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."
Rulebook For Labeling You a
2. The Palestinians’ Right
3. CDC Head: Age of Antibiotic Resistance Is
Much More Likely to Be Killed By
... Than By
5. Paying the Price for
British Spies Controlling the Past, Present and Future |
Interview with Annie Machon
This is the Nederlog of
July 24. It is a crisis log.
The first four items are regular crisis items, by which I mean that
they have been added to the internet the last few days. (I surely do
not get everything, but I do check some 40 sites each day. This also is
about as much as I can do: It takes between 1 and 2 hours, and that is
my present limit.)
These are a piece by The Intercept; one by Chris Hedges; one on the
decline of antibiotic resistance (which is here because it may kill very
many); and one on the likelihood of getting killed by A Terrorist,
which turns out to be negligible in the last 13 years of rampant
"terrorism": See item 4.
The other two pieces are from sites I discovered the last four months
or so: One is an older article by Raging
Bull-Shit, which I put up here because I like it; and the other a
recent interview with Annie Machon on Abby Martin's
site (Machon has been mentioned before in Nederlog: Ex-Cambridge,
ex-MI-5, rather smart).
The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist
item is an article by Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux on The
This starts as follows:
I say. To start with, I
refer you to item 4, that gives the empirical frequencies of your being
killed by "a terrrorist". These are almost negligible since 9/11. This
is also not due to the persistent efforts of the Bush and Obama
administrations, but to the fact that there simply are not many real
The Obama administration
has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist
system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete
facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner
as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The
The “March 2013
Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document
issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out
the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main
terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list,
which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The
new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of
terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected
to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the
unilateral authority to place “entire categories” of people the
government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens
the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the
watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary
information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.
It is true there are some; it is also true that they may do
considerable harm; but the real problem is not with political
terrorists who do not belong to a government: the real problem in the
world is state terrorism rather than political terrorism
(by some private person(s) or group(s)), and the United States has
surrected an enormous apparatus of state terrorism,
including at least one concentration camp and the widespread use of
torture, on the pretext that this is to protect "the people" from
Indeed, I am quite willing to grant that the Bush and Obama governments
have done something against political terrorism,
but they also succeeded in getting a great amount of secret
state terrorism in place, that includes stealing the private data
of almost all Americans, to the best of my knowledge, and indeed also
of very many (hundreds of millions) of citizens of other countries.
Here is some more, also from the beginning:
government tracks “suspected terrorists” as well as “known terrorists,”
individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being a
suspected terrorist, or if they are suspected of associating with
people who are suspected of terrorism activity.
Once again I point out
that the premise that the goverment "can predict if a person will commit a terrorist act in the
future" is at least as old as 1969.
“Instead of a watchlist
limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast
system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if
a person will commit a terrorist act in the future,” says Hina Shamsi,
the head of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “On that dangerous
theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected
terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves
innocent of a threat they haven’t carried out.” Shamsi, who reviewed
the document, added, “These criteria should never have been kept
Also, it seems to me that this is not so much an "unproven and flawed premise" as it is a vague and bullshit one.
For consider: I can predict that you - whoever you are - will commit a
terrorist act in the next 25 years, with a probability p that is larger
than 0. That is - as far as predictions go - also true, in a weak
sense, at least, and whatever p is, even if you are at present a saint.
Indeed, as a rule and in general p will be quite small for nearly
everyone, but this also shows everyone may be suspected
of terrorism: p is larger than 0. "Therefore", either you are on the
secret list or you are at least a candidate for the secret list.
And this is what this bureaucratic insanity amounts to: Everyone who is
alive may be a terrorist, and therefore may be on the
list; everyone who is dead has a name that may be used by a
terrorist, and therefore the dead ones should be on the list (this is
also the actual rule!); so everyone may be on the list of
Also, this is the total breakdown of the former somewhat decent reason
that somebody may be watched: If there is a proof given to a
judge that somebody is busy with something criminal, and if the
judge pronounces the proof is sufficient evidence to watch him. That I
also agree with.
But this has now been replaced by bureaucratic insanity that is
kept wholly secret and in fact makes everyone a
suspected terrorist - and note that being listed as a suspected
terrorist (which happened to nearly half a million people in 2013
alone) may make your life (and that of your family, your friends, and
the friends of your friends as well, at least possibly) a whole
There is quite a lot more under the last dotted link.
2. The Palestinians’ Right to Self-Defense
item is an article by Chris Hedges on Truthdig:
This starts as
If Israel insists,
as the Bosnian Serbs did in Sarajevo, on using the weapons of
industrial warfare against a helpless civilian population then that
population has an inherent right to self-defense under Article 51
of the United Nations Charter. The international community will have to
either act to immediately halt Israeli attacks and lift the blockade of
Gaza or acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to use weapons to
No nation, including any
in the Muslim world, appears willing to intervene to protect the
Palestinians. No world body, including the United Nations, appears
willing or able to pressure Israel through sanctions to conform to the
norms of international law. And the longer we in the world community
fail to act, the worse the spiral of violence will become.
I mostly agree,
although the invocation of Article 51 may be spurious, since that
refers quite explicitly to "a
Member of the United Nations"
and it may be that the Gazans are not such "Members". I simply don't
know, although I agree with the argument: If the Xs are bombing
you, you may defend yourself against the Xs.
There is also this on
Israel, as an occupying
power, is in direct violation of Article
III of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War. This convention lays out the minimum standards
for the protection of civilians in a conflict that is not international
in scope. Article 3(1) states that those who take no active role in
hostilities must be treated humanely, without discrimination,
regardless of racial, social, religious or economic distinctions. The
article prohibits certain acts commonly carried out against
noncombatants in regions of armed conflict, including murder,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It prohibits the taking of
hostages as well as sentences given without adequate due process of
law. Article 3(2) mandates care for the sick and wounded.
This I agree with,
though the reference shows it is "Article 3" rather than "III".
The piece ends as
There is little in life
that Palestinians can choose, but they can choose how to die. And many
Palestinians, especially young men trapped in overcrowded hovels where
they have no work and little dignity, will risk immediate death to defy
the slow, humiliating death of occupation.
I cannot blame them.
I disagree and my
reasons are that I am ill for 36 years, in which I have been terrorized
in total for 6 years, first by a completely insane man, and later by
illegal drugsdealers protected by the Amsterdam mayors, aldermen,
police and bureaucracy, from 1988 till 1992. (I think but cannot prove
for a percentage of the 10 billion dollars a year that are turned over
in soft drugs alone in Holland: money always is a very
good reason for most men). In neither case anyone did anything
effective, precisely as happens now with the Palestinians, while I was
also ill and believed myself to live in a state of law and a democracy.
So... if you are
young, intelligent and healthy, even if you are a Palestinian in Gaza,
you have more choices than I had, and to throw away your
chances - which I agree may be small and may be quite difficult to
realize - seems to me despair rather than reason. (But I also grant I
3. CDC Head: Age of Antibiotic Resistance Is
item is an article by Andrea Germanos on Common Dreams:
This starts as
The growing threat of
antibiotic resistance requires imminent action, the head of the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned Tuesday.
Speaking at a National
Press Club event, Dr. Tom Frieden said, "Antimicrobial resistance is a
big problem and it's getting worse." It's a problem that costs lives as
well as $20 billion in healthcare costs, he said.
"We talk about a
pre-antibiotic era and the antibiotic era. If we're not careful, we
will soon be in a post-antibiotic era. And in fact for some patients
and some pathogens, we're already there."
The CDC issued a report
last year to increase awareness of the problem of some infections
becoming resistant to antibiotics as a result of both overuse and
misuse in humans and farm animals. The World Health Organization also
issued a warning
earlier this year, stating that a post-antibiotic era, "far from being
an apocalyptic fantasy, is instead a very real possibility for the 21st
There is more there
but - having learned quite a lot about the CDC in relation to my disease M.E., in which it has played a very
lousy and quite corrupt role - I must warn you that Frieden said so because
he wants more money.
I agree there are
these dangers, but I doubt the CDC is the best investment for
stopping them: it is a large bureaucratic organization, and it has
really misbehaved to people with my disease, indeed up to the point of
making them ridiculous and driving them to suicide.
So while I think more
money is needed, I think the CDC is not the right recipient.
Much More Likely to Be Killed By ... Than By Terrorists
item is an article
by Washington's Blog:
I have to
start with saying I abbreviated the title, which runs on for four
But the article does
give some relevant information on the frequencies of getting killed by
X. Here are some:
Note I have lifted them
from various places in the article, that contains considerably
more, and that gives details. (They have been lifted literally.)
- You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease
than from a terrorist attack
- You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than
from a terrorist attack
- That makes obesity 5,882 to times 23,528 more likely to kill you than a terrorist.
- you are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical
error than terrorism.
- you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself
to death than die from terrorism.
- you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car
accident than from a terrorist attack
prescription meds are more likely to kill you than any other
source of injury. So your meds are thousands of times
more likely to kill you than Al Qaeda.
- Americans are 2,245
times more likely to die from a financial crisis that a terrorist
- you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than
die at the hand of a terrorist.
- you’re 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual
behavior than terrorism
- you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing
something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack.
In brief, and judged by the actual frequencies over the past 13 years,
terrorism killed very few. The reason it nevertheless is appealed to by
our governors has the following explanation:
(Yes, I have
shown this before. The reason is that it is quite clear. And it also
shows something about "the common people".)
the Price for Financial Ignorance
item is an article
by Don Quijones on Raging Bull-Shit:
This is here because I
like it. It is from the end of 2013 and it starts as follows
That this is so,
incidentally, is shown by - among other things - (1) the evergrowing
riches of the rich and (2) the evergrowing rise of income inequalities
between the rich and the poor. (These I regard here and now as
demonstrated: See the crisis index, though I agree I tend to have
too many items to be able to make proper titles.)
The Western world is
currently undergoing one of the most drastic redistributions of wealth
in its history, with almost all new money flowing in one direction:
upwards. While its roots may date back decades, this trend has
accelerated dramatically since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008
and the subsequent reordering of the Western banking sectors.
And despite what we might
hear in the MSM, this ongoing shift is not the result of mere chance or
At every step of the way
since the crisis began, conscious decisions have been taken at the
uppermost reaches of government to protect one class of people — the
financial and corporate elite — at the expense of all others.
Politicians and central bankers on both sides of the Atlantic have
trotted out the same old meme to defend their never-ending bailouts of
the financial sector: “We had no choice; things would have been
unimaginably worse if we hadn’t taken the decisive action we did.”
There is also this, on
the way the banks make money:
Finally, this leads to
facts like this:
Yet ironically, most
people continue to suffer under the dual delusions that most new money
is created by the government and that private banks make loans by
drawing on their customers’ deposits. The reality could not be further
from the truth, as Washington’s
1) Each private bank
“creates loans” out of thin air by entering into binding loan
commitments with borrowers;
2) If the bank doesn’t
have the required level of reserves, it simply borrows them from the
central bank (or from another bank);
3) The central bank, in
turn, creates the money which it lends to the private banks out of thin
One can but marvel at the
simple audacity of the enterprise. In a nutshell, it is the most
audacious con trick of modern human history.
(...) one solitary
U.S. bank, JP Morgan Chase, faces total derivatives exposure of over
$70 trillion, far surpassing global GDP. In other words, as incredible
as it may seem, one single bank has on its books financial instruments
presumed to be worth more than the total value of all that is produced
by every country on this planet in one year.
This has Jamie Dimon as
"Chairman, CEO & President". It's total assets are US$ 2.515
trillion, according to Wikipedia.
British Spies Controlling the Past, Present and Future | Interview with
item is not an article but a video of Abby Martin' interviewing Annie Machon:
This is a really good
interview with Annie Machon, who is a Cambridge graduate and a former
MI-5 secret agent, who also is a whistleblower. One of the things she
(..) we have
indeed slid into an era of fascism. If you go back to Benito
Mussolini's definition of fascism, which is the merger of the corporate
and the state, what we've seen through the Edward Snowden disclosures
is that very fact, where all the major big internet giants from the USA
have been at least complicit and in many cases very willing to help the
NSA and the GCHQ and other agencies to spy on citizens.
Indeed - and I do not
think Annie Machon is "a radical", while she does know quite a lot
about the British intelligence services.
P.S. July 25, 2014: Corrected
some small things and added two links.
 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.)
 These were illusions I have long since
been cured of: There is something like a democracy and a state of law
in Holland IF you are healthy, and you are very normal,
and you do not say anything against the government or
the mayor or the universities, and you always dress in orange
on all festive days. Otherwise, you get into problems - and no, I am
not, and not by far, the only one who was critical and therefore not
helped in any way, and also not even answered in any way, except by
pure bullshit, and that also no more than twice in 25 years of
complaining about murder threats, illegal drugsdealing or an evident
insane and dangerous person.
(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: