from March 21, 2018
B. Personal: On ME/CFS, A
Chinese Bookshop & March 22, 1968
This is a
Nederlog of Wednesday,
And as you see above, I have added today a personal section. I
do not know how often I will do so, but today it is justified
Also I did
sleep well tonight, which is another reason this is possible -
and I have serious sleeping problems since 40 years, but until
two days ago I was a psychosomatic insane person according to 90% of
the Dutch medical frauds I have seen: 27 of the 30 medical
saw lied to
me, knew they lied to me, but did so
nevertheless. For almost forty
- the (Dutch)
National Health Council has announced that they think that
ME/CFS is "a serious chronic disease that should be taken seriously by
doctors", and this is a first time
in the nearly 40
years that my ex and I have ME/CFS (!!!) that I have read
such things, and these
things also are by one of the highest medical authorities in Holland;
- I found a
nice article about a bookshop in Beijing, which I liked because I love
books; the owner seems a good person; and I am interested in China; and
it is 50 years ago that the nearly successful revolution in France
started, namely in Nanterre (and I went in May 1968 and in June
1968 to Paris to observe the revolution).
Since I am a brilliant psychologist, I do want to treat
quite a number
of Dutch "medical doctors" as they treated me, and will do so
later. (And see here.)
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last five years:
I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch, but
since 2010 in English) 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 more than 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
I shall continue.
Section 2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from March 21, 2018
1. New Investigations Into Facebook Add New Pressures
2. Jeremy Scahill on Trump’s Cabinet Shake-up, the Mueller
Probe & the
Iraq War 15 Years Later
'Public Safety Is None of Your Business'
4. The Remarkable Reason Some Millennials Aren't Saving for
5. Cambridge Analytica Is Proud That It Swayed and Corrupted
Across the Globe
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:
Investigations Into Facebook Add New Pressures
article is by Cecilia Kang on The New York Times. It starts as follows:
and state prosecutors are opening investigations into Facebook.
Politicians in the United States and Europe are calling for its chief
executive, Mark Zuckerberg, to testify before them. Investors have cut
the value of the social networking giant by about $50 billion in the
past two days.
I say - and I think it is
high time that Zuckerberg testifies, under oath. In
fact, so far at
least, Zuckerberg appears to have disappeared (as indeed is his best
choice: Say as little as possible while pretending you are morally
They are all
focused on the same thing: whether Facebook mishandled users’ data.
Here is more on Facebook:
As I have been saying very
many times: Facebook - and any other corporation, and all
spies on personal private data of anyone - should
be totally denied the
right to take or copy or read any private
information by any internet
user (such as: e-mails, health matters, financial status,
values, pictures and very much more), because taking, copying
reading this private information gives far
too much power
to the few
who can do so, and politically
leads straight towards neofascism,
the state's terrorists
can outdo any other terrorists.
built its highly profitable social network off its users, selling
advertisements based on their ages, interests and other details. But
the scrutiny over the company’s vast trove of personal data — following
a report that a political consulting firm had improperly obtained
information of 50 million users — is taking direct aim at that
Here is more:
So far, most of the
social network’s top executives have been silent. Mr. Zuckerberg, its
founder, and Sheryl Sandberg, his top deputy, have not made any public
statements in recent days.
Yes indeed - and I am
pretty sure this is policy: Zuckerberg and Sandberg felt free to
acquire the privacies of over 2 billion persons
(which many of those
gave to Zuckerberg because they are, in
Zuckerberg's own words "dumb fucks
trust" Zuckerberg), but they refuse, or at least love to
answer any and all questions on the their policies and rules and
algorithms or anything else Facebook does (that does not sound
for the utter horror that is Facebook (if you are intelligen)).
Here is more:
At the meeting,
employees asked questions about the continuing internal investigation
into the use of Facebook data by the political consulting firm
Cambridge Analytica. The firm, which was tied to President Trump’s 2016
campaign, used the data to target messages to voters.
Yes. And since Cambridge Analytica succeeded
from Facebook the private data of no less than 50 million Americans,
this is exceedingly many times more important than Russia's
about which more than a year research established only that the
Russians spent some $150,000 dollars on advertisements - which is not a
fraction from a fraction of the possibilities that Cambridge
Analytica's c.q. Facebook's data allowed.
Next - this is the New York Times - there is this bit of nonsense:
After the 2016
presidential campaign, lawmakers at home joined the chorus of critics,
citing the company’s role in Russia’s disinformation efforts. The
social network was one of the top tools used by Russians to spread
false news, and the company’s executives have struggled to explain what
happened and how they would prevent foreign interference in the future.
Once again: All
to have been established in evidence in nearly 1 1/2 years of
searching was that "Russians" spent $115,000 dollars. And
USA is interfering into many tens of countries, both
by spying and other efforts (most of which are secret).
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
Well... in the first place
I think having 50 million sets of
private data very probably
substantially (and it seems: illegally) helped Steve
Bannon to win
Trump's elections; in the second place, I agree with Vladeck
suspect myself that none of the "assurances" Facebook offers
is kept, in reality); and I
also think $40,000 a day is utter peanuts for
Zuckerberg, who has gotten $70 billions out of Facebook's members.
Then, Mr. Kogan
gave the information to Cambridge Analytica, a firm founded by Stephen
K. Bannon, the former White House political adviser, and Robert Mercer,
the wealthy Republican donor. Passing the information to a third party
violated Facebook’s policies, the company said last week.
“There are all
sorts of obligations under the consent decree that may not have been
honored here,” said David Vladeck, a former director of consumer
protection at the F.T.C.
could face fines of $40,000 a day per violation if the agency finds
that Facebook broke the agreement.
Anyway... there is considerably more in the article, which I do
recommend although I don't agree with all of it, and we shall certainly
hear more about this in the coming days.
Scahill on Trump’s Cabinet Shake-up, the Mueller Probe & the Iraq
War 15 Years Later
This article is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! It starts
with the following introduction:
conversation with investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, co-founder
of The Intercept. Scahill talks about Trump’s pick for secretary of
state, Mike Pompeo; Erik Prince’s ties to China; Trump’s ties to
Russia; and the 15th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Yes, quite so. Here is
Scahill's first bit that I quote:
SCAHILL: Well, yeah. I
mean, we’ve replaced ExxonMobil with a Christian crusader, in Mike
Pompeo. And then you replace a radical ideologue Christian crusader,
Mike Pompeo, with a dyed-in-the-wool CIA
And one other thing to add
about Mike Pompeo, let’s remember that he is an extreme hawk on a
variety of issues, including on Russia. It’s very interesting, because
one of the things that seemed to be tension between Trump and Tillerson
was that Tillerson wasn’t entirely down with the program of Trump’s
policy of basically never saying anything bad about Russia. Now, I’m
very skeptical of some of the allegations in this investigation, and I
believe we need facts, but, you know, it’s clear that Russia did make
efforts to try to penetrate U.S. software companies that were servicing
U.S. elections. At a minimum, we know that that is true, because we’ve
seen the internal documents on it. But Mike Pompeo called for Edward
Snowden to be executed. He basically designated, in his first major
speech as CIA director, WikiLeaks as a state
terrorist organization, you know, a nonstate terrorist actor. This is a
very extreme figure to have as a secretary of state.
I agree for the most
part, and I somewhat agree with Scahill that "we need facts", but I should remark that (i) nearly 1 1/2 years
of investigations have produced few facts; (ii) the facts it did
produce are also true of the USA's interfering in - at
least - many tens of countries; and (iii) the facts about Cambridge
Analytica + Facebook (50 million sets of private data on 50 million
Americans, all gathered in total secret) seem to me very much more important than the few
facts about Russia's interference that 1 1/2 years of investigations
Then there is this on Erik Prince
A question that I am
astonished that no one in Congress asked when that guy was sitting in
front of them is that Erik Prince is in bed right now with the Chinese
government. His company, just in the last two weeks, the largest
investment arm of the Chinese government, the CITIC
Group, increased its shares in Erik Prince’s company to more than 40
percent. They almost control Erik Prince’s security company. What is
that company doing? Erik Prince set up a company to help China protect
its natural resource extraction operations in Africa. He’s working with
the Chinese government, and his top colleague from China is a member of
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
I know something about Erik Prince
because he formed Blackwater,
that was heavily, and it seems quite illegally, busy in Iraq from 2003
onwards. Incidentally, Blackwater is these days called Academi,
but it still seems to be mostly concerned with what Blackwater
did before it was called Academi.
There is this about
Jared Kushner (Scahill
And Kushner, I think, is
truly an idiot. And I think he—and I think that the—one of the most
lethal combinations in politics is ignorance and arrogance together.
And, you know, this—Jared Kushner was born with a silver spoon in his
mouth. He knows nothing about the real world. He seems incapable of
even speaking and having sounds come out of his mouth. And this is the
guy—he can’t get a top-secret security clearance legitimately. He has
been tasked with solving Middle East peace. And he still is conducting
business in his companies, as is Ivanka Trump, as is, let’s be clear,
Donald Trump. I mean, this whole thing is one huge money-laundering
operation. That’s what this White House looks like.
Well... I agree Kushner
and arrogant, but do not know myself whether he is "an
idiot". But most of the things Scahill says about him are quite
Here is the last bit I
quote from this article:
I quite agree, and
this is a strongly recommended article in which there is much
more than I quoted.
SCAHILL: So, you have—so,
if you replace H.R. McMaster, who is a measured realist—again, I’m not
endorsing McMaster, but I’m saying, in the context of this
administration, much more of a traditional conservative. You replace
the national security adviser, McMaster, with John Bolton, who is a
radical ideologue, and the whole thing shifts. So, you have Pompeo at
State—rabid ideologue. Then you would have Haspel at CIA—torturer. Then
you have John Bolton national security adviser, who wants to go to war
simultaneously with Iran and North Korea. You think things can’t get
worse? Things can get much worse in this administration.
Safety Is None of Your Business'
is by Paul Street on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
World peace is
none of your business
In fact, the above bit
was written and sung by Morrissey and there also are two more couplets
quoted in the article´s text. This is from very close to the beginning
of Street's text:
You must not tamper with
Work hard and simply pay
Never asking what for
Oh, you poor little fool
Oh, you fool
melancholy ode to the pathetic irrelevance of the commoner, the
everyday citizen, the popular majority, in what historian Noam Chomsky
calls “RECD, short for ‘really existing capitalist democracy,’
pronounced as ‘wrecked.’ “
So what if we vote, all us
“poor little fools”? Who cares? Our majority opinion doesn’t matter
much when popular democracy has been blown to bits by concentrated
wealth that is always concentrated power, and we’ve all been trained to
restrict the expression of our purported popular sovereignty to
candidate- centered, big money, big media, major party, electoral
pageants once every two or four years.
Well... I agree with
Chomsky that democracy in the USA has been wrecked, and it also happens
to be true that the last time I voted (as a Dutchman) was in 1971,
but I am not a "poor little fool" (I am poor, but
that's all that is true, at least about
me), and I think I also disagree
with Street, even though I agree that the present USA is in
fact a plutocracy that is fastly developing into neofascism.
I disagree for the
simple reason that I think that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, although I agree
with Street that neither party is a satisfactory choice. And I do
believe that if you can vote Trump away, you should
try to do so.
Here is a quotation from
Gillens and Page, who wrote the book "Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do
About It" (that has been
reviewed in a Nederlog of 2017 or 2016):
“[T]he best evidence
indicates that the wishes of ordinary Americans actually have had
little or no impact on the making of federal government policy. Wealthy
individuals and organized interest groups—especially business
corporations—have had much more political clout. When they are taken
into account, it becomes apparent that the general public has been
virtually powerless. … The will of majorities is often thwarted by the
affluent and the well-organized, who block popular policy proposals and
enact special favors for themselves. … Majorities of Americans favor …
programs to help provide jobs, increase wages, help the unemployed,
provide universal medical insurance, ensure decent retirement pensions,
and pay for such programs with progressive taxes. Most Americans also
want to cut ‘corporate welfare.’ Yet the wealthy, business groups, and
structural gridlock have mostly blocked such new policies.”
I think this is all
quite true, but it does not imply
that even if you are "virtually
powerless", you should not vote. And in fact, voting for the
president seems one of the few realistic possibilities were a
majority of the ordinary people may
(still) make a real difference.
Then there is this by
We get to vote? Big deal! Mammon reigns in the
United States, where, Page and Gilens write, “government policy …
reflects the wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions
of ordinary citizens who turn out every two years to choose among the
preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office.”
Thanks to this “oligarchy,”
as the authors call it, the United States ranks at or near the bottom
of the list of rich nations when it comes to key measures of social
health: economic disparity, intergenerational social mobility, racial
inequality, racial segregation, infant mortality, poverty, child
poverty, life expectancy, violence, incarceration, depression,
literacy/numeracy and environmental sustainability and resilience.
Well... I think I agree
with all of this, but even so: voting for the presidency of the USA seems one
of the few realistic possibilities were a majority of the ordinary
people may make a real difference.
Then there is this:
World peace is none of our
business. Neither is corporate welfare, jobs, health insurance,
pensions, the environment, tax policy, the drawing of voting districts,
campaign finance, the distribution of wealth and income, the structure
of work and the labor process, wages or labor rights.
And neither is the freedom
of ordinary people—all us poor little fools and our poor little foolish
children—to not be massacred by sociopaths armed to the teeth with
military-style weapons in our streets, schools, workplaces, concert
halls, churches, shopping malls, lecture halls, movie theaters and
First of all, Street
for "sociopaths" are thus called by American psychiatrists for the
simple reason that "sociopaths" do not agree "with the norms
society imposes" - which incidentally means that Street himself
is "a sociopath", and the same goes for me.
And second, I am quite willing to grant that all of the above does hold for most of the very rich - but then why should I care
about the - false, immoral, greedy, selfish - opinions of the very
Here is the last bit
that I quote from this article:
The rich don’t care about
the firearm savagery in the streets, schools and public squares. They
don’t care about our danger and fear. They live in gated, heavily
guarded, luxurious compounds, protected from the ricochets outside and
below. The political system they sit atop and profit from isn’t about
democracy. It’s about something very different: It’s about capitalism.
If they thought widespread gun ownership among all us poor little fools
was a threat to that system, they’d use the enormous political power
that flows from their wealth to rein guns in. But they don’t.
Capitalism careens in the
direction of fascism, which always leaves the masters of capital in
In fact my reply is as
above: Even if all
of the above does hold for most of the very rich, why should I care, or why should any
more or less reasonable and more or less rational person care about the
- false, immoral, greedy, selfish - opinions of the very rich?!
In brief, I think I
like Paul Street, but he is definitely too pessimistic in
Remarkable Reason Some Millennials Aren't Saving for Retirement
This article is by Keith Spencer on Truthdig and originally
on Salon. It starts as follows:
I say, and I do so because
I did not know anything like this (which probably is due to the
fact that my ex and myself have nearly 40 years
of ME/CFS, which prevented our getting children).
CNN reported last week that 66 percent of
millennials aged 21 to 32 have nothing saved for retirement. While the
report chalks up this inequity to student loans, “stagnant wages” and
“high unemployment,” there may be a deeper cause: many millennials
honestly don’t see a future for our economic system.
The CNN article went
semi-viral, partly because many saw humor in how it missed how many
truly feel. “RT if socialism is your retirement plan,” Holly Wood, 32,
a political organizer, wrote on
The idea that we millennials’
only hope for retirement is the end of capitalism or the end of the
world is actually quite a common sentiment among the millennial left.
Here is some more:
expressed to me their interest in creating self-sustaining communities
as their only hope for survival in old age; a lack of faith that
capitalism as we know it would exist by retirement age; and that
alternating climate crises, concentrations of wealth and privatization
of social welfare programs would doom their chance at survival.
“In general, I regard the
future as a multitude of possibilities, but most of them don't look
good,” Elias Schwartzman, 29, a musician, told me. “When I'm at
retirement age, around 2050, I think it's possible we'll have seen a
breakdown of modern society.” Schwartzman said that he saw the future
as encompassing one of two possibilities: an apocalyptic “total
breakdown of industrial society,” or “capitalism morphing into a
complete plutocracy.” “I think the argument can be made that we're well
on the way to that reality,” he added.
Actually, there are
many tens of millions of millenials, so
I don't think Spencer's "Many" does say much or anything about
what these tens of millions think. Then again, I agree with most of the
opinions that Spencer ascribes to the millenials, and I also think that
Schwartzmann's opinions are sensible (though I expect neofascism
rather than plutocracy).
Here is another
Wood told me via Twitter
that she felt similarly. “I don’t think the world can sustain
capitalism for another decade,” she said. “It’s socialism or bust. We
will literally start having resource wars that will kill us all if we
don’t accept that the free market will absolutely destroy us within our
lifetime [if] we don’t start fighting its hegemony,” she added.
I more or less agree
(and disagree on a few points), but I think that by 2050 it probably is
either socialism or neofascism (that is: if Trump doesn´t blow up the
Here is some more by
the same person:
I think I agree (but add
that my age is of that of Wood's grandparents). And in any
case, while in fact I have no decent idea about how
representative for millenials Spencer's selection is, I think this is a
fairly interesting article that is recommended.
“The economic realities of
my generation make the expectations for my parents’ generation seem
ludicrous to me—having a job with benefits and that pays enough that I
can make rent, and save for retirement and also maybe for a down
payment on property seems like a lottery,” Wood continued. “Maybe 15
percent of my peer group has this, and having it is a combination of
luck and family connections rather than skill and work ethic.”
Analytica Is Proud That It Swayed and Corrupted Elections Across the
This article is by Mehreen Kasana on Alternet. It starts as
Analytica, a data analytics firm based in the United Kingdom,
has been a topic of heated debate in data science for a while. Now the
consulting firm has gained a fresh wave of heightened notoriety after
one of its previous employees accused the data company of meddling with
millions of Facebook users’ personal data in the United
States—allegedly for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Christopher
Wylie, who once worked for
the company, told The Guardian in an explosive interview that he
inadvertently created former White House Chief Strategist Steve
warfare mindf*** tool” while working at the firm.
Yes, I agree with all of
this and most of it seems factually correct. (But I also
think it is high time that AlterNet and other non-mainstream publishers
do write "mindfucking" if they mean "mindfucking", and every
adult knows this is meant, and not "mindf***" - at
least if they do not think that certain words come with
mystical properties to corrupt anyone who reads them.)
Anyway... here is more (and SCL is affiliated with Cambridge Analytica):
Ever since the
United Kingdom’s Brexit’s campaign as well as Trump’s presidential
race, modern application of psychometrics or using psychological
manipulation through social media is rapidly gaining the attention of
internet users. But it would be naive to assume firms like Cambridge
Analytica and SCL targeted the United States and United Kingdom only.
In an undercover report by Channel 4, a reporter for the channel posed
as a Sri Lankan businessman seeking to entrap political foes
in the country and sought the advice of Cambridge Analytica’s CEO
Alexander Nix. Nix can be heard saying that politicians can be made
offers "too good to be true" such as bribes
and sexual favors as "these sort of tactics are very
effective.” A “instant” video of such “corruption” could be then used
to destroy politicians in developing countries, according to Nix. He
then said, “We’re used to operating through different vehicles, in the
shadows, and I look forward to building a very long-term and secretive
relationship with you.”
I say. It also appears as if Cambridge Analytica’s CEO
Alexander Nix has been dismissed yesterday, but I did not know most of
Here is the last bit I quote from this article:
[I] t’s evident
that firms like Cambridge Analytics and its affiliate corporation SCL
are here to stay, be
it America or elsewhere. The more important question is: how
do we plan to prevent our democracies
from being hijacked in the era of big data?
In fact, I think democracy in
the USA has been mostly hijacked and not only or even primarily
by "big data" but by the (very) rich, who have been called
upon to do so nearly fifty years ago by Lewis
F. Powell Jr. but indeed "the rich" do comprise Facebook´s
owner, and very probably Cambridge Analytica.
About ME/CFS, A Chinese Bookshop and March 22,1968
6. About ME/CFS in
7. A Chinese Bookshop
8. On March 22, 1968
In fact, this section B has not appeared in Nederlog
long time. It does appear today, after the ordinary
daily report on the
crisis that I have been writing for nearly five years now, and does so
mainly for two reasons:
The first reason is that there has appeared a fairly long
and fairly clear report of the Dutch National Health Council, which is
an important medical institution in Holland, that said, for the
time in over 40 years, that ME/CFS is a serious and
disease, that should be taken serious by medical doctors. (And I
can assure you that 9 out of 10 Dutch doctors - 27 out of 30,
in my experience - do not take anyone with ME/CFS
serious, and did not do so the last 40 years in which I
have had this ¨serious chronic disease¨).
6. About ME/CFS in
The above link is to the report of the (Dutch) National
Council of Health on ME/CFS, which was addressed to the Chairperson of
the National Parliament, and that is dated March 19, 2018.
(Incidentally, it is a pdf of 350 Kb.)
It is in Dutch and starts as follows (and continues for
ME/CVS is een ernstige chronische ziekte, die het
functioneren en de kwaliteit van het leven van de mensen die eraan
lijden substantieel beperkt. Patiënten met ME/CVS strijden al jaren
voor erkenning en betere behandeling van hun aandoening.
which is to say in English:
ME/CFS is a
serious chronic disease, that substantially limits the functioning and
the quality of life of the people who suffer from it. Patients with
ME/CFS have been fighting for years for recognition of their complaints
and for a better treatment.
I say. My ex (IQ 142) and my self (IQ 150+) - and since
my ex was a psychological assistant in 1978, who mostly tested IQs, I
am pretty certain that these were the facts then - have
had the disease for
nearly 40 years (since 1.1.1979) and have been trying to
explain the above things that the Dutch National Council of Health now
says, to about 30 Dutch "medical specialists".
27 completely disagreed
with us: According to them both
of us, both in the first year of our university studies were insane.
They "knew" we were (although none of these ¨specialists¨ had
studied psychology or
psychiatry) because they knew other medical doctors had not found
anything or - in a few cases - they themselves had done some research
on one of us, and had not found anything.
And therefore we
were insane. They
called it "psychosomatic" - which itself is a medical nonsense term
and they were sure of it because they were "medical
they definitely meant we were insane,
and indeed none of them offered
any help whatsoever, ever. For 40 years
and 27 times, in my estimate
is substantially correct but may not be fully precise).
It was all quite intentional. I will say
considerably more later, but Dutch medics ought to know that I am
both a psychologist and a philosopher of science; I know from both
studies that 16 randomly sampled subjects is the minimal to be
confident that one´s guesses are correct; we have been sent to around
30 medical specialists, who were collected at random by various medical
doctors; and my inference is that 9 out 10
Dutch medical doctors are dangerously
incompetent if one has any disease that does not belong to the standard diseases
More on Dutch medical doctors later.
This article is by Jane Perlez on The
New York Times. It starts as follows:
After the brutal suppression of China’s 1989
democracy movement, Liu Suli, a student leader who had narrowly escaped
being gunned down near Tiananmen Square, recalled a boyhood dream as he
brooded in his prison cell.
If he owned a
bookstore, he had mused at the age of 7, he wouldn’t have to spend
money on books. From behind bars, and with his entrepreneurial drive
still intact, he saw his dream in a different light. A bookstore might
be a more plausible way to pursue the freedom of ideas that he and
hundreds of thousands of others had failed to win with public protest.
He got out of
jail fairly quickly. The authorities lightened up a bit. He opened a
bookstore and ordered an eclectic range of volumes that leaned toward
philosophy, history, political science and an ample dose of Western
And now the All
Sages Bookstore, a haven of precisely arranged shelves and display
tables, thrives on the low-rent second floor of a nondescript building
near Peking University.
A survivor of Beijing’s ferocious property market — it has
moved three times since 1993 — and the government’s extremely tight
censorship in the era of President Xi Jinping’s rule, the store
represents an independent political spirit in an authoritarian
A large image of Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher
and freethinker, stands out among a galaxy of literary posters lining
the wall of the entry staircase, a taste of what’s to come.
“China is not a
liberal society, it’s not a free country,” Mr. Liu said, sitting in a
quiet corner of the Thinkers Cafe, a mellow hangout within the store
that meanders along a side corridor to a small back room furnished with
antique Chinese furniture.
bookstore is a way to express our longing for freedom and our hope for
the establishment of a free society,” he said.
This is merely the beginning of a much longer
I strongly recommend because I love books (ordinary
books: I hate e-books etc.); I am rather seriously interested in
China (but unfortunately without knowing Chinese); I like and admire
Liu Suli, and like it a lot that he put a "large image of Bertrand Russell" (the major philosopher
of the 20th Century, I am sure) in his shop; and this is simply a quite
nice and interesting article.
8. On March 22, 1968
If you are considerably younger than nearly 68, which is my
age, chances are that you do not know much about May 1968,
when a revolution nearly did happen in France. That revolution
was defeated quite probably because the Communist Party of
(PCF), that was quite strong in 1968, refused to collaborate
students, the anarchists, the progressives and the leftists in May of
You find above a link to the English Wikipedia, from which I
quote this bit to explain why I think a revolution did nearly
happen in May 1968:
The protests reached
such a point that political leaders feared civil
war or revolution; the national government itself
momentarily ceased to function after President Charles de Gaulle secretly fled France
for a few hours. The protests spurred an artistic movement, with songs,
imaginative graffiti, posters, and slogans.
“May 68” had an impact on French society that
resounded for decades afterward. It is considered to this day as a
cultural, social and moral turning point in the history of the country.
I did not know that De Gaulle had fled France in
1968, but I did go to Paris twice in 1968: First in May 1968,
with some friends, and then again all by my self in June 1968.
And I wrote about May '68 in May 2008
in Nederlog, indeed quite a few times, albeit in Dutch. In case you
read Dutch, here is a link to a collection of the articles I wrote in
There are 14 articles assembled
there (as links) and I can recommend all.
I do not know how much attention will be paid to this fifty
years later, but I suppose there will be some articles, and I will try
to follow them, and I may review some of them, although I do not
really believe I will learn anything about May '68 that I did
not know for quite a long time.
But to those younger than me I say: It did
look and feel like a real revolution in
May '68, and indeed this is the only case
of a possible revolution that I - more or less - participated in.
And it may be interesting for those born too late to take part in it.
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 (!!).