3. Why I am
a pessimist - 2
A.1. How economical exploitation works (since Aristotle)
A.2. How economical exploitation gets sold to the exploited
A.3. The formal analysis of how economical exploitation works
Economical exloitation pictured
A.5. What some of the consequences are now
This is a Nederlog of Wednesday, June 28, 2017.
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last four years:
I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch) and about
the enormous dangers of surveillance (by secret services and
by many rich commercial entities) since June 10, 2013, and I probably will
continue with it, but on the moment
I have several problems with my computer, my modem, the company that is
supposed to take care that my site is visible, and my health.
Since I am still looking at 35
sites every morning what I will do is to list the items
I selected as worth reading,
but without any of my
comments. Today I selected five items, and they are below
and link to the originals, but on the moment I have no comments,
basically because that takes too much work.
2. Crisis Files
have been writing on the crisis since September
1, 2008 (Dutch) and
with considerably more attention since June
10, 2013 (English).
If you check out the crisis index you will find that I wrote in over
eight years nearly 1600 files, that nearly all consisted of a
reference to one or more articles that were partially quoted and mostly
I will continue with that, simply because I think the crisis is
a very important social, political and economical event, but
meanwhile I have turned 67 and need a little rest,
so what I'll be doing the coming weeks (at least), is selecting 3 to 6
files from the 35
sites I consult every morning to see what's happening in the
world of politics and econonomics, and present them, but now without
Here is today's selection:
Major Church-State Decision, Supreme Court Sides with
all well worth reading.
Journalists Resign: Latest Example of Media Recklessness
the Russia Threat
May Be Collapsing as a Political Strategy
Cyberattack Wallops Europe; Spreads More Slowly in U.S.
of America’s Common Man
3. Why I am a pessimist - 2
This continues the same subject from yesterday, when I wrote about the
This time it is about power and politics. (You may disagree but to do so rationally you need to have read and understood most of the texts listed in the last linked item.)
A.1. How economical exploitation works (since Aristotle)
I will show how this works by quoting from one of my favorite writers, namely Henry
Fielding, who lived from 1707-1754, and who was an extremely
intelligent and very courageous individual and a great writer.
The following is from his "The Life of Jonathan Wild", who was a major
criminal in the beginning of the 18th Century (when there was no
police: this was an institution Fielding created).
Here is Jonathan Wild, according to Fielding (who was a great satirist):
"I remember when I
was at school to have heard some verses which for the excellence of
their doctrine made an impression on me, purporting that the birds of
the air and the beasts of the field work not for themselves. It is
true, the farmer allows fodder to his oxen and pasture to his sheep;
but it is for his own service, not theirs. In the same manner the
ploughman, the shepherd, the weaver, the builder, and the soldier work
not for themselves but others; they are contented with a poor pittance
(the labourer's hire), and permit us, the GREAT, to enjoy the fruits of their
labours. Aristotle, my master told us, hath plainly proved, in the
first book of his politics, that the low, mean, useful part of mankind
are born slaves to the wills of superiors, and are indeed as much their
property as the cattle.  It is well said of us, the higher order of
mortals, that we are born only to devour the fruits of the earth; and
it may as well be said of the lower class, that they are born only to
produce them for us. Is not the battle gained by the sweat and danger
of the common soldier? Are not the honour and fruits of the victory the
general's who laid the scheme? Is not the house built by the labour of
the carpenter and the bricklayer? Is it not built for the profit of the
architect and for the use of the inhabitant, who could not easily have
placed one brick upon another? Is not the cloth or the silk wrought
into its form and variegated with all the beauty of colours by those
who are forced to content themselves with the coarsest and vilest part
of their work, while the profit and enjoyment of their labours fall to
the share of others? Cast your eyes abroad, and see who is it lives in
the most magnificent buildings, feasts his plate with the most
luxurious dainties, his eyes with the most beautiful sculptures and
delicate paintings, and clothes himself in the finest and richest
apparel; and tell me if all these do not fall to his lot who had not
any the least share in producing all these conveniences, nor the least
ability to do so?"
At present, this is also the
position of the Republican Party in the USA, as it was the position of
Robert Walpole in the first half of the 18th Century (he was the most
powerful Englishman for 25 years, and Fielding suggested he was the like
of Jonathan Wilde).
- Henry Fielding, The Life of Jonathan Wilde, p. 24/5
And as you may have seen, the basic differences between the few rich
and the many non-rich are power and ideology.
We start with ideology:
A.2. How economical
exploitation gets sold to the exploited
Here is another bit of Henry Fielding, who this time
explains the art of politics:
"... as it is
impossible that any Man, endowed with rational Faculties, and being in
a State of Freedom, should willingly agree, without some Motive of Love
or Friendship, to absolutely sacrifice his own Interest to that of
another; it becomes necessary to impose upon him, to persuade him, that
his own Good is designed, and that he will be a Gainer by coming into
those Schemes, which are, in Reality, calculated for his Destruction.
And this, if I mistake not, is the very Essence of that excellent Art,
called The Art of Politics."
Of course in these much
more sophisticated days, more than 250 years after the above was
written, we have progressed to the following position (in the words of Hannah
- Henry Fielding, Miscellanies
The ideal subject of totalitarian
rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people
for whom the distinction between true and false no longer exists.
Now I have to get personal for a moment: I was
"educated" at the University of Amsterdam, which worked nearly
everywhere - outside mathematics, physics, and chemistry - from
1977 till 1995 on the following principle:
Everybody know that truth does
which was a lie that was stated officially
and formally in 1978, by the official opener of the academic year, and
was practised and believed in the University of Amsterdam from 1978
till 1995 by about 95% of the students (with an average IQ of
115), and about 95% of the staff (with an income twenty times
as high as the students).
I know this, because I belonged to the 5% who was for real
science and against political ideology, and I created a
student-party, which got 5% of the votes. (From 1971 till 1995 the
Dutch universities were formally in the hands of the students, and this
was a totally unique arrangement in the world. It turned out that the
student party that always had the absolute majority in the University of Amsterdam was the ASVA, but
it also turned out this was easily corruptable and very corrupt. )
Also, in great thanks and in reward for my troubles, and also because I
had truly said I was not a Marxist (1) I was many tens
of times publicly cried out to be "a fascist", "a dirty fascist",
"something like a fascist" etc. (for example, because I said that not
all people are equally intelligent: Not so, I was told in 1989:
Everybody is just as intelligent as Newton or
Einstein, and the reason that everybody did not get the fame those
two got is simply that they chose to do different
things than these two did - and someone who suggested otherwise, like
me, was, therefore, "something like a fascist":
This happened in the faculty of psychology, and the person telling me
this no doubt has been a very well-paid psychologist ever since ) and
(2) I was removed very briefly
before taking my M.A. in philosophy from the right of doing so, by being
kicked out of the faculty of philosophy as "a fascist terrorist",
which was also firmly supported by its Board of Directors
(Gevers, Poppe and Cammelbeeck).
Also in 1988 I was - very literally - gassed by the
fascist terrorist illegal drugsdealers that were given (I quote) "the
personal permission" by Amsterdam's mayor Van Thijn to deal in - illegal
- soft drugs from the bottom floor in the house where I lived
and not he. (Van Thijn's illegal drugsdealers also
dealt in hard drugs, and were arrested for that in 1991, but I
was not allowed to file a complaint against them for
threatening to murder me if I did anything that displeased them, by the
utterly corrupt Amsterdan City Police who supported the illegal and
rich drugsdealers much rather than the law).
So therefore I am the poorest Dutchman there is (of everyone
who never got in prison), for I never reached even the minimum
income in 50 years, whereas the combination of the PvdA (the Dutch "social
democrats" and the illegal drugsdealers) spread at least for 300
billions of euros worth of all manner of < drugs over Europe
during the last 30 years in which this scheme existed (and very
probably in fact a lot more ).
I do not know what percentage the PvdA acquired out of this. My
guess is between 1 and 5%. (Both soft drugs and hard
drugs are illegal in Holland, so the judges who allowed this -
for thirty years - are criminals. Then again, I am one of the few
Dutchmen who thinks so.
Also, they are sold as if they are not illegal by the scheme mayor Van
Thijn practised, and many other mayors since: They can "personally
permit" their drugsdealing friends to deal
publicly and as-if-legally in illegal drugs. )
The formal analysis of how economical exploitation works
I believe that the above argument
A.1. (which can be found more or less in the same form in Plato and
Aristotle as well) is easily explained by three assumptions about
money, power and property:
A1. Money = Power
A2. Any person a has power over any person b in respect of any fact p
in conditions q if and
only iff b tries to realize p iff a
desires that b tries to realize p (in conditions q).
A3. Any person a owns any person b in respect of thing t iff b owns c
iff a desires that b
owns c (in conditions q). 
In other words: Who has a lot of
money can command a lot of power, and who has a lot of power can
command a lot of money; a person has power over another person (in some respect) if the
other person does something precisely if the first person desires so;
and a person b owns a thing precisely if there is someone a (the police,
the courts, the military etc.) who has power over that person and allows
him to own it precisely if a desires it.
I think this is what it comes down to, if reduced to basic definitions
and assumptions. Here is what this scheme leads to (if not ethically constrained as regards justice and fairness):
A.4. Economical exloitation pictured
This is from the USA, in 1915 (and I like it a lot - and look at the top, and read the right side):
Incidentally: The above
may be propaganda in some respects, but it is completely factual in
asserting that in every country (since 2000 years or more) there is a small powerful and rich
elite, that commands most things, politically and economically, simply because they have the
money to have the power, whereas the great majority of mankind is born
with nothing or very little in the ways of power or money, and has to work all his life to eat, while normally getting very much less than the rich.
A.5. What the consequences are at present
I spoke yesterday of Paul R. Ehrlich, who wrote "The
Population Bomb" in 1968, and who is still
alive. He wrote the following this year (quoted from Wikipedia's "Human
Rich western countries are now
siphoning up the planet’s resources and destroying its ecosystems at an
unprecedented rate. We want to build highways across the Serengeti to
get more rare earth minerals for our cellphones. We grab all the fish
from the sea, wreck the coral reefs and put carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. We have triggered a major extinction event ... A world
population of around a billion would have an overall pro-life effect.
This could be supported for many millennia and sustain many more human
lives in the long term compared with our current uncontrolled growth
and prospect of sudden collapse ... If everyone consumed resources at
the US level – which is what the world aspires to – you will need
another four or five Earths. We are wrecking our planet’s life support systems. In fact, I don't agree with the way
this is stated: It is not the "rich western countries" which do this,
but the rich in western countries, and I also don't like to be included
under the false "We" (I earned less the last 50 years than any other Dutchman who worked for 50 years) but this may also be strategy, and I agree more or less with the rest.
- Paul R. Ehrlich, 2017
And there are far too many people, which will in all probability lead to major wars. 
 This is quite correct, and the same holds for Plato, and the Greek system of Antiquity was based on slavery. Slavery is illegal since the 19th Century (!!), but in fact this freed their owners from having to feed their slaves: They can buy their time and their work on "the labor market", and dismiss them when they are done.
They were also led in the early 1980ies by the Amsterdam branch of the
Dutch Communist Party, as its former members admitted in 1991 in the lying booklet "Alles moest anders" (very briefly after the demise of the Dutch Communist Party, that happened very briefly after the collapse of the Soviet Union), which these former communists or quasi-communists wrote to defend their own incomes and - very
well-paid - positions, and to assure the Dutch political leaders that
they were now, in 1991, quite conservative and quite democratic. They
retained their jobs and (academic) incomes and were embraced by their
former enemies. (And none of them ever
criticized the Dutch
universities for no being scientific, which indeed very few if any of
them have any decent idea what real science means, and indeed they were
not scientists but political ideologists, and many were "academically
qualified" in the Dutch language.)
 I am reporting this more or less literally. The reader should also realize that by 1984 the average IQ of the students at the University of Amsterdam was 115 - which, I am sorry to say, is far too low for a real academic in a real university.
It is quite possible that by now the average IQ is 105, which accords with the ideals of Tony Blair, who asserted that he thinks that everybody has the right to an academic diploma, if he or she can pay for it.
 My numbers are based on the one official parliamentary investigation that was done about drugs, the Dutch parliamentary Van Traa Report, that the reader can find on my site here (at least the part about Amsterdam, and unfortunately all in - bad - Dutch), with a note of mine in Dutch here. After Van Traa died in 1997 (he either was murdered or had a quite strange accident) hardly any Dutch politician ever raised the question of drugs. (Incidentally, officially the euro = 2 guilders 20 cents, but in actual fact
they are worth about the same, as is illustrated by my sub-minimal
pension: It get about the same in euros as I got in guilders, and I can
buy as little as before, or less.)
Also, the total amounts of drugs dealt from Holland to Europe and in Holland itself is quite probably a lot higher than 300 billions (over the last 30 years), for the 300 billions are based on soft drugs alone. If the hard drugs are also counted, it is far higher.
Europe owes the flood of illegal drugs from Holland to former mayor Van Thijn,
who made Holland into the Colombia of Europe (but the Dutch will not
say anything: if they can get their Ecstasy for a party, they are quite
happy, and in fact they can do so very easily, without any risk, and
also relatively cheap).
 For this "legally"/illegal schema was started in Amsterdam in 1987/8,
but soon spread all over Holland (where there were social democrats as
mayor, and perhaps also mayors from other parties): They all could "personally permit" their friends to break the law, and many did.
Incidentally: I am for the complete liberation of all drugs
(which would have been entirely possible in Holland in 1988), and not
because I am a proponent
of heroin or cocaine or many other drugs, but because all drugs are much easier to treat medically if they are legal.
But former mayor Van Thijn prevented that, and I quite agree with this
GREAT man that the profits on illegal drugs are FAR higher than they
would be if they had been legalized.
 For those who want it in logical symbols:
Power1(a,b,p,q) IFF (bCp IFF aD(bCp)) (in context q)
Here a and b represent arbitrary persons, p
and q arbitrary specific possible facts, C = causes, D = desires, and O = owns. And "IFF" = if and only if.
Power2(a,b,c,q) IFF (bOc IFF aD(bOc)) (in context q)
 For there is a fairly strong empirical correlation between overpopulation and war. See Human overpopulation, from which I also quote Albert Einstein (who was a socialist):
"Overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the
health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace
on this planet."
-- Albert Einstein