1. The Intellectuals We
2. The reality of free trade deals
3. The Frog Is No Longer Boiling, It's Dead
4. Once Again, America Seeks the Answer to The Labor
5. By Any Means or None
6. The Court That Rules the World
This is a Nederlog of Monday, September 5, 2016.
is a crisis log with 6 items and 6 dotted links: Item 1
is about an article by Chris Hedges on intellectuals (I disagree
somewhat, but this is for personal reasons: My background is quite
different from that of most); item 2 is about free
trade and by Robert Reich, but I find it disappointing that he writes
as if he believes "free trade" is not a propaganda lie; item 3 is about democracy, that is declared dead, but
that is written by someone who holds the utter lie that absolutely
everyone is equal or of equal value to anyone else (you,
Einstein and Hitler all have precisely the same
value!) - which I consider a totally insane idea; item 4
is about the fact that there is - once again - a labor question in the
USA, but is not clear on its reasons (deregulation
of nearly all laws that protected the many against the piracies and
depredations of the rich); item 5 is a good article
about terrorism; and item 6 quotes the begin- ning
of a quite long article about the ISDSs (which are the neofascist
courts that the rich want to have, so that they can rob whole states
at once): the quote I give is good.
Also, I like to draw your attention to the
previous Nederlog, called Rewriting my site,
that is indeed about that, or more precisely: About a resized graphical
background that is necessary since I have now a normal sized squarish
monitor.  This will take quite a lot of
work, which I will continue after having finished the present crisis
item. (It will probably be done before the end of September. I do not
yet know when, but I will say so in Nederlog if it is finished.)
1. The Intellectuals We Abandon
The first item today is by Chris Hedges - returned from vacation - on
This starts as follows:
Great writers and intellectuals give us
a vocabulary that allows us to make sense of reality. They excavate
depths that we, without their help, are unable to fathom. We are
captive to systems of power until we can name the dominant myths and
the intricate systems of coercion and control that extinguish our
We are a society awash in skillfully
manufactured lies. Solitude that makes thought possible—a removal from
the electronic cacophony that besieges us—is harder and harder to
find. We are unable to grapple with the nuances and complexity of
ideas. We have traded ideas for fabricated clichés. We speak in the
hollow language we are given by our corporate masters. Reality,
presented to us as image, is unexamined and therefore false. We are
culturally illiterate. And because of our cultural illiteracy we are
easily manipulated and controlled.
I have to say yes and no to this
beginning, but my reasons are mostly personal, and also
have something to do with my difficulties with "We".
My main reason to say "No" in my case - while I am a
great lover of great writers and a great collector and reader
of books, and also someone who simply denies the "equivalence"
of everyone (idiot and genius, monster and hero, conformist and
revolutionary) as the degenerate pretensions of the stupid, the dishonest and the conformist  - is that I am one of the very few
Dutchmen who had communist parents and communist and anarchist
And while it is true that I myself
disagreed intellectually with communism and Marxism from age
20 onwards, it is as true that I did not and do not disagree with the
moral teachings my parents provided:
We live in a dishonest and falsified human
society, in which the few rich are trying to hold on to their enormous
riches by lies, by
by dishonesty and by force, while the many poor are trying to defend
themselves by honesty, by trade unions, and by leftist policies of many
I never needed any convincing of
that, for I got it from my parents, and it really held up, although it
is also true that their communism was mistaken, and the Left also
changed character, and grew much more corrupt and dishonest as
it made itself into the vehicle of rich quasi-leftist utter frauds
like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Wim Kok. (See: "Third Way" on
And I also am one of the very few
with such an education, for both my parents and my grandparents were
quite intelligent, if not very well educated, and were very active
communists or anarchists all their lives, for the most part. 
Besides, I also completely reject
the part of the second quoted paragraph that starts with "We have severed ourselves from a print-based culture" and that ends with "We are
culturally illiterate", for I certainly
do not belong to this "We" of dishonest, characterless, stupid conformists,
and absolutely never did and never wanted to (which
also is an important reason that I am very poor). 
Also, I think that there are more
(of my approximate age: 66) who were born in genuine leftist
families and/or who are born with fine minds that are not
easily deceived by lies
but indeed I am willing to agree that they form a small
Here are the great writers according to
The great writers—Marcel Proust, Anton
Chekhov, Hannah Arendt, Simone Weil, Max Weber, Samuel Beckett, George
Orwell, W.E.B. Du Bois, James Baldwin and others—knew that thought is
subversive. They challenged and critiqued the dominant narrative,
assumptions and structures that buttress power. They freed us.
I am a philosopher
and a psychologist, with very
good academic degrees in both subjects; I have been reading extremely
much for 50 years now; and while I have read all of the writers Chris
Hedges names, my own tastes are
different, and the only ones I agree with are great writers on
are Max Weber
and George Orwell.
You want to know my list of great authors?
They are - for example - here (from 2012): On Some
Favourite Books & Authors, which has a list of 115
authors, which also is far more than Chris Hedges could give in
his article, I agree. (And remember the list I give is reading for pleasure!)
Then there is Sheldon Wolin,
who is a great writer and intellectual according to Chris Hedges:
Wolin was a writer of this stature. He gave us the words and the
ideas to understand our corporate despotism—what he called “inverted
totalitarianism.” He did so by battling the dominant trend within
university political science departments that, as he lamented, has seen
them become de facto social science departments “addicted” to
quantitative projects, chasing after an unachievable scientific clarity
and refusing to take a stand or examine the major issues facing the
I don't know whether Wolin is a great
author in my sense (for one thing, I did not read enough of him), but I
agree he is a good and honest author, and as such in a small
And about inverted totalitarianism,
which is - in my opinion - not
an easy concept to grasp, though 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.
paragraph was mostly copied from August 24,
2016. Here is the last bit that I quote:
I taught his “Politics
and Vision” last spring in a maximum-security prison in Rahway,
N.J., to students earning their B.A. degrees.
In prison these intellectuals, struggling against odds that most in
this hall cannot imagine, convert their cells into libraries. My class
was consumed by “Politics and Vision”—Machiavelli’s advocacy of
“calculated violence” and call for the power elites to be skillful
pretenders and dissemblers; Locke’s ability to convert property into an
instrument for coercing citizens into political obedience; Weber’s
understanding that the modern hero, unlike the classical hero battling fortuna,
had to struggle against a bloodless, faceless system “where contingency
has been routed by bureaucratized procedures” and where “even charisma
has been bureaucratized.” The ideological mantra of corporate
oppression—sine ira et studio, without scorn or bias—is, as
Weber knew, a weapon to crush those with the passion, outrage, courage
and vision to effect change.
I agree mostly, indeed also with the "sine ira et studio, without scorn or bias" bit, which is indeed a palpable lie with which the vast
majority of academics
turn away from taking any real ethical or moral
Then again, my main objection against most of the (many) academics I
have known is not that they - in effect - refuse to take
impopular ethical and moral ideas: my main objection to them is that
most academics are dishonest,
whatever their moral pretensions, and that while being dishonest
conformist careerists, they also gave up any really scientific
outlook, if indeed they ever had one.
And this is an interesting article that is
reality of free trade deals
item is by Robert Reich on his site:
This starts as follows:
I would say (but Reich may disagree) that (i)
"free trade" as it is bandied about by all manner of economists and
politicians is nearly always pure fraud: They are not
speaking of "free trade" when speaking of free trade: They are speaking
of enriching the rich by taking from the poor, and have been
doing so since the 1980ies; that (ii) the vast majority of
Trump's pronouncements are lies, as are Hillary
Clinton's "reservations" about "free trade" and the TTP; that (iii)
economics is not a real science (if it were, far more
economists would have predicted the crisis of 2008); and also (iv)
while most of the voters do not have any deep knowledge of
economics, they do know when they are frauded by their
politicians, and they are.
Free trade is figuring prominently in
the upcoming presidential election. Donald Trump is against it. Hillary
Clinton has expressed qualms.
Economists still think free trade
benefits most Americans, but
according to polls, only 35% of voters agree.
Why this discrepancy?
But the last paragraph are mostly my own explanations, and I do not
think Reich will agree on "free trade" and economics. In fact, he seems
to - somehow - embrace the concept of "free trade", and asks why it
does work only for the rich and not for the non-rich.
Here are three of his reasons why the benefits of "free trade" only
benefit the rich:
I say. Well... I agree with the criticisms,
but I totally disbelieve in "free trade",
and I simply think rational men should stop embracing
that propaganda lie: There is no free trade without
rules, regulations and laws, and those who favor "free trade" without rules, regulations and laws, in fact are
proponents of the thesis that the rich can engage in any piracy
they want to on the poor.
1. Inequality keeps growing. In
a society of widening
inequality, the winners are often wealthier than the losers, so even if
fully compensate the losers, as the winners gain more ground, the
feel even worse off.
2. Safety nets keep unraveling.
As a practical matter, the winners don’t
compensate the losers. Most of the losers from trade, the millions
jobs have been lost, don’t even have access to unemployment insurance.
adjustment assistance is a joke. America invests less in jobs training
percent of our economy than almost any other advanced nation.
3. Median pay keeps dropping.
Those whose paychecks have been declining because of trade don’t make
up for those declines by having access to cheaper goods and services
abroad. Yes, those cheaper goods help but adjusted for inflation, the
hourly pay of production workers is still lower today than it was in
if we want the public to continue to support free trade, we’ve got to
that everyone benefits from it.
3. The Frog Is No Longer Boiling, It's Dead
item is by Thomas S. Harrington on Common Dreams:
This starts as
I say. I don't think you can decide
the question whether democracy exists in the USA by trying to chart the
responses to Kaepernic's refusal to stand up for the American national
The frog of American democracy is no
longer boiling, it’s dead. How do I know? By observing the public
response to the actions undertaken during the last week by San
Francisco 49ers quarterback, Colin Kaepernic.
But even during the darkest moments of
this post-war period, there was almost always been a sizable group of
people, on both the left and the right, who resisted the hierarchical
logic of this uniform-worship because they understood that it is, and
always will be, absolutely incompatible with both the day-to- day
dignity of the citizenry and that same citizenry’s pursuit of real
But this no longer seems to be the case.
If you want to give a sensible answer to that question, you first
have to define democracy, next decide how you measure its
strength in some empirical way, and then see whether your ideas
made sense when tested.
Nothing of the kind is offered here. And not only
that, there is also the enormous confusion of the quasi-"leftist" utter baloney
that every man is the equal and equivalent of any other man: You
are equivalent to Einstein, who in turn is equivalent to Hitler and
Heydrich, who in turn are nothing worse, neither intellectually, nor
morally than you:
So let me say once again (as son of
communists, as grandson of communists and anarchists) that someone who
believes in the utterly insane gross lie that (boldings added)
The great Italian essayist Indro
Montanelli once said, in so many words, that to have a functioning
democracy, you must first have democrats. Being a small-d democrat
implies many things. Perhaps the most basic of these is to understand,
and to firmly believe, that no person or group of persons,
especially those working explicitly in the public trust, are
fundamentally more worthy than others.
Be it as a result of fear, or our
government-media complex’s long campaign of pro-authoritarian
propaganda, it seems, sadly, that only a small minority of
Americans still understand this fundamental trait of the democratic
no person or group
of persons (..) are fundamentally more worthy than others
is a sick and degenerate relativist
who, either on purpose or through cultivated stupidity or dishonesty
relativizes everything real leftists do not relativize:
Of course fascists, liars, rich egoists and their
well-paid liars and frauds are not the equals of honest
leftists: That is just the kind of lie degenerates like Clinton and
Blair spun to further their own riches
and their own careers.
Then again, while I agree democracy is mostly dead in the USA (but not
at all for the reasons Harrington gives), I also insist that the
Left is mostly dead, and it has been killed - quite on
purpose, quite consciously - by Clinton, Blair, Kok, the frauds from
the "Third Way" and
believers in such lies like Mr. Harrington.
I am sorry: If you believe that absolutely no one is any better
than anyone else, you are not a Leftist but you are
either dumb and deceived or else clever and lying.
4. Once Again, America
Seeks the Answer to The Labor Question
item is by Damon Silvers on Common Dream:
This starts as follows:
“The labor question, is, and for a
long time must be, the paramount economic question in this country.” —
Justice Louis Brandeis, 1904
The labor question is back. After World
War II, it seemed to many that widespread unionization and collective
bargaining had made sure that the people who did the work in this
country were getting a fair share of the wealth they created, and that
through their unions working people had a substantial voice in the way
our country was governed.
But we live in a different world today. Only 11 percent
of all American workers belong to a union, and less than 7
percent of private-sector workers are organized. Workers’ incomes
have been stagnant for decades, and whatever gains have occurred in
family income have gone entirely to the top of the wage structure,
driving runaway inequality. At the same time, working people feel
increasingly alienated from and betrayed by our political system.
I agree, both with diagnosis (yes, there
is a labor question) and with its cause (because - among other
reasons, but this is quite important - around 90% of
those who are currently working in the USA are not members of a
Here is one thing current defenders of the
status quo - very much money to the very rich; hardly any money for the
rest - now insist on, after "trickle down economy" has failed
for twenty years: almost anything the rich gain, they keep to
Now defenders of the status quo of
runaway inequality have shifted from saying there isn’t a problem to
saying that, while there is a problem, NOTHING CAN BE DONE. The new
line from the very serious people is that runaway inequality and
stagnant wages are somehow the result of the unstoppable natural forces
of technological change and globalization.
Clearly that is yet another lie, and in so far as
it is true, it is true because
the rich have been very busy since 1980 with destroying each
and any law that kept the rich from growing as rich as possible, and
that protected the non-rich.
This was the process of deregulation,
and this succeeded wildly, it seems mostly by corruptions of the House
and the Senate, for these agreed again and again and again on
deregulating laws they must have known protected the
non-rich from the evils the rich could do against them.
Indeed, this is about what happened in law
and in politics in the USA since 1980:
The data strongly supports what the
American people say that they believe in poll after poll — that elites
rigged the economic rules in our society to benefit themselves.
That the United States adopted public policies — labor laws, trade
rules, fiscal and monetary policies, immigration policies and tax
policies — that ensured technological progress and globalization would
benefit only a small number of Americans.
And so the labor question is back, and
that question is: How can the people who do the work in America receive
a fair share of the wealth we create, and how can our voices be heard
in our politics, our society and our culture?
I agree with the first of the above two
paragraphs, for this is what the many deregulations
amounted to: rigging the rules of distribution in such a way that
only the few rich profited, at the costs of the many non-rich.
But the second paragraph seems strangely
If the many non-rich have been
growing less rich or poorer ever since 1980 (which is the
case), and the reasons for this are mostly deregulating the laws that
protected the non-rich and the economy, then clearly the answer
to the first question, about a fair share, is to regulate the
economy and the rich back again - though I agree this will be very
And in fact the same answer
applies to the question how the voices of the non-rich are to be heard
- though I agree again this will be very
difficult, for the rich rarely return any of the riches they gained for
themselves to anyone who is not rich.
Finallly, this is from near the end:
Yes and no: Yes, it has that answer, but no
it will not work precisely because the rich have been deregulating all the laws that
protected the non-rich from their piracies and depredations.
The labor question has an answer. When
the people who do the work in our society have collective voice through
unions — democratically run workplace organizations — then working
people have a way of being heard when the big decisions get made in the
workplace and in public life.
And besides 9 out of 10 working Americans are not unionized.
5. By Any
Means or None
item is by Thomas Nagel on the London Review of Books:
This starts as follows:
I am hit with news of yet another terrorist attack, I often wonder what
these people hope to achieve. In a depressingly timely book, Richard
English tries to answer that question for a number of important cases,
in order to address the broader question of his title.
I say - and this article is in fact a review
of Richard English's recent book.
Also, I am a bit amazed, because I take it usually for granted that I
what terrorists wanted: Revenge.
Indeed this is also one of the things English concluded:
English makes it clear that one
of the things these four groups share is hatred and the desire for
revenge, which comes out in personal testimony if not always in their
official statements of aims. He quotes Osama bin Laden: ‘Every Muslim,
from the moment they realise the distinction in their hearts, hates
Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians.’ Revenge for perceived
injuries and humiliations is a powerful motive for violence, and if it
is counted as a secondary aim of these movements, it defines a sense in
which terrorism automatically ‘works’ whenever it kills or maims
members of the target group.
I agree, although I should add that "terrorism automatically ‘works’ whenever it kills or maims
members of the target group" is true only
for those who have convinced themselves that terrorism
- especially in the form of trying to murder civilians, who probably
harmed no one - is a correct response.
I don't think so, and therefore for me there is not "a sense in which terrorism automatically ‘works’", and in fact I think most real or potential victims agree
with me that (1) terrorism is an extension of the more
or less normal rules of war, in which it is presumed only
soldiers kill soldiers of the opposing army and (2) this extension - at
least - is immoral and improper, even if ordinary war might be accepted
Then there is this, which does explain a good part of the
reasons for terrorism:
What struck me on reading this
book is how delusional these movements are, how little understanding
they have of the balance of forces, the motives of their opponents and
the political context in which they are operating. In this respect, it
is excessively charitable to describe them as rational agents. True,
they are employing violent means which they believe will induce their
opponents to give up, but that belief is plainly irrational, and in any
event false, as shown by the results.
I agree, although it is also true (as Nagel
probably agrees with me) that the fact that terrorist groups are
usually based on solid delusions about
their own effectiveness is certainly not shared by the
terrorist groups themselves.
Here is the emerging pattern Nagel sees:
The pattern that emerges in these
examples – and in many of those English cites in his final chapter,
such as the Tupamaros, the Baader-Meinhof Group, Shining Path in Peru
and the Weathermen in the US – is of groups employing violence in a
hopeless cause. They perceive correctly that their aims cannot be
achieved by non-violent means, but fail to see that that is because
they cannot be achieved by any means, given the existing circumstances
of power and public opinion. Hatred and the desire for revenge probably
provide essential motivational support, but justification by expected
political results is completely delusional.
I agree, but also want to insist that it
is not only that (nearly always, at least) the ends of terrorist
movements are not realizable by them, but also that their means
- terrorism, that is: the attempt to murder civilians who probably
harmed no one - are rejected by many as quite immoral, also
if they might agree (in some sense) to some of the political ends of
Indeed, my addition is quite essential,
for Nagel has the following criticism of English (the author whose book
he is reviewing):
I quite agree, but it seems English does not,
and it may very well be that one reason he does not is that he himself
is a relativist,
as I found most academics are, these days: They refuse
to make moral or ethical distinctions, in the end - I believe - because
this makes it a lot easier for them to be well-paid
But the main thing missing from
English’s response is any sense that there might be something
intrinsically wrong in deliberately killing and maiming innocent
civilians as a means to bring about even a desirable outcome. That is
what people find morally revolting about terrorism, not just the death
and suffering it causes. The sense that there are limits on what may be
done to people is a crucial part of the morality most of us share.
Contempt for such moral boundaries is the defining mark of both state
and non-state campaigns of terror.
And while I do not know enough about English to say this is true, it
may well be.
This is again a recommended article.
6. The Court That Rules the World
The sixth and last
item is by Chris Hamby on Buzz Feed:
This starts as follows, and is the only
quotation I will give from this article:
Yes, I agree with this - and this is also the
reason that I say that NAFTA, TPP, TTIP, TISA and CETA all (mostly
secret!!) "treaties" that have as their real end the
introduction of neofascism, which is the control of the
multi-national corporations, their CEOs and their lawyers of absolutely
everything and absolutely anyone.
Imagine a private, global super court
that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.
Say a nation tries to prosecute a
corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could
turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to
interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even
billions of dollars as retribution.
Imagine that this court is so powerful
that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own
supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal. That it operates
unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often
keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret. That
the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate
attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court’s authority
because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then
sitting in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to
themselves as “The Club” or “The Mafia.”
And imagine that the penalties this
court has imposed have been so crushing — and its decisions so
unpredictable — that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to
the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as
rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of
This system is already in place,
operating behind closed doors in office buildings and conference rooms
in cities around the world. Known as investor-state dispute settlement,
or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties that govern
international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to
And I think my term is quite justified, for they aim at the
absolute control of everyone anywhere,
and their aim - the total rule of the multi-national corporations over
anything, including states, and anyone, including all inhabitants of
states - are also classically fascistic.
Anyway... the last link gives you access to a long essay of
nearly 500 Kb that is recommended, and that I may return to in a later
edition of Nederlog.
 Incidentally: I do
want to keep my sites to look reasonable on the monitors (and computers
and OSs) that I use, and I am trying to do so for
the new monitor I have, but I gave up (by 2012) trying to
I do take care it works well on Firefox, on Ubuntu, on a normal
sized squarish monitor, but I will not check anymore how my
site is displayed on other monitors, other OSs and other screens: Too
much work for my health. (I guess it works on most systems, but
I lack the health to check and repair.)
 I am sorry, but
I am one of those who is not a "leftist" who insists that he
(or she) is just as good as anyone else, who are all as good as he or
she: That is complete bullshit no real Leftist ever
agreed to. And see also item 3. And see the next
I have quite a few times insisted that my family - two parents who were
- sincere, intelligent, courageous, though not highly educated -
communists for 45 years each; four grandparents of which one
was a communist and two were anarchists - was rather special,
and I will in this note insist on numbers:
After WW II - in which the Dutch CP were the only ones to go
into the resistance against the Nazis as a political party,
from May 14, 1940 onwards, in which they lost some 2000 persons
- the CP had from ca. 1955 onwards around 10.000 members, on a
population that was 10 million or more.
In WW II, the Nazis succeeded, in part thanks to the help given them by
David Cohen and Abraham Asscher, in arresting and murdering over
100.000 Dutch "Jews"
(between quotation marks because many had lost their faith, while all
were persecuted based on the lie that the Jews are a race).
Another reason that so many - more than 1% of the total
Dutch population - could be murdered, is that in fact so few
were in the Dutch resistance against the Nazis: Effectively 99% of
the Dutch collaborated with the Nazis, although I should add that a
considerable part was more or less forced.
I do not know the precise numbers or proportions of those who
resisted in Holland, but it was much less than 100.000 (and probably
closer to between 15.000 and 20.000 persons - and I am speaking of
those who were in the real resistance, and not about
those who occasionally read an illegal publication).
In any case, that is my background: A direct family who all
were in the real resistance in WW II, which at most 1 in a 500
was in Holland during WW II, and of which both my parents and my
grandfather were communists (which after WW II was blamed on my
according to the Nazi-collaborators of WW II my parents were "traitors"
because they were communists, and indeed my parents were discriminated much
of their lives for their political choices).
Finally on these numbers: I suspect there may be more Dutchmen
with two communist parents, and one communist grandparent, all of whom
were in the real resistance in WW II, but I do not know of
them, and especially not if I also count in that my father and his
father were both arrested in June of 1941, and convicted as "political
terrorists" to the concentration camp, which my grandfather did not
If there are more such Dutchmen, apart from my brother, I certainly never
heard anything about them.
 As I pointed out in the previous note,
my brother and I are the only
persons I know in Holland (where my brother does not live anymore,
since 30 years or so) with as strong a background in the resistance as
we have. There may be more, but I never heard about them.
And here is also a remark on the lack of high education of my quite
intelligent parents: That is correct, and it simply is a pity that my
parents had to work from age 15 onwards, because there was no money
to allow them to go to school any longer, or indeed to study. Both
could have easily studied given their intelligence.
Then again, this is not the main reason they remained
communists after WW II. The main reason for that are - especially - the
very strong experiences my father had, since he survived more than 3 years and 9
months as a "political terrorist" in German concentration camps,
where he also was rescued from death or starvation by fellow communists.
I rarely believe in the "We" that the Dutch so much and so eagerly
engage in, and part of my disagreements are indicated by the part of
the paragraph Hedges wrote that he attributes to "we": It does not
hold for me; it does not hold for my parents; it does not
hold of my grandparents.
And because it doesn't, I protested against the education I got in the
University of Amsterdam, from which I was - illegally, but
effectively - removed in 1988 briefly before I could take my
(brilliant) M.A. in philosophy. There were also many other
discriminations of me in Amsterdam, some of which did have to do with
my background or with my own opinions.
I do not know how many (Amsterdam was ruled for 66 years
by the Dutch Labour Party, that hated communists, and hated anyone not
like them, and discriminated many as much as they could and dared, for
several reasons, of which the main one usually was: opposing the Labour
Party); I do know it is pretty crazy to have received one
of the best M.A. degrees ever, and never having been able
to get as much as one cent from it (whereas former communists
without any talent were given the softest of academic jobs for
tens of years in quite a few Dutch universities).
 One reason that
- if they exist, in Holland - they must be very rare is
that I discovered almost no one who agreed with me on science
and truth in the university: For 25 years - from 1971 till 1995 - all
Dutch universities were formally in the hand of the students,
but nearly all students were completely uninterested in both science and truth, and instead
preferred "leftist" ideologies, falsehoods, propaganda and
the denial that there was any truth of any kind. Nearly everyone studied to get richer,
and not because he or she wanted to know or were interested in
I did discover a few students who were seriously interested in
science and truth, but none
of them had a leftist background. And between 1977 and 1995 they were
members of a small group of students that numbered no more than 5%
of all students (judged by the proportions of people who voted for the
studentparty I had created, which is the best means I have to estimate