ellsberg´s books but does not link to the sick, exploitative
and immoral Amazon. Excellent: If you want books, buy them
at your own local bookstore, and not from sick Amazon.
Here is some from this fine interview:
GOODMAN: That is what I
want to ask you about, Dan Ellsberg. If you see parallels between
Richard Nixon and Donald Trump?
ELLSBERG: Trump is almost
blatantly talking about Nixon’s madman theory, the idea that he, Trump,
as the president, as Nixon pretended to be at least, was unbalanced,
capable of intemperate actions, capable of going to war using nuclear
weapons. The problem of course with the world is that it’s all too easy
to believe that Trump is mad in this case. Kim Jong-un gives a similar
impression. I’m less convinced that Kim is not bluffing on this point.
But I’m increasingly
feeling that President Trump is not bluffing when he appears to be
ready to do the crazy actions of either getting into a war with a
nuclear weapons state, North Korea, or attacking Iran, which would be
another catastrophe. Not nuclear until we use them against Iran’s
underground sites as Vice President Cheney wanted to do in 2006 and was
exposed there I think by a leak by my friend Seymour Hersh, who showed
that the joint chiefs were against that. I think that was a major
factor in that not happening then.
Well... I am a
psychologist, unlike Ellsberg, and I have in fact been saying since March 14, 2016 - over two years
now - that Trump is a madman,
and that besides he has a
neofascistic ideology. Since I know a lot about both
(psychology and fascism), and since there seem to be 70,000
psychologists and psychiatrists who agree on Trump´s madness, that is
what I think.
And no: I heartily
wish it were different, for a rather direct consequence of Trump´s
madness is a major nuclear war that will destroy
Here is Ellsberg on
another madman in Trump´s government:
GOODMAN: What is your
assessment of the national security advisor John Bolton who said in a
Sunday talk show, as the summit was, well, about to get underway in a
few weeks, that he was looking at the Libya option?
ELLSBERG: That is such a
macabre, black humor kind of joke. Of course, a major promoter of the
expensive and difficult nuclear program in North Korea is precisely
that example that Bolton is—he doesn’t want to end with a bayonet in
his back any more than Gadaffi wanted that. And his notion of—his
determination to have some nuclear weapons is precisely to avoid that.
But Bolton of course has made no secret for years that he thought North
Korea should be attacked. And that has extended into the period when
North Korea is a nuclear state. We haven’t made threats against a
nuclear state since the Cuban Missile Crisis, which I participated in,
Here is the last bit that I
quote from this article: Ellsberg on what a major nuclear war will
[W]hat I didn’t realize at the time was how very close we came to
ending human civilization, most human life at that time.
What we already had was a
doomsday machine, a system for destroying every city in Russia and
China with the effect of causing smoke in the stratosphere, lofted into
the stratosphere, that would block out 70% of the sunlight between the
earth, and kill all the harvests. In effect, it would have led to
worldwide starvation, including in this country. Not just an ordinary
famine, but the end of food. That has been really the consequence we
can expect since 1983 when it was discovered that smoke was the most
widespread lethal effect of such a large nuclear attack. So that our
GOODMAN: Known as nuclear
ELLSBERG: …is in effect a
starvation command. We’ve found a way to bring about the death by
famine of virtually all humans.
Quite so. And this is a
strongly recommended article, in which there is
considerably more than
the Left Can Gain Footing in White America
article is by Paul Street on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
Near the end of his life,
the great civil rights and anti-war leader and democratic socialist Martin
Luther King Jr. wrote that the “real issue to be faced” in the
United States was “the radical reconstruction of society itself.” These
words have never been truer than they are today, when the profits
system threatens to end livable ecology in the historical near term.
It will be difficult, if not
impossible, to carry out King’s reconstruction without backing from
millions of white people in what is still very much the world’s most
How might a U.S. left that
mattered—currently nonexistent, thanks in part to its hyper
identity-politicized alienation from everyday white people (not
a new problem)—find a place in white America? How could it do that
without dropping its principled and undebatable opposition to racism,
ethnocentrism and nativism?
I generally like Paul
Street, which is one reason I have reviewed quite a few of his article
since June 10, 2013, but I do not
think this is a good idea. Here is the start of it (and this is all
I quote: there is a lot more text):
I am a white ¨leftist progressive¨ since 55 years or so (and one of the very
few real leftists of my generation of babyboomers, at least in
Holland where I live). And I also am an academic with excellent
degrees in philosophy and psychology and I am one of the -
still - relatively few who studied and got a degree, who came from
a really poor proletarian background. Finally, I strongly
Here, for what it’s worth,
are 12 recommendations for how my fellow leftist progressives might
understand and communicate with “flyover zone” whites in ways that
further our goals without sacrificing our commitment to racial, ethnic
and gender equality and environmental sanity and without pushing
middle-American and noncollege-educated white folks further to the
1. Drop the notion that you/we
don’t need a lot of white allies to advance leftist goals. (...)
2. Avoid blanket statements
about “white people” and “white America.” (...)
3. Avoid saying insulting and
condescending things about nonmetropolitan and working-class whites
4. Academic and other elite
professional-class “progressives:” Please don’t brag about your
advanced degrees, your next book publication, your next sabbatical,
your latest European vacation, your small teaching load, your latest
fine dining experience, your favorite French wines or the fancy and
expensive college or university to which you are sending your children.
8. Stop accusing U.S.
white working-class people of “lacking class consciousness” just
because the multibillionaire Trump did better than multimillionaire
Clinton with noncollege-educated white voters. (...)
First about lying.
What Paul Street appears to be doing in the above (that is much
longer than I quoted) is telling academically educated white
progressives how they should change their ways of talking (and more)
when making contact with non-academical whites.
I think Paul Street is in fact condescending to the
non-academically educated whites; he advises academically educated
whites to be and to talk differently from how they talk and behave
normally; and he is effectively telling them to pretend to
other than they are, in order to make contact with the non-academically
And while I do not think all his recommendations are nonsense,
it is nonsense
to tell academic whites that they should pretend to be other
than they are, and that then they will make contact with
I am sorry: I have been raised for the first twenty years of my life
among real and poor white proletarians (in Holland), and it just
won´t work, also not in Holland where I live, were it only for the
fact that my normal Dutch is not flat enough since 56 years (and I also
do not look like a proletarian, do not dress like one, my hair is still
too long, and my interests are nearly all not those of the
poor, again since 56 years).
Incidentally, while Street does not tell his academically
educated progressive whites that they should dress
and talk like
non-academical whites (¨Do not use more than 10% words that
have more than two syllables!!¨), that is the only way they
might - for a short while - be seen as equals by the non-academical whites.
And second about class consciousness. I think one main reason
for my differences with Paul Street is that I have lost - long
also - the whole Marxist
notion of classes and class consciousness, that is supposed to
unify the workers from diverse countries to unite against their
It doesn´t - as has been shown over a hundred years ago,
in WW I: The socialist workers ought to have united against war, but
instead millions of exploited proletarians volunteered to fight with
their nation against the exploited proletarians of other nations.
Irrational in Politics¨ (by an anarchist and socialist English
academically educated white person) where there are many more
examples of similar irrationalities.
Anyway... there is a lot more in this article, but I think it is both
mistaken and irrrealistic. What you have to do to popularize your
opinions is to speak and write the truth, and to do so
clearly. And if
that doesn´t work, too bad. But you did your best and failed. And you
did not lie.
Facebook Teams Up With Think-Tank Funded by Saudi Arabia
article is by Jake Johnson on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
In a new project
Facebook insists is a completely objective and nonpartisan effort to
root out what it deems "disinformation," the social media giant announced
on Thursday that it is partnering with the Atlantic Council—a prominent
Washington-based think-tank funded by Saudi Arabia, major oil
companies, defense contractors, and Charles Koch—to prevent its
platform from "being abused during elections."
Well... if you believe
anything whatsoever that comes from Zuckerberg or his
are an utter fool. Zuckerberg earned $70 billions in 15 years with
lying and deceiving two billion of the ¨dumb fucks¨
Zuckerberg (his term for those he so gladly and so
professionally and so dishonestly deceives and steals
from; not mine).
Only idiots believe Zuckerberg and the officials of Facebook.
Then there is this:
statement fawned over the Atlantic Council's "stellar reputation,"
critics argued that the organization's reliance on donations from
foreign oil monarchies and American plutocrats puts the lie to the
project's stated mission of shielding the democratic process from
manipulation and abuse.
Yes, of course. Here is the
ending of this article:
Again: of course.
And while the think-tank
insists that it is "non-partisan" despite its overwhelmingly
right-wing, corporate, anti-democratic funding sources, Splinter's
Paul Blest noted
on Thursday that "last week the Atlantic Council gave [former]
President George W. Bush a 'Distinguished International Leadership'
award at an event where Bush was reportedly received with a 'standing
Facebook's new partnership
with the Atlantic Council comes amid growing concerns that the social
media platform's attempt
to establish itself as an arbiter of what news sources are "trustworthy" poses a serious
threat to non-corporate left-wing outlets that don't hew to party lines
or align themselves with dominant media narratives.
Writing for In These
Times last year, Julianne Tveten noted
that, thus far, Facebook's attempts to combat "fake news" through
algorithm changes and other adjustments "haven't stifled propaganda."
"On the contrary, they may
have stifled dissent," Tveten concluded.
And Facebook will never not lie; it
will always try to
you; and the only interests it really
serves are (i) the interests of Zuckerberg and his mega-rich
associates, who make their billions of dollars by lying and
deceiving billions of their members, and (ii) those whose IQs are
too low to write their own html for their own sites, but who want to
publish their - utterly disinteresting, extremely ill-written,
normally massively underinformed - opinions nevertheless
(anonymously, of course).
If you are a
member of Facebook, you very probably are a moron. Besides, you
also are an
extremely immoral idiot, for all your family and
all your friends - and the friends
of your friends - are
also followed by Zuckerberg´s AI so as to exploit not only you but also
them. And they were never asked anything (if not on
This is a recommended article.
Would Think It Would Be Impossible to Lose Ground to Trump and the
GOP—But You'd Be Wrong
article is by John Atcheson on Common Dreams. This starts as follows:
Imagine having the good
fortune to run against a Party which is systematically screwing the
people who voted for it; abandoning science; blatantly lying,
dissembling, and deceiving on just about everything; appointing
lobbyists, cronies and ideologues for the purpose of eviscerating
agencies that enjoy the support of the majority of Americans (after
promising to drain the swamp); and basically navigating on an
irrational, ad hoc basis with no semblance of a strategic plan. Oh, and
toss in a narcissistic, addle-brained thug as its leader.
Now imagine losing ground
in the court of public opinion to these assclowns and risking losing
elections to them.
You’ve just conjured up the
almost unbelievable “accomplishment “of the Democratic Party. For
several weeks Democrats have been slipping in polls, and now they are
virtually dead even with Republicans. Even Trump is getting more
Perhaps Atcheson is
right about the recent polls, but I don´t know. He is right about Trump
and his government, and he is also right that these may win again (in
2018 or in 2020). In case they do, my explanation is the fact that many
Americans are stupid
or extremely ill-educated.
Next, there is this by
To see how stunningly inept
this is, you have to understand just how much Republicans in general
and Trump in particular are doing to hurt their constituents.
I agree, but I´ll leave
the list of his examples to your interests. Here is some by Atcheson on
This list could go on and
on. But the bottom line is, the big three issues as we approach
2018 are health care, gun control, and the economy—in that order—and
Republicans are on the wrong side of all of them. Even the
economy. For all the good news about unemployment, the rate of
job growth was actually higher under Obama, and it has slowed since
Trump took over. In fact, there
were fewer jobs created in Trump's first year in office than at any
time since 2011.
I would have put the
economy first. Here is more by Atcheson on the Democrats:
As I’ve been saying for
years now, it’s simply not enough to be against Trump and the
Republicans. Democrats have to be for something, and that
something is a
progressive agenda if they want to win. Instead, campaigns like
Hillary’s are the preferred strategy for the neoliberal Democrats in
charge of the Party. Heavily scripted; poll-tested; PAC funded; driven
by tactics; vague on values. In short, campaigns that depend upon
painting the other guy to be bad, rather than specifying exactly what
it is you are in favor of.
I agree, and the underlying
reason is that under Clinton, Pelosi and Kain nearly all Democrats
been corrupted by the rich bankers. And since sadist Haspel has
nominated with the help of sadistic Democrats to director of the CIA, I
have given up on all Democrats. (And no, of course I don´t
will make any difference to the Democrats´ chances.)
This is from the ending of
I don´t quite agree with this,
but this is a recommended article.
Bottom line: Republicans
work to shape polls, Democrats are driven by them. The result is a
steady drift to the right, an increasingly divided nation, and
elections that are controlled by a passionate minority that is
motivated by fear, hate, greed, envy, and ignorance, while
historically, those seeking progressive and rational candidates chose
to stay home.
5. Gina Haspel and Pinocchio from Rome
article is by Edward Curtin on The Off-Guardian. It starts as follows:
Being in Rome, Italy
and thinking of Gina Haspel, the CIA nominee and admitted torturer who
says her “moral conscience” has changed after the fact, seems most
Well... I think sick
torturing degenerates like Gina Haspel will lie about anything
whatsoever, and that she can only
be trusted after she has
been tortured by similar professional torturers.
So in the Senate Intelligence
Committee hearing Haspel was asked by Senator Mark Warner, D-VA., the
kind of question that allows a respondent to answer in a deceptive way
that means nothing, but seems profoundly sincere. Warner asked:
If this president asked
you to do something that you find morally objectionable, even if there
is an [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, what will you do? Will you
carry out that order or not?
To which Haspel replied:
From all reports, neither
Warner’s nor Haspel’s nose grew longer (..)
Senator, my moral
conscience is strong. I would not allow the CIA to carry out any
activity that I thought was immoral – even if it was technically legal.
I would absolutely not permit it.
And I am not for torturing her (and I respect the international
laws against torturing people) but I am telling you why I totally
disbelieve anything she says.
Also, I have concluded from the fact that Haspel now is the director of
the CIA, thanks to the support of the Democrats, that the Democrats
under Clinton, Pelosi and Kain are as bad and as rotten as the GOP in
large majority and with very few exceptions like Warren (and
but he is an independent).
Here is more on Haspel:
So the woman who
oversaw detainee torture at a CIA “black site” in Thailand tells us she
has a strong moral conscience, but she doesn’t tell us what that
conscience considers intrinsically evil, if anything. Nor what that
“strong” moral conscience considers moral or immoral in any way, just
that the “CIA must undertake activities that are consistent with
American values,” whatever they might be. And if she were ordered to
carry out an action – let’s say kill a foreign agent or assassinate a
political leader – that was technically illegal but accorded with her
strong moral conscience, would she do so? Don’t ask; she wasn’t.
And if she were asked, I
would not have believed her. Then there is this about the
Then Warner goes and
votes for Haspel, who he says is “among the most experienced people to
be nominated” to head the CIA, and Haspel says she thinks torture –
excuse me, “enhanced interrogation” – doesn’t work anyway. Practicality
wins the day.
All I want to know from
Warner (which he never will tell) is: How much were you paid for your
sadistic vote for the sadist Haspel?
Here is the last bit I quote from this article:
Thinking here in
Rome of the Haspel vote, I am reminded of the ex-CIA Director Allen
Dulles’s and long-time Chief of Counterintelligence James Angleton’s
organized “Ratlines,” the escape routes for Nazi and fascist killers
and torturers, so many of whom were brought to the United States and
other countries after World War II through Italy to help the newly
formed CIA torture the truth out of detainees and assassinate
opponents. Operation Paperclip, they called it.
Yes indeed - and here is a
link to Operation
Paperclip. And this is a recommended article.
have now been
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.
claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie.
They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.
just don't care for my site, my interests, my values or my
ideas. They have behaved now for 2 years
as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I
from now on suppose they are (for truth is dead in Holland).
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 (!!).