from December 13, 2017
This is a Nederlog of Wednesday, December 13,
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.
moment and since two years (!!!!)
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
Section 2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from December 13, 2017
Democrat Doug Jones Defeats Right-Wing
Extremist Roy Moore
2. Yes, the Truth Still Matters
3. Former Facebook Executive Criticizes Social Network For
'Destroying How Society Works'
of Courageous Documentaries
5. Warning Against Abdication of Duty, Senators Demand FCC
Abandon Net Neutrality Vote
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:
Doug Jones Defeats Right-Wing Extremist Roy Moore
This article - one from many on the same subject - is by
Steven Rosenfeld on AlterNet. It starts as follows:
The most-watched federal
election of 2017 came to a stunning finish Tuesday with ruby red
Alabama electing Democrat Doug Jones to the U.S. Senate—the first
Democrat elected from Alabama in a quarter century and a major defeat
for President Trump and Steve Bannon’s white nationalist wing of the
Jones, a former U.S.
Attorney, defeated Republican Roy Moore, a former Supreme Court of
Alabama Justice who was removed from the state’s highest court for
putting God above the U.S. Constitution and was repeatedly accused
during the race of being a sexual predator, including targeting teenage
Yes indeed. I wrote yesterday:
elections, in Alabama to be sure, are between a neofascistic racist,
a hater of homosexuals, a hater of Islamists, a religious fanatic, a
a pro slavery man and - therefore, and I am a psychologist - an utter
sicko and someone who opposes this.
These elections are "a
and increasingly controversial race"...
He was defeated by around 1% difference, but indeed he was
defeated. Here is some more:
The race was Moore’s to
lose and his defeat is a prism that reveals much about the fissures in
American politics, as well as the moral core in Trump’s
win-no-matter-what politics. Just as Jones’ intense get-out-the-vote
strategy clearly motivated the state’s African-American voters to turn
out in record numbers for a special election, Moore’s controversies and
Trump’s unwavering abrasiveness clearly prompted Republicans not to
Moore was such a caustic
candidate that the Senate was poised to decide
whether to swear in Moore, or begin investigating his alleged
sexual misdeeds as a stepping stone to his impeachment. Jones’ election
means the Republicans now control the Senate by a one-vote margin,
51-49, and that puts the body in play in 2018—an outcome that many
Democrats could barely imagine before Jones’ surprise and stunning
Yes indeed. There is a
bit more in the article, that is recommended.
the Truth Still Matters
This article is by David M. Shribman - "the executive editor of the Pittsburgh
according to the NYT - on The New York Times. It starts as follows:
Of all the questions
that the ascendancy of Donald Trump has raised — on the value of
political experience in governing, on the fitness of business
executives as government executives or the profile of the Republicans
as defenders of the rich and the Democrats as the sentinels of the poor
— none is as perplexing as perhaps the central question of the age:
Does the truth
Well... I learned in August of 1978 that truth does not
matter at all in the "University" of Amsterdam, for I was then
told (together with my ex, a bit more than four months before we both
fell ill with ME/CFS), the fascist lie that (in
Holland, at least, and in the "University" of Amsterdam) - literally, apart from translation - at
the official opening of the academic year 1978-1979, that:
- "Everybody knows
that truth does NOT exist"
was 28 then, I was considerably more naive than I am at present, and I
started a student-party to attack this justification of stalinism, fascism, terrorism, lying and deception, that
also logically implied there had been no
learned that my student-party (the NASA ), did
win precisely one seat in the "University"-parliament of the
"University" of Amsterdam, besides some in several faculty-parliaments,
for we got around 5% of the votes of
everyone who studied or worked for the "University" of Amsterdam.
indeeed I had then already been abused as "a dirty fascist",
which also was affirmed by the Stalinist communists from the
ASVA, that had the official majority in the
"University"-parliament of the "University" of Amsterdam from 1971-1995
(when the whole structure of parliaments, city-councils, and
majority-voting in the Dutch universities was removed by the Dutch
national parliament), and namely because I had said I knew Marx but liked Peirce
better as a philosopher.
effectively I learned that between 1971 and 1995 95% of the Dutch academics and 95% of the Dutch university students
(generalizing from the facts I learned in the UvA) did not
believe in truth,
but did believe in lies, in deceptions, and
degeneracy that helped to keep their well-paid academic
jobs or that helped them to make very easy M.A. degrees .
more from the paper I am reviewing:
For nearly a
half-century in journalism, from hometown cub reporter to national
political correspondent to metro daily executive editor, I’ve navigated
with the aid of a newspaperman’s North Star: the conviction that there
is such a thing as objective truth that can be discovered and delivered
through dispassionate hard work and passionate good faith, and that the
product of that effort, if thoroughly documented, would be accepted as
I do not
say no, but - approximately - 95%
of the Dutch academics and the Dutch students did say no between
1971 and 1995 (for the
degeneracy lasted that long, and it always voted the
absolute majority in every Dutch university).
Dutch academics in vast majority said they did not believe in truth because
the majority in the Dutch "universities" was in the hand of the
students, and the students were in majority Marxists from
1971 till 1984 and postmodernists
from 1984 till 1995, and they all liked their excellent pay
and excellent status much more than teaching the
Dutch students in vast majority said they did not
believe in truth because the majority wanted the
easiest possible B.A. and M.A.s, and indeed they completely
succeeded in quite a few faculties, because they were or pretended to
be Marxists, sympathizers with Marxists, and later
postmodernists or sympathizers with postmodernists,
and they were quite right that this made studying a whole
lot easier .
because I kept saying I believed in truth and in science, I was
first - during the year the NASA held a seat in the
"University"-parliament of the UvA - being tortured, being kept out of
sleep, being physically attacked, and being threatened with murder in a
student-flat by an utterly insane person.
that no Dutchmen (other than my direct family) helped me. I had
to suffer that terrorism
for more than three years and so did my ex.
"University" of Amsterdam proudly furthered the terrorism for more than three years, and then proudly
attacked me for refusing rent payments for a student-flat in which
I could not study, and which I had received and accepted to study.
the court trial myself, but only in 1985, five years
after the terrorism started, and two years after
my - also still ill - ex and I had been forced to separate, also
because we did not got then, and are still not getting now,
any medical support for the claims
that we are physically ill (now for nearly forty years).
more from this article:
in Holland, and especially not
in Amsterdam and at the "University" of Amsterdam:
political figures often tell whoppers, it is incontrovertible that
there is such a thing as the truth. The larger question remains: Do
people still care?
They should, and need to.
I started studying again in the second half of 1987 and soon found that
still did not exist in the "University" of Amsterdam, and that
all but one persons who taught philosophy there were
frauds and parasites.
I was invited as a public speaker in May of 1988, very briefly
before taking my M.A. in philosophy there, and honestly said what I
thought. In thanks, at least 25 students of philosophy screamed at
me that I was "a fascist, a fascist, a fascist" and then "a terrorist, a terrorist, a terrorist", which was when I refused to speak
One and a half month later I was removed
from the faculty of philosophy of the "University" of Amsterdam, both
by the sadists,
and the terrorists
of that faculty, and also by the full Board of sadists, fascists and terrorista that
formed its Directors.
Also, at the same time, I was personally
gassed and almost died.
This was done by the personal friends
of mayor Ed van Thijn, whom that mayor had given his "personal
permission" - I quote his letter his illegal dealers of
soft and hard drugs showed me in 1988 - to deal in illegal soft
drugs from the bottom floor of the house in which I lived.
At that time, in the fascist and terrorist City
of Amsterdam I was surrounded by four cafetarias within 15
meters of where I had to survice, each with a terrace open till
1.30 in the night, to keep me awake. This again lasted over three
years, because NONE of the
persons I personally appealed to -
the mayor, the aldermen, the City's elected politicians, the City's
bureaucrats, the City's police force, the City's building bureaucrats
and more - wanted to lift a single finger for someone who
had been gassed and threatened
as follows by the illegal drugsdealers on
the bottom floor: "We will murder you if you do anything that
In fact, they all worked
actively for the illegal dealers
in soft drugs, that also were allowed by the
City police of Amsterdam to deal in hard
drugs in 1990, and I learned around the year 2000 what for:
The illegal dealers in soft drugs turned
over around 10 billion dollars worth of
soft drugs in and around Holland, each year, and the double or triple if the hard drugs are also
counted, and do so each year,
which means that since they started in 1987 they have turned
over between 300 billion dollars in soft drugs
and 600 billion dollars in all
illegal drugs, and the politicians who helped the illegal dealers
undoubtedly also helped themselves to a part of the enormous profits made on illegal drugs
that are sold as if they are legal, with special
and personal permission by very many Dutch mayors since
Incidentally, the numbers I quote are all based on the
Parliamentary Van Traa Report of 1996, but then that also is
the only credible investigation into drugs and drugsdealing
ever done in Holland, and since Van Traa got killed or murdered in
1997 no Dutch politician has
had a word of criticism about the illegal
dealings in billions of soft
drugs and billions of hard drugs
sold from Holland, each year, all with the active help of many
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
Possibly so, but not in Holland. In Holland rule - since
1977, till now - the sadists, the (neo)fascists,
and the terrorists,
who intentionally destroyed my
life and my health by tolerating 7 1/2 years
of physical terrorism
against me that totally destroyed my health, my chances, and my
taunts have prompted long-overdue if uncomfortable and unwelcome
reflection in our newsroom and others. But it has also prompted all of
us to be more humble, more careful and more dedicated than ever to the
basic elements of our craft: to marshal facts, produce stories and pay
little mind to criticism, whether from left or right.
To show, by our
work, that the truth still matters.
Incidentally, the whole
story is available
in Dutch on my site since 2002.
Facebook Executive Criticizes Social Network For 'Destroying How
article is by Matthew Rosza on AlterNet and originally on Salon. It
starts as follows:
A second former Facebook
executive is claiming that the social-media platform presents a threat
to its users and society.
Chamath Palihapitiya, who
served as the vice president for user growth at the company, described
feeling "tremendous guilt" for his legacy at the company during a talk
at the Stanford Graduate School of Business according
I say. But I completely
agree with Palihapitiya.
And it also seems - although I am not sure - that he came to this
decision around 2011, when I first
wrote about Facebook.
In fact, I will quote you a
bit from 6 1/2 years ago, that itself was quoted from a fine article by
Tim Hodgkinson's from 2008:
1 We will advertise at you
"When you use Facebook, you may set up your personal
profile, form relationships, send messages, perform searches and
queries, form groups, set up events, add applications, and transmit
information through various channels. We collect this information so
that we can provide you the service and offer personalised features."
2 You can't delete anything
"When you update information, we usually keep a backup
copy of the prior version for a reasonable period of time to enable
reversion to the prior version of that information."
3 Anyone can glance at your intimate confessions
"... we cannot and do not guarantee that user content you
post on the site will not be viewed by unauthorised persons. We are not
responsible for circumvention of any privacy settings or security
measures contained on the site. You understand and acknowledge that,
even after removal, copies of user content may remain viewable in
cached and archived pages or if other users have copied or stored your
4 Our marketing profile of you will be unbeatable
"Facebook may also collect information about you from
other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services,
and other users of the Facebook service through the operation of the
service (eg, photo tags) in order to provide you with more useful
information and a more personalised experience."
5 Opting out doesn't mean opting out
"Facebook reserves the right to send you notices about
your account even if you opt out of all voluntary email notifications."
6 The CIA may look at the stuff when they feel
"By using Facebook, you are consenting to have your
personal data transferred to and processed in the United States ... We
may be required to disclose user information pursuant to lawful
requests, such as subpoenas or court orders, or in compliance with
applicable laws. We do not reveal information until we have a good
faith belief that an information request by law enforcement or private
litigants meets applicable legal standards. Additionally, we may share
account or other information when we believe it is necessary to comply
with law, to protect our interests or property, to prevent fraud or
other illegal activity perpetrated through the Facebook service or
using the Facebook name, or to prevent imminent bodily harm. This may
include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, agents or
I do not know and also do not much care how
much of the above Facebook rules still apply, although I suspect
the above still applies fully or almost fully simply because spying on anything you do will "provide you with
information and a more personalised experience"
as they say themselves about drowning you in
which is your reward for accepting the above six points
(or six points much like them).
Now we return to Palihapitiya:
dopamine-driven feedback loops we've created are destroying how society
works," Palihapitiya commented, identifying the problem as online
interactions being fueled by shallow instant gratifications such as
receiving likes, hearts and thumbs-up icons.
Palihapitiya added, "No
civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it's not
an American problem — this is not about Russians ads. This is a global
problem." He noted that he has minimized his use of Facebook and his
children "aren't allowed to use that s**t."
agree, although I also insist there
is much more wrong with Facebook, which is again why I
quoted Tim Hodgkinson above.
Drawing a line under what
he feels are the potential threats presented by Facebook and social
media in general, he drew focus to an incident in India where false
reports spread over WhatsApp led to the lynching death of seven
people. "That's what we're dealing with," he said. "And imagine
taking that to the extreme, where bad actors can now manipulate large
swathes of people to do anything you want. It's just a really, really
bad state of affairs."
There are at least 2
billion slaves of Facebook now, and I call them slaves because their
full privacy has been mostly willingly ended, for "the privilege"
of receiving "personalized advertisments", that is, lies and propaganda you
may like to know because it is or seems a bit cheaper than other lies
Also, Palihapitiya is not alone among former
Facebook employees. In fact, a Facebook founder said the same
those made by Sean Parker at an Axios event last month. The
founding president of Facebook commented, "The thought process that
went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them
. . . was all about: 'How do we consume as much of your time and
conscious attention as possible?'"
He added, "And that means
that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a
while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or
whatever. And that's going to get you to contribute more content, and
that's going to get you . . . more likes and comments."
The problem, Parker noted,
was that it created "a social-validation feedback loop . . . exactly
the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because
you're exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology."
In brief: You are being
plucked, stimulated and abused on Facebook, who know everything about
you. And it seems more than 2 billion people like that. For the
privilege of receiving "personalized advertisements", that might save
them a few pennies.
Well, I am deeply
sorry but if that is your reason to join the sick
and sickening thieves of your privacy, I think you are either mad or
stupid or ignorant.
Silencing of Courageous Documentaries
article is by John Pilger on Consortiumnews. This also has a subtitle:
have told important truth in powerful ways and often challenging
powerful groupthinks, but such brave films are becoming an endangered
species, explains John Pilger.
Yes indeed - and if you do
not know who John
Pilger is, click the last link. Here is Pilger on his first film:
In the U.S., I first
understood the power of the documentary during the editing of my first
film, The Quiet Mutiny.
The Quiet Mutiny had revealed that the U.S. Army in
Vietnam was tearing itself apart. There was open
rebellion: drafted men were refusing orders and shooting their
officers in the back or “fragging” them with grenades as they slept.
None of this had been news. What it meant was that the war was lost;
and the messenger was not appreciated.
The Director-General of the
ITA was Sir Robert Fraser. He summoned Denis Foreman, then Director of
Programmes at Granada TV, and went into a state of apoplexy. Spraying
expletives, Sir Robert described me as a “dangerous subversive.”
What concerned the
regulator and the ambassador was the power of a single
documentary film: the power of its facts and witnesses: especially
young soldiers speaking the truth and treated sympathetically by the
This subversion of official lies is the power of
documentary. I have now made 60 films and I believe there is nothing
like this power in any other medium.
This is followed by a lot
more on other documentaries that Pilger and others have made since
1970, and it is all well worth reading although I skip it in this
Towards the end we find this:
I totally agree, although
I should add that I dislike propaganda and
so much that I have refused to have a TV since 1970, and indeed will
never have a TV - THE medium of advertisements, propaganda,
lies and deception, until the internet showed itself to be an even
bigger and better advertiser, propagandist, liar and deceiver - until I
Britain remains one of the
few countries where documentaries are still shown on mainstream
television in the hours when most people are still awake. But
documentaries that go against the received wisdom are becoming an
endangered species, at the very time we need them perhaps more than
In survey after survey, when
people are asked what they would like more of on television, they say
documentaries. I don’t believe they mean a type of current affairs
program that is a platform for politicians and “experts” who affect a
specious balance between great power and its victims.
Incidentally, for more on the sickness that is the internet, see here, and I add that I would now
delete the internet and these spies as well, if I could, which I alas I
can't. (But I only use Firefox, e-mail and ftp, and otherwise
Here is more by John Pilger on the present situation:
Mark the words of the
narrator in Peter Watkins’s The War Game: “On almost the
entire subject of nuclear weapons, there is now practically total
silence in the press, and on TV. There is hope in any unresolved or
unpredictable situation. But is there real hope to be found in this
In 2017, that silence has
returned. It is not news that the safeguards on nuclear weapons have
been quietly removed and that the United States is now spending $46
million per hour on nuclear weapons: that’s $46 million every hour, 24
hours a day, every day. Who knows that?
Indeed, I did not. Here is
the ending of this article:
Yes, and this is a strongly
“When the truth is replaced
by silence,” wrote the Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko, “the silence
is a lie.”
Whenever young documentary
film-makers ask me how they can “make a difference,” I reply that it is
really quite simple. They need to break the silence.
Against Abdication of Duty, Senators Demand FCC Abandon Net Neutrality
This article is by Julia Conley on Common Dreams. It starts
I agree with the
Democratic Senators, but I much fear that Pai, who himself reminds
people that his name is pronounced as "Pay" - will get a whole lot
richer, and the internet will be handed over to the neofascists of
Google, Facebook and similar others, to do with as they please.
Thirty-seven Democratic senators, along with
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), sent a letter
(pdf) to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on
Tuesday, urging the panel to abandon its "reckless plan to radically
alter the free and open Internet as we know it."
If pushed through, the
letter warns, the move, spearheaded by Trump's FCC chairman Ajit Pai,
"would amount to the largest abdication of [the agency's] statutory
responsibilities in history."
The lawmakers arged
that Pai's plan to gut net neutrality regulations represents an
abandonment of its "primary responsibility to protect consumers and the
public interest with respect to the nation's communications networks."
Here is what Pai - whose name is pronounced as "Pay" - wants: Discrimination of
everyone who is not wealthy:
Pai has proposed
repealing Obama-era net neutrality regulations which prohibit Internet
service providers (ISPs) from discriminating against web content.
Without the rules, ISPs like Verizon, Time Warner, and Comcast would be
able to offer a "fast lane" for wealthy Internet companies like Google
and Facebook, allowing their content to reach users more quickly.
And here is more:
If the FCC, which consists
of three Republican commissioners and two Democrats, adopts Pai's
proposal on Thursday, the panel will permit ISPs "to freely block, slow
down, or manipulate a consumer's access to the internet as long as it
discloses those practices—no matter how anti-consumer—somewhere within
the mounds of legalese in a new 'net neutrality' policy," wrote the
The new rules would also
prevent states from implementing their own regulations, resulting in
what the Democrats called a "gaping consumer protection void."
Well, I have welcomed Trump's presidency as a major
win for the neofascists, and this will probably, very
unfortunately, be another major win for the neofascists.
have now been
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 2 years
as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I
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 (!!).
 Indeed like the US Nasa, but it meant
"Nieuwe Amsterdamse Studenten Associatie".
 I learned around 2002, from an
interview by telephone that I heard on Dutch radio, that two M.A.'s in
philosophy had made their degrees, they told laughingly (it
seems in the 1970ies), with taking part in leftist demonstrations,
squatting houses, and some lessons in feminism.