1. David Crosby
Quoted On Donald Trump
2. A Running
List Of The Women Who've Accused Donald
Trump Of Sexual Assault
3. Noam Chomsky Unravels the Political Mechanics
His Gradual Expulsion From Mainstream Media
4. Posting New Secret Trade Docs, Wikileaks Further
Exposes Corporate Plot
5. The Photos That Helped End Child Labor in the United
This is a Nederlog of Saturday, October 15, 2016.
is a crisis log with 5 items and 7 dotted links: Item 1
is about a nice bit of conversation on Donald Trump by David Crosby (of
Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young fame); item 2 is
about a list of women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault
(indeed quite like
he described it to Billy Bush): Twelve yesterday, fourteen this
morning, and this is accompanied by a video with Bill Maher: The GOP =
the Grab Our Pussies party; item 3 is about an
interview Ralph Nader had with Noam Chomsky (who has been censored from
and by the main media for something like forty years now); item 4 is about the secret (!!) trade deal
that will bring neofascism everywhere if it is accepted (as it well may
be - and yes, I explain it again); and item 5
is about photos that helped end child labor in the USA, and that was
reviewed here also a year ago, but the photos are really quite
impressive (and are about the cruel intentional abuse of children)
and have been repeated on Mother Jones.
part, for the moment --
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. 
C. In case you visit my Danish site: It now
works again (!), but I do not know how long it will keep working. (But not
on October 13.) The
Dutch site still is a mess.
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.
I will keep this introduction until I get three successive days (!!!)
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen that
for many months now.
Quoted On Donald Trump
The first item today is a quote from David Crosby that I found on The
Guardian. Because The Guardian insists that its journalists are all
literary geniuses whose texts require protection for 72 years (it seems), I had to
copy it manually :
Here is the quotation:
It's a very tough
time in the United States, man. Donald Trump has pulled a scab off an
ongoing infection in this country of racism and stupidity that is
beyond belief. He's made it obvious that the big part of the bell curve
of the intelligence distribution is at room temperature IQ. And there's
a whole shitload of not very smart people out there who buy into Donald
Trump. Trump is an obvious charlatan, an obvious liar, an obvious piece
of shit. The only people who would believe him are dummies. People who
are politically primitive. His and their world is laced with racism.
The racism in this country is fully active and fully discouraging in
how pervasive it is.
I like the quotation and I
have four comments on it, in the order they appear above, which I
indicate by their bolded key terms
And frankly I have always
wanted a woman president and Hillary is not who I would have picked. I
think she's just a politician. I think under Hillary, nothing is going
to change. It's the same game, same players. But I think that under
Trump, we would get into wars and the country would come unglued
completely. I love my country, man, it was a good idea when it was a
democracy. But it's not a democracy now, it's a corporate-run place.
The corporations have so much money and they throw it at congressional
elections and then the Congress does what they tell them.
And that's a very
Intelligence: I like it that David Crosby speaks of a "stupidity that is beyond belief", because that is also my initial reaction. Then again,
there are two remarks to be made:
First, at least two more items are involved: stupidity, ignorance and egoism aka greed.
I think all are far more important than most people like to
think, and I also think all are
very real facts. But there is one additional item that
also should be mentioned:
Second, one important item in creating (far) more stupidity,
and egoism than there would be without it is the propaganda in
the mainstream media, which has been ever increasing since 1980 or so,
and has been steeply increasing since 2001.
Trump: Yes indeed: "Trump is an obvious charlatan, an obvious liar, an obvious
piece of shit. The only people who would believe him are dummies."
Then again, some of the dummies are dummies not because
they lack native intelligence, but because they have had little
education and have been propagandized
a lot, whereas for this psychologist it is also obviously
true that Trump is not merely or even predominantly a charlatan, a liar
and a moral shit, but he is these things (also) because he is insane
Then again, I have to admit that far fewer psychologists,
psychiatrists and medical people say so than think so, I suppose
because most like their high incomes a lot better (and - I
admit - also in some cases their personal safety) than giving public
voice to some danger
their training allowed them to see. 
Hillary: I agree that "Hillary is not who I would have picked", but then I also have to admit that (i) I don't
see much difference between female and male politicians anyway  and that (ii) my own guess is that
electing a woman to be president is mostly of symbolic
importance. Then again, I am not at all against a woman as president.
And I also agree with David Crosby that (probably) "nothing is going to change. It's the same game, same players" with Hillary as president. I do not think this will
be much good, but I agree again that (probably) "under Trump, we would get into wars and the country would
come unglued completely" (which is a lot more evil).
Democracy: Finally, I agree that the present-day
USA is "not a
democracy now, it's a corporate-run place". In fact, I don't know whether I would call the USA "a real
democracy" at any time, and that basically for two reasons:
First, the original founders of the USA, in the 18th Century, did not
want a democracy:
what they wanted was a republic. I am not certain how
influential that was and is, but I do know that is what the
founders wanted, and that is also why there are not many laws
that would guarantee some democratic government. Then again, I also
agree that in some ways - such as progressive taxation and
decent public schools - there was something like
democracy in the USA in the 1960ies and 1970ies, when there also was a
somewhat decent free press. (But both are no longer the case now.)
Second, another reason to doubt that there ever was a real
democracy in the USA is that the rich always had very
much more influence than the non-rich. This in fact is also the case in
Europe, but always was considerably more so in the USA (which in part
also explains the backwardness of the labor laws in the USA,
compared with Europe).
But I am willing to agree that the evidence for and against a
real democracy is mixed, if you agree with me that indeed there
isn't much democracy (of the real kind) in the present USA:
Ordinary people may vote, but they are rarely heard in
2. A Running List Of The Women Who've Accused Donald Trump Of
The second item is by Catherine Pearson on Huffington Post, that also
decided its journalists are geniuses whose texts may not be quoted for
72 years (or is it 78?)  I only list the article:
There are 12 women mentioned in the article.
Meanwhile, there are two more.
And since I can't quote the Huffington Post directly anymore , here is something else:
This is from Bill Maher's "Real Time" that
was aired yesterday. I like it, and it contains one of the new names
for the GOP that these days still support Donald Trump: "Grab Our
Pussies". (For that is what they allow their presidential candidate to do.)
Unravels the Political Mechanics Behind His Gradual Expulsion From
The third item is by Alexandra Rosenmann on AlterNet:
This starts as follows:
Ralph Nader and leading linguist Noam
Chomsky engaged in a much anticipated discussion in early October on Ralph Nader
Radio Hour. The two raised questions about changing the media
narrative in a totalitarian-like state, and how Chomsky got dismissed
from the mainstream altogether.
"How often have you been on the op-ed
pages of the New York Times?" Nader asked Chomsky.
For Chomsky, the last time was over a
Also, all in all it seems to have been two
times. And the reasons that one of the best minds of his generation has
been systematically denied access to the mainstream media are
(1) he does not agree with the American leading ideology, and
(2) he is an anarchist, while (3) he is very difficult to beat in a
real and open discussion.
In fact, it isn't much better elsewhere:
The last link is to a 2003 (!!) program of
Charlie Rose. Then there is this on the censorship on Noam
Chomsky and his opinions in all the mainstream American media,
for well over 40 years now:
"How about NPR and PBS, partially
taxpayer-supported...more free-thinking and more tolerant [outlets]?"
Nader wanted to know.
"I've been on
'Charlie Rose' two or three times," Chomsky told Nader (...)
Yes, precisely: The liars, frauds and cheats
are dealt with as if they are extremely special persons with very
special opinions and insights, whereas an extremely intelligent
intellectual who is neither a liar, nor a fraud nor a cheat has been
systematically excluded from reaching the American people.
The irony of Chomsky's media criticism
being dismissed by the media is not lost on the former MIT professor,
who remains in awe of America's level of censorship.
"Any one of the former Bush-Cheney
warmongers like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton and others have gotten
far more press after they've left federal positions; in the New York
Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post," Nader said.
And unlike Chomsky, "They've been on
television public television, NPR and they have a record of false
statements; they have record of deception, they have record of pursuing
policies are illegal under our Constitution, under international law
and under federal statutes such as criminal invasion of Iraq and other
adventures around the world," Nader pointed out.
And by now the few rich (probably in the end guided by Lewis Powell
Jr.'s warnings (<- Wikipedia) are also manipulating and corrupting everything they
can lay their hands on:
But the media problem permeates other
industries, like education and government.
"Now, a society that operates in a way
where propaganda is not only emanating from the major media but it gets
into our schools, the kind of courses are taught, the content of the
history, is a society that's not going to be mobilized for its own
survival, much less the survival of other countries whose dictators we
have for decades supported to oppress their people," explained Nader.
Incidentally, I agree with Ralph Nader,
but I would not
have called education and government "industries" (as the journalist seems to do): Neither is trying to
get a maximal profit by making some commodity, as is the case for the
things ordinarily called "industries".
If you want to know more, here is a link
to the interview (which is radio):
4. Posting New Secret Trade Docs, Wikileaks Further Exposes
The fourth item today is by Jon Queally on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Even as it continued to post new
batches of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta,
Wikileaks on Friday also published new
draft chapters of the Trade in Services
Agreement (TISA) which shed new light on the pending deal that
critics say puts global economies at further risk from powerful banks,
financial institutions, and corporate greed.
Yes indeed, I quite agree that the TISA still
is secret (apart from what was released on Wikileaks) and that it seeks
to "shape the global economic and legal systems
in favor of major corporations and elite interests".
release follows a series of others by the pro-tranparency
publication and comes just days ahead of the next round of TISA
negotiations set to begin Monday in Washington, DC. The leaked
documents included in Friday's release include three draft chapters
from the agreement—covering "Financial Services," "Localization
Provisions," and "Bilateral Market Access." The chapters are from June
of this year and bring the number of documents related to the TISA
negotiations published by Wikileaks up to 70 total.
Along with the Trans Pacific Partnership
(TPP) and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investement Partnership (TTIP),
TISA is actually the largest of the "Three Big T's" of pending
international agreements that seek to further shape the global economic
and legal systems in favor of major corporations and elite interests.
TISA is the largest of the three deals, and according to World Bank
figures cited by Wikileaks, services that would be covered by the
massive agreement comprise around 75% of the EU economy, 80% of the US
economy and the majority of economies of most countries.
But I go further than registering that the TISA is a secret "agreement" that "comprise[s] around 75% of the EU economy, 80% of the
US economy and the majority of economies of most countries":
I say it is an extremely impertinent attempt by the
very rich CEOs and their lawyers to give all powers,
including all democratic powers, to the very rich CEOs and
their lawyers, which simply is - quite classically also  - fascism or neofascism.
And here is why this is in fact fascism or neofascism :
According to one of the companion
analyses by Wikileaks released alongside the TISA chapters, the current
deal, if finalized, "would
heighten risks of financial instability and handcuff governments’
ability to respond to a domestic or global financial crisis at a time
when everyone (except the finance industry and its political allies)
agree that we need more financial regulation, not less."
In response to the latest leaks on
Friday, the leaders
of organized labor unions said it was more clear than ever that
TISA "is no more than a corporate power grab and that negotiations must
I agree but add again that since the
1930ies (!!) "a corporate power grab" (on a world scale, moreover) = a (neo)fascist power
There is also this, and I agree with most of it:
Yes - except that I would not say that trying
to squeeze through a secret neofastic plan to give
all powers to the CEOs of multi-nationals
is "deeply unsatisfactory". I call it - who has been called "a dirty
fascist" and a "terrorist" for 11 years in the University of Amsterdam because I
believe(d) in truth and science (!!!) - a fascist or neofascist plan. 
Fred van Leeuwen, General Secretary of
Education International (EI), said that in addition to TISA's
concerning contents, the secrecy surrounding how the deal is being
negotiated remains troubling.
"These leaks give a
clear indication of the dangerous direction of the TiSA
negotiations," The fact that citizens and civil society are still
obliged to rely on leaks for getting a sense of the direction of the
negotiations is deeply unsatisfactory."
And Ron Oswald, General Secretary of the
International Union of Food Workers (UIF), indicated that organized
labor should really only have one set of demands at this point.
"It’s time to halt the negotiations,
publish the secret texts and ensure the widest possible public debate
to expose the full extent of the threat these treaties pose to
democracy and the labour movement," Oswald said.
And as CEPR's James declared,
"Globalization’s cheerleaders are all handwringing about the widespread
opposition to trade pacts. But what they don’t acknowledge is that
people around the world are not rejecting 'trade,' they are rejecting
corporate control over our lives. People want to live in a democracy;
they want quality, accessible public services; a well-regulated
financial sector; and decent jobs for all ― the opposite agenda of the
deregulation, locked-in privatization, and antidevelopment fundamentals
of the secret proposed TISA, according to today’s explosive leak."
Anyway... that is the probable future, unless there is
another major economical collapse. Here is some more on what the future
(with more than 7 billion people) may bring back again (also in
5. The Photos That Helped End Child Labor in the United States
The fifth and last item today is by Mark Murrmann on Mother Jones:
I have reviewed this once before,
but since Mother Jones shows it again, I review it again, because I
think these photos are quite admirable, though the subject - child
labor - is quite horrible.
Here is some more on the man who made the pictures:
In the early 1900s, Lewis Hine left his
job as a schoolteacher to work as a photographer for the National Child
Labor Committee, investigating and documenting child labor in the
United States. As a sociologist, Hine was an early believer in the
power of photography to document work conditions and help bring about
change. He traveled the country, going to fields, factories, and
mines—sometimes working undercover—to take pictures of kids as young as
four years old being put to work.
Partly as a result of Hine's work (as
well as that of Mary
Harris Jones, who Mother Jones is named after), Congress
passed the Keating-Owens Child Labor Act in 1916. It
established child labor standards, including a a minimum age (14 years
old for factories, and 16 years old for mines) and an eight-hour
workday. It also barred kids under the age of 16 from working
overnight. However, the Keating-Owens Act was later ruled
unconstitutional, and lasting reform to federal child labor laws didn't
come until the New Deal.
the image willl lead you to the site, where the pictures are 4
I copied the above picture and the following text from October 4, 2015:
The photography has
the following text under it:
Back on October 16,
2016: Yes indeed. And for me, at least, it makes sense to think
that if I had been born a mere 50 years earlier and in the USA,
I might have been one of these boys.
the end of the day in a Pennsylvania coal mine. The smallest boy near
the far right, is a nipper. On his right is Arthur, a driver. Jo, on
Arthur's right, is a nipper. Frank, the boy on the left end of the
photo, is a nipper and works a mile underground from the shaft, which
is 5,000 feet down.
Note that the six
children in front are around 10 or 12 years old; that they had worked a
10 hour day; and that this happened a mere 100 years ago in the USA
("Land of the free, home of the brave"), and was not really made better
until the New Deal of the 1930ies.
There are many more
similar pictures in the last dotted link: I found
all of them quite fascinating, although in fact they are
about cruel and harsh child abuse.
Originally, I planned
to give this item my own title: "What the
rich want", but I did not, although that is what I think:
So here you have
of how it was, a mere hundred years ago (and indeed 85 years
how it very well may be in 25 to 50 years from now, when there will be
many more people, and it will be a lot warmer, and the rich may have
divided the world into the few who have nearly everything and the many
who have nearly nothing, and who will not eat if they don't
work, regardless of their age, health or condition, even if they are
four years old.
- I do not
believe in any necessary course of moral improvement in history.
- I do
believe that the few rich have nearly always nearly everywhere
exploited as much as they could, for the simple reason that this was
most profitable for them.
- I believe that if
it is up to the - majority of the - rich, then these pictures may give
a good view of the future of the American workers.
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
In fact, I think that the exclusions of my right to copy texts written
by journalists, which is now the norm on The Guardian and on The
Huffington Post is a sign that neofascism moves on and on.
I think it is a totally anti-democratic measure that serves
three classes of people: The very rich; the editors serving the very
rich (whatever they pretend); and the journalists who are paid by the
Whoever believes that journalists are geniuses whose texts deserve the
copyright protections that literary writers have is out of his mind.
The real facts for nearly all journalism are well
by this question from the 1960ies (when it was literally true - for
today you have to increase the price 20-fold):
"What costs 25 cents today, was worth millions yesterday, and is worth
nothing tomorrow? Today's paper."
Yes, for I am quite sure that if any medical, psychological or
psychiatric person would get an outline of Trump's behavior and extremely
many lies, threats, accusations and degradations of persons they would
say that the best explanation is that a man who says and does things
like that is very probably not sane.
The only reason I can think of that most do not (and look the other
way, at least in public) is that it may be risky for their incomes.
 And for two reasons: First, I do not
see much relevant difference between males and females. And second, I
do see considerable differences between the very few who become
politicians and the rest: Those who become politicians tend to excel in
precisely one respect from most others: They are great liars.
 To repeat a note:
mean what the American Heritage Dictionary defines as follows:
is defined as "A system of government that exercises a
dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of
state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
By neo-fascism I
- here - a fascism that does not occur through "the merging of
state and business leadership"
but that occurs through the subjection of state leadership to (external)
business leadership, e.g. as foreseen by the TTIP's ISDSs.
Also, the first definition goes back to the 1930ies.
 In case you need comment: See the previous note.
 As I have been pointing out, I am not
saying anything unreasonable. But by now I think the vast majority who
can see what I can see don't say what I say because they fear beinbg
politically incorrect: You should not speak the truth if the
truth sounds ugly.
Well.. my grandfather got murdered as a "political terrorist"
in a German concentration camp (he was a communist who resisted the
Nazis); my father has survived more than 3 years and 9 months
of German concentration camps as a "political terrorist" (he
was a communist who resisted the Nazis), and indeed was the only
communist who was knighted during the existence of the Communist Party;
whereas I have been merely called "a dirty fascist" and
a "terrorist" in the University of Amsterdam for 11 years
because I believed in truth and in science (which hardly
anyone did in Dutch universities between 1971 and 1995, because
these were all in the power of first quasi-"communist" students and
later postmodernistic students, simply because the minister of
education got parliamentary majority in 1971 to hand over the
universities to the students (in whose hands the power remained
These same students were nearly all quasi-"communists" in the late
70ies and early 80ies because my father and mother were real
communists (and a lot more intelligent than any of the
"communist" students I met) who both resisted the Nazis, whereas the quasi-"communists"
I met in the University of Amsterdam were all sons or daughters of rich
parents who drifted with the fashionable flow in the university because that
was the majority then and there, and not because they
had any personal conviction other
than their entitlement to
everything. (Meanwhile, all these ex-"communists" have converted to
some form of neoconservatism. They also all earned some 10 to 20 times
more than I did (because I never got healthy since I was 28).)
They were all genuine Stalinists, though: Totalitarian
minds, quite capable of terrorism, namely against persons like me, who merely said (politely also) that I was not a Marxist and believed in truth and science.