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."
Ashdown slams 'kneejerk' Tory response to jihadi
Networks Diminish Personal Well-Being,
3. 'No to New Wars, No to
4. Top NSA Whistleblower: We Need a New 9/11 Investi-
gation Into the Destruction of
the World Trade Center
Intercept website much improved
This is a Nederlog of
August 31. It is a crisis log.
(This file got uploaded earlier than usual, which will give me the time
Paddy Ashdown slams 'kneejerk' Tory
response to jihadi
item is an article by Toby Helm and Jamie Doward on The Guardian:
In fact, this continues,
in a fairly solid sense, yesterday's "UK terror
threat raised from substantial to severe". This starts as follows:
Paddy Ashdown is quite
right, from my point of view. He also said:
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats over how to counter the terrorism
threat from extremists have been exposed as Paddy Ashdown accuses Tory
ministers of "kneejerk" responses and of stoking fear in the minds of
the British people.
The former Liberal
Democrat leader and former high representative for Bosnia and
Herzegovina, writing in the Observer, also criticises David Cameron for
ill-judged rhetoric that he says could alienate ordinary Muslims and
hamper the battle to defeat jihadis.
comes as Cameron and the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, try this
weekend to hammer out a package of anti-terrorism measures in time to
announce them to the House of Commons when MPs return from their summer
break on Monday.
And he said (among other
While not attempting to
deny or play down the threat from jihadis returning to the UK, Ashdown
says that the threat level in Northern Ireland has also been "severe"
for the past four years, as it was in all of Britain for much of the
1980s and 1990s when the IRA posed the greatest danger.
He argues that the
current threat is "one we have faced before and one we know how to deal
with – effectively, without panic and without a whole new range of
executive powers which could endanger our liberties.
In terms that are
bound to anger many Tories, he says that after the threat level was
increased, senior Conservatives "from the prime minister downwards …
took to every available airwave to tell us how frightened we should be
and why this required a range of new powers for them to exercise".
Yes, indeed - and
personally I do not mind angry Tories. In any case: This is indeed just
what the exploitation of "terrorism" and the hysterics of David Cameron
are all about: To wrest ever more powers from the ordinary people and
the Parliament, and to give these powers to highly secretive
organizations like GCHQ.
Again, as I argued already in 2005
The present situation and that of the last 13 years is not at all as
dangerous as was the West's situation during the Cold War in the
Fifties, Sixties and Seventies, when the West was threatened by very
large, very professional, very well-trained armies that had access to
many atom bombs.
Even so, there was no need for identification papers and no need to
anyone did with a phone or the ordinary paper mail by the secret
services, and there also was far less dishonest hysteria of
The reason to introduce enforced identification papers and to steal
everyone's private data from their computers and phones, and the
complete lack of any control of the big corporations and big banks, is
simply a sign that present day governments work against
democracy, against openness, against freedom, and
are out to get ever more powers by instilling a totalitarian
fear and hysteria, and to use these powers to get ever more money from
the many poor to the few and powerful rich.
I think that is a fair analysis, although I also believe it is not
quite Paddy Ashdown's. But he clearly is correct in protesting the Tory
hysterics that are in fact moved by their desire for power, and not
any realistic concern for safety of the people.
2. Social Networks Diminish Personal Well-Being,
item is an article by Alexander Reed Kelly on Truthdig:
This starts as
A two-year survey of
50,000 people determined that a lack of face-to-face contact in
interactions online—especially on social networks like Facebook and
Twitter—reduced feelings of personal well-being.
Reduced well-being can be
interpreted to mean reduced mental health.
Fabio Sabatini at
Sapienza University of Rome in Italy and Francesco Sarracino at STATEC
in Luxembourg reviewed answers from residents of 24,000 Italian
households recorded annually by the Italian National Institute of
Statistics. MIT Technology Review described the study, which drew data
from 2010 and 2011, as especially important because it is “the first
time that the role of online networks has been addressed in such a
large and nationally representative sample.”
I say. Let me
translate this for the lovers of
Facebook and Twitter (two services I
absolutely refuse to use):
I put it in caps (CAPS),
in brief sentences,
to make it clear this simplified summary may be read and understood.
FACEBOOK AND TWITTER
DRIVE YOU CRAZY!
GET OUT AND SEE SOMEONE REAL IN A PUB OR A PARK!
STOP USING FACEBOOK AND TWITTER AS IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
MEET REAL UNPHOTOSHOPPED PEOPLE IN REAL PLACES!
WITH SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS AND REAL NAMES!
But I grant this is not likely to succeed, and the main reason
ordinary people are not gifted (which no one can help) and - much
more seriously - do not allow anyone to excel them in any way,
except if they happen to be sports' heroes or filmstars or singers, and
gang up, anonymously, to bring down anybody who clearly excels them in
I know, for I have tried, for a little less than four months, to be
part of a social network, and these were just as awful as when
I was 12 and tried to fit in in a school for children of mostly well to
do or rich people, as a gifted child from really poor parents - except
that the "social networks" were more stunning, for almost
anyone I "met" was so little of a real human being that I never
learned their real names, their real ages, their real education or
almost any other real thing: almost all I got was pseudo, anonymous,
stupid, uninformed and ill-written.
I am very glad to have gotten rid of it, and I recommend the
to anyone with an IQ over 115 or 130: Your talents are unfit for social
networks of fools, and you will feel much better by yourself.
And without having to check your mail and phone you may see more real
people, with real names, in real environments, and with
reactions! It's more unpredictable, but it is so much more fun!
3. 'No to New Wars, No to NATO'
item is an article by Andrea Germanos on Common Dreams:
This starts as
As European Union leaders
met in Brussels on Saturday where they discussed possible
new sanctions against Russia and what they described as Russian aggression, a group of
peace adovcates headed to South Wales to say "no to new wars, no to
Well... it is hardly
the first time (I recall similar protests from 1961, and later) and it
certainly not be the last time. But they do have some rather good
arguments (and this is quoted from material by "the group of peace
War is the enemy of the
poor. The world's 85 richest people have as much as poorest 3.5
billion. The annual sum needed to end world hunger is $30 billion while
the US Military's budget is $530 billion per year.
Money into war is money
out of our communities. In the UK, 500,000 people had to resort to food
banks last year. While public services are slashed, one day of war in
Afghanistan could fund 100,000 nurses.
I do not know whether
the numbers are correct, but so far as I know they are more correct
than not, and they are also more serious than the arguments used in the
early Sixties: Then the inequalities in income were not as
large as they are now and also the U.S. spent far less on wars
it does today.
4.Top NSA Whistleblower: We Need a New 9/11
Investigation Into the Destruction of the World Trade Center
item is an article by Washington's Blog on his site:
The "Top NSA
Whistleblower" is William
Binney (<- Wikipedia) and he stated this:
Binney was the original
NSA whistleblower, and one of two NSA veterans whose example
inspired Edward Snowden.
Binney recently signed
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s petition, stating:
Two days ago, Binney said in
an interview that speaking with physicists and controlled demolition
experts convinced him that the investigations to date have – at best
- been incompetent, and failed to address the
observable facts (...)
There is clearly
evidence that needs to be considered in a review of what happened in
9/11. We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with
scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened.
Yes. There is
considerably more that you can check out yourselves.
I merely add that my
own conclusion after seeing some
of the materials on 9/11 is that it seems more probable than not
that in fact this was a false flag operation that was carried out by
the US government, quite possibly commanded by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
But I do not
know, and indeed if this is so, it seems quite unlikely it will
be established the next 40 years or so, at least (without very major
political changes, that is).
Even so, Binney and
the Architects and Engineers are quite correct that the public deserves
to know: They pay for it.
website much improved
The last crisis
item is not an article but is provided by me, since I have followed The
Intercept since it started:
I do not know when this
only know I noticed it yesterday and it seems unlikely to have occurred
long before yesterday.
Anyway... it does look quite good at present, and you can
easily and quickly see what is on the site.
So this is a considerable advance.
 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.)
(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: