from August 20, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Monday,
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was until 2013:
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.
2. Crisis Files
five crisis files
that are mostly well worth reading:
A. Selections from August 20, 2018:
1. Saying Goodbye to Planet Earth
The 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:
2. Dutch Memorial Day: Erasing People After Death
3. The Market Made Them Do It
4. Trump's 'Immoral' Plan Could Send 365 Million Tons of
5. Feminism and Revolution: Looking Back, Looking Ahead
1. Saying Goodbye to Planet Earth
This article is by Chris
Hedges on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
The spectacular rise
of human civilization—its agrarian societies, cities, states, empires
and industrial and technological advances ranging from irrigation and
the use of metals to nuclear fusion—took place during the last 10,000
years, after the last ice age. Much of North America was buried, before
the ice retreated, under sheets eight times the height of the Empire
State Building. This tiny span of time on a planet that is 4.5 billion
years old is known as the Holocene Age. It now appears to be coming to
an end with the refusal of our species to significantly curb the carbon
emissions and pollutants that might cause human extinction. The
human-induced change to the ecosystem, at least for many thousands of
years, will probably make the biosphere inhospitable to most forms of
I agree this is far from
optimistic, but that does not mean at all that it may not be correct.
Indeed, I fear it very well may be.
Here is more:
The planet is
transitioning under our onslaught to a new era called the Anthropocene.
This era is the product of violent conquest, warfare, slavery, genocide
and the Industrial Revolution, which began about 200 years ago, and saw
humans start to burn a hundred million years of sunlight stored in the
form of coal and petroleum. The numbers of humans climbed to over 7
billion. Air, water, ice and rock, which are interdependent, changed.
Temperatures climbed. The Anthropocene, for humans and most other
species, will most likely conclude with extinction or a massive
die-off, as well as climate conditions that will preclude most known
life forms. We engineered our march toward collective suicide although
global warming was first
identified in 1896 by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius.
Yes, indeed - and the last
link in this quotation is well worth reading. Here is more:
The failure to act
to ameliorate global warming exposes the myth of human progress and the
illusion that we are rational creatures. We ignore the wisdom of the
past and the stark scientific facts before us. We are entranced by
electronic hallucinations and burlesque acts, including those emanating
from the centers of power, and this ensures our doom. Speak this
unpleasant truth and you are condemned by much of society. The mania
for hope and magical thinking is as seductive in the Industrial Age as
it was in pre-modern societies.
Well... I do object (once
again) to this - to me - fairly crazy term "we".
For one thing, I did no such things. For another thing, neither
did my parents (who were sincere communists) nor my
grandparents (who were anarchists or communists, at least three out
I agree that we (that is: myself and my direct family) during three
successive generations belonged to a quite small minority of at most 1%
of the Dutch, but still: we (my direct family) did not do what
"we" (everyone) stands accused of. (And there are more, though indeed
never a majority.)
Besides: What is so difficult about saying instead of
the totally comprehensive "we" something like "the majority" or "the
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
Astronomers call the
inevitable death of advanced civilizations across the universe “the
great filter.” Robin Hanson
in the essay, “The Great Filter—Are We Almost Past It?” argues that
advanced civilizations hit a wall or a barrier that makes continued
existence impossible. The more that human societies evolve, according
to Hanson, the more they become “energy intensive” and ensure their own
obliteration. This is why, many astronomers theorize, we have not
encountered other advanced civilizations in the universe. They
Well... I think this is a rather
speculative possibility, and indeed I also do not take it serious.
Then again, I do agree that the present ecological situation
to select a term - is both quite dangerous for everybody and may lead
to the extinction of much of the present nature.
There is considerably more in this article, which is recommended
Memorial Day: Erasing People After Death
This article is by
Annemarie Toebosch on Truthout. I picked it because I am Dutch (as
seems Toebosch, although she works in the USA) but this does not mean
it is not interesting.
It begins as follows:
As the anniversary
of Indonesian independence from the Netherlands approaches, a close
look reveals a Dutch narrative that erases people along racial lines.
independence from the Netherlands on Aug. 17, 1945.
This followed 350 years of Dutch
East India Company control and Dutch state rule, as
well as Japanese occupation during WWII.
After the declaration,
Netherlands waged a war to re-establish colonial
control over Indonesia. The war, whose dead included Indonesians killed
by summary execution, cost an estimated 300,000 Indonesian lives
compared with around 6,000 casualties on
the Dutch side.
How does the Netherlands deal with this history?
social scientist and director of Dutch and Flemish
studies at the University of Michigan, I ask this question in my
writing and teaching about issues of inclusion in the Dutch-language
The answer to that
question: The Netherlands ignores the sacrifices of Indonesians. Here’s
how and why.
Yes indeed, although
instead of "ignores" it might as well (or perhaps better) be said "denies".
Here is more:
One expression of that
struggle unfolds on Dutch
Memorial Day, May 4, the day when the Netherlands remembers its
dead from World War II and after. The day involves a ceremony with two
minutes of national silence and the laying of wreaths by the Dutch king
The Indonesians who fought
against the Dutch and were killed in the ‘45-’49 war are not
commemorated in this ceremony, despite the Dutch officially considering
them Dutch at the time.
Yes indeed, and the
second paragraph also supports my "denies" rather than "ignores", for
the point for the white Dutch (who came from
Holland) was that the formerly Indonesian Dutch (whom the white
Dutch had exploited for 350 years) were traitors
because they insisted - quite correctly, in my opinion - that
had become independent in 1945.
Here is more on the
Dutch ways of remembering:
Dutch Memorial Day is
stranger to protests against exclusion, and the Indonesian victims
of the war are not the only ones who have been ignored on this day.
It took decades, for
example, for Dutch
Holocaust victims to be remembered.
Yes indeed, and this
happened in the 1970ies, when I had stopped "remembering", because I
could only see this as vast Dutch hypocrisy.
Here is a very potted history how the Jewish victims were not
remembered (on May 4) until the 1970s:
First, there were over
100,000 mainly Dutch Jews who were murdered in WW II, indeed
part because the Jewish Council (which was instituted by the
not only in Holland) mostly cooperated
with the Nazis, and
furthered (at a very early stage in the war) that the Dutch Jews should
state they were Jews, which many did, which in turn meant that most of
these could be easily arrested and murdered a bit later on. (The
leaders of the Jewish Council were promised both their money (a
lot) and their
lives by the SS, which indeed also kept word.)
And second, the Dutch
did not commemorate these over 100,000 murdered fellow Dutchmen
(on the official date of commemoration) because the Dutch reasoned as
follows: What the Dutch commemorated were the victims of the war;
Jews were victims of genocide; and while the genocide happened
war, the violence to which the Jews were opposed (that murdered over
100,000 of them) did not belong to acts of war.
Yes, indeed - though
indeed this changed during the late 1960ies and the 1970ies,
which they were remembered, also officially.
Here is more on the
So who is, and who is not,
commemorated on Dutch Memorial Day?
The key to the answer is
this: The Netherlands does
not officially recognize Indonesia’s 1945 independence –
it recognizes the 1949 date of
the sovereignty agreement instead.
Here’s why the Netherlands
cannot recognize Indonesia’s 1945 independence: If the Netherlands
recognized that date, that would mean that the country had attacked a
sovereign nation after World War II with the purpose of recolonizing
it. And then the massacres, euphemistically referred to in the
Netherlands as the “police actions,” would
not be “police actions” but war crimes, as explained in an upcoming
book by Ady Setyawan and Marjolein Van Pagee.
I'd say that the Dutch
did attack an independent nation from 1945 till 1949,
and made around
300,000 Indonesian victims between 1945 and 1949. But since according
to the white Dutch, these were traitors, they simply were not counted.
Indeed, that was also
an instance of a far wider pattern:
Although the number is not
verified, civilian casualties from World War II in Indonesia are
commonly estimated at 4
million. The official
document that counts the dead to be commemorated on
Dutch Memorial Day lists around 20,000, a stunning discrepancy. The way
that the Dutch come up with such a wildly different number is because
they exclude all indigenous people. Millions of people are thus erased
on Dutch Memorial Day.
I think it may be
fairly surmised that the 20,000 who were commemorated all were white,
whereas the 4 million who were also killed (in the Dutch Indies,
between 1941 and 1945) were not counted because they
were not white.
Incidentally, in later
years - in the 90ies and early 2000s, at least the official
commemorations on May 4 (there were and are others, that were less
crazy) were quite odd in yet other
ways: At various years
various groups of victims of WW II were commemorated, that may have
included "all victims" (including the Germans). It differed per year,
and I forgot most of it, but no:
With parents and grandparents in the
communist resistance against the Nazis, and with a grandfather who was
murdered in a German concentration camp and a father who survived over
3 years and 9 months of four German concentration camps, I do not
take part in any Dutch official commemoration of "the victims
Market Made Them Do It
article is by Sam Pizzigati on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
Back in 1999, near the
dizzying height of the dot.com boom, no executive in Corporate America
personified the soaring pay packages of America’s CEOs more than Jack
Welch, the chief exec at General Electric. Welch took home $75 million
What explained the enormity
of that compensation? Welch didn’t claim any genius on his part. He
credited his success, instead, to the genius of the free market.
“Is my salary too high?”
mused Welch. “Somebody else will have to decide that, but this is a
Translation: “I deserve
every penny. The market says so.”
Top U.S. corporate execs
today, on average, are doing even better than top execs in Welch’s
heyday. In 1999, notes a just-released new report from the Economic
Policy Institute, CEOs at the nation’s 350 biggest corporations
pocketed 248 times the pay of average workers in their industries. Top
execs last year averaged 312 times more.
Yes, indeed. Here is
more (and I do not think a "management scientist" is a scientist
- I am
One leading critic of these
apologists, the Dutch management scientist Manfred Kets de Vries,
up this market world view earlier this year: Big CEO pay packages
“reflect market demands for a CEO’s unique skills and contribution to
the bottom line.” Mega-million executive paychecks “merely represent
the market forces of supply and demand.”
Or, as the University of
Chicago’s Steven Kaplan puts
it, “The market for talent puts pressure on boards to reward their
top people at competitive pay levels in order to both attract and
And besides, these
Yes indeed - and Pizzigati comes
by his conclusion by considering 1% of the "rigorously trained executives", which are still 74,000 persons (almost
none of whom is any way a genius - and a real genius
Einstein earned $ 10,000 a year at the end of his life).
Simple market logic.
And simply wrong. American
corporations today confront no scarcity of executive talent. The
numbers of people qualified to run multi-billion-dollar companies have
never, in reality, been more plentiful. These numbers have been growing
steadily over recent decades, in part because America’s graduate
schools of business have been graduating, year after year, thousands of
rigorously trained executives.
Here is more:
take home far more compensation than their foreign counterparts, on
triple the pay of execs in America’s peer nations. By classic
market logic, any competition between highly paid American executives
and equally qualified but more modestly paid international executives
ought to end up lowering, not raising, the higher pay rates in the
Yes, quite so - and this
means it is not a matter of "classic market logic". Here is an alternative explanation:
Some analysts do have an
alternate explanation to offer. Markets, they point out, still operate
by supply and demand. But markets don’t set executive pay.
“CEOs who cheerlead for
market forces wouldn’t think of having them actually applied to their
own pay packages,” as commentator Matthew Miller has noted in the Los
Angeles Times. “The reality is that CEO pay is set through a clubby,
rigged system in which CEOs, their buddies on board compensation
committees and a small cadre of lawyers and ‘compensation consultants’
are in cahoots to keep the millions coming.”
“CEO compensation,” agree
Lawrence Michel and Jessica Schieder, the authors of the
new Economic Policy Institute executive pay report, “appears to reflect
not greater productivity of executives but the power of CEOs to extract
I think that is
correct. Here is the ending of this article:
I say, and I do so for a
good reason which is explained in my Crisis: On Socialism. This is strongly recommended,
shall summarize by quoting just two bits from it.
And what might a reasonable
CEO-to-worker pay ratio be? The new Economic Policy Institute research
suggests one plausible goal. Back in 1965, Michel and Schieder
calculate, America’s top execs only pulled down 20 times more pay than
the nation’s average workers.
The first is a definition by George Orwell
from 1941, in which he
defines what he meant by "socialism" (in England, at that time):
And the second bit is my
own on what may be called "minimal socialism" (with added
- Nationalization of
land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
- Limitation of incomes,
on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not
exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.
- Reform of the
educational system along democratic lines.
In fact, I'd
be willing to try just that: A system like the present
one, but one which is considerably more fair, and where all
incomes (and all ownership of things) are limited to be within
Euro's) between 15,000 and 300,000 (within 1 to 20 times as much).
Is that socialism?
Probably not, for socialism seems to involve
considerable expropriation of the rich, on Orwell's line or my
repropriation-lines. Then again, the proposed system amounts to
little more than fixing the maximum
amount that anyone can own or earn at 20 times of what the
earn, which means that 99% of the people will not
loose a cent (and
may gain considerably).
Finally, will this
system be adopted? Not as long as the media
are in the hands of the few who get a lot more than 300,000 euros or
dollars a year.
Quite so, and this is a
strongly recommended article.
4. Trump's 'Immoral' Plan Could Send 365 Million Tons of Carbon
article is by Julia Conley on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
President Donald Trump moved
to keep California from applying its own stringent regulations to auto
emissions, White House officials indicated that the president would
soon unveil a plan to give several other states the right to
self-regulate regarding pollution—but the states in question this time
are coal producers, and Trump's proposal is likely to cause an
explosion in emission rates as well as a worsening of the climate
Yes, indeed. Here is more:
"Emissions are going to go
up, and I don't mean from where they would have been under the Clean
Power Plan, but relative to the trends now," Conrad Schneider, advocacy
director for the Clean Air Task Force, told
the New York Times. "This is to put the thumb on the scales
and bring coal back."
Protection Agency estimated in a 300-page analysis that the plan would
affect about 300 coal plants, likely keeping them in operation and
going against the will of 65 percent of Americans who, according
to Pew Research, say the development of renewable energy should
take precedence over fossil fuels.
The plan could release
about 365 million metric tons of carbon into atmosphere which would
have otherwise been prevented from being released under President
Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, according
to the Washington Post.
Yes again. Here is the last
bit that I quote from this article:
Quite so, and this is a
"These numbers tell the
story, that they really remain committed not to do anything to address
greenhouse gas emissions," Joseph Goffman, who worked in the EPA’s
Office of Air and Radiation between 2009 and 2017 and helped write the
Clean Power Plan, told the Post. "They show not merely
indifference to climate change, but really, opposition to doing
anything about climate change."
The proposal is expected to
fully de-fang the Obama administration's regulation, which is currently
suspended due to the lawsuit several coal-producing states filed to
block the rule.
and Revolution: Looking Back, Looking Ahead
article is by Julie Matthaei on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
In the early 1970s, as an
integral part of “second wave” feminism, Marxist-feminists insisted on
recognizing that patriarchy and capitalism were intertwined oppressive
systems: liberation could not be achieved without overcoming both. A
simple identity politics of womanhood or a class-specific Marxist
politics of a working-class revolution would not suffice.
Soon, though, we and other
feminists were challenged by the need to broaden our lens further. The
insight that identities of gender, class, race, sexuality, nationality,
etc., are mutually determining gave rise to a new concept: intersectionality….
Well... first of all,
this is the strongly academic prose - with words preferably 4
long, or more - that also characterizes Henry Giroux, who is a (former)
academic who also advertises himself with a picture of 40 years ago, as
if he were a film star.
And second, I may as
well explain (once more) why I - a philosophical anarchist, who is the
son of two lifelong Marxists and the grandson of two anarchists and a Marxist - gave
and Marxism in 1970, although for Marxism you have to go to the last link and
the following: Marx.
This is all I will say
about Marx and Marxism here. As to the above prose: I have excellent
academic degrees in psychology and philosophy (only As), but I cannot
follow most of the above and the following quoted prose. I will only
say that "intersectionality" is so extremely vague that
apart from this, I don't understand it.
Here is more (and I am sorry
for the prose):
Again, I do not
understand what "solidarity
politics" is supposed to
mean, that is, if it is not what the second quoted paragraph is
supposed to describe: Feminism is not so much an attempt at
women, no, no: feminism is only real feminism if it strives to
liberate everybody from everything. (Or so I
The splintering of feminism
that characterized the “third wave” led many to believe that feminism
was dying or dead. However, feminism did not die. Rather, through
synchrony with other identity-based social movements, a new and more
complex form of politics is emerging, which builds on and transcends
identity politics: “solidarity politics.”
Simply put, the way out of the
challenges posed by intersectionality for feminists, especially
Marxist-feminists, has been to expand our practice of feminism.
Feminists have found that we cannot bring women together to fight for
our liberation if we do not also recognize and seek to eradicate the
other forms of oppression that women face, both within our movement and
in society. We need to reach beyond a politics that views feminism as a
struggle of women against oppression by men for a solidarity politics
that seeks to end all forms of oppression—patriarchy, racism,
classism, homophobia, able-ism, neocolonialism, species-ism, etc.—from
our movements, and from our economy and society.
Let me only explain why I gave up feminism in 1970:
What I saw were mainly academic women and students who were not
against wage slavery, but instead wanted to extend wage slavery to both men and women
- and they succeeded, and now it needs two salaries (of
the male and of the female) to raise their children (whom they only
will see briefly at night and in the weekends).
In contrast, I wanted women to study, paint, sport etc. etc. and I also
wanted the ever increasing technological powers to limit the
working times of males (which was already discussed in the 1960ies).
But the academic women wanted academic jobs and academic
careers, and because they wanted that they also wanted all
women to work, mostly in menial and little paying jobs, for
most women were not academics.
And that is why I gave up feminism then, and still do not believe in it
(apart from the fact that nearly all feminist
philosophy I read - I am
a philosopher - struck me as nonsense).
Back to the prose of Julie Matthaei:
overarching vision of systemic transformation, the feminist movement in
the US has tended to focus on demands for equal opportunity within the
prevailing system, such as gaining representation in positions across
the economic hierarchy previously monopolized by men. In so doing,
feminism shrinks to a movement which takes the basic rules of our
capitalist economy as given, and defines women’s oppression solely in
terms of discrimination in the labor force and lack of reproductive
rights. At its worst, this approach reduces feminism to “breaking the
glass ceiling” whereby a minority of women gains access to top
positions, almost always by doing things the way men do them.
Apart from "an overarching vision of systemic
transformation" (????) I may
agree to that, as I just sketched above, albeit not in Matthaei's
prose. Also, these feminists not merely gained "access to top positions" for themselves; they also helped to
make all women wage slaves, generally
with far worse jobs than academic women, that also paid a lot
more than non-academic jobs.)
This is from the ending of this article:
feminism—feminism that seeks to liberate all women—leads inexorably to
solidarity politics, solidarity economics, and r/evolution—a global
citizens movement, as described by the Great Transition Initiative. It
is important for feminists, both women and men, to continue to affirm
this, and to ascribe to solidarity politics. Feminism must be
r/evolutionary if it is to be fully feminist.
Moreover, it is imperative
that all progressive movements be vigilant about the challenge of
intersectionality and commit themselves to eradicating all forms of
inequality—including male domination and gender oppression—that they
encounter within their organizations and in their organizing.
So "true feminism" is "solidarity politics, solidarity economics,
and r/evolution". I say. O yes,
"true feminism" is for
(bolding added) "eradicating all
forms of inequality", such as
differences in facial beauty, differences in length, and differences in
intelligence. At least, so I understand (with a - male, it is true -
In case you disagree: I have
indeed not yet seen much activity to eradicating differences in facial
beauty and length, but in Holland I have seen nearly 50
years of consistent denials of any differences in intelligence,
which meant in effect an ever greater stupification,
mostly through 50
years of successive lessenings of what schools and universities taught,
which is at present less than 50% of what it used to be until 1965.
Thus (to end this review) now
the 18-year olds need to do only 4 or 5 written examinations, and need
no more than 6 or 7 subjects, whereas between 1865 and 1965 the same
people had to do 10 or 12 written examinations, and had at least 16
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 (!!).