A. Selections from October 7, 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 and since nearly two years (!!!!) 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 :
Selections from October 7, 2017
Theresa May’s Nightmare Week Ends
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:
With Party Coup Attempt
2. Are Trump’s Efforts to Sabotage Iran
Nuclear Deal a Precursor for
3. Why Privatization Is a Disaster for Any
4. The Rise of Britain’s
5. Memo to Tillerson about the
May’s Nightmare Week Ends With Party Coup Attempt
is by Stephen Castle on The New York Times. It starts as follows:
German and French elections out of the way, this was the moment when
talks on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union were supposed to
Yet, while things look steadier in Berlin and Paris, Britain
is suffering repeated aftershocks from last year’s referendum decision
to quit the 28-nation bloc, the latest of them threatening to engulf
its prime minister, Theresa May, who is fresh off a calamitous, accident-strewn
speech on Wednesday.
On Friday, Mrs. May, who presides over a warring cabinet,
faced down a coup attempt from a group of her own lawmakers, following
the debacle at her Conservative Party’s annual conference, where her
speech was interrupted by a prankster and she was plagued by a
persistent cough and a malfunctioning stage set.
“You can’t just carry on when things aren’t working,” Grant
Shapps, a former chairman of the party, told the BBC, as he called for
Mrs. May to stand aside. “The solution is not to bury heads in the
sand,” added Mr. Shapps, who claimed to have support from around 30
fellow plotters, including five former cabinet ministers.
which I do because I did not know about Mr. Shapps. There is
also this in the article:
Mrs. May had intended to use her party conference speech to
relaunch her leadership after she gambled by calling an early general
election in June, and lost both her parliamentary majority and her
At the election Mrs. May asked voters to endorse her “strong
and stable leadership” and — that slogan having turned speedily into a
bad joke — on Friday she offered “calm” leadership as she insisted she
was staying in Downing Street.
considerably more in the article. I think the likelihood is that Mrs.
May will soon disappear as British leader, but I don´t know.
Trump’s Efforts to Sabotage Iran Nuclear Deal a Precursor for U.S. War
This article is by Amy
Goodman on Democracy Now! It starts with the following introduction:
Amid news of the
Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to the International Campaign to
Abolish Nuclear Weapons, we turn now to look at whether President
Donald Trump is trying to sabotage the Obama-brokered nuclear agreement
with Iran and seek a war with Iran. According to The Washington Post,
Trump is expected to announce next week the deal is not in the United
States’ national interest, and will move to “decertify” the deal. If
this happens, Congress will decide whether or not to reinstate harsh
economic sanctions against Iran, potentially tanking the landmark deal.
The move comes despite the fact the Trump administration begrudgingly
certified that Iran has complied with its obligations under the
agreement earlier this year, as has the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which closely monitors Iran’s activities.
Yes indeed: That seems
to be the situation, schematically. Here is some more:
Mattis seems to have it right,
although he phrases it in terms of ifs. Here is the last bit that I´ll
quote from this article:
If the Iran nuclear deal
collapses, Iran can begin producing uranium and reprocessing plutonium
immediately, rather than waiting for 13 years as required under the
agreement. Both Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary
Mattis have urged Trump to uphold the agreement. This is Mattis
speaking to senators just Tuesday.
DEFENSE SECRETARY JAMES MATTIS:
If we can confirm that Iran is living by the agreement, if we can
determine that this is in our best interest, then, clearly, we should
stay with it. I believe, at this point in time, absent indications to
the contrary, it is something the president should consider staying
(..) What’s striking is this, that the entire international community,
all other members of the P5+1, all other world powers, the IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, all of these
governments, all of these states, all of these groups, are saying that
this deal is working, that the deal is fulfilling its narrow objective
of rolling back Iran's nuclear program. Essentially, it’s two countries
that are against this deal: the U.S., led by a Republican president,
and the Israeli government, led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. And it looks like these two countries are going to go
against international consensus and, at the very least, weaken this
deal. We’ll see what happens in the coming weeks.
Yes indeed, and this is a
recommended article with considerably more text than I quoted.
Privatization Is a Disaster for Any Democratic Society
This article is by Paul
Buchheit on AlterNet. It starts as follows:
Yes indeed, though the
stess is on ¨properly
supported public systems¨
rather than just ¨public
systems¨. And the reason is
Most people looking to
make big money are eager to disparage public systems as inefficient,
wasteful, inferior. Many of those people are in a position to starve
the public systems of funding, thereby making them less functional, and
making the private options look more appealing.
But privatization is not the
solution; it is the problem. Properly supported public systems serve
more people in a more efficient and less costly way.
Privatization cuts us in
two: we've become a nation of profit-makers versus the struggling
middle/lower classes. This is true for health care, education, housing,
and the environment.
The privatizers - whose propaganda
abuses ¨Freedom!¨ and
¨Free Markets!¨ - speak in fact for the rich corporations and their
owners, and only these; the
non-privatizers speak - in ¨properly
supported public systems¨
- for all, because the non-rich can only influence the rich by
imposing laws on them: if this cannot be done, the greed of
will overpower all, and serve the rich and the rich only.
In the next sections Buchheit discusses the following four items:
Profitability vs. Mortality
I leave this to your
interests (but I agree with Buchheit). Here is how two very big
and very rich
corporations are lying
to everyone in order to maximize their own
Education: Hedge Funds vs.
Housing: Blackstone vs. the
Environment: Eating and
vs. Preparing the World for Our Children
Scientific studies keep confirming that agricultural
pesticides are poisonous to humans and to wildlife. Unbelievably, Monsanto sued the state of California for
telling people about the threat to their health. Even more
unbelievably, its reasoning was that it's 'unconstitutional' to use
findings from the World Health Organization.
Equally disturbing is the
deadly deceit of Exxon, which has covered up its own climate
research for 40 years, and was joined by other oil-connected companies
in lobbying against the Kyoto Protocol. The
lobbying paid off. Fossil fuel subsidies in 2015 were estimated to be greater than the world's
total health spending.
Here is a final
example how the rich exploit everyone who is not rich:
And here's one that
should make everyone mad. As increasing privatization "starves the
beast" of government, infrastructure is failing, and companies like
Nestle pay nearly nothing to take over our water supply and sell it
back to us. Globally, according to a Bloomberg report, failing infrastructure has
led "to a near-total reliance on bottled water in parts of the world."
Says Pakistani environmental lawyer Ahmad Rafay Alam: "Twenty years
ago, you could go anywhere in Lahore and get a glass of clean tap water
for free. Now, everyone drinks bottled water."
More profits for the
privatizers, more health concerns and expense and disdain for the
And this is a
recommended article that has a lot more than I quoted.
Rise of Britain’s ‘New Politics’
This article is by John
Pilger (<-Wkipedia) on Consortiumnews. This comes with the
As more Britons turn
toward Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the British establishment is
upping the pressure on the “radical” Corbyn to conform to U.S.-U.K.
militarism and interventionism, as John Pilger explains.
In fact I know more
John Pilger than about Jeremy Corbyn
(<-Wikipedia). My reasons are that I think that
Pilger is a good journalist with whose articles I tend to agree
(considerably more than not), while Corbyn is leading a political
party, and while I like Labour more than the Tories, I also have not
much of a
taste for political prose, and I usually avoid it.
The present article can be
considered as a critical assessment by John Pilger of Jeremy Corbyn and
the Labour Party. It starts as follows:
Delegates to the recent
Labour Party conference in the English seaside town of Brighton seemed
not to notice a video playing in the main entrance. The world’s third
biggest arms manufacturer, BAe Systems, supplier to Saudi Arabia, was
promoting its guns, bombs, missiles, naval ships and fighter aircraft.
It seemed a perfidious
symbol of a party in which millions of Britons now invest their
political hopes. Once the preserve of Tony Blair, it is now led by
Jeremy Corbyn, whose career has been very different and is rare in
British establishment politics.
everything said here, although I must take the BAe Systems military
propaganda to Labour for granted. But I agree Corbyn´s career was quite
different from Tony Blair, whose career may be described as that of a very
dishonest Tory who was really out to get 150 million pounds
himself, in which he also seems to have succeeded.
There is this on Bernie Sanders:
Like Clinton, Sanders is
a cold-warrior and “anti-communist” obsessive with a proprietorial view
of the world beyond the United States. Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s
and Tony Blair’s illegal assault on Yugoslavia in 1998 and the
invasions of Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, as well as Barack Obama’s
campaign of terrorism by drone (although he did vote against George W.
Bush’s invasion of Iraq). These days, Sanders backs the provocation of
Russia and agrees that the whistleblower Edward Snowden should stand
trial. Sanders has called the late Hugo Chavez – a social democrat who
won multiple elections in Venezuela – “a dead communist dictator.”
I like Bernie Sanders
more than the great majority of American politicians, but I agree his
foreign stance (of an American) is rather disappointing. Then again, I
do not know whether Pilger is right in everything he says.
Here is Pilgers view
of ¨Labour politics¨ since 1945:
Since 1945, like the
Tories, British Labour has been an imperial party, obsequious to
Washington: a record exemplified by the crime in the Chagos islands.
What has changed? Is Corbyn saying Labour will uncouple itself from the
U.S. war machine, and the U.S. spying apparatus and U.S. economic
blockades that scar humanity?
His shadow Foreign
Secretary, Emily Thornberry, says a Corbyn government “will put human
rights back at the heart of Britain’s foreign policy.” But human rights
have never been at the heart of British foreign policy — only
“interests,” as Lord Palmerston declared in the Nineteenth Century: the
interests of those at the apex of British society.
I think Pilger is
more right than not, although I agree (more or less) that leaders of
large political parties probably need to lie more often than
Here is Pilger on
Corbyn and Labour:
Labour does not promise
to stop arms exports to Saudi Arabia. It does not say Britain will
withdraw its support for governments responsible for the export of
Islamist jihadism. There is no commitment to dismantle the arms trade.
The manifesto describes a
“special relationship [with the U.S.] based on shared values … When the
current Trump administration chooses to ignore them … we will not be
afraid to disagree.”
As Jeremy Corbyn knows,
dealing with the U.S. is not about merely “disagreeing.” The U.S. is a
rapacious, rogue power that ought not to be regarded as a natural ally
of any state championing human rights, irrespective of whether Trump or
anyone else is President.
I think I mostly
agree with Pilger. There is considerably more in the article, that is
to Tillerson about the Moron
This article is by Robert Reich on his site. It starts as
I mostly agree with Reich, but
since I am a psychlogist I say (once again) that (i) in my
that of 53,000 other psychologists) Trump is not sane, and (ii)
¨sociopathy¨ is a clear example of the baloney of the
To: Rex Tillerson
From: Robert Reich
Subject: The Moron
I can understand why you
feel Washington is a place of “petty nonsense,” as you said Wednesday
when you called a news conference to rebut charges that you called
Trump a moron last summer after a meeting of national security
officials at the Pentagon.
I’m also reasonably sure
you called him a moron, which doesn’t make Washington any less petty.
You probably called him a moron because almost all of us out here in
the rest of America routinely call him that.
But you’re right: There
are far more important issues than the epithet you likely used to
describe your boss.
On the other hand, your
calling him a moron wouldn’t itself have mushroomed into a headline
issue – even in petty Washington – if there weren’t deep concerns about
the President’s state of mind to begin with.
The reason your moronic comment about Trump made the headlines is that
Trump really is a moron, in the sense you probably meant it: He’s
impulsive, mercurial, often cruel, and pathologically narcissistic.
Some psychologists who have studied his behavior have concluded he’s a
To say that someone is a ¨sociopath¨ is to say he or she does not
to the prevailing social norms: Martin Luther King was a
sociopath; Andrei Sacharov was a sociopath; the communists,
and Jews of Hitler´s Germany in 1935 were ¨sociopaths¨ etc. etc. etc.
I am against the DSM, and this is one of my many
reasons to be so:
This makes (American) psychiatry into an extremely willing
of tyranny, for under a tyranny almost everyone disagreeing with it
will be in a minority, which means that the APA will insist on their
being ¨sociopaths¨, which indeed they will be, given its insane
definition in the DSMs.
Here is the ending of Reich´s article:
No, this is not
does not need merely three men + a letter: it also requires two
Congress, or at least that is what I infer from the Wikipedia´s
Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 4.
Let Trump fire you if he
wants to. That would further reveal what a moron he is.
But if you really did
want to serve the best interests of this nation, there’s another option
you might want to consider.
Quietly meet with Mattis,
Kelly, and Vice President Pence. Come up with a plan for getting most
of the cabinet to join in a letter to Congress saying Trump is unable
to discharge the duties of his office.
Under the 25th Amendment,
that would mean Trump is fired.
At least, thus it seems to me.
 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.
claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie.
They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.
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).
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 (!!).
 Yes, you are right: I start Nederlogs
again with a list of the titles of the articles I review in that
Nederlog. In fact, I did start that way around 2011/2012,
and instituted it (so to speak) in 2013.
This was maintained until June of 2017, when I stopped doing it mostly
because my health got worse then. Since my condition now has again
somewhat improved I return - more or less - to the style I used in