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. Japan PM to overturn
pacifist defence policy
2. Hillary’s Hardest Choice
(and the Democrat’s Dilemma)
3. Stand Against Spying
4. Why Do We Hate the Poor?
Top NSA Officials: U.S. Has Turned Into Stasi Germany or
6. We are the Ninety Nine
This is the Nederlog of June
30. It is an ordinary crisis log.
There are five crisis items, plus a sixth on the ongoing corruption of
medicine (that has been taken over by Big Pharma, even as regards the
publication of adverse events following the taking of drugs Big Pharma
to overturn pacifist defence
item is an article by Justin McCurry on The Guardian:
This starts as follows:
I first should say that
I tend to have much less information in Nederlog about countries
that have languages that I do not speak at all, and Japan, China and
Russia are prominent on that list.
Japan's prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is to
defy public opinion and announce a dramatic shift in the country's
defence policy that would make it easier for its troops to fight in
Abe's cabinet is expected
to adopt a resolution on Tuesday that would end Japan's long-standing
ban on exercising collective self-defence, or coming to the aid of an
ally under attack even if Japan itself is not threatened.
constitution prohibits the use of force to settle international
disputes – a restriction Abe and his supporters say inhibits the
country's ability to protect itself and its allies, despite growing
fears over North Korea's nuclear programme and China's aggressive
territorial claims in the region.
A poll published on
Monday found that half of voters oppose Abe's reinterpretation of the
pacifist constitution, which has prevented Japanese forces from
fighting overseas since the end of the second world war. The Nikkei
business newspaper found that 50% of voters were against overturning
the ban on collective self-defence, while 34% supported the change.
This is also pretty conscious with me, and is related to the fact that
I simply cannot follow any of the ordinary press in these
countries: everything that I can know has to be translated first, and
in fact very little does get translated. (O, and no: Google translate
still is much too bad to work decently, and besides I like to
avoid Google as much as I can. And yes, I can read most of the European
languages: I read Dutch, English, German, French, Norwegian, Danish and
Swedish all quite easily.)
But I will comment on important decisions, at least if these fit in
with my subject (which is usually the crisis), and this is such a
I think it is thoroughly bad, as it will make it a lot easier
for the Japanese to make war on other nations, and I also think it is thoroughly
stupid, although indeed this was to be expected, once the
Abe-government was in place (in so far as I have followed that, which
is a little, but not much, again because I cannot read Japanese at all).
Finally, why it is thoroughly stupid: Mostly because their main
neighbor is China, which is a much bigger and therefore much
stronger country: Until now, the Japanese were taken to be peaceful;
from now on they will not be taken to be peaceful anymore, which simply
is a very stupid gamble while one has such a very large, very strong
neighbor, that also is not very friendly. (Please note that I am not
speaking of who is right: I am speaking about who is stronger, and
therefore very probably will win a war.)
Hardest Choice (and the
item is an article by Robert Reich on his site:
Let me first state
that I do not favor Hillary Clinton, basically because I expect
her to be another Barack Obama: More or less liberal or progressive talk,
that only serves to mask the many anti-liberal, anti-progressive,
And this is not to
deny that she probably will be better than her eventual Republican
opponent, but it is to say that the choice - if that is what the case
will be - will be a choice between the awful and the bad, and
that in any case the rich will profit, though perhaps slightly
less under a Democratic president.
It seems Robert Reich
thinks a bit differently, which also is the probable reason he selected
his subject, for he opens as follows:
What’s the reason for the
tempest in the teapot of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s personal finances?
Reich pretends (or
maybe: assumes) that this "tempest
in the teapot" is somehow
rational, which it definitely is not, and discounts attacks on
the Clinton's wealth (more than a 100 million dollars, currently, which
Reich doesn't mention) and on Hillary Clinton's veracity.
Since I do not think
the US media are rational, I am doubtful, but I will pass this, because
I agree with where Reich arrives (though not with his arguments):
Then what’s it about?
The story behind story is
that America is in an era of sharply rising inequality, with a few at
the top doing fabulously well but most Americans on a downward economic
I do think that was
part of the reason Hillary Clinton was asked about her riches. Also, I
agree with Reich on this:
These days, voters want
to know which side candidates are on because they believe the game is
rigged against them.
According to new Pew survey,
62 percent of Americans now think economic system unfairly favors the
powerful, and 78 percent think too much power is concentrated in too
few companies. Even 69 percent of young conservative-leaning voters
agree the system favors the powerful.
I even agree with him
on the thesis that this will be the real subject of the coming
presidential elections, which may be whittled down to one issue: Are
you for the powerful rich who ruined the economy, and who keep
profiting, or are you for a capitalist US where there is a sizable and
well off middle class - which means taxing the rich much more than they
But I do not think
Hillary Clinton should run for president, and my main reason is that
both she and her husband are clearly and evidently supporters of the
powerful and the rich, and they talk very differently to the
public from how they decide in the privacy of the oval room (in
which Bill signed away the forty years of protection against financial
abuse by the big banks, which prepared the way for the crisis we live
Finally: this is quite
different with persons like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren,
although indeed I agree that it is more doubtful they may win the
elections. But at least they are credible candidates - if
indeed they want to be, which I do not know.
3. Stand Against Spying
item is an article by Anonymous on Stand Against Spying:
I owe this reference
to an article on Common Dreams. The Stand Against Spying organization
consist of many groups, and says about themselves:
We are a coalition of
organizations from across the political spectrum joining forces to
fight mass surveillance by the National Security Agency.
We have different
missions, different goals, different communities that we represent.
However, we all agree that mass surveillance is contrary to freedom and
democracy. It must be stopped.
Surveillance that sweeps
up the communications of millions of people violates the US
Constitution and international law. And collecting records of our
communications--whether telephone or Internet communications--paints an
intimate portrait of our lives. These types of surveillance trample
privacy and chill freedom of speech.
We stand for civil
liberties and government transparency, and we're committed to ending
I agree. They also
We believe that democracy
and freedom thrive when Constitutional values and human rights are
upheld. We believe all people, regardless of nationality, have a basic
right to privacy and freedom of association.
While governments can and
do engage in surveillance of specific targets, technological advances
have enabled the mass surveillance of everyone using communications
technology. But just because it is technically possible does not mean
it should be done. Strong laws and policies must put clear limits on
the NSA’s surveillance powers to bring it into alignment with both the
US Constitution and international law.
We are calling on the
United States government to:
legislative reform to outlaw mass surveillance, including phone record
surveillance and Internet surveillance. This must include a recognition
of the privacy rights of non-US citizens.
Reform the FISA
court, the secret court that signs off on the NSA’s secret
surveillance. FISA court reform includes transparency into any
significant or new legal interpretations made by court and ensuring a
well-resourced public advocate is in place to argue for privacy rights
within the court and seek further review.
Prohibit the NSA from
undermining international encryption technologies and standards and
hacking into technology companies.
publish transparency reports, and also give companies rights to publish
granular accounts about how companies cooperate with bulk surveillance
efforts and the number of user accounts that are affected.
Again, I agree. Since
I am not an American and am ill, all I can do is list it here, and hope
something good will come from the organization.
Why Do We
Hate the Poor?
item is an article
by Kim Redigan on Common Dreams:
grammatical point: I like the article, and I am poor, and have been so
poor all my life that I never even earned a minimum income in any
year of my life. (I am ill since 36 years.) But I do not hate
myself nor do I hate or discriminate poor people, and I dislike the
term "we" in contexts like this, mostly because I also am an M.A. in
psychology and a B.A. in philosophy, which taught me a lot about logic, and this
choice of terms seems the wrong way of generalizing.
But here are the beginning of this article, which I do like, that is,
apart from my grammatical remark:
Today, families in
Detroit, living under an emergency manager imposed by a governor
committed to privatizing every inch of the state, are having their
water shut off. A few days ago, the United Nations, at the behest
of local activists, issued a statement on the shutoffs.
And this is the end:
This is what it’s come to
– appealing to an international body to uphold the basic
human right to water.
No, "we" do not hate the
poor for that reason. The reason "we" hate the poor consists of two
parts: (1) "we" - who hate the poor, even though "we" ourselves have no
degrees, and are hardly richer than the poor, for the most part - are
often quite stupid, often quite immoral, and therefore often quite
unfair, both to those worse of than "ourselves" (whom "we" despise and
discriminate) and to those better of than "ourselves" (whom "we"
flatter, envy and look up to), and "we" are quite unfair because (2) "we" - who hate the poor, even though
"we" ourselves have no degrees, and are hardly richer than the poor,
for the most part - have swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the
sickening propaganda of the rich, mostly because "we" want what the
rich have, and "we"
because "we" believe the lies that "we" all can get rich (even though
that is logically impossible, and very few of "our" kind will ever get
to be much better).
Today, those with money
gather before fountains that splay bursts of blue water against the
skyline of a city that is turning off the water of its citizens. When
asked about the shutoffs, they stir their iced drinks and use words
like “responsibility” and “laziness” and recite racist tropes
about Bridge cards and steaks.
Their words are parroted
by those hanging on to their own jobs, homes, and water by a tenuous
thread. By those who deny their own precariousness by projecting
hatred onto those who languish only a deck below on this sinking ship.
Today, we’ve reached the
point where a child with an empty cup is an object of contempt.
Why do we hate the
Perhaps we hate the poor
because they are the prophets of a future that awaits us all. A future
of water shutoffs for the many and splaying fountains for the few.
I think that is the explanation:
In part it is due to propaganda/"public
relations", which is massive and enormous and is absolutely
everywhere , and in part is due to the fact that
this propaganda mostly succeeded, which it did
because at least half of the people it is addressed to have IQs of 100
or lower, and are not only stupid but have been propagandized
into thinking and behaving as immoral and egoistic twerps.
NSA Officials: U.S. Has Turned Into Stasi Germany or
item is an article
by Washington's Blog on his site:
starts as follows (coloring and links in the original):
What the Heck Happened to America?
Senior NSA executive
Thomas Drake is an expert on spying in Stasi Germany … having studied
it for years.
Washington’s Blog that the U.S. has adopted the Stasi model:
“Collect it all, know
it all” [the NSA's model] is actually the Stasi model. It’s
not just know everything; we have to be able to keep
everything that we want to know, even if we don’t know it yet.
It’s a collect it all
first mentality … and then we’ll get to know it all. I call
it “feeding the beast”.
I keep shuddering
because I’m intimately familiar with the East German
surveillance state mentality.
Quite so - and "Power tends to
corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" as Lord Acton said,
and now the NSA collects all and knows all.
There also is this:
And it ends like this:
Senior NSA official Bill
Binney – the senior technical director within the agency who headed
NSA’s global digital data gathering program and managed thousands of
NSA employees – is an expert on Soviet spying.
Binney spent decades
studying – and trying to counter – the repressive Soviet program of
that – after 9/11 – America implemented the same type of system
used by the Soviets and other authoritarian regimes:
You’ve got the NSA
doing all this collecting of material on all of its citizens – that’s
what the SS, the Gestapo, the Stasi, the KGB, and the NKVD did.
whistleblowers and dissidents are treated
as ruthlessly as in the Soviet Union.
When bad government
policy leads to bad results, the U.S. government does what the Soviets
The Soviets had Pravda …
similarly, propaganda is now being used within the U.S. The U.S. government
pumps out massive amounts of propaganda through the mainstream
and “gatekeeper” alternative media, movies,
games, and other venues.
And the American economy
has gone from capitalism to socialism
… at least for the fatcats.
Answer: The ideals have
been thrown out of the window and have been replaced by propaganda, from and for the rich and the
powerful, who have mostly succeeded in convincing the lower
half of the intelligence spectrum of the utter impossibility that they
too can be rich, namely by adopting the talking points and attitudes of
What the heck happened to
I do not think that is all of the answer, but it certainly is a
considerable part of the answer - and indeed there is an enormous
amount of propaganda , that almost
nobody seems to see, and almost nobody protests against, but that has
thoroughly poisoned, falsified and upset nearly all good will,
benevolence, solidarity and personal decency, and which succeeded
simply by repeating and repeating the stupid lie that everyone is a
consumer out on his own, for his own private benefit, and needs not
waste any feeling or money on the poor.
are the Ninety Nine Percent
item is an article
David Healy on his site, and is a follow up to a series of four
articles, some of which have been referred to in Nederlog, mostly
because I know a fair amount about modern medicine (which I no longer
can take serious) while David Healy knows a whole lot about it, and it
has definitely gone wrong, and also has been going wrong for at least
35 years now:
This is -
one of - Dr. Healy's reflection(s) on his RxISK project, that seeks to
find real and realistic information from both doctors
and patients about the risks that are associated with taking medical
drugs (which tend to be denied by the pharmaceutical companies, for
utterly false reasons).
I like the idea, but it is also true that I am a psychologist and a
philosopher who has now for 36 years tried to find help because
I am genuinely ill, but could not find it since 1993 - apart
from some rare and good GPs - because the bureaucrats in my
country rather follow the psychiatrists, who say M.E. is a form of
insanity ("mental disorder"), all without any real evidence,
but which indeed is a whole lot cheaper for the state, that
tends to be very willing to not help genuinely ill people,
simply to have more money for other ends, such as increasing the
incomes or pensions of top bureaucrats, whose interests are very close
to the hearts of Dutch politicians, rather than the real
disease that real doctors and the World Health
Organization insist M.E. is, for they
identify my disease as both serious and dangerous, and are quite right.
You can estimate how good I think medicine is in my country, when you
realize that I have now for 35 years protested against my
maltreatment, in many very well written and very informed letters and
mails, and hardly ever got as much as a reply - and yes, I also have
had several good GPs, to whom I owe a lot, but they too are seriously
limited in what they can do, given that the bureaucrats + psychiatrists
sold out to the rich and powerful, which is in Holland the state and
 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.)
Very probably most of my readers do not properly see that
elephant in their rooms, but every advertisement is an act of
propaganda that consists of willful lies and deceptions, and
advertisements are everywhere: in the streets, in the papers, and on
the media, and it is quite likely that the less intelligent read more
advertisement propaganda than anything else. And here I have
not even mentioned that most of the news, both in the media and in the
written press, also consists of selective propaganda, that is presented
so as to convince, and generally also consists of lies, deceptions,
ommissions, and/or warped facts.
 The only "argument" psychiatrists
have is that M.E. is not understood medically, that is: while it is agreed
there are lots of things medically wrong with genuine patients, there
is no good explanation for it. After that, the psychiatrists move in,
who - quite literally! - assure everyone that (1) "psychiatry can
explain what is medically not explained" (?!?!), namely by (2)
"everyone who has a disease that is not medically explained, in fact
has a mental disorder" (?!?!). The quotes are literal, and it
should also be said that this completely stops the growth of medicine
(fixing it at its present level of ignorance) while it gives
psychiatrists enormous powers, that they consistently abuse.
(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: