from June 23, 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
five crisis files
that are mostly well worth reading:
A. Selections from June 23, 2018:
1. Administration of Hate: The Snatching and Caging of
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:
2. Supreme Court Rules That the U.S. Government Must Get a
Before Accessing Cellphone
3. The Supreme Court Takes On the Police Use of Cellphone
4. Lawsuit Claims Detained Migrant Children Have Been
With Powerful Psychiatric Drugs
5. Imperial President or Emperor With No Clothes?
of Hate: The Snatching and Caging of Immigrant Children.
This article is by
Jeremy Scahill on The Intercept. It starts as follows:
In fact, I can only review one
bit from this long article. There is far too much interesting text to
try to review more in Nederlog. Here is Jeremy Scahill:
All mass crimes in history
start with a justification, a necessity rationalization, a sick form of
nationalism and racism. This week on Intercepted: The Intercept’s Ryan
Devereaux talks about his recent reporting in the border state of
Arizona and paints a harrowing picture of the human toll of family
separations by ICE. Alice Speri lays out her investigation of sexual
abuse by ICE officers and contractors in immigration detention centers.
Sohail Daulatzai discusses his new book, “With Stones in Our Hands:
Writings on Muslims, Racism, and Empire,” and explains why the
film “The Battle of Algiers” is still relevant more than 50
years after its release. The legendary resistance singer Barbara
Dane shares stories from her 91 years on earth fighting militarism,
racism, and economic injustice. Plus, Homeland Security Secretary
Kirstjen Nielsen competes on Jeopardy! and we hear a cover of “The
Partisan” from composers and musicians Leo Heiblum of Mexico and Tenzin
Choegyal of Tibet.
Jeremy Scahill, coming to you from the offices of The Intercept in New
York City, and this is episode 61 of Intercepted.
Since more illegal immigrants are rushing the border, more kids are
being separated from their parents, and temporarily housed in what are
essentially summer camps or as The San Diego Union-Tribune described
them today, as looking like basically boarding schools.
JS: I want
to begin today’s show by reading the testimony of a Red Cross official
who visited a site that was described by the authorities as a “shelter
for the refugee children.” After visiting the site, this Red Cross
official stated the following:
“Not far from the
ambulance, from another barracks, the sad cries of the children were
heard. There was set, on the bare floor, four hundred children:
newborns, children from a few weeks or months, up to ten years of age.
How many children came, and where they were dispatched, could no longer
be found out. The children in the children’s barracks cried inexorably
and were calling their mothers, who were only a few steps away from the
children, but the fascist criminals did not let mothers to approach
Again, this was the Red
Cross official’s description of what was called a “shelter for refugee
children.” But this so-called shelter was not in the U.S.; it was in
fascist Croatia during World War II. In reality, it was not a shelter
for refugee children: It was a concentration camp, known as Sisak, and
run by Ustaše fascists allied with Hitler. It began with 900
children in 1942, most of them Serbs, and eventually there would be
more than 6,600 children that were taken to the camp. Between 1,100 and
1,600 of these children would die there.
The Nazis, too, had
concentration camps for children. And, in at least one case, the Nazis
manufactured a small village in one of its camps, forcing its prisoners
to temporarily convert their hellish gulag into a propaganda site for a
visit from the Red Cross.
I bring this up because of
the mind-boggling press conference on Monday of the Homeland Security
Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen when she was confronted with the audio
obtained and published by ProPublica on Monday.
That is: There is a
close parallelism between the Nazis and Trump's policies on
whom Trump describes as "animals", while Hitler described the Jews as
I think that is
correct, but since I also know a lot about Nazism, I deny it is the
same as the Nazis did, for what they wanted to do, and tried to do,
was the extermination of the whole Jewish "race" (which I deny
But while it is not
same, I agree Trump's policies are both sadistic
and beastly. Here is
more on the lies
of Trump's spokepersons:
I have three remarks on
[Audio clip of children
we hear on this tape are cries of children in detention, desperate,
looking for their parents, promising to behave if they let them see
their parents. It’s gut-wrenching and sickening. But Secretary Nielsen
assured the press that the conditions in these detention centers for
children are actually really good, and she can testify to that because
she’s been there.
KN: We can
now care for them. We have high standards — we give them meals, we give
them education, we give them medical care. There’s videos, there’s TVs,
I visited the detention centers myself.
been a lot of discussions lately about comparing the Trump
administration’s family separation policy to policies of the Nazis,
specifically concentration camps. Some people have objected to such
comparisons, saying that they trivialize the mass extermination that
took place during the Holocaust.
First, Scahill displays an audio clip for the simple reason that there
are no video clips whatsoever of the supposedly almost paradisical
standards Nielsen reported, who also - at least to my knowledge
declined to comment on what it means for a five or
ten year old to be
forcibly separated from their parents by police and to be locked up on
their own, in places that are generally unknown to their parents.
Second, I disbelieve Nielsen. She is speaking for the
grossest liar I
have ever known, Donald Trump, and I think the only way Trump's
speakers can keep up Trump's lies is by repeating his lies. Also, it is
extremely easy to lie for most people, if their pay to
do so is good.
And third, while I agree that Trump's policies are both sadistic and
beastly, I agree with those who objected to some of the
between Trump's policies a the policies of the Nazis, and I do so
because the fates of at least the Jewish children who were
the Nazis was to be gassed, as Hitler desired to exterminate all Jews.
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
I agree - and I think that
the notion that Americans "are
God’s chosen people and everything we do under our manmade laws is
actually divinely blessed and endorsed" is in fact a sick abuse of religion.
You see, history and
context are vitally important. At the same time, the horrors being
meted out by the Trump administration are their own crime. And the
racism, the xenophobia, the labeling of undocumented people as
“vermin,” the lie from Stephen Miller that forced separation is
actually a humanitarian program — all of this deserves to be fought
because it is happening and it is happening now. Yes, the tactics, the
rhetoric, the white supremacy — all of these are rooted in history.
That history includes the Nazis, but it also includes the history of
the United States.
All mass crimes throughout
history start with a justification, a necessity rationalization, a sick
form of nationalism and racism. And also, that notion that we are God’s
chosen people and everything we do under our manmade laws is actually
divinely blessed and endorsed. We do not know what horrors are gonna
come next with this criminal, human rights abusing, child-abuse factory
being run by the Trump administration. But history teaches us that now
is the time to be vigilant, now is the time to fight, to resist, to
stop this before it moves onto its next stage — whatever that may
And I also agree that "[w]e
do not know what horrors are gonna come next with this criminal, human
rights abusing, child-abuse factory being run by the Trump
as I said, Trump has not ordered his police (yet) to shoot or
immigrants (although he has described them as "animals").
There is a whole lot more in this article, that is strongly
Court Rules That the U.S. Government Must Get a Warrant Before
Accessing Cellphone Location Data
This article is by
Alex Emmons on The Intercept. It starts as follows:
In a landmark privacy
decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday that police must get a
warrant in order to obtain your cellphone’s location data over an
extended period of time.
The decision is a major
victory for privacy advocates, who have long argued that the law has
failed to keep pace with the amount of intrusive data we voluntarily
hand over to private companies.
Chief Justice John Roberts
joined the liberal justices on the court, declaring that even though
the data is held by a third party, the government still needs a warrant
to obtain it.
“We decline to grant the
state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical
location information,” said Roberts, writing for the majority. “In
light of the deeply revealing nature of [cell-site location
information], its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the
inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such
information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less
deserving of Fourth Amendment protection.”
I say, and I do so because I
had not expected this (and indeed it was a decision of 5
Then again, this is a more or less reasonable decision, except that it
comes many years too late, and could have been considerably
Here is some on the
background - and since this is an important decision, I review another
article about it below:
When the case was argued
in November, the government’s position was largely based on an old idea
in Fourth Amendment law called the “third-party doctrine.” The Supreme
Court expressed that idea in a famous ruling in
1979 that allowed police to obtain without a warrant a list of phone
numbers dialed by an individual. The theory underlying that decision
was that callers surrender their expectation of privacy when they hand
that information over to a phone company.
But Friday’s ruling
suggests that that opinion doesn’t apply to cellphone location
information, which the court considers more intrusive.
“The Government’s position
fails to contend with the seismic shifts in digital technology that
made possible the tracking of not only Carpenter’s location but also
everyone else’s, not for a short period but for years and years,” wrote
Chief Justice Roberts.
Friday’s decision was made
on narrow grounds, and the court did not examine potential implications
for other technologies, like surveillance cameras, facial-recognition
technology, or other types of phone or internet data. The court also
declined to rule on whether obtaining real-time location data from a
cellphone qualified as a search under the Fourth Amendment, and left
open the possibility that the government could access less than seven
days’ worth of location information without a warrant.
Jake Laperruque, senior
counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, said that the decision
was a massive step forward, but expressed disappointment that the court
did not address the possibility of real-time tracking.
I agree with Laperruque (and
as indicated in the last but one paragraph of this quote, there also
are quite a few other things that the Supreme Court should have
This is a recommended
article, and here is more on the subject:
Supreme Court Takes On the Police Use of Cellphone Records
This article is by
Alex Abdo and Kate Klonick on The New York Times. It starts as follows:
The Supreme Court
has handed down what may be the most important privacy case of the
digital era, ruling on Friday that the government cannot force
cellphone service providers to hand over their users’ locations over
significant periods of time without first getting a warrant. The
decision, United States v. Carpenter, is the latest
in a steady drip of rulings by the Supreme Court over the past two
decades that are gradually defining the Fourth Amendment right to
privacy in a world of ever-evolving technology.
Well... yes and no: I
think the Supreme Court made an important decision, which I
agree with, but I disagree with the supposed "steady drip of rulings by the Supreme Court
over the past two decades that are gradually defining the Fourth
Amendment right to privacy in a world of ever-evolving technology" for the simple reason that
a human right since 1948.
Here is Article 12 from the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of
This right (and
others) that are 70 years old this year has been systematically
by the internet, by the so-called "security" - i.e. the anonymous spies
- for any government, and by Facebook, Google, Apple and Microsoft etc.
who all and systematically interfere with the "privacy, family,
home" and "correspondence" of absolutely everyone with an internet computer.
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon
his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of
the law against such interference or attacks.
Moreover, these systematic attacks on the privacies of
been going on from when the internet started, which I take it
1995 (a little bit later than the actual start).
This means that - e.g. - the American Supreme Court has been walking
FAR behind the facts for
23 years now.
Here is some more:
Yes indeed - and now the
situation is in fact that everyone with an internet computer is
completely open to anyone who has the money or the power to find out
absolutely everything about him or her.
question the case presented was deceptively simple: Can the police
collect your cellphone location data for days on end without a warrant?
A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court said no. But even in reaching what
it characterized as a “narrow” conclusion, the court took a significant
step that will shape the constitutional right to privacy in the modern
the court cut back on the scope and reach of the “third-party doctrine”
— a legal presumption, embraced by the Supreme Court in the 1970s and
’80s, that if you share information with a third party, you have
forfeited your right to privacy regarding that information. It’s the
rationale used to justify the police’s warrantless access to the garbage you place out on the street, to
your call records and to your bank statements.
application of the third-party doctrine has been logically inconsistent
and confusing, and it is particularly ill suited to the digital age.
When the doctrine was created, people generally kept their private
effects — their journals, correspondence and the like — in their sole
possession. It was perhaps understandable, in that world, that the
Supreme Court often conditioned privacy on the secrecy of the
information. It made sense to say that if you want something to remain
private, you shouldn’t share it with others.
But it’s easy to see why that
concept is untenable in modern times, when virtually everything we do
requires sharing sensitive information with third parties.
And I think that is the most frightening fact about our time:
That a few anonymous freaks can and do know absolutely
principle: the information is there, but it may not have been read by
human eyes) in complete detail (including your private thoughts,
correspondence, values, ideas and pornography).
It is the most frightening fact because this means that absolutely
everyone can be completely controlled, known, manipulated, deceived or
- indeed - arrested by a few handfulls of the richest or the most
Claims Detained Migrant Children Have Been Forcibly Injected With
Powerful Psychiatric Drugs
article is by Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh on Democracy Now! It
starts with the following introduction:
have revealed that immigrant children were subdued and incapacitated
with powerful psychiatric drugs at a detention center in South Texas.
Legal filings show that children held at Shiloh Treatment Center in
southern Houston have been “forcibly injected with medications that
make them dizzy, listless, obese and even incapacitated,” according to
reports by Reveal. Meanwhile, according to another Reveal
investigation, taxpayers have paid more than $1.5 billion over the past
four years to companies operating immigration youth facilities despite
facing accusations of rampant sexual and physical abuse. For more, we
speak with the reporter who broke these stories: Aura Bogado. She is an
immigration reporter with Reveal from the Center for Investigative
Reporting. Her latest stories are, “Immigrant children forcibly
injected with drugs, lawsuit claims” and “Migrant children sent to
shelters with histories of abuse allegations.”
I say, although I must
grant that I am not amazed (anymore) by statements like the
The main reasons are that I am academically a philosopher and a
psychologist, who has been ill - like my ex - for nearly forty years
with what was in 2018 described (correctly) as "a serious
chronic disease" but which has been described since - at least
- 1980 as a form of madness ("mental disorder", "mental
illness") by psychiatrists.
This has led me to a fairly serious study of psychiatry. I think it is a
total fraud, especially in the
USA: All I can see in American
psychiatry are lies
and colossal - and succesful! - greed to get rich.
I will not give you my reasons for thinking it is a total fraud
- but see here: DSM-5: Question 1 of
most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" (which I wrote in 2012 and which was much
downloaded, but never answered) - but only mention the
All of the above
points suggest that if you are a psychiatrist you probably are a fraud
quite rich because you can prescribe
expensive psychiatric medicines to
half or three quarters of the total population, all based on
"psychiatric theories" that are often unstated and else often obvious
- Around 1950 you
could be "mad" ("mentally disordered", "mentally ill") in about 50
ways; by 2013 there are now over
450 ways in which
psychiatrists can claim you are "mad" ("mentally disordered", "mentally ill") -
according to the APA's DSM-5 - while absolutely none of them has
any theoretical justification: The DSMs are supposed to go by
observations only, and are free of any theory whatsoever.
- There is only one
"mental disorder" that has at present a medical foundation (of some
sort) and that is Alzheimer's
Disease: ALL other "mental
disorders" are assigned by
psychiatrists without any medical foundations
whatsoever. (See my - long and good -
article on Thomas Szasz from 2012.)
- All of the
DSMs - we are now in number 5 - are private,
treatises compiled by psychiatric members of the APA of whom 70%
positive interest that people get medicalized by psychiatric medicines
(which makes them a whole lot of money, which is the main
interest of almost any pychiatrist).
- And here are -
according to psychiatrists,who have no theoretical foundations
whatsoever in the DSM, and whose theories are nearly all utter
nonsense in my psychologically and philosophically very well-educated
eyes - the number of "mentally disordered" Americans:
are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults
lives with a mental illness (44.7 million in 2016).
- There also are other
psychiatric estimates of other populations. According to one report on
the British, 78% of the Brits are medically ill, according to their
And I think the above is factually correct - except
that there are (or have been) a very few nominal psychiatrists who
were decent (and did not believe in current psychiatry).
One of them was the American
Mickey Nardo, who died in 2017. (The last link is to his site,
which is still well worth reading, at least by psychologists
Back to the article. Here is Aura Bogado:
BOGADO: Hi, Amy. We have
been looking into these migrant shelters for a while, and we have found
over 100 allegations, investigation violations, crimes, for which
people were sent to prison and other kinds of examples in which some
pretty serious stuff happened. Sometimes it has to do with the forcible
injection of heavy psychotropic drugs on sometimes pretty young
children, sexual assault allegations, solicitation of child pornography
for which someone is currently serving, I believe, a 10-year sentence.
Some pretty horrific stuff.
SHAIKH: And could you
describe, Aura, what the effects—you learned about what the effects
have been of some of these psychotropic drugs that children have been
forcibly injected with?
GOODMAN: And who gets to
choose that they are being injected? What do they know about their
BOGADO: Yeah. What happens
is that children go to a first shelter, and sometimes they are stepped
up. That is the term that the government uses, is they’re “stepped up”
in terms of if they see a behavior that they don’t like in children,
they can be referred to a psychiatrist who then independently makes a
psychiatrists are generally - with a very few exceptions - medical
who are much more interested in the
money they can get for
themselves by prescribing "psychiatric medicines" to people than they
are interested in the rights or persons of those they prescribe to.
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
As far I can see the
answer is that there is no scrutiny, or extremely little. And
seems as if many children are sent somewhere without their
being told anything about where they were sent to. And this is a
strongly recommended article.
GOODMAN: And finally, Aura
Bogado, you have been reporting on this for a while, before “zero
tolerance” policy was put into effect six weeks ago and then Trump has
reversed it with an executive order. People don’t even understand why
he needed an executive order to do this. But when you talk about sexual
abuse, kids being injected with drugs, being sent to psychiatrists to
ask what their problem is when they are just asking for their parents,
to be reunited with her parents, and then when they are upset, being
injected or being given pills, the number of people they need to staff
these places now, with the influx of children they are imprisoning, and
families, will make them even more vulnerable. Is that not right? What
level of scrutiny does any person who is hired get right now as these
centers try to desperately staff up for thousands more people?
President or Emperor With No Clothes?
is by Nomi Prins on Common Dreams and originally on TomDispatch. It
starts as follows:
To answer the last
Leaders are routinely
confronted with philosophical dilemmas. Here’s a classic one for our
Trumptopian times: If you make enemies out of your friends and friends
out of your enemies, where does that leave you?
What does winning (or
losing) really look like? Is a world in which walls of every sort
encircle America’s borders a goal worth seeking? And what would be left
in a future fragmented international economic system marked by
tit-for-tat tariffs, travel restrictions, and hyper-nationalism?
Ultimately, how will such a world affect regular people?
Let’s cut through all of this
for the moment and ask one crucial question about our present
cult-of-personality era in American politics: Other than accumulating
more wealth and influence for himself, his
children, and the Trump
family empire, what’s Donald J. Trump’s end game as president?
I think Prins is quite right in suggesting that Trump's first
end is to accumulate "more
wealth and influence for himself, his
children, and the Trump
family empire", for he
is very clearly doing that.
And I also think that Trump - like everybody else - has an ideology
(check my definition, if you never did!) and that his ideology is quite
well described as neofascism
(again: check my definition if you never did!).
I certainly do not think Trump will call his ideology
I think it would be quite difficult for him to even state it clearly
(for my definition covers eleven points, which I think is too much for
Trump to remember), but this does not mean he is not - mostly -
For this is how I defined neofascism (before knowing of Trump,
candidacy or his presidency):
Neofascism is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with a centralized powerful authority, where
the opposition is propagandized and suppressed or censored, that
propounds an ethics which has profit as
its main norm, and that has a politics that is rightwing, nationalistic, pro-capitalist,
anti-liberal, anti-equality, and anti-leftist,
and that has a corporative
organization of the economy in which multi-national corporations are
stronger than a national government or state, b. A political philosophy or
movement based on or advocating such a social system.
And I think it is fairly
to very clear that each of the ends of neofascism is an
end of Donald
Trump, also if he or you does not know that.
Here is more from Nomi Prins, and it is about Trump's tariffs:
In the past four
months, Trump has imposed tariffs, exempting certain countries, only to
re-impose them at his whim. If trust were a coveted commodity, when it
came to the present White House, it would now be trading at zero. His
supporters undoubtedly see this approach as the fulfillment of his many
campaign promises and part of his classic
method of keeping both friends and enemies guessing until he’s
ready to go in for the kill. At the heart of this approach, however,
lies a certain global madness, for he now is sparking a set of trade
wars that could, in the end, cost
millions of American jobs.
I agree, although I do not
think this worries Trump one bit: If you are not a member of Trump's
family, and if you also are not rich yourself, he only cares about you
but not really - as is indicated by his attempting
to take even food money from the poorest Americans, to pay for
riches he gave to the few richest.
And here is Prins on American national security:
incipient trade war was actually launched by the Trump administration
in March in the name of American “national
security.” What should have been highlighted,however, was the
possible “national insecurity” in which it placed the country’s (and
the world’s) future. After all, a similar isolationist stance in the
1920s and the subsequent market crash of 1929 sparked the global Great
the way for the utter devastation of World War II.
I agree, and there is a
whole lot more in the article, that is strongly recommended.
 I have
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 (!!).