1. Arresting Our Way to ‘Justice’
We Have All Won an Oligarchy and Lost a Democracy
3. In the Trump Matrix:
4. Why On Earth Should Anyone Study Philosophy?
This is a Nederlog of Thursday, September 29, 2016.
is a crisis log with 4 items and 4 dotted links: Item 1
is about justice, and I did not agree to the article I review, but then
I may not have understood all of it, and also the 'justice' I know best
is Dutch 'justice', which is rotten, if you don't agree with
the illegal drugsdealer your mayor illegallly gave his "personal
permission" to deal from the house where you live; item 2 is about a decent article by Thom Hartmann; item 3 is about a so-so article on Trump (he is not
just mad: he is also a neofascist, or so I would argue); and item 4 is about why
anyone would study philosophy: Since I did, and have been reading
philosophy for 50 years now, I think I can answer that question rather
well (and I say you much better study mathematics or physics if you
want to be a real philosopher).
I decided that I would not to review the Clinton-Trump debate at
all. And here is a tweet by Glenn Greenwald I picked up yesterday:
2016 primary was that literally nothing is a less reliable indicator of
debate impact than the reactions of journalists.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald)
September 27, 2016
In case you visit my
Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need
to click/reload twice or more
to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for
possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my
In any case, I am now (again) updating
the opening of my site with the last day it was updated.
(And I am very sorry if you have to click/reload several times
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. And
it was yesterday still or again the case. Indeed, this also
holds for the opening pages: These too are not renewed at
"xs4all", or at least: Not for me.) 
C. In case you visit my Danish site: You may
have more luck than I have. The Danish site has been almost
completely destroyed for me because of the actions of its
providers: My own e-mail access was terminated; the good
statistics I had from 2004-2015 were completely terminated; it
is also impossible for me to get access as a guest; and
yesterday I had for most of the day no access with FTP
to my site, whereas today started with having no access
with Firefox to my site. (It now works again (!))
I have no idea who does this. It may be - in the Danish case -
that this is related to some changes they are making there, but I do
not know this (and if so, they seem to know less about
computers than I do).
I am very sorry, and none of it is due to me. I
am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that
also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
1. Arresting Our Way to ‘Justice’
item today is by
Rebecca Gordon on Truthhdig and originally on TomDispatch:
This is from near the beginning:
We are living in a country where
the solution to just about any social problem is to create a law
against it, and then punish those who break it.
I’ve been teaching an ethics class at
the University of San Francisco for years now, and at the start of
every semester, I always ask my students this deceptively simple
question: What’s your definition of justice?
I should start with saying that this
article is spread over four files, and that I will not
excerpt all or most of it. And I also should say that I may not be quite
understanding Rebecca Gordon's points, possibly - in part - because I
am not American but Dutch.
Then again, I do have considerable
experiences with the Dutch "laws" and also with many Dutchmen: My ill
ex and my ill self were for three years kept out of sleep by
two sick sadists in the student flat in which we lived. And while
most who knew of our problems agreed with this diagnosis, no
one wanted to do anything to help us:
We learned that those who lived there as
well as we did were all of the opinion this was not their
problem, and we also were not their family and not
their personal friends, so although they wished to talk about
it, they did not want to do anything whatsoever
against the threats of murder and the persecutions by physical
violence. That, they thought, was not their duty. 
This also persisted (or got worse) after
Amsterdam's City Police appeared (after tens of totally
fruitless phonecalls during about a year) who told my ex and myself, and
the insane madman, and the other inhabitants of the
studentflat, literally this (in translation):
"We [of the Amsterdam police] only come
when the dead bodies are lying on the floor, for all Amsterdammers are
assholes. Bye, bye sir."
And they stepped into their police car and
left. The speakers were two ca. 20 year old policemen who, judged by
their accents, were not from Amsterdam but from the north of
I think both the attitudes of our
fellow students and of the City Police are typical for
the Dutch, and also explain why over 1% of the Dutch population
could be murdered during WW II because "they were of inferior race"
- but then again, my fellow students probably would retort that I think
this because my parents and grandparents belonged to the very
few who went into the resistance against the Nazis. 
Anyway... this was some background.
As to solving social problems by creating
laws: I see quite a few problems - the laws may be incorrect, or the
social problems might be solved or lessened by other means than
the law, to name only two obvious points - but I see no principal
problem with creating laws, though again there will be quite a
few practical and theoretical problems.
As to the definition of justice: One of
the - very many - things I did not get in my education is a
definition of justice
that makes sense. It simply was never given, which is a serious
lack, simply because there are some 150 to 200 years of explicit
intricate social, political and economical laws in Holland. It
seems this is the same in the USA, which is also the reason many
different people give quite different answers.
Here indeed are two of the better
definitions of justice Rebecca Gordon got from her pupils. This is the
An economics major writes, for instance,
“People are born unequal in genetic potential, financial and
environmental stability, racial prejudice, geographic conditions, and
nearly every other facet of life imaginable. I believe that the aim of
a just society is to enable its citizens to overcome or improve their
I like this especially because the
writer stresses native and other inequalities people are born with -
but I don't know this would be possible or popular in Holland,
for all people are declared legally
"equivalent" i.e. "of the same value" as anybody else (on the proposal
of the "Communist" leader of his parliamentary faction (!)) - which
means every fascist, every sadist, every liar, and every criminal is of
precisely the same value as my heroic father who survived
nearly four years of Geman concentration camps, and never was a
fascist, a sadist, a liar or a criminal (except for the Nazis).
And here is a Danish student comparing his
country to the USA:
A Danish student compares his country to
the one where he’s studying:
“The Danish welfare system is constructed in such a way that
people pay more in taxes and the government plays a significant role in
the country. We have free healthcare, education and financial aid to
the less fortunate. Personally, I believe this is a just system where
we take care of our own.”
Although my brother lives in Denmark the
last 30 years I do not know this is correct. It may be, but the same is
certainly completely incorrect for Holland, although it is
claimed on American TV:
All Dutchmen these days are legally
forced to take a healthcare insurance that takes in my case some
15% of my income; does not even repay my sleeping pills; is
extremely much worse than the healthcare I could get
until my fifties for 1/7th of the cost; is completely
profit-driven; and gets more and more and more expensive every
year; and also forces everyone to pay the first 350 euros - about 12 days
of income for me - in their healhth costs themselves.
All Dutchmen who passed the - extremely
minimal and strongly minimized - demands to study at a
university may study, but their courses are 10 or a 100
times more expensive than they were in my time; there is no
money anymore for any student grants (so your parents have
to be rich or well off, in fact); and the education they receive takes
half the time and less than half of the talents as was the case in
And "financial aid to the less fortunate"
still exists for extremely
poor folks like me (I don't even have the minimal pension everyone
gets, because I lived for some years in Norway), but otherwise seems to
be terminated everywhere.
It is absolutely false that the
Dutch have the same things as the Danes are supposed to have:
Everything the Danes still have, was destroyed, on purpose, and
with great glee, by Dutch politicians since 1995.
There were also less good responses to
Rebecca Gordon's questions, and indeed the less good ones were the norm:
For most of my students—for most
Americans in fact—justice means establishing the proper penalties for
crimes committed. “Justice for me,” says one, “is defined by the
punishment of wrongdoing.” Students may add that justice must be
impartial, but their primary focus is always on retribution. “Justice,”
as another put it, “is a rational judgment involving fairness in which
the wrongdoer receives punishment deserving of his/her crime.”
Actually - I would say - the students do
know English.  The problem with the definitions
they do give is that "wrongdoing" is wholly undefined,
and also that "punishment" (which is also completely undefined) seems
supposed to be the only way that "wrongdoing" gets corrected.
To put this otherwise: Precisely
the same answers might have been given by students who lived in
Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, yet what was "wrongdoing"
and "punishment" in these countries differed a lot with what the same
terms meant (judicially, indeed) in the USA.
In fact, it seems most people's
understanding of "justice" derives from an elementary knowledge of
English, and does not seem to involve much or any knowledge of relevant
facts, such as the following:
Strangely, however, they seldom mention
that this country has 2.2 million people in prison or jail; or that it imprisons the largest proportion of people in the world; or that,
with 4% of the global population, it holds 22% of the world’s
prisoners; or that these prisoners are disproportionately brown and black. Their concern is
less about those who are in prison and perhaps shouldn’t be, than about
those who are not in prison and ought to be.
I don't think that is very
strange, simply because I think only a relatively small minority of
people seems to know these facts, which indeed are not
prominent in the main media.
There is considerably more, that I leave
to your interest, except for the last quotation that I will give, that
sketches an alternative approach:
Indeed, it already happens all the time
on a small scale around the country, through community
mediation services. These organizations help neighbors settle
disputes that might otherwise result in a trip to civil courts or the
pressing of criminal charges. An important aspect of the process is
listening to and acknowledging the harm others have experienced.
I say. Well... I have tried the
above approach in Holland for seven years, first three years
against a completely insane sadistic neighbor
who terrorized my ex and me with violence, murder threats, and endless
music between 23.00 o'clock and 04.00 o'clock, and next against illegal
drugs- dealers that the mayor of my city (illegally) had "permitted to
deal drugs" (which were and are illegal) from the bottom floor in the
house where I lived, and who threatened me with murder, tried to
gas me, and kept me out of sleep for four years.
What I learned was exactly the same: Dutch
nearly all go by whether you are family or friends: If you are neither
family nor friends, they will refuse to do anything for you; Dutch
bureaucrats nearly all go by what their superiors decide,
and if their superiors decide to help turn over (the last 30 years)
about 700 billion euros in illegal drugs (!!!!), then they will
nearly all help their superiors, because they decide, they pay
their salaries, and somebody who just does what he is told
(they think, and say, even though that is quite false) "has no
responsibility and is not accountable".
So no: Until ordinary people grow less stupid, less ignorant, more individualistic
and more courageous than they really are in Holland, and seem
to be elsewhere, I do not expect much from community mediation services:
I have tried them. For seven years. And
they completely failed. 
2. We Have All Won an Oligarchy and Lost a Democracy
The second item is by Thom Hartmann on AlterNet:
This starts as follows:
Actually, I knew all of this. Then again, I
also immediately agree that
Here's a thought experiment for you. Ask
yourself, "When was the last time I heard any conversation at all about
the role of corporations in the United States in the U.S. public media?"
In the abstract, it seems like a silly
question. So let me rephrase it:
When was the last time you heard in the
media that Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and Donald
Trump both support Citizens United and its concept
that corporations are people?
When was the last time you heard that
Hillary Clinton has said, repeatedly, that repealing Citizens
United is at the top of her agenda when it comes to picking
Supreme Court nominees?
(1) I think nearly everything that I reported the last 3 years was not
taken from the main media but from alternative media, among which
Truthdig and Common Dreams stand high, and also that (2) I am one of
the minority that
reads the alternative media (and I do not know how large that
But Thom Hartmann is certainly correct as regards the mainstream
Have you heard any discussion of this on
mainstream television news? It's fundamental to the larger question of
what role corporations, including private, for-profit school
corporations, should play in our nation… and no one on mainstream cable
news is talking about it.
This is true of almost every single
important issue facing the country right now, especially those that
have to do with corporate power.
I agree - and that is definitely quite
intentional. I mean: They are really doing it on purpose,
and with a full consciousness. And what they are doing, quite
consciously also, is to deny the majority of the Americans, the
information they need to base rational decisions on.
(And see below.)
Then there is this:
And then there's the banks. They can
borrow at about 1 percent, but lend to us at around 30 percent on our
credit cards and 5 to 10 percent on student loans. Their profits are
also at all-time highs, and we could be facing another banking crisis
like 2008. But is anyone over at CNN talking about this? No, they're
I agree. There are many more similar
problems, some of which are mentioned by Thom Hartmann, but I
refer you to his text if you want to know more.
Here is a conclusion of Thom Hartmann:
On my radio show three months ago, I
offered to send a free autographed book to the first caller who could
point to a serious, thoughtful discussion of even one single issue in
this election happening in the corporate media outside of Fareed
Zakaria's weekend program on CNN. So far nobody has won the book.
I say. I do not know how many people react
to Thom Hartmann's show, but I am quite willing to believe him, indeed
because of a reason that follows, that
also is the last bit that I'ĺl quote from this article:
Since Reagan killed the Fairness
Doctrine and the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, our
media has completely shifted from "news" to infotainment. It's largely
fact-free, and the only things discussed are personalities, gotchas and
the horse-race claptrap.
It's completely free of facts that would
give us any information, context or understanding of the role that
corporate power plays in our lives.
In other words, it's completely devoid of
the kind of information a functional media is supposed to provide the
citizens of a democratic republic
First, the Fairness
Doctrine (<-Wikipedia), which amounted to this:
The Fairness Doctrine was
a policy of the United States Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present
controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that
was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The
FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC
formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.
This was terminated because it limited the
freedoms to deceive
the public that the neofascistic "neoliberals" 
wanted: Since they have these freedoms, the public gets deceived by
"news" that is mostly not news at all, but is amusement, and
the public also gets deceived by not getting most
information that is rationally necessary to judge things with good
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic
elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to
discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting
views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to
how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news
segments, public affairs shows, or editorials.
And I agree with Thom Hartmann's diagnosis apart from one
thing: He should not have said "our media", and should have
said "our mainstream media". For I do know quite a lot about
what is happening in the USA, and most of that knowledge (still) comes
from the USA.
This indeed may soon be different, namely if Trump becomes president of
the USA. Also, I do like to mention that the same thing
happened outside the USA: In Holland, the NRC-Handelsblad, which was a good
paper from 1970- 2010 (which are the forty years I read it) was totally
transformed since, and these days almost only gives amusements and
infotainment and news about mostly Dutch "personalities".
It is utter trash compared with what the same paper delivered
for forty years.
(But few seem to care, and indeed almost no one who is younger than I
am has had a halfway decent education. Then again, few care about
3. In the Trump Matrix:
The third item is by Andrew O'Hehir on Salon (and I have radically
shortened the short story that is the title of this article):
This starts as follows:
Amid the howling vacuum of Donald
Trump’s mind and Donald Trump’s damaged personality, there has never
been room for other people. That has been obvious all along to anyone
who has remotely paid attention, so it’s foolish to claim that Trump’s
bottomless narcissism was at last laid bare before the world in Monday
night’s presidential debate. Narcissism and vainglory and
“braggadociousness” are not incidental by-products of the Trump
campaign or the Trump brand; they are its all in all. As has become
terrifyingly clear, large numbers of Americans like Trump precisely
because he’s a pompous blowhard saying things he doesn’t actually
believe about subjects he doesn’t understand.
I agree with most of this (and I am a
psychologist ) but in fact Trump is worse
than the "all in all" that Andrew O'Hehir declares him to be, that
consists of "[n]arcissism and vainglory and
For although it is extremely difficult to
be certain about what Trump really thinks because he lies every 3 1/4 minute, I am also
rather certain that there
is an ideology behind
most of Trump's bullshit,
and the ideology is authoritarian, racist and neofascist (aka
"neoliberal", though it has nothing to do with classical
I agree that Trump
is mad (who but a madman would try to become president with a lie every 3 1/4 minute?!) but there is
more to him than just madness.
Then following bit suffers from the same
Trump’s only plausible audience for his
endless self-glorification is, well, himself. His only argument for
being president is his own greatness, and his only argument for his
greatness is that his greatness is so huge as to be self-evident.
Again, I agree that Trump is mad, and that
he is mad because he - definitely - is a
grandiose narcissist, which is a "psychopathological
disorder", as the phrase is. But I also protest again that there is more
to him than merely a mad narcissist: He is authoritarian, racist and neofascist - as indeed not only I
but quite a few others have argued.
The article ends as follows:
Whether the American electorate yearns
to breathe those fumes into the indefinite future and would prefer to
live in an orange-hued monstrosity’s reflected self-delusion rather
than confronting the unsatisfying complications of the real world
remains to be seen.
I agree it seems to be - at present - a
50/50 chance whether Trump or Clinton wins the elections. (And see item 2 for a partial explanation.)
4. Why On Earth Should Anyone Study Philosophy?
The fourth and last item today is by Daniel Johnson on Standpoint:
This starts as follows:
This autumn, our youngest daughter went
to university to read philosophy. Some of the family were not entirely
sure that this choice of subject was a good idea: what, they asked,
would a philosophy degree do to help her earn a living? I, however,
defended her decision — not that it would have mattered if I hadn’t, as
she is a determined young woman — on the grounds that philosophy not
only teaches practical skills — to think, argue and write well, for
example — but that it is a good thing to study for its own sake.
Really now? Well... I have
studied it, and indeed read philosophy now for 50 years and logic
for 45 years,
and I got a straight A for my B.A. in philosophy (back in 1980),
although I was ill most of the time and never attended any lectures,
though indeed it is also true I have an extremely high IQ. 
Then again, I did not at all learn
"to think"; I did not at all learn "to argue"; and I certainly
also did not at all learn to "write well", were it only because
my teachers excelled in "understanding" Heidegger's prose,
while none of the Dutch ever published anything
because - extremely well-paid as they were as educational
bureaucrats  - they all said that they did not
publish because "we are not vain".
But I am willing to agree that this says
more about the Dutch "philosophers" who were supposed to educate me
than it may say about their English counter- parts, although I do
know enough of them not to take most seriously. 
And is it true that philosophy "is a good thing to study for its own sake"? Daniel Johnson, who does not seem to have studied
philosophy himself, is
sure it is:
How are we to make sense of the
world, of other people, or of ourselves, without the tools with which
the great philosophers have provided us? Above all, though, philosophy
can be fun. Where would we be without Ockham’s Razor or Zeno’s Arrow,
the Principle of Sufficient Reason or the Categorical Imperative, the
Veil of Ignorance or the Liar’s Paradox? To philosophise is not only to
learn how to die, but also how to live life to the full.
That, at least, is what I told my family
and myself. But is it really true?
No, it is not. In the above
quotation, Johnson gives three arguments.
The first - making "sense
of the world, of other people, or of ourselves" -
is not learned by learning philosophy or reading philosophers,
but by living and thinking for oneself. If one cannot
do that, one is also not fit for studying philosophy, but one's
understanding of "the world, of other people, or
of ourselves" involves much more than
philosophy, and indeed can be quite
well done - witness mathematicians, biologists, chemists, physicists
etc. - without knowing any proper philosophy. (Indeed, it would be very
The second - "philosophy can be fun" -
seems to be derived from Johnson's own reading of some
philosophy, without properly studying it academically.
Perhaps it may be, but I can assure him that the study itself was no
fun whatsoever. (Also, I should say that while I know - and
indeed deeply pondered - all of the problems Johnson names (i) I wonder
how many non-
academic philosophers could give a fairly correct rendering of what
these problems are, while (ii) I am convinced four out of the six
problems are mostly nonsense c.q. based on fallacies (Zeno’s
Arrow, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the Categorical Imperative,
and the Veil of Ignorance) while the remaining two (Ockham’s Razor and the Liar’s
Paradox) require logic rather than philosophy, to study them
The third - "to
philosophise is not only to learn how to die, but also how to live life
to the full" - (i) is utter and plain baloney
for anyone who has ever seen a collection of academic
philosophers, while (ii) it is also completely false for a man
like me, who has studied philosophy and logic for at least 45 years:
if I know how to die and if I know how to live a somewhat satisfactory
life even though I am probably the poorest Dutchman 
who also is ill for 37 years without this being even
acknowledged, I did not learn this from philosophy,
philosophers, logic or logicians, but (to the extent that I did and at least 35 years do) mostly
from reading (quite old) English literature, and notably William Hazlitt.
So each of the personal arguments Daniel
Johnson gave is completely false given my 45 years of intimate
knowledge of philosophy and logic.
He also gives three other
arguments, it seems from such philosophical literature as he has
The first (“Objection 1”) is that so
much philosophy now takes the form of specialised, highly technical and
often quite recondite commentary on other philosophers’ work.
This is definitely true, as indeed anyone
can convince himself or herself of, namely by reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, that almost only consists of extremely "recondite commentary on other philosophers’ work" - where it also should be noted that in very many
cases these "other philo- sophers" are some 4 to 8 persons with an academic job in
philosophy, and no one else (except for long lists of
literature almost no one reads).
1” might be stated in a far more serious form: Modern academic
philosophy exists for some 150 years; arose after most
philosophers had done their work and were dead; was done mostly by
who lack the academic talents to become good physicists or good
mathema- ticians; and consisted mostly from reflecting on the
"thoughts" formulated by some very few other academic
philosophers who had succeeded in getting an academic position.
Modern "academic philosophers" just are not
philosophers in the sense that Hume, or Montaigne, or Locke, or
Leibniz, or Descartes were philosophers:
Their subject is wholly and completely
academic; it is directed only at
discussing the official publications (mostly only available for
payments) that a very few contemporary academics,
who also are decidedly less intelligent than any of the
great philosophers, wrote in criticism of similar opinions of a
very few other comtemporary academics who are their colleagues.
Then there is the second objection:
The second caveat (“Objection 2”) is
that insofar as contemporary philosophy does come up with intelligible
conclusions, they are frequently banal.
This is also quite correct, except that it
is formulated considerably more carefully than I would do it, on the
basis of 50 years of reading philosophy:
Contemporary philosophy almost never comes up with any
intelligible conclusion, and if it does it is almost always
utterly banal (after peeling off
the large words and rectifying the grammar, to be sure).
Here is third reason Johnson considers:
The third and final problem (“Objection
3”) is contemporary philosophy’s tendency to undermine, rather than to
underpin, Western civilisation.
This is an objection only to the great
minds who absolutely know for certain that there is nothing better than
the present Western civilization. I am not one of them (though I agree
nearly everything modern "philosophy" teaches is both false and will
almost certainly belong to the teachings of a very few acade-
mics, who are not taken seriously by almost any good physicist
or mathe- matician - for that also is true).
I skip a lot and arrive at the last
Despite all these doubts about whether
philosophers really are fit guardians of posterity, I’m quite sanguine
about placing my daughter in their hands for the next three years. You
can’t beat seeing how philosophy is done — let alone doing it yourself.
What would I say to someone who
wants to study philosophy? Something like this:
First, academic philosophy is not
real philosophy: The very great majority of all academic philosophers
are philosophers because they are not
smart enough to study physics or mathematics, and the "philosophy" they
produce is nearly always in reply to what some of their ten or twenty
colleagues have written in
academic journals that are only accessible to those with a lot
of money, and is rarely of any intellectual, moral or human
Second, if you want to be a real
philosopher, you better ascertain that you are more talented
than most academic philosophers: An IQ above 150 and a good
knowledge of mathematics seem quite necessary (to me).
And third, if you want to be a real
philosopher, do not
study academic philosophy as your main subject: Much of it is extremely
boring; nearly all of it is quite false (for many different reasons);
nearly all academic philosophers are decidedly second, third or tenth
raters who can't really follow a real science; the books you
ought to read, as a real philosopher, are some 25 texts anyone
with sufficient intelligence can read for himself or herself;
and altogether you are very much better of with a good
degree in mathematics, physics, chemistry or biology than with any
degree in philosophy.
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months now. I
do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of
(really: the KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from
2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control
myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because
"you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which
is the perfect excuse never to do anything
 Perhaps I
should add that one of the two bastards who kept us awake at night -
quite intentionally also - was an obviously totally insane sadist
who might be very dangerous if threatened: This certainly
helped to move everyone else who lived in the flat to look
decidedly the other way whenever our problems were mentioned.
(The Dutch all are very heroic, which is also why more than 1%
of the Dutch were murdered during WW II.)
so, they are quite right - and indeed I do not know of any
other Dutch family that was as much concerned with resisting Nazism as
my family (for both my father and my mother were in the real -
communist - resistance, and both my father and his father were
arrested, and convicted, by Dutch judges, as "political
terrorists" to concentration camp imprisonment, that my grandfather did
Then again, my family was one of the very few such families: Most Dutch
families simply collaborated, forced, from free will, or in between.
 This is not as vapid a remark as it
may seem: What I am saying is that they do - more or less -
know what "justice" means in ordinary English, while very few
know much more than that (which is required to give a decent
definition of "justice").
 I do not know how much of this is due to my being Dutch.
 I do not think all neoliberals
are neofascists, but I do think many more of them are than honestly say
so. (And some also may now know.)
 This I mention only because this does
make me - at least somewhat - better abled to judge Trump's sanity than
most who did not study psychology.
(And see March 14, 2016 in case you
care to know some of my reasons for saying Trump is not sane.)
 See note 6.
 I really am very intelligent, but in
fact my academic qualifications (straight As in everything I did, even
though I was ill and never attended any lectures) are more than enough.
Also, I did read philosophy and logic for over 40 years simply because
I was and am interested, but I also agree - as I will explain
in the rest of this text - that I was quite mistaken in taking
philosophy as my main subject: I should have studied
mathematics or physics, for this would have given me a much better
basis (i) to do real philosophy, and (ii) to find interesting and
worthwile academic employment.
 In fact, I do not know whether this
is still the case (I suspect it is but do not know),
but all academically employed persons in Holland were formally either state's
bureaucrats or city bureaucrats,
which meant that they had a very high salary, very few real duties, and
a very high pension. (And in fact retaining these economic advantages
were the main motives of nearly all Dutch academics I
 My reason for this is that I have
read 50 years of philosophy, most of which was originally either
English or American.
 This is very probably true
because I literally never in my life earned as much as the
minimum legal income
in Holland: I started working age 17, but then did not get a minimal
income because I was too young; after that I only worked part time and
never got a minimal income; then I studied and got a (maximum) grant
that was considerably less than the dole; then I got for 31 years into
the dole, which never paid as much as a minimal income; and now
I am pensioned for more than a year with less than the minimal pension
because I lived for 2 years in Norway.
I do not know of anyone in Holland who had less
money all his life than myself. Everybody, even the biggest
moron without any education or any brains who worked,
got more than I did.