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. We shouldn't expect
Facebook to behave ethically
2. Hillary Clinton on NSA
whistleblower Edward Snowden -
the full interview
3. Ministers push for new
legislation to track phone usage
Angela Merkel says allegations of US spying on Germany
5. Demonstrated: NSA Spies
More on Ordinary Users Than
6. Why Walgreen Shouldn’t Be
Allowed to Influence U.S.
Politics If It Becomes Swiss
7. Report: 9 out 10 Caught in
NSA Dragnet Are 'Ordinary
8. me + M.E.
This is the Nederlog of July
7. It is an ordinary crisis log, but the last item is a brief
update about me+M.E.
We shouldn't expect Facebook to behave ethically
item is an article by John Naughton on The Guardian:
This starts as follows:
Since I have treated
this before - see: July 1, 2014 and also
my On the sham called "Facebook",
from 2011 - I skip the gist (which you can read using the last dotted
link) and turn directly to the lessons one could learn (if one is more
intelligent than the average Facebook - well... fill it in yourselves).
There are two interesting
lessons to be drawn from the row about Facebook's "emotional
contagion" study. The first is what it tells us about Facebook's users.
The second is what it tells us about corporations such as Facebook.
In case you missed it,
here's the gist of the story.
You may not like the last qualification, especially not if you are
amongst the billion of the o so very happy Facebook users, but there are
at least 4 billion stupid people (simply from their IQs) so you should
not be too let down, and I am not one of those (through no
effort of my own, also).
Here is John Naughton on lesson 1:
When the story of
this period comes to be written, one thing that will astonish
historians is the complaisant ease with which billions of apparently
sane people allowed themselves to be monitored and manipulated by
government security agencies and giant corporations. I used to think
that most Facebook users must have some conception of the
extent to which they are being algorithmically managed and the outraged
hoo-ha over this experiment might suggest otherwise. But I suspect that
once the fuss has died down most users will continue to submit to the
company's manipulation of their information flow and emotions. Those
who the gods wish to destroy, they first make naive.
Yes - or they make them
stupid, irresponsible, anonymous, and unaccountable. And totally
egoistic and greedy. And no: the stupidity is
probably in part simply genetical, but the rest is acquired:
they loved their extremely poor education, because it allowed
them to finish schools and universities by the hundreds of millions
they should not even have been admitted to; and they enthusiastically
lapped up corporate propaganda and advertisements, which they also
believe and practice.
And here is John Naughton on lesson 2:
Besides, the idea
that corporations might behave ethically is as absurd as the
proposition that cats should respect the rights of small mammals. Cats
do what cats do: kill other creatures. Corporations do what
corporations do: maximise revenues and shareholder value and stay
within the law. Facebook may be on the extreme end of corporate
sociopathy, but really it's just the exception that proves the rule.
To which I say: Yes and
no. Yes, Facebook stinks, for all they know about morals is how
to pretend; who is on Facebook is stupid, simply because they delivered
their privacy to a corporation which has greed for morals and sells
their data and manipulates their users; but also no in the
sense that in a slightly better run society than the ones
everyone lives in, a corporation like Facebook simply would not exist.
Here, by the way, is lesson 3, that is not in Naughton's article:
If mankind disappears or has to weather enormous falls in their numbers
and their civilization in this century, when temperatures are rising
and very many species are rapidly disappearing, or indeed changes into
a feudalistic economy with several tenthousands of tall handsome
masters and the rest happy smaller ugly serfs, none with an IQ higher
than 100, and all completely docile, this will be for the most
part because the human average is too stupid not to be taken in, and
taken in again, and again.
Almost all of the horrors I see coming (likely, not certain) could
have been stopped, and probably would not have arisen, if the human
average IQ was 30 or more points higher. This would certainly not make
for angels, and may come with many other problems - but at least the
average would not have been taken in so simply, abd by the billions, by
stupid lies and empty promises. (See Edward Bernays "Propaganda", who
created the systematic misdirection of the masses.)
Clinton on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden - the full interview
item is an article by no one on The Guardian:
In fact, the article
introduces a video, and I should say I have seen just 1 m 14 s of 25 m
5 s, for it seemed to me I had fallen into utter hypocrisy, dishonesty
There is something
like a write-up here, but again not the full text, and with a heading
that itself is a subtle lie:
Anyway...it is here
for those who have more patience with professional very rich liars than
push for new legislation to track phone usage
is an article
by Patrick Wintour and Alan Travis on The Guardian:
This starts as follows:
Ministers are poised to
pass emergency laws to require phone companies to log records of phone
calls, texts and internet usage, but Labour and Liberal Democrats
are warning that they will not allow any new law to become a backdoor
route to reinstating a wider "snooper's charter".
Inter-party talks, likely
to bear fruit this week, are being held against the backdrop of an
increased terrorist threat posed by British Muslims being radicalised
by travelling to fight in Syria, and by the continuing controversy over
the revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Downing Street, the Home
Office and the security services feel forced to act as a result of a
European court of justice (ECJ) ruling in April that an EU data
directive, implemented by a Labour government in 2009, was too sweeping
and invaded the privacy of EU citizens.
There is considerably more
in the article, but none of it is very clear. Also, I am not
sympathetic to claims like "against
the backdrop of an increased terrorist threat posed by British Muslims
being radicalised by travelling to fight in Syria": That seems to me just stupid and
But you can read it all
under the last dotted link.
Merkel says allegations of US spying on Germany are 'serious'
item is an article
by Reuters on The Guardian:
This starts as
I suppose the
allegations are true, and I also suppose Merkel has gotten nowhere in
Washington. Both are suppositions, but they have reasonable evidence.
The German chancellor,
Angela Merkel, says allegations that a German man worked as a double
agent for US intelligence are serious.
"If the reports are
correct it would be a serious case," Merkel told a news conference in
Beijing, standing next to the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang.
"If the allegations are
true, it would be for me a clear contradiction as to what I consider to
be trusting cooperation between agencies and partners."
The case risks further
straining ties with Washington, which have been sorely tested by
revelations last year of large-scale snooping on Germany by the US
National Security Agency.
There is some more there, but this will have to wait till later. In any
case, the Declaration on Human Rights
is quite clear on this (see article 12), and - it would seem to
me - the Europeans (apart from the Brits) just can not follow
the American and British spying on everyone's computers and everyone's
phones, not only because this is against the law and against all moral
decency, but also because that way they are bound to loose most of
their trade secrets as well, which is an enormous amount of
NSA Spies More on Ordinary Users Than Legal
item is an article
by Alexander Reed Kelly on Truthdig:
This is a brief article,
that starts as follows:
If you want to read all,
here is the link to the Washington Post:
investigation by The Washington Post of a large cache of intercepted
conversations provided by NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden revealed
that ordinary Internet users, both Americans and non-Americans, “far
outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted
by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks.”
The Post reports:
Nine of 10 account
holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which
former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in full to The Post, were
not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the
agency had cast for somebody else.
Many of them were
Americans. Nearly half of the surveillance files, a strikingly high
proportion, contained names, e-mail addresses or other details that the
NSA marked as belonging to U.S. citizens or residents. NSA analysts
masked, or “minimized,” more than 65,000 such references to protect
Americans’ privacy, but The Post found nearly 900 additional e-mail
addresses, unmasked in the files, that could be strongly linked to U.S.
citizens or U.S.residents.
The surveillance files
highlight a policy dilemma that has been aired only abstractly in
public. There are discoveries of considerable intelligence value in the
intercepted messages — and collateral harm to privacy on a scale that
the Obama administration has not been willing to address.
… Many other files,
described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained, have a
startlingly intimate, even voyeuristic quality. They tell stories of
love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises,
political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and
disappointed hopes. The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders
who were not targeted are catalogued and recorded nevertheless.
That is a long article,
but it is quite good.
Limits of Corporate Citizenship: Why Walgreen Shouldn’t Be Allowed to
Influence U.S. Politics If It Becomes Swiss
item is an article
by Robert Reich, on his site:
This starts as follows:
Well... if you believe
that, you believe in Santa Claus: Of course big corporations
are making their profits as large as possible, and if this means
becoming Swiss (as Walgreen seems to be doing), that is what it takes.
And of course big corporations will keep on spending trying to
influence American politics as long as they depend on it: They're only
"Swiss" (or whatever) to maximize their profits, so as to have more
money to influence American politics.
of big U.S. corporations are considering leaving the United States in
order to reduce their tax bills.
they’ll be leaving the country only on paper. They’ll still do as much
business in the U.S. as they were doing before.
only difference is they’ll no longer be “American,” and won’t have to
pay U.S. taxes on the profits they make.
But if they’re no longer American citizens, they should no longer be
able to spend a penny influencing American politics.
I mean: There are easy legal rules imaginable to prevent this -
e.g. if you are "Swiss", you are not allowed to trade any more in the
US, or only if you pay twice as much as you gain on taxes by turning
"Swiss" - but these will never be accepted by the present Congress.
7. Report: 9 out 10 Caught in NSA Dragnet
item is an article
by Jon Queally on Common Dreams:
is again about the Washington Post article that I linked in item 5, and this is a bit better than the earlier
review. It starts as follows:
by the Washington Post based on materials leaked by NSA
whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals an unprecedented view of how the
private information of millions of "ordinary people" are caught up in
the spy agency's massive surveillance dragnet.
Though the files show how
the targeting of one individual may have ultimately led to his capture
by U.S. agents, "nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of
intercepted conversations," according to the Post, "were not
the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency
had cast for somebody else."
story—written in part by recent Pulitzer Prize-winner Barton Gellman—is
striking for several reasons, one of which is that it shows, for the
first time, that Snowden was able to access specific kinds of agency
surveillance data that government officials have said he could not have
accessed. Second, the leaked communications reveal the shocking level
at which the private information of people who were not targets and
"would not lawfully qualify as such," including untold numbers of
Americans, are collected and then retained in searchable databases by
example: If Rick Perry gets to be the next president of the U.S.?
(I do not consider that likely, myself, but say: if some Christian
faithful Republican gets to be the next president, with an NSA database
filled with millions of data that he will believe to be
evidence of satanic practices? I am just asking, and see no
guarantee this will not happen. And the NSA "collects everything".)
Interviewed for the
article, Snowden himself said: the powerful capabilities of agency
surveillance programs like PRISM and Upstream have “crossed the line of
“Even if one could
conceivably justify the initial, inadvertent interception of baby
pictures and love letters of innocent bystanders,” said Snowden, “their
continued storage in government databases is both troubling and
dangerous. Who knows how that information will be used in the future?”
8. me + M.E.
Finally for today a brief update about my M.E.:
I did get vitamins B and E last Friday and added them to the dosages I
wrote down on June 21, 2014. I added since Friday:
vit B50 : B
Vitamins as follows: B1, B2, B3, B5 and B6 50 mg each; B8 and B12 50 mcg each; and B11 (folic acid, that
I rather avoid) 400 mcg.
(1 or 2 pills each day)
vit E : 400
iE (international units)
(1 pill a day)
Note I added this mainly because I did get good results
with high doses of B and E in the middle eighties: From 1984-1988 my
health was considerably better than before, since I fell ill on
1.1.1979, and the only difference was the large amount of
vitamins I started taking at the end of 1983, especially B and E
vitamins, since I had found these to be effective by chance, in England.
Especially from 1985-1987 I was considerably healthier (though never
fully healthy) and did rather a lot more than before or since. (Also, I
should say I am ca. 6 feet 4 inches: there is more to me than to most
people, even though I am not fat and never was. This may have an
influence on the dosages, though I do not know this.)
Again, I am just reporting. Also, all of the good these pills
did, and a lot more, was completely destroyed by my not being
able to sleep from 1988-1992, because the Amsterdam mayor Ed van Thijn
gave his personal permission to deal illegal drugs from
the house where I lived in - where 26 years later they still
deal in illegal drugs, no doubt with the present mayor's personal
permission - much rather than from his own house, and who refused
all these years to acknowledge even the receipt of my letters (personally
handed to his personal doorman by me).
I do not know how much he profited from helping the drugsmafia
rather than doing his duty, but my guess is that he earned a great lot:
5% of 10 billion euros a year (easily added to the price of the drugs)
= 500 million euros a year. (I do not think he got all of that.
I do not think he was the only one to profit. And I do not
think he was as noble as to get no money. He still can be questioned,
but this is completely useless in Holland.)
Finally, as to vitamins in general : I took them
for 30 years now, off and on, but mosty on because off simply was less
good, statistically; I am 64 but look 44; and if none of them did any
good, which is possible though not likely in my case, then certainly
none of them did any harm either. I merely report, and two of the
reasons I took them is that (1) serious statistical
investigations on myself strongly suggested they helped,
whereas (2) almost no doctor helped in any way with any thing.
Also as a report: I am 36 years ill; my illness is still not
allowed to exist by the dole, not even after 30 years (for I protested
against the mayors, and told them they should not protect illegal
extremely rich drugsdealers: shame on me); I have seen many
tens of medical doctors, and most (but not: all) of them were
incompetent, and almost none of them spent more than 10 or 15 minutes
on me, while none went to see how I lived or had to pass my
days, not in 36 years; I have contributed much more to the
financial health and wealth of medical persons than medical persons
contributed to my health or wealth; and I am a philosopher and
psychologist of 64 who mostly gave up on medicine (except for
well-known well-researched diseases) and who totally gave up on
psychiatry - and the only sincere and great regret I have is that I
will not be able to see how the present medicine and psychiatry will be
viewed 100 or 200 years in the future: surely as very primitive and
very ignorant deceptions committed on a very large scale.
 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.)
 This is motivated by two things: Apart from 2 or 3
doctors (from more than 30) I got no decent medical help of any
kind, not in 36 years now, and neither did my ill ex - but we did get
enormous amounts of utter bilge on the supposed causes of our illness,
all totally uninformed medical bullshit, mostly caused by the inability
of the majority of medical doctors to admit to a patient that they do
not know something; and because I these days read a lot of bullshit
about supple- ments. Well, again: They certainly did not harm me; I
look 20 years younger than I am; I have strong statistical evidence
they do help me; and if I had found serious and intelligent doctors who
would have spend some days with me, and who would have found a cause
and a treatment, I would not need to live in the halfdark and try the
best with supplements. Healthcare is the care that your doctor gets an
excellent income, and it is in a crisis because there as well the big
corporations have taken over.
(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: