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."
on Eric Holder, Wall Street's Attorney General
Influence Has Won': House Passes Anti-GMO
3. Beppe Grillo calls for
Italian banks and
exit from euro
4. The Responsibility of Intellectuals
This is a Nederlog of Friday
July 24, 2015.
There are 4 items with 5 dotted links: Item 1 is
about Eric Holder, who
was a corrupt fraud as attorney general, and who now is growing rich; item 2 is about
a law that blocks U.S. states from requiring labelling genetically
modified foods (which is a big advantage for the big corporations); item 3 is about Beppe Grillo
who calls for nationalising Italian banks in response to Greece; and item 4 is about Noam Chomsky, in part
about a recent video and in
part about an article he published in 1966, "The Responsibility of
Shame on Eric
Holder, Wall Street's Attorney General
The first article
today is by Clara Herzberg on Truthout:
This starts as follows:
Yes, indeed. He was a corrupt
fraud, in simple factually adequate terms. The above continues:
Well, well, well. Eric
Holder is returning to his cushy job at Covington & Burling where
he reportedly pulled in $2.5 million the last year he was there. Holder
didn't think it was strange he was returning to one of Wall Street's
most highly regarded defense firms after all the bankers he let
breezily carry on with fraud, bribery, money laundering, tax evasion and
plenty of other very prosecutable offenses during his tenure as US
Holder explained simply:
"The firm's emphasis on pro bono work and being engaged in the civic
life of this country is consistent with my worldview that lawyers need
to be socially active." Yeah, and what about the $2.5 million,
Mr. Holder? That's got nothing to do with it surely.
Holder had just spent six
years in Washington handing out slaps on the wrist to financial
institutions that claimed they were "too big to fail" while secretly
receiving government assistance. His help almost certainly amounted to
billions of dollars of aid to Wall Street. Now he's trotting back on
his high horse to go collect millions for his top position in the firm.
There should be a
massive public outcry, an uproar reverberating across social media,
demanding this issue be scrutinized by the federal government in an
inquiry with a fine-toothed comb. But what is the actual response? A
few articles in various magazines and newspapers, and that's about it,
ladies and gentlemen! Even those articles refused to point the finger
at President Obama for tolerating in his administration someone who
consistently toed Wall Street's line.
Quite so. The rest of
the article explains why he was "Wall Street's attorney general" and is
very well worth reading. Recommended!
Influence Has Won': House Passes Anti-GMO Labeling Bill
The next article
today is by Andrea Germanos on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Why is this here? We
need food, and in order to have some idea about what we eat we need
reliable information. But not according to Monsanto and the
House of Representatives: The less consumers know, the less they will
The U.S. House of
Representatives on Thursday passed legislation that would block states
from requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods, or GMOs—a
move that consumer rights groups decried as corporate power defeating
Americans' right to know what's in their food.
The bill, H.R.
1599—dubbed the “DARK Act” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) by its
It was backed
by the food industry, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association
and Monsanto Company, which have
money into defeating GMO labeling initiatives.
Wenonah Hauter, Executive
Director of Food & Water Watch, a group that opposed the bill,
explains: "The bill that passed includes provisions that would preempt
states from labeling GMOs or enforce already passed GMO labeling
provisions (like Vermont’s Act 120), and would prohibit states from
having any oversight of GMO crops, for example, a county-wide ban on
growing GMOs or GMO-free zones in certain organic seed-producing areas.
Instead, this bill would create a voluntary federal GMO labeling
standard for companies, weakening already deficient regulations."
Also, on a personal note: I am ill since January 1, 1979. In
the beginning - until Wessely, is a fair qualification: he is one of
the (English) professional liars who are psychiatrists 
- it was
admitted my ex (who also fell ill, and also didn't get better) were
genuinely ill, if only because there are unexplained diseases,
who were quite bright first year students studying on student loans,
had no reason whatsoever to be ill.
In 1989 I found out, by accident (via a BBC program) that I probably
had M.E. At
that time, Wessely had started his campaign to declare all
patients with M.E. insane, but I hadn't heard of him. He (and others,
also psychiatrists or clinical psychologists) achieved that persons
with M.E. are treated as frauds and scams,
and that their disease is no disease because it is not in the medical
It's all fraudulent bullshit
(and I have qualified as an M.A. psychology
with only straight A's) but try telling that to a bureaucrat
any degree, or indeed normally without any intelligence and anyway
knowledge of real science).
So I did not get helped for 35 years...
What does this have to do with GMO?
Probably nothing, since my disease started 37 years ago, but since the
cause is still unknown, I may very well be a victim of something
that industrial corporations have added to the air, the water or the
food I must consume to stay alive, and the only way to
be able to know and test that, is to know what has been added
air, the water or the food since the 1950ies (which is an enormous
amount, the interactions of which are mostly unknown and not
Here is one more bit from the above article:
Yes, I agree.
Group (EWG) was also opposed to the bill, and cited widespread
public support for labeling GMOs.
"It’s outrageous that
some House lawmakers voted to ignore the wishes of nine out of 10
Americans," said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government
affairs for EWG.
The outcome of the vote
was a "foregone conclusion," he continued, because "this House was
bought and paid for by corporate interests."
3. Beppe Grillo calls for nationalisation of Italian banks
and exit from euro
The next article
today is by Stephanie Kirchgaessner on The Guardian:
This has a subtitle or summary:
Movement’s populist leader compares Greek bailout talks to ‘explicit
nazism’ and says Italy must use its €2tn debt as leverage against
And in case you do not
know who is Beppe
Grillo (<- Wikipedia), that is a link. (I do not know
it is: I know who is Beppe Grillo, but I do not know much about Italian
Here is the beginning of the article:
There is also this:
The populist leader of
Italy’s second largest political party has called for the
nationalisation of Italian banks and exit from the euro, and said the
country should prepare to use its “enormous debt” as a weapon against
Former comedian-turned-politician Beppe
Grillo, who transformed Italian politics when he launched
his anti-establishment Five Star Movement in 2009, has long been a
bombastic critic of the euro.
But his stance hardened
significantly in a blogpost on Thursday in which he compared the
Greek bailout negotiations to “explicit nazism”.
Grillo constructed what
he called a “Plan B” for Italy, which he said needed to heed the
lessons of Greece so that it was ready “when the debtors
His plan called for Italy to adopt a clear anti-euro stance and to
shake off its belief that – if forced to accept tough austerity – other
“peripheral” countries would come to its aid.
Setting aside Grillo’s
colourful language and analogies, analyst Vincenzo Scarpetta of Open Europe said there was some merit to his
“That blogpost does have
some elements of truth,” Scarpetta said. “The lesson from Greece was
that if you want to be in the eurozone you have to agree to rules of
And it is also mentioned
(...) about 40% of
Italians are at least sympathetic to anti-euro sentiments.
There is considerably
more in the article (that doesn't seem very objective to me,
4. The Responsibility of Intellectuals
but as I said: I do not know much about Italian politics).
The final article
today is by Noam
Chomsky (<- Wikipedia) and is in fact from 1966, but I didn't
know it till yesterday, and therefore I guess few do. I'll link it
first, and then explain why I think it is important, and also give an
In fact, I found the
above article thanks to a video I watched yesterday, which I found
quite interesting (and is from this year):
I did watch all of it,
but the part I am going to quote starts at 58.40. Here is the quote,
which started with a reference to "The Responsibility of Intellectuals":
This was read as
quotation. I liked it, but I did not find it in the above
(it probably is composed from bits and pieces), which starts thus (and
this is the first paragraph, that is not quoted fully):
It is the responsibility
of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies. Intellectuals are
in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyse actions
according to their causes and motives, and often hidden intentions. In
the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from
political liberty, from access to information and freedom of
expression. For a priviliged minority Western democracy provides the
leisure, the facilities and the training to seek the truth lying hidden
behind the veils of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and
class-interest through which the events of current history are
presented to us.
IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.
This, at least, may seem enough of a truism to pass over without
comment. Not so, however. For the modern intellectual, it is not at all
obvious. Thus we have Martin Heidegger writing, in a pro-Hitler
declaration of 1933, that "truth is the revelation of that which makes
a people certain, clear, and strong in its action and knowledge"; it is
only this kind of "truth" that one has a responsibility to speak.
To start with the second
statement of this: I was educated at the University of Amsterdam on the
basis of this explicit total and self-contradictory lie:
The facts are known to all
who care to know. The press, foreign and domestic, has presented
documentation to refute each falsehood as it appears. But the power of
the government's propaganda apparatus is such that the citizen who does
not undertake a research project on the subject can hardly hope to
confront government pronouncements with fact.
knows that truth does not exist."
This was said in a
special public speech opening the academic year of 1978-79;
it was accepted and applauded by everyone who heard the speech, except
by myself and my ex, who also were there, and it turned up again, and
again, and again, and again (and again for hundreds or thousands
of times) and always was accepted (!) always as if
it were a
self-evident truism (!!) by almost everyone I spoke with in the
University of Amsterdam between 1978 and 1988.
By 1988 (I had not studied part of the intervening years, because of
illness and troubles) I was so sick of it that I decided to ask 39 questions when I was
invited as a public speaker in the faculty of philosophy, when I was
briefly before taking my M.A. there.
What happened then was that I was scolded publicly by at least 16
academically employed "philosophers" as a "fascist" (the
favorite swear word at the time in the UvA: this had happened many
times before, because I also had been in student politics) and also by
some (after the "academic philosophers" lost their discussions with me)
as a "terrorist" - and I was removed from the faculty
and denied the right to take an M.A. there, which decisions
were also upheld by the Board of Directors of the UvA.
So... my grandfather had been murdered in a Nazi concentration camp for
being "a political terrorist" (he was in the communist resistance
against Nazism) in WW II; my father
had survived 3 years, 9 months and
15 days in four Nazi
concentration camps for being "a political terrorist" (he was in
communist resistance against Nazism), and I was removed as "a
fascist terrorist" briefly before taking an M.A.in philosophy, because I
had questioned the thesis that
"everybody knows truth does not exist" in an invited public speech....
Also, many of the "academic philosophers" - all total
were followers of Martin Heidegger, who since has been shown to be an
out and out Nazi. (And see the fine Heil
Heidegger! by Carlin Romano, from 2009.)
That was not yet the case in 1966 (when Chomsky wrote about him) nor in
1988, but has been established since. What was clear in 1988
was that the utterly incompetent whores of reason who were
be my teachers did have a Heideggerian conception of "truth":
not exist or it amounts to Nazi- propaganda:
"the revelation of
that which makes a people certain, clear, and
which indeed was in
Heidegger's time the propaganda of Goebbels supporting Hitler and
preparing the murder of 6 million Jews.
strong in its action and knowledge"
But Heidegger was (and probably still is) "the
philosophical genius" who was widely admired by the incompetent
the sick moral degenerates, who removed me from the right
of at least taking an M.A. in philosophy (which made me in fact an M.A.
in psychology, mostly because I had a B.A. in that as well, though that is also a
pseudo-science (apart from statistics and some metho- dology: my
degree was taken on mathematics, logic and physics).
I agree - after the fact - that is was a great mistake of me to
address the fascist terrorists who were supposed to teach me
philosophy. Indeed, I was not sufficiently aware that, as
Chomsky says in the above video:
I was punished - quite
cruelly and quite sadistically also - because I believe in truth and
publicly said so.
Take almost any society
you like and you'll find there is a fringe of critical dissidents and
they are usually subjected to some form of punishment. There's harsh
repression of people who are critical of established power. And that
goes back as far as you like.
 Psychiatry is not a real science. It is a
system of fraudulence and deception. You may disagree but (i) probably
you are not medically or psychologically qualified (I am) and (ii) very
probably you know a whole lot
less about psychiatry and psychology and philosophy (of science) and
statistics than I do. Anyway: In case you want to know about
psychiatry, try this - it is
I think it is quite good: DSM-5:
Question 1 of "The six
most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" (And no, I am also not by far
the only one who says psychiatry is not a real science. But I
am one of
the extremely few with an - excellent - M.A. in psychology and an
excellent degree in philosophy who says