Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

Aug 24, 2016

Crisis: US Democracy, Welfare, Humanitarian Wars, Twitter, Whistleblowers
Sections                                                                                             crisis index
Introduction

1.
Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction
2. 20 Years Later, Poverty Is Up, But Architects of
     “Welfare Reform” Have No Regrets

3. A Clinton Family Value: ‘Humanitarian’ War
4. Twitter Makes Total Sense If You Understand It
     Properly

5. Bill Black: Why Whistleblowers’ Disclosures Need
     Protection Under the Law
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Wednesday, August 24, 2016.

There are 5 items with 5 dotted links today: Item 1 is about an article of Chris Hedges of over 6 years ago (he is on holiday), but the article is quite good; item 2 is about an article that outlines how Bill Clinton's destruction of welfare (in 1996) is still popular among its architects (including Clinton); item 3 is about another contribution of Bill Clinton: The "humanitarian war" - which is a concept as contradictory as the "square circle"; item 4 is about Twitter, which according to Kevin Drum and myself seems to be dedicated to sloganizing everything and killing all rational discussion; and item 5 is about a good article by Bill Black that explains how he thinks whistleblowers should be treated in law.

1. Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction

The first item today is by Chris Hedges on Truthdig, and was first published in 2010. It is republished today because Chris Hedges is on holiday:

This starts as follows:

Corporate forces, long before the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, carried out a coup d’état in slow motion. The coup is over. We lost. The ruling is one more judicial effort to streamline mechanisms for corporate control. It exposes the myth of a functioning democracy and the triumph of corporate power. But it does not significantly alter the political landscape. The corporate state is firmly cemented in place.

Yes, indeed: I completely agree and came to the same conclusion myself:

The American corporate forces have had 45 years (since Lewis Powell Jr. (<- Wikipedia) adressed them with this theme in 1971) to organize themselves, and to redirect part of their enormous amounts of wealth to secure their own interests, and they did so, and they have won, and the left has lost completely (and indeed was itself mostly destroyed by the two multi- millionaires Clinton and Blair [1]).

Basically, the right has won by 35 years of deregulations (since Reagan) which unpacked as 35 years of successive destructions of the laws that guaranteed a somewhat humane capitalism, and that protected the middle class: Both defenses have been totally deregulated, and are completely gone.

Indeed, since I am writing this more than six and a half years after Chris Hedges published this column (which I did not read when it was originally published) here is a little about the reasons why I had to pick up this myself,
and considerably later than Hedges did. (And I put this in a note, in order to distinguish information about me, from information about politics, which is what this Nederlog is about: See [2] in case you are interested).

Here is the reason why Hedges thinks the idea of democracy persists in the USA:

The fiction of democracy remains useful, not only for corporations, but for our bankrupt liberal class. If the fiction is seriously challenged, liberals will be forced to consider actual resistance, which will be neither pleasant nor easy. As long as a democratic facade exists, liberals can engage in an empty moral posturing that requires little sacrifice or commitment. They can be the self-appointed scolds of the Democratic Party, acting as if they are part of the debate and feel vindicated by their cries of protest.

In fact, I think this is at least a little exaggerated: It is indeed possible to paint every liberal and every progressive who doesn't fight in the street but instead argues, as engaging in "empty moral posturing that requires little sacrifice or commitment", but while I agree this is how it works for some,
I don't think this is fair to all. (For example, Hedges and Chomsky are
counter-examples to Hedges' own thesis, I would argue, and there are quite
a few more.)

Then there is this (and "the court's ruling" is the Citizens United decision):

Much of the outrage expressed about the court’s ruling is the outrage of those who prefer this choreographed charade. As long as the charade is played, they do not have to consider how to combat what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls our system of “inverted totalitarianism.”

Inverted totalitarianism represents “the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,” Wolin writes in “Democracy Incorporated.” Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure. They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible.

First about inverted totalitarianism, which is - in my opinion - not an easy concept to grasp, but to which there is now a fairly extensive elucidation,
which again was put together by Chris Hedges, who interviewed Sheldon
Wolin in 2014. Here are all of them, with links to the issues of Nederlog in which I reviewed them:
parts 1-3, part 4, part 5, part 6 and part 7 and 8.
These are very well worth (re-)reading.

Here is how inverted totalitarianism works in principle:

Inverted totalitarianism is not conceptualized as an ideology or objectified in public policy. It is furthered by “power-holders and citizens who often seem unaware of the deeper consequences of their actions or inactions,” Wolin writes. But it is as dangerous as classical forms of totalitarianism. In a system of inverted totalitarianism, as this court ruling illustrates, it is not necessary to rewrite the Constitution, as fascist and communist regimes do. It is enough to exploit legitimate power by means of judicial and legislative interpretation. This exploitation ensures that huge corporate campaign contributions are protected speech under the First Amendment. It ensures that heavily financed and organized lobbying by large corporations is interpreted as an application of the people’s right to petition the government. The court again ratified the concept that corporations are persons, except in those cases where the “persons” agree to a “settlement.” Those within corporations who commit crimes can avoid going to prison by paying large sums of money to the government while, according to this twisted judicial reasoning, not “admitting any wrongdoing.” There is a word for this. It is called corruption.

Yes, indeed. And this also gives an interpretation of "inverted totalitarianism"
that seems sensible:

"Inverted totalitarianism" was created by politicians and bureaucrats who exchanged their loyalties to their oaths (to the Constitution), to loyalties to corporations that paid them, in practice; who helped the corporations that paid them by reinterpreting laws (and often extremely wildly: "money = votes" and "corporations = persons" are two examples, both accepted by majorities in the Supreme Court); who covered this by always engaging in democratic propaganda talk (Bill Clinton and Obama excel in this); but who were in fact grossly corrupt.

I think that is correct. Here is how this was furthered (and in part also caused):

Corporations have 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state capitals that dole out corporate money to shape and write legislation. They use their political action committees to solicit employees and shareholders for donations to fund pliable candidates. The financial sector, for example, spent more than $5 billion on political campaigns, influence peddling and lobbying during the past decade, which resulted in sweeping deregulation, the gouging of consumers, our global financial meltdown and the subsequent looting of the U.S. Treasury.

Since there are about 700 persons in the Senate + Congress, this works out as (about) 50 lobbyists per 1 "representative of The People" (most of whom are rich to start with).

There is this on democracy (in the USA):

There is no national institution left that can accurately be described as democratic. Citizens, rather than participate in power, are allowed to have virtual opinions to preordained questions, a kind of participatory fascism as meaningless as voting on “American Idol.” Mass emotions are directed toward the raging culture wars. This allows us to take emotional stands on issues that are inconsequential to the power elite.

This depends on what one thinks "democracy" means. I agree, on the (common) understanding of it as "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation ..." (from Wikipedia): In this sense democracy is dead in the USA, simply because people do not have the supreme power there in any real sense (the politicians do), but it is also doubtful they ever had much power, and indeed the founders also did not want democracy: they wanted a republic.

And there is this on the propaganda that the main media indulge in:

“It seems a replay of historical experience that the bias displayed by today’s media should be aimed consistently at the shredded remains of liberalism,” Wolin writes. “Recall that an element common to most 20th century totalitarianism, whether Fascist or Stalinist, was hostility towards the left. In the United States, the left is assumed to consist solely of liberals, occasionally of ‘the left wing of the Democratic Party,’ never of democrats.”

Liberals, socialists, trade unionists, independent journalists and intellectuals, many of whom were once important voices in our society, have been silenced or targeted for elimination within corporate-controlled academia, the media and government. Wolin, who taught at Berkeley and later at Princeton, is arguably the country’s foremost political philosopher. And yet his book was virtually ignored. This is also why Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney, along with intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, are not given a part in our national discourse.

Clearly, most members of the Democratic Party also are democrats, in the sense defined above (the people are to be the supreme power, and they are represented by fairly elected politicians), but I agree they tend to be misrepresented by much of the media.

And Hedges is also quite right that very prominent intellectuals, of whom Noam Chomsky is the best example, but of which there are quite a few more, have been almost wholly excluded from the main media.

Here is the last bit I'll quote from this article, which is concerned with the very special status of the military and the intelligence agencies:

This means no questioning of the $1 trillion in defense-related spending. It means that the military and intelligence agencies are held above government, as if somehow they are not part of government. The most powerful instruments of state power and control are effectively removed from public discussion. We, as imperial citizens, are taught to be contemptuous of government bureaucracy, yet we stand like sheep before Homeland Security agents in airports and are mute when Congress permits our private correspondence and conversations to be monitored and archived. We endure more state control than at any time in American history.

It is now more than 6 years since this was written, and Hedges was and is quite right:

At present, it is known that the Pentagon "doesn't know" how it spend $20 trillions (!!), in part because they have not even given a properly audited reckoning of the money they did receive for 20 years now, and at present it is known that the NSA follows everyone anywhere and stores everything, which means that everyone endures more (quite secret!!) state control than anyone did at any time, also under Nazism and Stalinism, for at those times people did not have computers and cellphones that are tapped directly by secret intelligence, and presently people do have such tools, and are being tapped massively, in almost total secret (apart from Snowden).

So yes, this was another fine article by Chris Hedges, and indeed democracy is dead in the USA, even though people may vote, and even though almost all politicians speak as if it exists, and is very healthy and reliable.

2. 20 Years Later, Poverty Is Up, But Architects of “Welfare Reform” Have No Regrets

The second item is by Zaid Jilani  on The Intercept, and is about one aspect of Bill Clinton's presidency:

This starts as follows:

A gathering Monday in Washington, D.C., featured a bipartisan group of former government officials agreeing on the benefits of slashing the nation’s safety net.

This week marks the 20th anniversary of “welfare reform,” the 1996 law passed by Congress and administered by President Bill Clinton that strictly limited the amount of federal cash assistance that the poorest Americans can receive — transforming the Aid for Families with Dependent Children program into the more restrictive Temporary Aid for Needy Families.

One of the main impacts of the law was to help double the number of American households living in extreme poverty in America – defined as living on less than $2 a day.

The Capitol Hill event, hosted by the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute and the Progressive Policy Institute, which has been referred to as President Bill Clinton’s “idea mill,” celebrated the 20th anniversary of the law. Its architects said they had no regrets about its passage.

I am not amazed. I draw your attention to the facts that this event was "bipartisan" and that none of these "partisans" quarreled with the facts:

Yes, Clinton's destruction of welfare made twice as many Americans as
before live on $2 a day, but the "partisans" welcomed this (while billions
in support go to multi-national corporations) because that is their aim:

To make the rich, including themselves, still richer, which happens mostly
by making the poor poorer. (And besides, almost none of the rich - whether Democrat or Republican - likes the poor, and quite a few love to think that
the poor are poor because they want to be poor.)

And therefore Bill Clinton was praised a great amount:

“It was pretty stunning in 1992 to have a Democratic candidate for president, albeit a 12-year veteran in the governor’s office talking about ending ‘welfare as we know it,’” he said. “That was a pretty decisive moment.”

Right-wing praise for Bill Clinton was a reoccurring theme at the event. Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation scholar who has been dubbed the “intellectual godfather” of welfare reform, claimed that Clinton took up the same cause as Ronald Reagan, allowing him to outmaneuver George W.H. Bush. “In my perspective that’s the issue that put Clinton in the White House in ’93,” Rector said.

And here is what Bill Clinton was praised for:

The impact of welfare reform was particularly severe on women and minorities, with many female-headed families losing income and women being forced into low-wage work without benefits.

Shaefer points to research from Jim Ziliak, a prominent economist who studied the issue for the National Bureau of Economic Research. “Taken together, the results from leaver studies, demonstrations, and from national samples suggest that many women were worse off financially after welfare reform,” he writes. “Especially at the bottom of the distribution.”

Yes, and how else could Clinton's measures have doubled the amount over desperately poor Americans? In any case, he did, he still feels proud of it,
and indeed he has a right to, provided we also calculate in the fact that he
worked always for the rich, except that his propaganda pretended he didn't (and he is a brilliant propagandizer, who meanwhile also gathered $120 million).

3. A Clinton Family Value: ‘Humanitarian’ War

The third item is by James W. Carden on Consortiumnews, which - as it happens - is about another aspect of Bill Clinton's presidency:

This has a subtitle that is worth quoting:
The transformation of the Democratic Party from the relative “peace party” to a belligerent “war party” occurred during Bill Clinton’s presidency and is likely to resume if Hillary Clinton is elected, writes James W Carden.
Yes indeed - or more precisely: I agree Bill Clinton did make these changes,
and I expect Hillary will be similar.

Here is a summary of Bill Clinton's and Charles Krauthammers ideas, that were in fact caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union:
Speaking before the U.N. General Assembly in September 1993, President Clinton declared that the U.S. had “the chance to expand the reach of democracy and economic progress across the whole of Europe and to the far reaches of the world.”

At the time, the stars seemed aligned for such a pursuit. In Foreign Affairs, neoconservative writer Charles Krauthammer declared that the end of the Cold War was America’s “unipolar” moment. The pursuit of American global hegemony was not, according to Krauthammer, some “Wilsonian fantasy.” It was, rather, “a matter of sheerest prudence.”

Krauthammer indeed was (and is) a neoconservative, but I think that Clinton, although hidden by his propaganda-talk, wanted the same:

When Clinton said that he was in favor of “the chance to expand the reach of democracy and economic progress across the whole of Europe and to the far reaches of the world”, what he meant was: we have the chance to make
the USA the one and only supreme force in the whole world
, which was indeed precisely the same as Krauthammer desired: "
American global hegemony".

And here is what Bill Clinton did during his presidency to assure
American global hegemony:

During Clinton’s tenure, the U.S. military was dispatched on ostensibly humanitarian grounds in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), and Kosovo (1999). Clinton also directed airstrikes on Sudan in what was said to be an attempt on Osama bin Laden’s life.

Clinton bombed Iraq (1998) over its violations of the NATO enforced no-fly zones. That same year, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law which stipulated that “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”

That is, he militarily attacked 6 different countries, but none of these military attacks was called a war, because this would - legally speaking - have required a Congressional approval. Instead, they were called "humanitarian measures", which indeed suggests the term "humanitarian war", which is probably best explained as an intentional Orwellian lie:

Even the rare wars that have a real humanitarian purpose (WW II was the last one, I'd say), are not "humanitarian wars", for all wars are inhuman, cruel, and destructive, and aim at the destruction of (at least) the soldiers of the opposing party, and their tools and protections.

Then again, if you can get the - total nonsense - concept accepted that the wars you are conducting are "humanitarian wars" or "humanitarian measures", you succeeded in convincing most of your own people, and that was also one of Clinton's ends.

Here is the final bit I'll quote from this article:
The Clinton administration’s second intervention in the Balkans in 1999, set the template for what George W. Bush attempted in Iraq, and, later, what Barack Obama attempted in Libya.
Yes, indeed. And again these wars were not officially declared, and were sold to the public as humanitarian measures to help the populations - that were in fact destroyed militarily.

4. Twitter Makes Total Sense If You Understand It Properly

The fourth item is by Kevin Drum on Mother Jones and is here because I agree with him about Twitter (which I totally don't understand, except if it's real purpose is to sloganize everything and kill all rational discussion):

This starts as follows and is the only bit that I'll quote from this article:

Matt Yglesias speaks truth to power today:

When Twitter goes bankrupt and people need to blog again, the world will be a better place. https://t.co/UPTWpzWqcy

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 23, 2016

I can't tell you the number of times I've cut off a conversation on Twitter with something like "Signing off now. Twitter is a horrible place to discuss anything more complicated than a cookie." And it is! People try endlessly to turn it into something it isn't, and the result is that I routinely get told to go take a look at some "epic tweetstorm" or other that "must be Storified." Usually it turns out to be a grand total of about 300 words split up into awkward 20-word chunks. Milton would not be impressed. It could be done way better, and possibly faster, as a simple blog post.

Quite so! It still escapes me completely why people with e-mails or blogs voluntarily limit their own capacity to express things to 140 characters - except if they know they have nothing to contribute that exceeds 140 characters.

If this shows "the powers of computing" or "the powers of the internet" these powers amount to a radical simplification of nearly any exchange of ideas.

And yes, I do hope Twitter goes bankrupt, and no, I do not have Twitter, and I do not follow Twitter, and I don't want Twitter. It was a ridiculous idea, that only served the stupid, the ignorant, and the fashionable conformists.

5. Bill Black: Why Whistleblowers’ Disclosures Need Protection Under the Law

The fifth and last item today is by Bill Black (<-Wikipedia) on Naked Capitalism:

This starts as follows:

James Stewart has written a column about Roger Ailes’ alleged sexual predation on female Fox News personnel over the course of many years.  He entitled it “Secrecy of Settlements at Fox News Hid Bad Behavior.”  Ailes was the CEO of Fox News.  I write to show how two concepts Stewart did not employ would aid the analysis and to suggest a fundamental change in the law that would make the world a far better place.

The two concepts I add to Stewart’s analysis are “control fraud” and whistleblowing.  Stewart’s column applies as its sole lens sexual harassment.  That is the obvious lens to employ and it is helpful.  By supplementing this lens, however, we can provide additional useful insights and frame generalized policies of broader applicability.

This is a fairly long article, and I will only select two further bits of it. The first explains what control fraud is:

“Control fraud” is a term and a theory that explains why the consequences of fraud are vastly more severe when the person who controls a seemingly legitimate entity uses it as a “weapon” to defraud.  Sexual harassment is a fraud+ crime.  The fraud is the deceitful statements by your boss that you were hired for your skills and would be advanced in the organization on the basis of the quality of your work.  But sexual harassment is a broader crime that includes extortion.  Like fraud, sexual harassment is an intentional wrong.

That is, control fraud is fraud by the CEOs or top lawyers from a corporation. And it goes much further than mere fraud because this often involves - and does in Roger Ailes' case - the enormous powers CEOs of large organizations have, which includes forcing down rules and regulations and demands on people they employ to work for them.

There is an interesting sum-up in nine dotted points of various techniques Ailes used that enabled him to sexually harass many women he employed for tens of years without being found out publicly, which I leave to your interests.

Finally, here is Black on how he thinks whistleblowers should be legally protected in the USA - and the two points he mentions indeed were abused by Roger Ailes:

The broader policies that should come out of this discussion apply to all forms of whistleblowing.  The United States should forbid and declare void as against public policy any contractual requirement by an entity:

  1. That an individual be forced to give up his/her right to sue and limited to an arbiter
  2. That an individual keep confidential any misconduct by the entity, its customers, or their employees and officers

It should be the policy of the United States courts to encourage and defend the disclosure of misconduct by employees and to punish criminally and through a major fine any effort by a corporation’s officers to prevent that disclosure.  This would not repeal laws against libel, slander, and perjury.  The courts should be forbidden to engage in prior restraint through issuing protective orders or injunctions preventing customers, employees, and shareholders from publicly blowing the whistle on misconduct.

Any firm that engages in retaliation against a whistleblower should be subject to criminal penalties and the removal and prohibition of its senior officers from serving as senior officers for a period of five-to-ten years depending on the culpability of the senior officers in that retaliation.

I agree. And this is a recommended article.

---------------
Notes

[1] Namely by their defense of their "Third Way", that in fact completely killed all revolutionary and all socialist ideals that up to then had characterized the left: There was no revolution needed, according to Clinton and Blair, and socialism of any kind was impossible, according to them: All that was needed was a bit more justice from the government, but otherwise capitalism was fine, and the only and the best economical system there ever was.

I have explained several times before how this destroyed most socialist and social-democratic parties, and made these totally change their ends and policies. For the latest explanation, see here.

[2] I am ill since 1.i.1979; I have far less energy than healthy people; and most of the 80ies and 90ies were spent on fights with the City of Amsterdam, that altogether assured that I could not sleep properly for 7 years; that I was for 6 years threatened over and again with credible threats of murder; that I had to sleep for four years above illegal dealers of illegal drugs who again kept me out of sleep and threatened to murder me; that I was removed four times from the City University of Amsterdam because of my ideas and values; that the last time this happened was in 1988 briefly before taking my M.A. in philosophy: I was denied this right, as the only person in Holland since WW II ended; and lots more of harassments and threats, all of which could continue for some 7 years simply because (1) the City of Amsterdam and its mayor absolutely refused to do anything to protect my civil and human rights; (2) the City of Amsterdam and its mayor absolutely refused to answer even one of my letters and mails; (3) the City University of Amsterdam (part of the City of Amsterdam, and also for 60 years led - continuously - by men from the Dutch Labour Party) did precisely the same; and (4) I could find absolutely no Amsterdam lawyer who was willing to attack the Dutch Labour Party or its mayors in any court: That was "too political" quite a few assured me, although they meant "I will not risk my income by defending you: I am afraid of the Dutch Labour Party". [3]

In brief, the major breaks in the Dutch laws - hashish and marijuana are illegal since 1965, yet are now capable of being bought all over Holland, and since 35 years, and all these dealings from coffeeshops are "personally permitted" by the mayors of the cities or villages  where the sales take place:

It is as if any mayor only needs to sign a letter - and I have seen one - which says illegal dealing in illegal substances are "permitted" by him to make illegal dealing in illegal substances permissible in Holland - which is a legal outrage that makes the existing laws totally irrelevant, since these can be set aside by any mayor's personal tastes.

The only reason I can think of why this happens is that in the illegal drugs scene that is now "personally permitted" by the mayors of many cities and many villages is "personally permitted" by them because they know the illegal drugsscene turns over 25 billion euros each year, and mayors and others get a share of this. (I have no proof, but this is what I think. And any proof is totally impossible as long as they mayors are allowed by the judges to dispose with the law as the mayor pleases and not as the law says.)

Also, while I mostly had finished with this around 2000, my health was and is ruined by what I was forced to survive, and from 2000 till 2010, having failed to receive as much as one decent reply from the holders of power in Amsterdam since 1948 (always the Dutch Labour Party), I decided to write a large internet site and did: It is now over 500 MB (and about philosophy, logic, computing and M.E., which is the disease I have [4]).

Both these events had turned my attention away from international politics, which I did get seriously interested in again especially since the start of the crisis in 2008/2009.

And this is why I only started to follow international politics by 2009/2010, which indeed also was the first time I could do this, since I only then had acquired fast internet that enabled this. Again, this interest in international politics was much increased by Snowden's Revelations of 2013.

So this explains why I picked up most of what I picked up about international politics since 2010: I was otherwise occupied before, and anyway was and am ill.

[3] I think they were right in fearing the Dutch Labour Party, which had the absolute power in both Amsterdam and the University of Amsterdam from 1948 - 2013 (when they lost the elections). Also, while illegal drugs were "personally permitted" by many mayors, this did not lead to any lesser amounts of drugs-related crimes and there were many tens of murders in Amsterdam of mostly illegal drugsdealers and/or lawyers related to them.

So the lawyers had a point: Associating with me was dangerous.

[4]
I am ill since 1.i.1979 (37 years now), as is my ex (since 10.i.1979). I did get some help in 1980, namely to get another house, and I have been declared ill, officially, on paper, by two medical doctors who knew me well (one - my G.P. - very well), but this had no effect since 1995, since by then the dole in Holland changed, in which I was anyway lodged illegally because I was ill, that now denied anyone in the dole was ill, and got the help of psychiatrists and doctors to do so.

This caused a lot of trouble for me from 2000 till 2011, and is also the reason the Dutch bureaucracy looks differently upon my illness than medical doctors who have seen and researched me:

According to the bureaucrats I am a liar who is not ill (which does not explain that I got an M.A. with an average of 9.3 in psychology and a B.A. with an average of an 8+, which are both straight As, and are rarely matched, for these would allow me to get a very well-paid job if I were healthy); according to the medical doctors who know me I have a serious disease since 37 years - but in Holland the bureaucrats rule supreme where money, rights, etc. are concerned, and so I am fucked over by them for 37 years now...

I have no rights in Holland, and I get nothing except a minimal pension, of some 60 euros more than the dole, and that is it.


       home - index - summaries - mail