from September 27, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Thursday,
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 September 27, 2018:
1. Hit Pause on Brett Kavanaugh
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. World Laughs at Trump as He Boasts About Himself in U.N.
3. Trump Accuses China of Meddling in Upcoming Election
4. Being Julian Assange
5. 9/11 Unmasked: A Remarkable Review
Pause on Brett Kavanaugh
This article is by
The Editorial Board on The New York Times. It starts as follows:
a third woman stepping forward with accusations that the Supreme Court
nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed sexual assault as a young man, this
destructive stampede of a confirmation, driven so far by partisan
calculation, needs to yield at last to common sense: Let qualified
investigators — the F.B.I. — do their job. Let them interview the many
witnesses whose names are already in the public record, among them
Judge Kavanaugh’s close high-school friend Mark Judge, then weigh the
credibility of the various claims and write a report for the White
House and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
jam Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation through now, without seeking to
dispel the darkening cloud over his head, would be to leave the public
in doubt about his honesty and character — and to set an even lower
standard for taking claims of sexual abuse seriously than the Senate
did 27 years ago in considering the accusations against Clarence Thomas
by Anita Hill.
Yes, I quite agree with this (and for more on
Kavanaugh check the index).
Here is more, namely a third woman who
complained about Kavanaugh:
recap: On Wednesday morning, the bomb-throwing lawyer Michael Avenatti
made public an affidavit from Julie Swetnick, a woman who grew up in
the Washington suburbs and claims to have traveled the same 1980s
social circuit as Judge Kavanaugh. Ms. Swetnick says that he drank
excessively at many parties she attended; that he was verbally abusive
and physically aggressive toward young women, fondling and grabbing
them; and that he was part of a group of young men who would spike the
punch at parties with alcohol or illicit drugs with an eye toward
incapacitating the female attendees, including Ms. Swetnick herself,
and then abusing them.
are grotesque charges — and, like the previous ones, they leave oceans
of room for speculation and doubt. This is precisely why the Senate
needs to stop trying to ram through this nomination by some arbitrary
deadline and arrange for a thorough and nonpartisan inquiry.
Well... yes and no. First the no: What bomb did
Avenatti throw? And why are Swetnick's charges grotesque? Both
terms seem either false or dishonest - and no: I do not say
Avenatti is what he says he is, nor do I say Swetnick's claims
are true; I do say these terms are not appropriate.
As to the yes: I agree more or less with the rest. Here
Yes, I agree: For
the Senate, it seems best to start an FBI investigation into
Kavanaugh's past, and this is a recommended article.
saner times, the Senate would have paused in its mad rush to confirm
Judge Kavanaugh when the first credible allegations of sexual assault
surfaced. As things stand, Chuck Grassley, the head of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, has shrugged off these latest accusations and
asserted that the show will go on without further inconvenience or
is dereliction of the Senate’s duty — and it is now up to senators who
know better, who prize the dignity and duty of their chamber, to
demonstrate that they are indeed something more than partisan tools.
is not, as Republicans have claimed, a matter of demanding the
destruction of a man’s career based on vague or unsubstantiated claims.
It is a matter of treating such allegations with the proper gravity.
There is no other way to protect the integrity of the nominating
process — and of the nation’s highest court.
Laughs at Trump as He Boasts About Himself in U.N. Address
This article is by
Amy Goodman and Juan González on Democracy Now! It starts with the
World leaders in the
United Nations General Assembly burst out laughing when President Trump
boasted about his accomplishments. Trump praised North Korea, attacked
Germany and accused Iran of “sowing chaos, death and destruction,”
drawing scorn from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. “What’s amazing is
not that this hall of seasoned professionals laughed at him, but that
he doesn’t get more laughter in the United States. These cable news
programs take him seriously. … He should be laughed off the screen
everywhere,” says Juan Cole, historian and author of “Engaging the
Well... I strongly
dislike Trump, and I would like it if Trump were "laughed off the screen
everywhere" but then again
I know since almost three years that Trump is mostly not
"laughed off the screen", especially not in
the USA, and I think Juan Cole knows this at least as well as I
do, and therefore I think Cole's opinion is more propaganda
than fact. (And
that it so happens that I mostly agree with Cole on this topic
does not blind me for the fact that Cole is
Here is some more - and this is quoted because of Bolton:
I think Bolton is a
sickening bully, who may well be psychologically disturbed, though not
quite in the way Trump is.
GOODMAN: Just hours after
Trump’s speech, National Security Adviser John Bolton issued a dire
warning to Iran.
GOODMAN: Today President
Trump is set to chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on nuclear
proliferation. To talk more about Trump’s comments at the United
Nations, particularly on Iran, we go to Ann Arbor, Michigan, to speak
with Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan.
BOLTON: According to the
mullahs in Tehran, we are the Great Satan, lord of the underworld,
master of the raging inferno. So I might imagine they would take me
seriously that I—when I assure them today that if you cross us, our
allies or our partners, if you harm our citizens, if you continue to
lie, cheat and deceive, yes, there will indeed be hell to pay. … The
murderous regime and its supporters will face significant consequences
if they do not change their behavior. Let my message today be very
clear: We are watching, and we will come after you.
And here is Cole himself:
Well, this was a hall full of world leaders that actually run
administrations, and they’ve seen the chaos of the Trump administration
for the past two years. And I think what’s amazing is not that this
hall of seasoned professionals laughed at him, but that he doesn’t get
more laughter in the United States. These cable news programs take him
seriously. They’ve normalized him. He has told thousands of lies, and
his rate of lying has increased enormously in recent months. And I
think he should be laughed off the screen everywhere.
No, I don't
believe this is realistic and I think Cole knows the reasons:
Yes, the cable news programs have "normalized"
Trump, and apart from this something like 50% of all Americans use
Facebook as their main source of news and information, and besides there
are more stupid
Americans than rational
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
I think the above is
correct, and this is a recommended article.
COLE: Well, it shows the
dangers of having somebody who’s, frankly, unbalanced as the president
of the United States. I mean, he lies. He’s a pathological liar.
Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. And to have somebody
at the helm of the country who consistently tells these falsehoods is
It’s very obvious that the
Iranians don’t want to meet with him and never have wanted to meet with
him, because they had spent all of 2014 and 2015 negotiating this
nuclear deal, and they finally had a breakthrough. They had
international agreement. It’s a deal not with the United States, but
with the U.N. Security Council plus the European Union, represented by
Germany. And Trump violated that treaty. He withdrew from it and has
put the United States on a war footing with Iran, to the extent that
members of his administration are openly admitting that they are the
Great Satan. We always took that as an insult. John Bolton seems to
enjoy the epithet.
Accuses China of Meddling in Upcoming Election
article is by Zeke Miller and Jonathan Lemire on Truthdig and
originally on The Associated Press. It starts as follows:
Trump on Wednesday accused China of attempting to interfere in the
upcoming United States congressional elections, claiming the Chinese
are motivated by opposition to his tough trade policy.
Yes, indeed. There is more in
the article, but meanwhile I know enough about the amazingly many
Trumpian lies to qualify this as yet another Trumpian statement without
The Chinese said it wasn’t
Trump, speaking in front of
world leaders while chairing the United Nations Security Council for
the first time, made his accusation amid the ongoing special counsel
investigation into Russia’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 U.S.
election to help him and concerns that the November elections could
also be vulnerable.
“Regrettably, we found that
China has been attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 election,”
Trump said “They do not want me or us to win because I am the first
president ever to challenge China on trade.”
Asked later what evidence he
had, he replied, “Plenty of evidence,” but he didn’t provide any.
This is a recommended article.
This article is by Suzie Dawson on Consortium News. It has a
As Julian Assange’s
fate may soon be
resolved, here’s an in-depth look at the history of WikiLeaks, the
infiltration of activist communities and the strength &
vulnerability of the world-changing publisher whose freedom is at
stake, by Suzie Dawson.
Yes indeed - but then this
article takes no less than 411
Kb, which is far too long to properly abstract, and also it
contains very many tweets, which on my - very recent -
Firefox do not display at all
in more than half of the cases.
Then again, I did read most of the article, and I believe Suzie
Dawson is a true supporter of Assange, but I will only abstract three
bits from her very long article. Here is the first bit:
In 2016 an accused serial sexual predator
ran for the US presidency against the notoriously corrupt wife of a
previously impeached President – who is also an accused serial sexual
predator. That these facts alone were insufficient
to invalidate the entire race is testament to the audacity with which
corrupt power operates in the West, and how conditioned the public is
to consuming the warped byproducts of its naked machinations.
Arguably the most contentious election in
recent history, the accused serial sexual predator won. During the
Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange aptly described the two candidates as “cholera
vs gonorrhoea.” Edward Snowden ran a
Twitter poll asking his followers whether they would rather
for a “calculating villain”, an “unthinking monster”
or “literally anyone else”. 67% chose the latter. Yet those
who didn’t want to be forced into a false choice between Clinton or
Trump became the forgotten voices, the silent majority; largely
excluded from the endless, vapid mainstream media debates about the
outcome. Julian and Edward’s descriptors were
flawless metaphors for the Presidential contestants; cartoon-like
characters that when paired together and portrayed as a legitimate
democratic choice, made a mockery of the entire concept of political
I think this is mostly correct.
Here is more:
Meanwhile, the media and the money-power
that pull their strings ignore the blatantly obvious and work
feverishly to emboss the proceedings with a veneer of credibility. In
tandem, government-aligned big data and social media companies are employing
ever more loathsome technologies to remodel human history in real
time. This industrialised historical
revisionism requires the excoriating of the public reputation of the
virtuous, the sanitising of the compromised, and the constant
manipulation of the living memory of both. These are
the core tenets of
manufacturing consent. They aren’t just lying to us; they are already
preparing the lies they will tell our unborn great-grandchildren.
It is some of those layers of contrived,
mainstream bullshit that this article intends to peel back.
I more or less agree with this
is as well. Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
At the crux of the issue is a battle of
authenticity versus falsehood, on a spectrum. With most of us
sandwiched somewhere in between and WikiLeaks front and centre. Because
WikiLeaks is the last available vestige of verifiable, unadulterated
public truth. That is why they are hated by those who
fear the revelations WikiLeaks facilitates and why WikiLeaks’ public
reputation is desecrated every day. It is why their every pillar of
support is systematically undermined and why Julian Assange is being
ever so slowly murdered in front of our eyes. We, the
people, are the last line of
their defence. Part of protecting WikiLeaks – and ultimately ourselves
– is to understand the relentless nature of the psyops
employed against them; that the hardships inflicted upon them by the enemies
of human progress are not just reputational or financial but
physical; that for those waging this thankless war of truth on our
behalf, this is a matter of life or death. And that is
why we must push back. That is why we must tell the truth about
Again I more or less agree,
though Wikileaks is not (bolding added) "the last
available vestige of verifiable, unadulterated
public truth". As I said,
this is a recommended article, although I think it is very
long, and many of the tweets are undisplayed on my very
Unmasked: A Remarkable Review
article is by David
Ray Griffin on The Off-Guardian. It starts as
The book 9/11
Unmasked, which I wrote together with Elizabeth Woodworth, has
received several excellent reviews. But the most remarkable of these
was written by Philip Roddis, who in 2016 had written
with vitriol (his term) about the idea that 9/11 was an “inside
job.” He wrote: “9/11 Truthism is not only seriously crackers but
reactionary too.” What is remarkable about Roddis’ 2018 review is
the extent to which he reversed his previous position.
Yes, this seems true to me -
and I grant that two additional reasons for me to review this
article are that (1) I know about Griffin since 40 years, for he edited
the first good edition of Alfred
North Whitehead's "Process and
Reality" (which is a very difficult but quite
interesting book) and
(2) I am also one of the 9/11 Truthers, basically because I disbelieve
the official explanation, and because I think that the case of the
architects is a good one, and should have been answered.
Also, Griffin seems right about Roddis. Here is more:
Contempt for truthers had
been expressed by many other critics. For example, British political
writer George Monbiot said that the 9/11 truth movement consists of
morons and “idiots” who believe in “magic.” Calling me the 9/11
movement’s “high priest,” Monbiot described my 9/11 writing as a
“concatenation of ill-attested nonsense.”
Likewise, in an essay
entitled “The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts,” Alexander Cockburn used me to
illustrate the “idiocy of the conspiracy nuts.” In a follow-up essay,
Cockburn wrote: “The main engine of the 9/11 conspiracy cult is nothing
[but] the death of any conception of evidence.” Because of their
failure to understand the idea of evidence, truthers illustrate the
“ascendancy of magic over common sense, let alone reason.”
leave this mostly untreated, but I do like to say that Cockburn
seems a bit idiotic to me: I definitely do know more about evidence (and
statistics, and logic, and mathematics) as a philosopher than Cockburn
(who died) did as a graduate of English.
there is this in the article - and this appears after a
summary of Roddis new evidence that is too long to quote here, but that
Between 2016 and 2018,
Philip Roddis underwent a remarkable transformation. Beginning with the
conviction that 9/11 Truthism is “seriously crackers,” he ended up
thinking that the book 9/11 Unmasked must be taken seriously
and also that it provides a strong “prima facie case for throwing out
This kind of reversal is one
of the things that my co-author and I hoped would be produced by our
book. We had long known that the evidence against the official account
of 9/11 is convincing.
I have said already, I agree with Griffin on his last statement, and
this is a recommended article.
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 (!!).