from March 23, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Friday,
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 23, 2018
1. The New Military-Industrial Complex of Big Data Psy-Ops
2. 15 Years After Invasion of Iraq, Amnesia & Distortion
Record of War Crimes &
Amid #DeleteFacebook Fervor, Experts Say Time
to Tackle Big Data
4. Rep. Keith Ellison: "Why Shouldn't There Be a Maximum
5. Facebook: Six Degrees of Giant Squid
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:
1. The New Military-Industrial Complex of Big
article is by Tamsin Shaw on The New York Review Of Books. It starts as
Apparently, the age
of the old-fashioned spook is in decline. What is emerging instead is
an obscure world of mysterious boutique companies specializing in data
analysis and online influence that contract with government agencies.
As they say about hedge funds, if the general public has heard their
names that’s probably not a good sign. But there is now one data
analysis company that anyone who pays attention to the US and UK press
has heard of: Cambridge Analytica. Representatives have boasted that
their list of past and current clients includes the British Ministry of
Defense, the US Department of Defense, the US Department of State, the
CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and NATO. Nevertheless, they
became recognized for just one influence campaign: the one that
helped Donald Trump get elected president of the United States.
Yes indeed, and this also
is from a rather long article from which I will select only a few bits.
This is the first bit, that I select for another reason than
probably think - and incidentally Cadwalladr is a journalist:
prominence in research on well-being, Kosinski’s work, Cadwalladr points out, drew a great deal of
interest from British and American intelligence agencies and defense
contractors, including overtures from the private company running an
intelligence project nicknamed “Operation KitKat” because a correlation
had been found between anti-Israeli sentiments and liking Nikes and
In fact, my point concerns
the fact (I suppose it is) that ¨a correlation had been found between anti-Israeli sentiments
and liking Nikes and KitKats¨.
And I have two remarks about it.
The first is that it seems to me (and I am a psychologist and a
philosopher of science) that if intelligence really is interested
suppose it is) in this
correlation, it seems to be both pretty much out of its rational mind
and ¨intelligence¨ must have extremely wide and thorough
that nearly all were stolen from private users, to ¨research¨ it.
And the second remark I make is that this manner of ¨research¨ - also, and quite
coincidentally - seems fundamentally flawed for a reason that
established by professor Molenaar (who was ¨my¨ professor - i.a. - in
the ¨University¨ of Amsterdam), that I summarize as follows:
Investigating the averages of many people´s reactions to
anything whatsoever, gives distorting and falsifying analyses of
people´s reactions, for these are almost always better studied by
investing fewer people repeatedly and longitudinally, because only such
studies can find interconnections between various things.
But in fact - it seems - almost all studies of people´s reactions
of many people tested once and averaged out, instead of fewer
tested repeatedly while checking for various inter- connections.
So in fact I say most of the actual research that is being done uses
the wrong statistical models and invalid statistical
Anyway.... here is more about the current facts about Facebook and
For his part,
Aleksandr Kogan established a company, Global Science Research, that
contracted with SCL, using Facebook data to map personality traits for
its work in elections (Kosinski claims that Kogan
essentially reverse-engineered the app that he and Stillwell had
developed). Kogan’s app harvested data on Facebook users who agreed to
take a personality test for the purposes of academic research (though
it was, in fact, to be used by SCL for non-academic ends). But
according to Wylie, the app also collected data on their entire—and
nonconsenting—network of friends. Once Cambridge Analytica and SCL had
won contracts with the State Department and were pitching to the
Pentagon, Wylie became alarmed that this
illegally-obtained data had ended up at the heart of government, along
with the contractors who might abuse it.
I think that is all
correct. And here is more, that I quote because I want to make some
other personal points about psychology as a quasi-science:
as Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker, and their colleagues in other
disciplines (most prominently, the Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein)
rehabilitated the cold war research on “group polarization” as a way of
understanding not, this time, the radicalism that feeds
“totalitarianism,” but the equally amorphous notion of “extremism.”
First of all, ¨extremism¨
is a whole lot vaguer than ¨totalitarianism¨: To say both are
¨equally amorphous¨ is total bullshit
simply because ¨totalitarianism¨- indeed even if it is as
crazily defined by the neofascist
Brzezinski, as is nowadays admitted
on the progressively worsening Wikipedia - is clearly just one
form of very many more extremist points of view.
Second, I started studying psychology 1978, and did so mostly because
my ex started it as well - where I should add that at this
point in time - 1978: forty years ago - we were both healthy and very
intelligent, which changed for both of us in January 1979, which in
turn introduced nearly forty
continuous discrimination upon
discrimination by 9 out of 10 medical
doctors, 999/1000 Dutch bureaucrats, and 100/100 Dutch politicians.
(By March 19, 2018 - !!!!! - I finally heard for the first
time the truth
my ex and I have known since 1979, namely
that we have ¨a serious chronic disease¨, which was an opinion
that led to our being declared insane (¨psychosomatizers¨)
out of 10 of the utterly incompetent Dutch medics. See here for more.)
Third, mainly because I had been studying philosophy and especially
philosophy of science for more than 10 years then, I concluded by 1980
that psychology is definitely not a
and I still think so. Here is a link to a
fairly good explanation by Paul Lutus, a former NASA scientist.
Pinker: I have seen a talk of him, in Amsterdam, around 21 years
ago, when he was explaining the human mind to psychologists,
psychiatrists, philosophers and other interested persons, as an invitee
by the ¨University¨ of Amsterdam, and I thought then as now: It is
mostly baloney, but he brings it a lot better than
And since then he has been studying ¨extremism¨ while also ascertaining
everybody that we live in an ever more beautiful and more peaceful
world... o well: he is fraud like almost all
professors of psychology I
heard and saw talking. (But he does make a lot more money than
Here is the last bit I quote from this article:
I say, for this is ultra
I’ve written previously about the
way in which a great deal of contemporary behavioral science aims to
exploit our irrationalities rather than overcome them. A science that
is oriented toward the development of behavioral technologies is bound
to view us narrowly as manipulable subjects rather than rational
agents. If these technologies are becoming the core of America’s
military and intelligence cyber-operations, it looks as though we will
have to work harder to keep these trends from affecting the everyday
life of our democratic society. That will mean paying closer attention
to the military and civilian boundaries being crossed by the private
companies that undertake such cyber-operations.
In the academic world, it
should entail a refusal to apply the perspective of propaganda research
more generally to social problems. From social media we should demand,
at a minimum, much greater protection of our data. Over time, we might
also see a lower tolerance for platforms whose business model relies on
the collection and commercial exploitation of that data. As for
politics, rather than elected officials’ perfecting technologies that
give them access to personal information about the electorate, their
focus should be on informing voters about their policies and actions,
and making themselves accountable.
To start with, psychology is not a
science. Next, it is utter
to counsel ordinary people that they ¨will have to work harder to keep these trends
from affecting the everyday life of our democratic society¨: their
politicians should forbid
these illegal uses of private data; third, it doesn´t seem
to advice people that they need to be ¨paying closer attention to the military and
civilian boundaries being crossed by the private companies¨: Both the
military and the
private companies keep almost everything they do a secret;
I will not speak of ¨academia¨, because I have learned at
¨University¨ of Amsterdam  that almost
all of them are only interested in the
money they make and the status they get; fifth, we should not
ask of the anti-social media ¨greater protection of our data¨: They
should not steal them in the first place,
and if they do they are
criminals who ought to get prosecuted; and sixth, we should not
wait for ¨platforms whose
business model relies on the collection and commercial exploitation of
that data¨: we should
completely forbid them - our private data are ours, and no one else´s
(except in rare circumstances).
In brief, this does not council people to do anything
not even to delete their Facebook account. I must say that I expected a
Years After Invasion of Iraq, Amnesia & Distortion Obscure U.S.
Record of War Crimes & Torture
This article is by Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh on
Democracy Now! It starts with the following intoduction:
Fifteen years ago
this week, the U.S. launched its invasion of Iraq on the false pretense
that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass
destruction. The attack came despite worldwide protest and a lack of
authorization from the United Nations Security Council. The ongoing war
has devastated Iraq and destabilized the region. We speak with Al
Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan and Medea Benjamin of CodePink
Yes - and I usually copy
the introductions to articles from Democracy Now! that I review, simply
because they are good.
Here is more by Hasan:
Yes indeed. And here is
more by Benjamin:
HASAN: (..) I think,
clearly, the lives of Iraqis, across the board, have not improved since
2003, especially in turn of—economic terms. It’s a disaster in terms of
human rights. I think many Iraqis would dispute his characterization
[quoted before - MM] that it’s worse now than under Saddam. I think
people who were gassed under Saddam or imprisoned would obviously
dispute that. But we can argue—the fact that we even have to argue
whether it was better or worse suggests what a disaster Iraq was, that,
you know, the bar of Saddam couldn’t even be exceeded very easily by
the American occupation and this so-called, you know, freedom for
[The Iraq War] was a crime. It
was in defiance of international law, and it was defined over the last
15 years by war crimes, by widespread torture, by human rights abuses,
by massacres—at Haditha, at Mahmudiyah, at Balad.
Well, I think that there’s one sector that’s gotten rich off both the
Iraq War and the war in Yemen right now, and that’s the weapons
industry and the defense contractors. And I think we should recognize
that war is profitable for a small sector of this country and that the
jobs that are being created are jobs that have to be transformed into
jobs that deal with clean, green energy and a new kind of economy that
we need. And that’s why we’ve created this campaign that is called
Divest from the War Machine. It’s 70 different organizations. You can
look at DivestFromWarMachine.org
and get involved with us and say, “Let’s get out of the business of
making a killing on killing, and turn our economy into something that’s
Well... mostly yes,
although I should add that since I have now heard more than 60 years
that we should divest from the war machine (because my parents were
both sincere and very courageous communists), I am rather
about it, but OK: You got the link in case you are interested.
#DeleteFacebook Fervor, Experts Say Time to Tackle Big Data Profiteers
This article is by Jake Johnson on Common Dreams. It has a
subtitle, which I copy and clarify a little, because I think it is
A social media
platform like [Facebook - MM] "is the ultimate surveillance tool: an
addictive product that's optimized to collect and analyze the intimate
details of our lives."
Precisely so -
with ¨Facebook¨ replacing ¨it¨. This is from near the article´s
Judging by the
popularity of the hashtag #DeleteFacebook—which went viral on Wednesday
to the dismay of CEO Mark Zuckerberg—many users of the social media
that Facebook should bear the brunt of the criticism for a data breach
that it did nothing to stop and that its "data-fueled"
business practices made possible.
Though Cambridge Analytica
is easy to revile, as one commentator put it, "the
real bad guy in this story" is Facebook.
Well... I agree ¨the
real bad guy in this story¨ (to quote that utterly dead metaphor) is
Facebook, although I should add that Cambridge Analytica
are crooks as
well. But yes:
Facebook gathered the data.
Here is more:
But as investigative
journalist Yasha Levine argued in a statement on Thursday, the entire
"present-day freakout over Cambridge Analytica needs to be put in the
broader historical context of our decades-long complacency over Silicon
Valley's business model."
"The fact is that companies
like Facebook and Google are the real malicious actors here—they are
vital public communications systems that run on profiling and
manipulation for private profit without any regulation or democratic
oversight from the society in which it operates," Levine added.
I more or less agree
with Levine, but I also add that - alas, alas - the vast majority
of computer users do know little about ¨Silicon Valley's business model¨, that is simply based on theft
personal details of any kind absolutely no one should have) and
Here is more by Levine
and also by Greer:
"What do these
companies know about us, their users?" asks Levine. "Well, just about
In an email to supporters
on Thursday, Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer wrote that
Facebook has constructed "the ultimate surveillance tool: an addictive
product that's optimized to collect and analyze the intimate details of
I agree with both of
them, and indeed I assume (without proof, for which reason it is an
assumption, that I made at the latest in 2012) that at least the NSA
fact tries to get everything it can and keeps it forever, and I
similar things about Facebook.
(You may disagree, but you don´t know I am wrong, and memory is
extremely cheap, while absolutely no one at the NSA or Facebook´s staff
ever got legally prosecuted for anything - and lying
is extremely easy, especially if nearly everything you do do is
Here is the last bit I
quote from this article:
Some analysts have argued
that Facebook and other tech giants that vaccuum up personal data for
profit are simply "too
big to serve the public interest" and should be nationalized.
Others, like Barry Lynn and
Matt Stoller of the Open Markets Institute, have proposed
steps that can be taken in the short-term by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) to "restructure" Facebook in a way that benefits the
public, like imposing strict privacy rules and spinning off the
company's ad network—a move that would "eliminate, in one swoop, most
of the incentive that Facebook now has to amass data," Lynn and Stoller
I think I may agree
with Lynn and Stoller, but do not know enough of their proposal. And
this is a recommended article.
Keith Ellison: "Why Shouldn't There Be a Maximum Wage?"
This article is by Sarah Jaffe on Truthout. It starts as follows:
On March 9 and 10,
the Congressional Progressive Caucus gathered for its strategy summit
in Baltimore, Maryland. Members of the caucus and allies from
left-leaning organizations and European left parties gathered to talk
policy and power for the short, medium and long term. At the
conference, I spoke with Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota about the new
push for Medicare for All, how to talk about racism and economic
justice, and why it might be time to think about a maximum wage.
In fact, I selected this
because of the title:
I am a strong proponent of the thesis that absolutely no one should have the right to earn more
than 20 times as much as the poorest persons (who also should be
able to live decently on the money they get).
I never heard or read any - good - reason against this,
and in fact it is worked out to some extent by me in this essay (and contrasted with
Orwell, who agreed, and said 10 times as much: I am more liberal
Here is more about Keith Ellison:
Well... I suppose all of
this may be noble but it also will not make a difference until
House has been rearranged in new elections.
Sarah Jaffe: I want
to start with Medicare for All. What's going on in the House?
Keith Ellison: I
just switched in for John Conyers. What we're going to do, we're
starting a Medicare for All task force, a single-payer task force, and
Pramila Jayapal and I are going to help lead that effort. Debbie
Dingell is there, Ro Khanna is there, Barbara Lee is there. We’ve got a
team, we're going to really push. We believe that, in this moment, the
most important thing to do is help build the public support and the
public awareness and the public knowledge. That's our goal.
We’ve got a plan to move out
on all fronts and have our members do a tour, have meetings in their
districts on single-payer. We're working with Bernie but we believe
that this is the issue and that the time for this issue has come.
Here is more on Elliston´s maximum wage:
As you see, Elliston was
not joking, but he also does not go as far as I do, and
indeed not by
far: All he wants to do is tax them more. I also agree
with that, but
it is very much less than either Orwell´s
proposal or my proposal.
We're talking about
market power ... you made a joke about a maximum wage.
No, no, no, I didn't make a
joke about maximum wage, I made a statement about maximum wage. What
I'm saying is ... if you make more than 20 times more than the people
who actually make the products and do the services of your company,
then we're going to tax you more.
Here is some more:
I say. If this is
radical that the Democrats can get, I don´t have any hope from
I wasn't joking about
having a maximum wage. Why shouldn't there be a maximum wage? I
remember when Ford, GM and Chrysler came for $25 billion to rescue the
American auto industry. OK, well how much does the guy who runs Toyota
make? Oh, he makes a few million a year. How much do you [GM/Ford
executives] make? $28 million a year. OK, stop right there, I'm gonna
tell you what your problem is right there. Your interests and the
interests of the company are not aligned. To you, the company is just
something, just like toilet tissue: You wipe some with it and throw it
away when you don't need it ...
Where did you get that
greedy? And how did you create a philosophy that says that to protect
your greed, so that if I say you shouldn't be that greedy you get to
call me a name? Because [you] do, [you] call us names because we say
your incalculable greed is not acceptable.
That's fine. We get to be
called communists when we say that about them. The truth is, why don't
we call them what they are, which is avaricious and greedy? And not
But the idea of a maximum wage (and also of maximum wealth) is both
good and important, and that is why this article is recommended.
Six Degrees of Giant Squid
This article is by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at The Automatic
Earth. This is from near the beginning:
The new European Parliament
chief Antonio Tajani said yesterday: “We’ve invited Mark Zuckerberg
to the European Parliament. Facebook needs to clarify before the
representatives of 500 million Europeans that personal data is not
being used to manipulate democracy.”
That’s all you need to
know, really. Personal data can be used to manipulate anything as long
as it’s not democracy. Or at least democracy as the Brussels elite
choose to define it.
First: this is not about
Cambridge Analytica, it’s about Facebook. Or rather, it’s about the
entire social media and search industry, as well as its connections to
the intelligence community. Don’t ever again see Google or Facebook as
not being part of that.
What Facebook enabled
Cambridge Analytica to do, it will do ten times bigger itself. And it
sells licences to do it to probably thousands of other ‘developers’.
The CIA and NSA may have unlimited powers, but prior to Alphabet and
Facebook, they never had the databases. They do now, and they’re using
them. ‘Manipulate democracy’? What democracy?
I more or less agree with
that, but I would like to point out that Meijer is incorrect about one
thing: The NSA (and the CIA) certainly had data, lots of data, before
Then there is this, which is
a part of a quote from 2014:
Reveals News Feed Experiment To Control Emotions
[Facebook] has published
details of a vast experiment in which it manipulated information
posted on 689,000 users’ home pages and found it could make people feel
more positive or negative through a process of “emotional
The study concluded:
“Emotions expressed by friends, via online social networks, influence
our own moods, constituting, to our knowledge, the first experimental
evidence for massive-scale emotional contagion via social networks.”
The question is simple,
isn’t it? Do you want to provide a bunch of, well, geeks, with the
ability to change how you feel, just so their employers can make -more-
money off of you? That is 1984. That is thought control. And Facebook
is some modern honey trap.
I completely agree
with the last paragraph (which is Meijer´s) and indeed I am
extremely glad that my homepages are completely free
from manipulations by the moral psychopaths -
that is: they lack any and all moral or ethical norms,
claim: they work for their own profit and only for their own profit
- from Facebook.
Here is more by Meijer:
Um, so 4 years ago, there
was a call for a parliamentary investigation in Britain and a member of
the Commons media select committee proclaimed there should be
legislation to protect people. Wonder how that panned out? Read the
news today. Time stood still.
But there’s of course much
more going on. You can claim that people should know about their
thoughts being controlled, but that’s nonsense. Nobody in their right
mind would, provided the arguments are honestly laid out, permit any
Moreover, it’s not just
their own emotions that are being manipulated, it’s those of their
friends and family too. If you are deeply unhappy, they may not see you
expressing your distress; it can be easily filtered out so you appear
in great spirits. Your friends feel good but someone wants you sad? No
And there’s yet another
aspect, one that Facebook may try to use for legal reasons: ever since
the days of Edward Bernays, advertisements, and media in a broader
sense, are shaped to influence what you think and feel. It sells soda,
it sells cars, and it sells wars.
I agree with this, and
certainly also with the next bit:
Well, no, none of it should
be legal. And none of it would be if people knew what was going on.
Yes indeed: Searching and
downloading private data - e-mails, health information, monetary
information, pictures, and most other things - should simply be completely forbidden, except under the
- fairly rare - situation as is dealt with in the Fourth Amendment.
(In brief, it is possible if there is credible evidence that one broke
the law, and a judge permitted this.)
Here is another quote (that I
quote in part: If you want the full text, use the next link):
Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism
[..] The game is no
longer about sending you a mail order catalogue or even about targeting
online advertising. The game is selling access to the real-time
flow of your daily life –your reality—in order to directly
influence and modify your behavior for profit. This is the gateway to a
new universe of monetization opportunities: restaurants who want to be
your destination. Service vendors who want to fix your brake pads.
Shops who will lure you like the fabled Sirens. The
“various people” are anyone, and everyone who wants a piece of your
behavior for profit
[T]he Chief Data Scientist of a much-admired Silicon
Valley company that develops applications to improve students’ learning
told me:“The goal of everything we do is to change people’s actual
behavior at scale. When people use our app, we can capture their
behaviors, identify good and bad behaviors, and develop ways to reward
the good and punish the bad.
I’ve come to a different conclusion: The assault we
face is driven in large measure by the exceptional appetites of a
wholly new genus of capitalism, a systemic coherent new logic of
accumulation that I call surveillance capitalism.
[..] the application of machine learning, artificial
intelligence, and data science for continuous algorithmic improvement
constitutes an immensely expensive, sophisticated, and exclusive
twenty-first century “means of production.” [..] the new manufacturing
process converts behavioral surplus into prediction products designed
to predict behavior now and soon.
I agree - and in fact opted a
similar term in 2012 (in my Crisis:
Christmas sermon: Hypotheses about CF+SS -
and yes, this last link is to the - rather fundamental - ideas I
thought up in November of 2012, before knowing anything by
Edward Snowden, whose data
very strongly supported my theory),
although I should add that since then I have concluded that neofascism
(according to my definition) is in fact the better term.
Here is the last bit
that I quote from Meijer:
There’ll be big words, lots
of them. And there may be people leaving Facebook. But the platform is
addictive, and 2 billion addicts is a very large target group. Some
other company may develop a competitor and promise ‘better’ policies
and conditions, but the big money is in the very thing discussed today:
manipulating people’s data, and thereby manipulating their behavior.
Perhaps if news media and
advertizers were so inclined, they’d explain to their readers and
viewers exactly that, but in the end they A) all do it to some extent,
and B) are all connected to Facebook and Google to some extent.
But the main driving force
is and will remain the intelligence agencies, who have come to depend
on ‘social media’ for the one thing they themselves were incapable of
providing, but saw Alphabet and Facebook incite gullible people
themselves to provide: an artificial intelligence driven database that
knows more about you than you know yourself.
That the intelligence
community today is powered by artificial intelligence is pretty out
there to start with. That AI would give it the means to predict your
future behavior, and manipulate you into that behavior seemingly at
will, is something that warrants reflection.
George Orwell could not
have foreseen this.
I again mostly agree,
but I should add two fairly minor corrections:
First, Facebook etc.
etc. are not just ¨manipulating
people’s data, and thereby manipulating their behavior¨: They first have to steal them
- which by now they probably did to some extent from absolutely
everyone who is connected to the internet. (And I said ¨steal¨
because that is the only proper term for what they have been doing for
a long time now.)
And second, I think the
relation between Facebook and Google, and other rich professional
thiefs from personal data, may be a bit different from what Meijer
sketches: They do cooperate with the NSA, the CIA and the FBI,
but these also steal their data from people with computers
connected to the internet, and they did so before Facebook started
But this is a good
article, in which there is also more than I reviewed, which is strongly
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 (!!).
 The background is
that in Holland (and this was the only country in the
world where this was practised) between 1971 and 1995 the
universities were in fact given to the students; many students
were very leftist or communist between 1971 and 1984, and after
the Dutch university system was changed in these years to a
system in which the University Parliament had the supreme power
as the Parliament in the nation, with the Board of Directors as
government; all faculties also had parliaments, rather like
the cities in Holland; and there were elections for both
parliaments each and every year, in which every student, every
secretary, every toilet cleaner, every lecturer, and every
professor all had 1 vote, which meant that the students and
their parties had the absolute majority, always, which in Amsterdam
(and Nijmegen and Tilburg) was until 1984 in the hands of com-
munist students, that is, members of the Dutch Communist Party (as
was admitted from 1991 onwards, by former communists).
This is the background of all
Dutch ¨universities¨ between 1971 and 1995 - but at present, after
the full authoritarian structure was reimposed in 1995 (when all
parliaments totally disappeared, as did the say of any student),
the ¨University¨ of Amsterdam seems to pretend that the years 1971-1995
simply did not exist.
In fact, between 1971 and 1995, the
largest parts of each and every Dutch university was wholly destroyed for real
The average IQ in the University of Amsterdam was
115 in 1984, and is probably around 100 at present
- but anybody with sufficient money can make some
degree, even if with an IQ of 100, all as Tony Blair wanted it, for the