A. Selections from September 19, 2017
This is a Nederlog of
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 will
continue with it.
On the moment I have problems with the company that is
supposed to take care that my site is visible 
and with my health, but I am still writing a Nederlog every day and
2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
September 19, 2017
items 1 - 5 are today's selections from the 35 sites that I look at
every morning. The indented text under each link is quoted from the
link that starts the item. Unindented text is by me:
“There are three types of lies — lies, damn lies, and
statistics.” – Benjamin
Every month the
government apparatchiks at the Bureau of Lies and Scams (BLS) dutifully
announces inflation is still running below 2%. Janet Yellen then gives
a speech where she notes her concern inflation is too low and she needs
to keep interest rates near zero to save humanity from the scourge of
too low inflation. I don’t know how I could survive without 2%
inflation reducing my purchasing power.
This week they reported
year over year inflation of 1.9%. Just right to keep Janet from raising
rates and keeping the stock market on track for new record highs.
According to our beloved bureaucrats, after they have sliced, diced,
massaged and manipulated the data, you’ve experienced annual inflation
of 2.1% since 2000. If you believe that, I’ve got a great real estate
deal for you in North Korea on the border with South Korea.
“Lies sound like facts to those who’ve been conditioned
to mis-recognize the truth.” ― DaShanne Stokes
Yes, indeed. I have
an excellent M.A. in psychology and I do have some talent for
mathematics, but what I learned about statistics in psychology,
including what I learned about ¨experiments¨ as done in psychology
(which differ considerably from the experiments physicists do,
for example), together with the very good education in
philosophy of science and methodology that I acquired by myself between
1971 and 1980, had convinced me by 1980 that psychology, which
I then had been studying for two years, was, indeed apart
form a few fields like mathematical statistics, methodology
and psychophysiology, not a real science like physics
or chemistry or (even) biology are. (For more, see
changed that position, but I do not know Administrator´s
education in statistics, methodology and philosophy of science,
although indeed Administrator is - like me - a skeptic about
the ¨statistics" that are being spread by the present and previous
American governments, and also prints quite a few graphics that I have not
copied and leave to your interests.
Here is one example
of how people are frauded by ¨statistics¨:
All is well. Real median
household income just surpassed the level achieved in 1999. Think about
that for a second. It took seventeen years for the average American
family to get back to a household income of $59,000. The $59,000 of
household income in 2017 doesn’t quite go as far as it did in 1999,
with even BLS manipulated inflation showing an 87% increase in medical
costs, 80% increase in energy costs, 51% increase in food costs, 53%
increase in housing costs, and a 115% increase in college education.
And of course the BLS changed their methodology, boosting household
income by $1,700 in 2013. So, in reality it is still below 1999 levels.
When you consider 50% of
all households make less than $59,000, have not benefited one iota from
the Fed/Wall Street debt engineered stock bull market, have less than
$1,000 in savings, and less than $50,000 of retirement savings, you
realize your Deep
State masters must propagandize economic data and
manipulate inflation and unemployment figures to keep the masses
confused, deluded, and misinformed. The Big Lie is their strategy of
is more in the article. Here is how Americans get defrauded by their
own government as regards health care:
Medical care advancing by
87% since 2000 sounds substantial, but that only equates to annual
inflation of 3.5%. I’d love to find anyone in this country who has only
seen their medical costs rise by 3.5% per year. The blatantly shameful
falsification of medical inflation is evident to anyone living through
the current Obamacare nightmare. According to these BLS prevaricators,
health insurance has only risen by 21% since the passage of the
Obamacare abortion bill. That lie is beyond comprehension as anyone
living in the real world has likely experienced insurance premium
increases exceeding 100% since 2009.
This article (in
which there is considerably more, and quite a few graphics) ends as
Those in power know their
decades of propaganda and social engineering in public schools have
dumbed down the masses to such an extent not one in ten could even tell
you what CPI stands for, let alone how it is measured. Any critical
thinking intelligent person aware of their daily costs knows their true
annual inflation rate isn’t 1.9%. It exceeds 5% and has exceeded 5%
since 2000. Anyone reading and understanding this article is a
dangerous man to the government. We know they are dishonest, insane and
intolerable. Our job is to spread discontent until a tipping point is
reached. I don’t think we are too far away.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who
is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the
prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the
conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and
intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even
if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent
among those who are.” ― H.L.
agree, although I do not know when ¨a tipping point is
reached¨. And this is a
Pompeo's CIA Will Not Reflect America's Diversity
This article is by John
Kiriakou (<-Wikipedia) on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
The CIA has never been a
bastion of progressive thinking. It wasn’t until 1994 that an employee
could even admit that he or she was gay or bisexual. I remember when
Bill Clinton lifted
the ban on LGBT men and women serving at the CIA. A friend came out
to me one day, and I responded with a hug, saying, “That must be such
an incredible weight off your shoulders.” He burst into tears.
In the intervening years,
through Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama—and through all their CIA
directors—LGBTQ CIA employees were able to form support organizations,
organize programming and sponsor events in the intelligence community.
The CIA also began to recruit openly gay officers. Their integration
But now Mike Pompeo is
CIA director. An evangelical Christian, the former congressman has a
record that proves he is no friend of the LGBTQ community. And his
behavior since becoming CIA director does nothing to change that
Ahem. I am 67 and I am
neither Lesbian, nor Gay, nor Transsexual, nor Queer, nor Questioning
and while I wish the people who are well, I have to admit that (i) I am
personally not much concerned with movements that cover at
most 10% of all people, and to none of which I belong; (ii) I do not
think being pro LGBTQ is the hallmark of being Leftist
it very well may be the hallmark - next to political
correctness - of ¨the left¨ ), while
(iii) I have been ill now for nearly 40 years in which the real
disease I have is simply not investigated because psychiatrists
 are against this (which means that worldwide
over 15 million ill people with my disease have had hardly any
help or research since 1965), while people who believe that
they ¨are in the wrong body¨ are being operated, usually on
psychiatric advice, and are given alternative sex organs - which
strikes me as a quite strange and a quite strong difference
between folks with ME/CFS like I have since 1.1.1979, and folks who
believe they ¨are in the wrong
Also, I have to say that I never
was an admirer, a fan or a supporter of the CIA. Here is Kiriakou´s
ending of this article:
The CIA’s failures are
well known. Indeed, Tim Weiner won the National Book Award for
documenting those failures in “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the
CIA.” But one thing that ought to be easy to get right is to hire a
diverse workforce, to make that workforce look like America, whether
it’s black, brown, white, gay or straight.
The agency won’t, though.
The CIA does what it wants, when it wants. It answers to nobody—not to
the cheerleaders on Capitol Hill who call themselves members of the
oversight committees or to the federal courts, which bow down to the
CIA’s leadership in the interest of “national security.” This problem
won’t get any better as long as Mike Pompeo is running the place.
I agree that ¨the CIA does what it wants, when it wants. It
answers to nobody¨. Well, I
think you should not be a member of such a secret force, indeed
whatever your sexual orientation may be.
Trump’s Mass Movement
article is by Lawrence Davidson on Consortiumnews. It starts with the
President Trump is building a mass movement – or a cult of
personality – based on the alienation that millions of Americans feel
toward the economic/political system, as Lawrence Davidson describes.
that may very well be correct. Here is the beginning of
In the Sept. 10 issue of the New York Times, there
are two opinion pieces that have to do with Donald Trump and his
supporters. One is entitled “The Trump Fever Never Breaks” and the
other is “President Trump’s War on Science.” As we will see, the two
pieces actually address different aspects of a single
evolving phenomenon. However, we will examine each in turn and tie
them together as we go.
piece on Trump fever was written by Katy Tur, a correspondent and
anchor for NBC. She covered Trump for “500 days” running up to his
election and notes that “his supporters were tired of everything except
him. And that is still true.” The sense she got, and obviously still
has, is that Trump’s base will never abandon their man no matter how
much he lies or fails to deliver on his promises
this is just one article by one journalist, who
certainly cannot have spoken with more than a small fraction of the ca.
60 million who voted for Trump, nor indeed of the - supposed - 37% of
them who still fanatically support him.
I do not
say this article isn´t true, but even it it is founded on excellent
evidence it still is one article by one journalist, that also reaches
to November 7, 2016 and not really further.
Then there is this:
In their search for a new
America, one that allows them a sense of belonging rather than
alienation, the zealots making up this incipient mass movement are
unconcerned with what underpins traditional America. This unconcern is
reflected in the fast and loose way both they, and Trump himself, play
with facts. Thus, factual descriptors of reality, in this case science
and its investigations, are of little account and, if necessary, can be
This seems to me much
better founded, and indeed there is a lot of evidence, also from many
different news sources, that strongly supports it.
And here is a summary
of the other article in the NYT:
This brings us to the
second Times editorial – the one about “President
Trump’s War on Science.” This piece is the paper’s own editorial
and thus unsigned. It represents a rundown of how the Trump
administration is systematically dismantling all federally funded
scientific programs that could add to the cost of production or
otherwise interfere with a multitude of polluting industries. This is
being done even though the consequence, as the Times puts it, is that
“the future isn’t going to be nearly as promising for ordinary
Americans as it should be.”
And this seems to me also a
lot better founded than the first article. Here is Lawrence Davidson´s
inference from these two articles (and what he knows otherwise):
The 37 percent of the
American population who still support President Trump are evolving a
consciousness more responsive to political propaganda and
socio-economic mysticism than to rational debate or fact-based policy
formulation. They no longer care about the latter approaches because
they seem to hold no promise for them. These people are neither
Republicans nor Democrats – they are instead the true believers of a
And it is mutating into a mass movement of zealots who are devoted to
and unquestioning of their leader. How President Trump wants to use, or
manipulate, this following is still not clear. But what is clear is
that this is a phenomenon with dangerous precedents and it needs close
Hm. I agree many Trump
voters are not rational, not
based, and indeed also not intelligent
and not informed,
and that this is quite
problematic, were it only because they do have the vote.
Then again, I do not
think this amounts to ¨37 percent of the American population¨, though I
do agree with Davidson that ¨that this is a phenomenon with dangerous
precedents and it needs close watching¨.
of the GOP's Favorite Scapegoats That Get Trotted Out When Things Don't
Go Their Way
This article is by Brook
Bolen on AlterNet. This starts as follows:
have a way of relying on scapegoats when their plans don’t work out as
expected. There are so many go-to GOP scapegoats, it would be
impossible to name them all here. I’m sure many of you have your
favorites: Black Lives Matter, the EPA, feminists, climatologists,
Islam, income taxes, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, and anybody who
ever says the words “gun control." If you can name it, they can blame
particular order, here are eight of the GOP’s favorite scapegoats.
I think Brook Bolen is quite right, also in the examples given above.
Here are seven more, and these are quoted without the text that comes
with each of these seven points, for which I refer you to the original:
2. Planned Parenthood
3. George Clooney
4. Labor Unions
5. Barack Obama
7. The 'Liberal' Media
8. Voter Fraud
And this is
a recommended article.
Failing to Prosecute Bankers, Obama Cashes In With Wall Street Speeches
This article is by
Jake Johnson on Common Dreams. It starts as follows - and it
articulates an assumption about Barack Obama that I have since
2009: He too wanted to become a multi-millionaire with more
than 100 million dollar, like Bill Clinton, and he thinks he can
get that amount of money from the bankers that both helped a great lot.
Less than a year has
passed since he departed from the White House, and former President
Barack Obama has already joined the "well
trod and well paid" Wall Street speaking circuit, a decision many
argued will negatively impact the Democratic Party's credibility as it
attempts to fashion a message around taking on corporate
monopolies, tackling income
inequality, and loosening the insurance industry's control
over the American healthcare system.
According to a Bloomberg
published Monday, Obama has in the last month delivered two speeches to
massive financial firms—Northern Trust Corp and the Carlyle Group—for
around $400,000 a pop, and he is slated to attend a three-day
conference hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald next week, for which he will
make another $400,000.
And that is a mere
$1.2 million dollars for three speeches - while Bill Clinton got
¨merely¨ $750.000 dollar for three of his speeches to similar
Clearly, I think both
Clintons (indeed like Tony Blair) owe the $120-$150 million dollars
they presently seem to own to eight years of intrigueing for the
and the bankers, and it seems fair and realistic to
say that while these made,
collectively, billions of dollars, they also did
let trickle down a small part to their main two helpers, namely Clinton
Obama, however, doesn't
appear to harbor any concerns about the political impact his speeches
may have—a fact that could be problematic for the Democratic Party, Bloomberg's
Max Abelson notes.
"While he can't run for
president, he continues to be an influential voice in a party torn
between celebrating and vilifying corporate power," Abelson writes.
"His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he'll
News of Obama's decision
in" following his eight-year presidency drew significant ire,
particularly given his administration's failure to enact sufficient
structural changes to the financial system following the worst economic
collapse since the Great Depression.
As Abelson observes,
Obama's "Justice Department prosecuted no major bankers for their roles
in the financial crisis, and he resisted calls to break up the biggest
banks, signing a regulatory overhaul that annoyed them with new rules
but didn't stop them from pulling in record profits."
It would seem to me
that Mr. Abelson has a very slow understanding if he still
thinks that it is a question which side Obama is on: The paying
side, with the big money, that can easily afford to
give him $400,000 ¨for a speech¨.
And here is a
sensible reaction from Cooper (whose Tweet I abbreviated some, because
I very much dislike Tweets):
Responding to Bloomberg's
report, a Twitter user asked Ryan Cooper, national correspondent for The
Week, what a person could do in
order to receive $400,000 for a single speech.
Cooper responded with a
1) become president
2) do not enforce laws against securities or mortgage
But this indeed seems quite correct to me.
more in the article, that is recommended.
 I have now been saying since the end of 2015 that
xs4all.nl is systematically
ruining my site by NOT updating it within a few seconds,
as it did between 1996 and 2015, but by updating it between
two to seven days later, that is, if I am lucky.
They have claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie.
They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.
And they just don't care for my site, my interests, my values or my
ideas. They have behaved now for 1 1/2 years as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I will
from now on suppose they are (for truth is dead in Holland).
The only two reasons I remain with xs4all is that my site has been
there since 1996, and I have no reasons whatsoever to suppose that any
other Dutch provider is any better (!!).
 I do distinguish between ¨the
left¨, which exists in my experience since 1977, and that
identified by political
correctness, pro LGBTQ-ness, and varying amounts of feminism and
environmentalism, and the Left, that exists since the 1820ies
or 1790ies, that can be identified with anti-capitalism, humanism,
science, equal incomes, and anti war,
and that I know very well - unlike nearly all
¨leftists¨ - because both of my parents were real Leftists for
years, as were three out of four of my grandparents.
And I am sorry, but for me ¨the left¨ looks more like a bunch
of frauds than like honest, decent, intelligent persons, and indeed I
was for 12 years, according to these ¨leftist¨ capitalist careerists,
made out to be (screaming, in public) ¨a dirty fascist¨ and ¨a
terrorist¨ simply because they disagreed with me. Also, most of
these leftists (especially those who made hundreds of thousands
being journalistic ¨leftists¨) have - mostly already in 1991 - insisted
that from now on they were neoconservatives.
All could continue their journalistic careers and their
payments, after falsely pretending to be Leftist
Revolutionaries (for good payments) from 1971 till 1991.
 I don´t believe in psychiatry,
and indeed very few of the psychologists I studied with or was
educated by believed in psychiatry. I do not know most of their
reasons, but they certainly were correct in that. If you want to
consider my reasons - those of a philosopher and a psychologist
- you can look here: My DSM-5:
Question 1 of "The six
most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" and my DSM-5:
100 Nederlogs about and around the APA and the DSM-5 and also my long
review of the ideas of Thomas Szasz, that you'll find here: Thomas Szasz's ideas about psychiatry