Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Crisis: Church-State, CNN, "Russiagate", Cyberattack, "Common Man" - On Pessimism 2

Sections                                                                     crisis index

1. Summary
2. Crisis Files
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
     A.4. Economical exloitation pictured
     A.5. What some of the consequences are now


This is a Nederlog of Wednesday, June 28, 2017.

1. Summary

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

I 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 commented.

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 my comments.

Here is today's selection:
1. In Major Church-State Decision, Supreme Court Sides with
     Religious Institution

2. CNN Journalists Resign: Latest Example of Media Recklessness
     on the Russia Threat
3. ‘Russiagate’ May Be Collapsing as a Political Strategy
4. New Cyberattack Wallops Europe; Spreads More Slowly in U.S.
5. Death of America’s Common Man
These are all well worth reading.

3. Why I am a pessimist - 2

This continues the same subject from yesterday, when I wrote about the world population.
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. [1] 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?"
- Henry Fielding, The Life of Jonathan Wilde, p. 24/5
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).

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."
- Henry Fielding, Miscellanies
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 Arendt):
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 not exist
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. [2])

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 [3]) 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 [4]).

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. [5])

A.3. 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). [6]

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 overpopulation"):
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.
Paul R. Ehrlich, 2017
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.

And there are far too many people, which will in all probability lead to major wars. [7]

[1] 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.

[2] 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.)

[3] 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.

[4] 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).

[5] 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.

[6] For those who want it in logical symbols:
Power1(a,b,p,q) IFF (bCp IFF aD(bCp)) (in context q)
Power2(a,b,c,q) IFF (bOc IFF aD(bOc)) (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.

[7] 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

       home - index - summaries - mail