Previous IndexNL Next

Nov 12, 2011      `

Crisis:  The legal corruption in the US and Europe

prev crisis-economie Next

I do not know whether I want to continue Nederlog as it has been the last two years: Mostly in English; mostly about ME; often with long texts.

It is likely I return to something like the earlier format, though not quite: Both in English and in Dutch; not mostly about ME; and with shorter texts, on average.

We'll see, and today is an example of the new plan: A brief entry in English, relating to the economical crisis that has been festering on since 2008, essentially because the - intellectually or morally- wrong types of folks are politicians and bureaucrats: Folks who are in politics or government for their own profit or that of their backers, and who just will not hurt their very own kind, which is for most of them the kind that produces bank-managers, mafiosi and pimps, much rather than mathematicians, surgeons or philosophers.

Not convinced? Here is a recent bit from The Young Turks:

- Legalized Corruption of Government Exposed by Abramoff

Let me explain what it's about and who is Jack Abramoff. Abramoff is a former lobbyist, that is, somebody who got paid to get some form of infuence with US parliamentarians, of which there are 535 in all in both Houses, who nominally make, pass, amend and withdraw the laws of the United States. He got arrested and spent some time in jail, which is, I suppose, the reason that he gave the interview linked above and quoted below.

Here is how he did it - and mind you: This is not about the illegal part of his job he got arrested for, at least not under the existing US laws. It is about the currently quite legal way to control the US government if you are rich enough:

Abramoff: "When we would become friendly with an officer who was important to us and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say, or my staff would say to him or her, at some point, 'You know, when you're done working on the hill, we'd very much like you to consider coming to work for us.' Now the moment I said that to him, or any of our staff said that to him, that was it: We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request from our clients, everything that we want, they're gonna do. And not only that: The're gonna think of things we can't think of to do."

Tit for tat. It may be safely assumed that this must be and have been by far the strongest motive for most present Senators and Congressmen to want to become a Senator and Congressman: To be able to get rich by helping lobbyists, namely by writing the laws the lobbyist pay for, or voting for such lobbyist-crafted laws.

Is it corruption?

Abramoff: "First, I don't think most Congressman feel they are being bought. Most Congressmen, I think, can in their own mind justify the system. And by the way, we wanted as lobbyists for them to feel that way."

Of course: If it brings in lots of money, and almost everyone of your colleagues is receiving lots of money from lobbyists, in Yossarian's words from Catch 22: "If everybody does it" - or indeed if the majority of these democratically elected representatives of We The People does it - "you must be mad no to do it too!"

Clearly, this is very probably the point of view of most US Senators and Congressmen, for if the majority had wanted to prevent lobbyists from buying them, they could have outlawed it. Long ago, also.

Does this new implementation of parliamentarian democracy work?

Interviewer: "How many Congressional officers did you actually own?"

JA: "Ha, ha... we probably had very strong influence in a hundred officers."

Interviewer: "Hahh! Come on..."

JA: "No."

Interviewer: "A hundred officers..."

JA: "In those days I would have seen that as a failure. Because that leaves 335 officers that we didn't have strong influence on."

Abramoff is just one of many (former) lobbyists. If he is to be believed, which in view of the crazy laws that pass the House and the Senate is a quite credible, the US parliamentarian democratic system is functionally dead: The chosen representatives of the people do not represent the people, nor do they legislate for the people - they represent the rich corporations who lobby them, and legislate for them.

How is it done? Here is a last bit, because it also is practised elsewhere:

Abramoff: "So what we did was that we crafted language that was so obscure, so confusing, so uninformative, but so precise, to change the US government."

This is also how the APA tries to push through its DSM-5, which it probably does, in the way it does this, because most of its editors are bought by pharmaceutical corporations: Billions can be made by pharmaceutical companies if and when all manner of psychic ailments are invented they can provide drugs for, that the psychiatrists can then get a share from by prescribing them - everybody wins, except the patients it was supposed to be for: They get screwed, by their kind shrinks, for money.

The same with their parliamentary representatives: Billions can be made by any manner of companies if and when they can buy the lawmakers to write laws that make them profit, that the lawmakers then get a share from for writing them - everybody wins, except the people whose rights the parliamentary system was supposed to defend: They get screwed, by their nice parliamentarians, for money.

What did I skip in sketching the process? Only one thing, you also can find in the interview I linked (6 min 33 secs):

The basic idea is that the lobbyists can make the laws that decide the rules by which one is allowed to play - whether these are the laws of the land, or the book of diagnoses that has the rules to declare this or that insane. And the basic fact is that all you need to corrupt (sorry: buy, own) are a few of the top people that submit the laws or the rules. The rest then will follow, for these are the rules, and all that needs to be done to get them to be rules that favour you is to get the money to buy the few who submit the rules to keep them submitting and resubmitting in the way you want them, if necessarily in a thoroughly confused and confusing way, in a highly crafted obfuscated "English".

I think it is just the same in Europe, and certainly in Holland, where I would be very much amazed if I learned that it is not true that vast amounts of money have been spent on all the leading parliamentarians and ministers and secretaries of all the major parties in Holland, and if it is not true these vast amounts do come from the US, and specifically from the same sources that fund the GOP.

My main reason is that, in an otherwise unaccountably utterly insane way, very much of the legislation introduced the last 10 years in Holland is like that in the US, including the legislation that murdered the good health-insurance laws that there once were, that now are gone, and replaced by a system much like that in the US, that does not exist to help ill people, but to enrich doctors and drugs-companies, and all in the name of the all-beneficent goodness that the free marketforces - "God's hidden hand" - are to bring all, if you believe the corrupt parliamentarian purveyors of this sick and corrupt rot.

Also, the financing of the Dutch political parties and parliamentarians, apart from what they grab from the taxes, is most mysterious.

But I agree this is no strict proof - but then, in a system where a few great bastards can become incredibly rich by corruptly screwing everyone, and where the same bastards, or else their good friends or family, also own or control large parts of the media, how can one fairly find the means to prove what is a very fair and rational guess on the evidence one has?

Anyway... more on this theme later, but then it is what I started the series on the economical crisis with three years ago: About the sickness of the modern corporations, and their incredible power everywhere.

crisis-economie next

P.S. Corrections, if any are necessary, have to be made later.


As to ME/CFS (that I prefer to call ME):

1.  Anthony Komaroff Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS (pdf)
3.  Hillary Johnson The Why
4.  Consensus of M.D.s Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf)
5.  Eleanor Stein Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)
6.  William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
7.  Paul Lutus

Is Psychology a Science?

8.  Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
 Maarten Maartensz
ME in Amsterdam - surviving in Amsterdam with ME (Dutch)
 Maarten Maartensz Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Short descriptions of the above:                

1. Ten reasons why ME/CFS is a real disease by a professor of medicine of Harvard.
2. Long essay by a professor emeritus of medical chemistry about maltreatment of ME.
3. Explanation of what's happening around ME by an investigative journalist.
4. Report to Canadian Government on ME, by many medical experts.
5. Advice to psychiatrist by a psychiatrist who understands ME is an organic disease
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter of one's beliefs:

7. A space- and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.
8. Malcolm Hooper puts things together status 2010.
9. I tell my story of surviving (so far) in Amsterdam/ with ME.
10. The directory on my site about ME.

See also: ME -Documentation and ME - Resources
The last has many files, all on my site to keep them accessible.

        home - index - top - mail