who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty
-- Benjamin Franklin
"All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
"Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men
almost always bad men."
1. Germany opens inquiry into
claims NSA tapped Angela
2. Secret terror trial is threat
to open justice, human rights
3. In U.S., 42% Believe
Creationist View of Human Origins
The Way to
Stop Corporate Lawbreaking is to Prosecute
the People Who
Break the Law
6. 5,000 Years of History Shows
that Mass Spying Is Always
Aimed at Crushing Dissent
This is the Nederlog of June
5. It is an ordinary crisis log. Item 7 lists three
things I should have listed before, but forgot. The first two are
health related, but the last is a fine interview by Abby Martin with
Binney and Wiebe about the NSA.
Germany opens inquiry into claims NSA
item is an article by Philip Oltermann on The Guardian:
This starts as follows:
It really is about this, it
prosecutor has defied public expectations by opening an investigation
into the alleged tapping of Angela Merkel's mobile phone by the US's
National Security Agency (NSA).
Federal prosecutor Harald
Range announced on Wednesday: "I informed parliament's legal affairs
committee that I have started a preliminary investigation over tapping
of a mobile phone of the chancellor."
Merkel had complained to
Barack Obama in person about the alleged tapping of her phone last
October, but the federal court's investigation, which will be against
unnamed persons, would constitute the first formal response to the
affair. The German government has reportedly announced its support for
court's decision comes as a surprise, not least since it appeared that
both the German and the US governments had over recent months
successfully calmed the waves stirred up by the revelations.
The key issue for the
prosecution will be to establish whether the NSA monitored the German
chancellor's mobile automatically or by default, as the US government
has so far implied, or whether individual agents were actively engaged
in tapping her calls, as German tabloid Bild claims on Thursday.
The latter would
constitute a clear breach of German law on German soil according to
paragraph section 99 of the German criminal code.
It seems to me that it is much
worse than merely tapping Merkel: 80 million Germans are being
tracked, tapped, traced and "surveilled" by the NSA (or one or more of
its Five Eyes partners) - and see item 7, the last
sub-item, where Binney and Wiebe make that quite clear - and none
of that is legal in German law.
There is also this:
The federal prosecution
has stated that it has currently no plans to look into the alleged
wider surveillance of German citizens through US intelligence services,
a decision which some politicians have been quick to criticise.
Social Democratic party
politician Ralf Stegner told Handelsblatt newspaper: "Orwell's 'All
animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others' can't be
the right motto when dealing with a massive and mass-scale breach of
However, Range stated
that the scope of the investigation could be widened if the federal
prosecutor were to obtain new evidence relating to general surveillance.
Well, Range should look at the Abby Martin interview, with two specialists: I
think he has most of the evidence that he needs. (But it seems
likely that he will ignore it, or indeed "wait for three more Snowdens,
to get some certainty".)
terror trial is threat to open
justice, human rights campaigners warn
item is an article by Sandra Laville on The Guardian:
This starts as
A major criminal trial
involving two men charged with serious terrorism offences could be held
entirely in secret for the first time in modern British legal history.
Lawyers contesting the
decision at the court of appeal on Wednesday said the plan amounted to
"an unprecedented departure from the principles of open justice" and
was "inconsistent with democracy and the rule of law".
Until now it has not even
been possible to report the existence of the forthcoming trial against
the two men, known only as AB and CD. But three appeal court judges
lifted a gagging order allowing reporting of a hearing challenging the
This is - again - the
practice of Nazi-law  as far as I am concerned,
and I completely agree with the lawyers who said this is a departure
from the principles of (open) justice and the rule of law:
There is no
rule of decent law in a completely closed trial, where the
names of the defendants, their crimes, and even the event of their
trial are all closed to the public and the press, and one should Trust
The Goverment that the suspects are "terrorists", so anything may be
done against them (in secret).
There is considerably
more in the article, but it seems rather clear what is being done: The
English government sides with the American government and insists on
its ability to do "justice" the Nazi-style : in secret courts, with unknown
defendants, for undisclosed reasons, where on must "Trust The
Well, I do not
and I also have not been given any evidence that
assures me I should: They're practising as a police state, not because
they are forced to, but because that's what they want.
3. In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of
item is an article by the Gallup company, of the polls:
Yes, you read that right, and
it starts like this:
More than four in
10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their
present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the
past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the
majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process. However,
the percentage who say God was not involved is rising.
Which means that more than 4
out of 10 Americans have a medieval outlook on the world, and
do not admit or believe any science.
This is followed by a
graph, which you can see yourself by consulting the last dotted link,
after which it is said:
There is a lot more in the
article, including four charts, but I think it is justified to conclude
This latest update is
from Gallup's Values and Beliefs survey conducted May 8-11. Gallup
first asked the three-part question about human origins in 1982.
The percentage of the
U.S. population choosing the creationist perspective as closest to
their own view has fluctuated in a narrow range between 40% and 47%
since the question's inception. There is little indication of a
sustained downward trend in the proportion of the U.S. population who
hold a creationist view of human origins. At the same time, the
percentage of Americans who adhere to a strict secularist viewpoint --
that humans evolved over time, with God having no part in this process
-- has doubled since 1999.
not all of them, to be sure. "Merely" at least 4 out of 10.)
item is an article by John Feffer on Common Dreams:
I like the title, but
it seems John Feffer believes in astrology, or if he doesn't he is not
clear about not believing it, and the same applies to the rest of the
article, of which this is a fair selection (but without astrology):
Speak for yourself! I do
not like to be watched, and indeed very few people who
understand politics and computers like to be watched, by
unknown anonymous freaks, or indeed by most people. (And I never
watched Big Brother: I do not even own a TV for nearly 45 years, which
allowed me to read a lot.)
The old metaphor for
surveillance was the Panopticon: the warden, sitting
at the hub of a penitentiary, could see what all the inmates were doing
along the perimeter of the structure. Then came the Big Brother of the
Cold War era: a state apparatus that used informers, propaganda, and
interrogations to infiltrate every crevice of society.
Today’s metaphor is still
Big Brother—but it’s the TV show, not the sinister presence of the
George Orwell novel. In this reality TV show, the public watches what
goes on inside a house fully monitored by surveillance cameras. But
here’s the twist: we are both voyeurs and exhibitionists, for we have
also turned the cameras on ourselves so that the surveillance can be
mutual. We don’t just like to watch, like Chance the gardener in Jerzy
Kosinski’s Being There. We like to be watched as
But then people who understand politcs
are in a minority, and that is just the problem: The majority has a
vote, has a Facebook account, and have strong opinions about everything
they hardly know anything about, and are not afraid to say so at all,
And this does not seem to be an honest article, and it excels at not
having a position.
to Stop Corporate Lawbreaking is to Prosecute the People Who Break the
item is an article by Robert Reich on his site:
This is about the
But who’s really to blame
when a big corporation breaks the law? The government thinks it’s the
I agree with Reich -
but then the goverment's Supreme Court (I think it is the government's,
even though in name the judicial and the executionary power are
supposed to be distinct: everything is getting subordinated to the
opinions of the leaders of the executionary power, Whom One Has To
Trust) has decided that corporations are people.
Actually, I don't quite
agree with this: corporations certainly may do things, and they do do
things, rather in the way you and I may lift and transport a large and
expensive table that none of us could lift and transport alone.
Attorney General Eric
Holder was even more adamant recently when he announced
the guilty plea of giant bank Credit Suisse to criminal charges for
aiding rich Americans avoid paying taxes. “This case shows that no
financial institution, no matter its size or global reach, is above the
Tough words. But they
rest on a bizarre premise. GM didn’t break the law, and Credit Suisse
never acted above it. Corporations don’t do things. People do.
What is utterly and completely false is that our combined
strength that allowed us to lift the table makes a third person, and
what is also utterly
and completely false is that if we lift and transport the table against
the law, neither of us is responsible or accountable for doing so:
instead it is "the corporation" we formed, in order to steal the table.
But this is what the US Supreme Court has decided is the case -
or rather "is" the case, for it is complete bullshit, that
probably was introduced to allow the people who form corporations to
profit, and then blame the corporation, but not themselves, for doing
anything illegal (and get exonerated as blameless, after they have
given 25% of the profits of selling the stolen table to the government).
Reich, of course, knows this, and he ends as follows:
The truth is,
corporations aren’t people — despite what the Supreme Court says.
Corporations don’t break laws; specific people do. In the cases of GM
and Credit Suisse, the evidence points to executives at or near the top.
Conservatives are fond of
talking about personal responsibility. But when it comes to
white-collar crime, I haven’t heard them demand that individuals be
Yet the only way to deter
giant corporations from harming the public is to go after people who
cause the harm.
Yes, indeed: Until human
persons are prosecuted, for all they (and their wives) are
worth and are convicted to long jail sentences for their crimes
of self-enrichment, nothing will change in the behavior of the
corporations: The people running them can do as they please, and when
caught all they need to do is to cough up a part of their profits so as
declared free from guilt.
And that is the law
in the present US.
Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing
This starts as follows,
with the colors and links in the original:
item is an article by Washington's Blog on his site:
There is a whole lot
more under the last dotted link that documents this.
Tyrants Have Always Spied On Their Own People
Spying has been around
since the dawn of civilization.
Keith Laidler – a PhD
anthropologist, Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and a past
member of the Scientific Exploration Society – explains:
Spying and surveillance
are at least as old as civilization itself.
University of Tennessee
history professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius agrees:
intelligence have been around since human beings first began organizing
themselves into distinct societies, cities, states, nations, and
hasn’t been limited to defense against external enemies. As documented below, tyrants
have long spied on their
own people in order to maintain power and control … and crush
item is mostly personal: References I like, but that I forgot to
mention the last days. Here are three of them, with brief explanations.
First, there is this
(since quite a few seem to be reading it, and rightly so):
In fact, this is me
from August 2011. It does outline some of my main reasons, mostly
derived from philosophy of science and - fairly elementary -
mathematics, to insist that the DSM 5 is fraudulent and was intended
to be fraudulent: It really is pseudoscience,
and there really are not over 400 "psychiatric disorders" at
all. (There might be 10 or 20 distinct and empirically distinguishable
disorders, as indeed some professors of psychiatry have recently
argued, but that is it, at least on the basis of the current level of massive
ignorance about the causes and roots of people's real everyday
functioning and experiencing.)
Second, I noted Suzy
Chapman stopped writing and started writing again, and she made a large
contribution some days ago:
This is about "bodily
distress syndrome", which is a polite form of saying "you must be
psychiatrically disturbed if we medics do not know what ails you - and
indeed also if we medics are not sure that we know, and in fact also if
we medics think it is
really a lot cheaper for the government to make you into a nut, rather
than a sick person who deserves help".
I know this is not
for everyone, or indeed for most, but it is well done, and I do not
know anyone who does it better than Suzy Chapman (who is not
responsible for my summaries).
Finally, Abby Martin.
I've said before that she is good, and she is, and indeed at present
she is considerably better than The
Young Turks, that are slowly turning more and more into a sort of
Huffington Post: Very much detail on all manner of weird, sensational
and strange things, that do not interest me at all, coupled with "Get
money out of politics", which I agree with, but not much else.
To be sure, I do not
like everything Abby Martin is doing either, because my teens fell in
the Sixties when there was a lot of good music, while I do not like
most pop music from the Seventies, Eighties etc. (with some rare
exceptions, like Patti Smith), but this may be an age difference.
Here is Abby Martin
with her latest of Breaking The Set: A fine interview with Bill
Binney and Kirk Wiebe, who quite clearly explain why they
think the US is very fast turning into a police state or indeed has
done so already:
I will put up more
Abby Martin references soon: she is certainly not watched enough given
the quality of what she does.
 Here it is necessary to insist, with
Aristotle, that the governors do not
rule, or at least, should not rule: The laws rule, and the
if good, is part of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my
More on stupidity, the rule of law, and Glenn
It is more proper
that law should govern than any one of the
citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the
supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to
be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.
(And I note the whole file I
from is quite pertinent.)
I do know about the Nazis: My father and grandfather were
imprisoned as "political terrorists" in 1941 in German concentration
camps, which my grandfather did not survive.
(that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: