in all the world is more dangerous, than sincere ignorance and
-- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
from April 13, 2019
This is a
Nederlog of Saturday,
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 three 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 April 13, 2019:
1. Chomsky: Arrest of Assange Is
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. Chomsky: Nuclear Weapons, Climate
Change & the Undermining of
3. Daniel Ellsberg: Assange's Arrest Is the Beginning of the
4. Jeremy Corbyn Denounces Efforts to Extradite Assange
5. After 7 Years of Deceptions About Assange, the US Readies
for Its First
Arrest of Assange Is “Scandalous”
article is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! I abbreviated the title. It
starts with the following introduction:
Yes indeed. And the
speaker in the three bits that follow is Noam Chomsky.
Here is the
Attorneys for WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange are vowing to fight his possible extradition to
the United States following his arrest in London, when British police
forcibly removed Assange from the Ecuadorean Embassy, where he had
taken asylum for almost seven years. On Thursday night, Democracy
Now!'s Amy Goodman spoke to Noam Chomsky about Assange's arrest,
WikiLeaks and American power.
Yes, I completely
and in fact this is also why the freedom of the press (in so
this still exists) anywhere also is strongly concerned.
CHOMSKY: Well, the Assange
arrest is scandalous in several respects. One of them is just the
effort of governments—and it’s not just the U.S. government. The
British are cooperating. Ecuador, of course, is now cooperating.
Sweden, before, had cooperated. The efforts to silence a journalist who
was producing materials that people in power didn’t want the rascal
multitude to know about—OK?—that’s basically what happened. WikiLeaks
was producing things that people ought to know about those in power.
People in power don’t like that, so therefore we have to silence it.
OK? This is the kind of thing, the kind of scandal, that takes place,
unfortunately, over and over.
Then again, I think I should add that "the freedom of the press"
not anymore seem important to that part of the press, which is by far
its greatest part, that these days are corporatist media.
And this is a major pity, for without a free press, democracy (in
far as that still exists) will soon be killed.
Here is some more:
Well, Assange is a similar
case: We’ve got to silence this voice. You go back to history. Some of
you may recall when Mussolini’s fascist government put Antonio Gramsci
in jail. The prosecutor said, “We have to silence this voice for 20
years. Can’t let it speak.” That’s Assange. That’s Lula. There are
other cases. That’s one scandal.
Yes indeed. Also, Chomsky is
quite right that the USA now does have the power (in fact, if not
perhaps in law) to arrest a journalist that is not from the USA and is
not working in the USA, in order to convict him of writing the truth
about the U.S. government - which is crazy, because if this
legally for the USA, it also should hold legally for China, North
Korea, Russia and any other state: They too may demand the arrest of -
say - German
journalists who work in Germany for writing something they don't like,
ahd for convicting them according to their own laws in their own
The other scandal is just
the extraterritorial reach of the United States, which is shocking. I
mean, why should the United States—why should any—no other state could
possibly do it. But why should the United States have the power to
control what others are doing elsewhere in the world? I mean, it’s an
outlandish situation. It goes on all the time. We never even notice it.
At least there’s no comment on it.
Here is the ending of this article:
Quite so and this is a strongly
recommended article. Incidentally, there are four interviews
Chomsky on Democracy Now, and all of them are recommended, and one more
is excerpted next:
Well, you might ask
What lies behind all of these discussions and negotiations? This is
true across the board. Almost any issue you pick, you can ask yourself:
Why is this accepted? So, in this case, why is it acceptable for the
United States to have the power to even begin to give even a proposal
to extradite somebody whose crime is to expose to the public materials
that people in power don’t want them to see? That’s basically what’s
2. Chomsky: Nuclear Weapons, Climate Change
& the Undermining of Democracy
This article is by Amy Goodman
on Democracy Now! I abbreviated the title. It starts with the following
As President Trump pulls
of key nuclear agreements with Russia and moves to expand the U.S.
nuclear arsenal, Noam Chomsky looks at how the threat of nuclear war
remains one of the most pressing issues facing mankind. In a speech at
the Old South Church in Boston, Chomsky also discusses the threat of
climate change and the undermining of democracy across the globe.
Yes indeed - and let
repeat the three points Chomsky makes, for I agree each of them is
important: (1) the threat of nuclear war; (2) the threat of climate
change; and (3) the undermining of democracy and the free press almost
everywhere (strongly aided by the internet).
Here is some more by
Chomsky, who again is the speaker in the five selections that follow.
Here is the first:
CHOMSKY: I want to make a
couple of remarks below about the severe difficulty of maintaining and
instituting democracy, the powerful forces that have always opposed it,
the achievements of somehow salvaging and enhancing it, and the
significance of that for the future. But first, a couple of words about
the challenges that we face, which you heard enough about already and
you all know about. I don’t have to go into them in detail. To describe
these challenges as “extremely severe” would be an error. The phrase
does not capture the enormity of the kinds of challenges that lie
ahead. And any serious discussion of the future of humanity must begin
by recognizing a critical fact, that the human species is now facing a
question that has never before arisen in human history, question that
has to be answered quickly: Will human society survive for long?
Yes, I agree, and the
two points behind Chomsky's question are the nuclear threat
as severe or more severe than it ever was) and the threat of
change (which seems to me to be happening now), for both may be
enough to kill all men (and most of nature) either any day (nuclear
threat) or in several tens of years (climate change).
As to Chomsky's
question whether human society will survive for long: My own answer is
probably not as long as mankind is threatened both by nuclear war and
by climate change.
Here is more by Chomsky
on nuclear war:
Well, as you all know,
years we’ve been living under the shadow of nuclear war. Those who have
looked at the record can only be amazed that we’ve survived this far.
Time after time it’s come extremely close to terminal disaster, even
minutes away. It’s kind of a miracle that we’ve survived. Miracles
don’t go on forever. This has to be terminated, and quickly. The recent
Nuclear Posture Review of the Trump administration dramatically
increases the threat of conflagration, which would in fact be terminal
for the species.
Yes indeed - and Chomsky is
quite right that "Time
it’s come extremely close to terminal disaster, even minutes away. It’s
kind of a miracle that we’ve survived."
Here is more by Chomsky on
Well, meanwhile, global
warming proceeds on its inexorable course. During this millennium,
every single year, with one exception, has been hotter than the last
one. There are recent scientific papers, James Hansen and others, which
indicate that the pace of global warming, which has been increasing
since about 1980, may be sharply escalating and may be moving from
linear growth to exponential growth, which means doubling every couple
of decades. We’re already approaching the conditions of 125,000 years
ago, when the sea level was about roughly 25 feet higher than it is
today, with the melting, the rapid melting, of the Antarctic, huge ice
fields. We might—that point might be reached. The consequences of that
are almost unimaginable.
Yes, I agree (and am
in Amsterdam, Holland, which is, like most of the rest of Western
Holland, over 2 meters below sea level - at present).
Here is more by Chomsky on
the Green New Deal:
Under a lot of popular
pressure, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, joined by Ed Markey, actually
placed the Green New Deal on the agenda. That’s a remarkable
achievement. Of course, it gets hostile attacks from everywhere: It
doesn’t matter. A couple of years ago it was unimaginable that it would
be discussed. As the result of the activism of this group of young
people, it’s now right in the center of the agenda. It’s got to be
implemented in one form or another. It’s essential for survival, maybe
not in exactly that form, but some modification of it. Tremendous
change achieved by the commitment of a small group of young people.
That tells you the kind of thing that can be done.
Yes, I quite agree.
the last bit by Chomsky, which is in fact about nuclear war, global
warming and the undermining of democracy:
Meanwhile, the Doomsday
of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists last January was set at two
minutes to midnight. That’s the closest it’s been to terminal disaster
since 1947. The announcement of the settlement—of the setting mentioned
the two major familiar threats: the threat of nuclear war, which is
increasing, threat of global warming, which is increasing further. And
it added a third for the first time: the undermining of democracy.
That’s the third threat, along with global warming and nuclear war. And
that was quite appropriate, because functioning democracy offers the
only hope of overcoming these threats.
Again I quite
although I might have added the internet, which is the strongest
that I know of, and that I am quite sure was
designed to be just that: See Crisis:
and Control: Brezezinski 1968 and also Crisis:
Christmas sermon: Hypotheses about CF+SS which translates as Hypotheses about
Corporate Fascism plus the Surveillance State. Both are strongly
recommended (and the last is the longer and the more theoretical), as
is the present article.
3. Daniel Ellsberg: Assange's Arrest Is the
Beginning of the End
This article is by
Sharmini Perles on Truthdig and originally on The Real News Network.
This is from near its beginning:
On to talk about Assange
the reasons for his arrest is a man that is, perhaps, the most famous
whistleblower in history that has experienced this type of arrests and
state threats, is Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the famous Pentagon
Papers. Daniel’s new book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a
Nuclear War Planner. You will find an interview series related to
Daniel’s book here on The Real News Network, and we’ll put a link to
that, as well. Daniel, good to have you here.
Yes indeed, and here is
more about Daniel
Ellsberg. Here is the first bit by Ellsberg, on the
freedom of the press:
SHARMINI PERIES Daniel,
your reaction to what has just happened to Julian Assange in London?
DANIEL ELLSBERG It’s
a very serious assault on the First Amendment. A clear attempt to
rescind the freedom of the press, essentially. Up till now we’ve had a
dozen or so indictments of sources, of which my prosecution is the very
first prosecution of an American for disclosing information to the
American public. And that was ended a couple of years later by
governmental misconduct. There were two others before President Obama,
and nine or so under President Obama, of sources, none of these having
been tested in the Supreme Court yet as to their relation to the First
Amendment. Hasn’t gone to them.
This is the first
indictment of a journalist and editor or publisher, Julian Assange. And
if it’s successful it will not be the last. This is clearly is a part
of President Trump’s war on the press, what he calls the enemy of the
Yes, I quite agree.
more by Ellsberg on the freedom of the press:
If they make the
the Real News Network book that he was carrying with him into prison,
which I think Gore Vidal would be very pleased to see, him associated
with this incident in terms of defending Germany Assange’s rights, but
they may connect you. You may be in the next conspiracy trial with
Julian Assange. It may not take much more than that. I see on the
indictment, which I’ve just read, that one of the charges is that he
encouraged Chelsea Manning and Bradley Manning to give him documents,
more documents, after she had already given him hundreds of thousands
of files. Well, if that’s a crime, then journalism is a crime, because
just on countless occasions I have been harassed by journalists for
documents, or for more documents than I had yet given them. So
they–none of them have been put on trial up till now. But in this case,
if that’s all it takes, then no journalist is safe. The freedom of the
press is not safe. It’s over. And I think our republic is in its last
days, because unauthorized disclosures of this kind are the lifeblood
of a republic.
Yes, I quite agree
is some more on two points:
First, here is some more on Gore Vidal from the
Wikipedia, and here is more about and from Gore Vidal on NL: Crisis: Gore Vidal
explains some backgrounds and Crisis:
More Gore Vidal + some notes by me and Crisis:
"U.S. pretty darned
more Gore Vidal + notes
by me -
and incidentally all three are from August 2012, which was when
discovered Vidal, which happened to be less than a month after he died.
Here is the last bit
that I quote from this article:
As I say, though, it’s a
threat not only to journalists, but to people in political status and
political asylum everywhere. But the immediate threat, you say the
significance of is for Trump, I have no doubt that he wants to define
criminally in a courtroom the press as a an enemy of the people. When I
say that Assange seeking documents–something that I’ve been asked
countless times by a journalist to do, to give them documents–if that’s
all it takes, then the First Amendment means very little. And without
freedom of the press you have no–you have very little freedom in the
country. I’m afraid that’s the direction we’re going.
Yes, I completely
agree, ndeed also with "And
without freedom of the press you have no–you have very little freedom
in the country. I’m afraid that’s the direction we’re going." And in fact I would have disagreed
with Ellsberg if there were more people than a relatively small
who care, but I think I am quite correct in assuming that those who
care for the - real - freedom of the press are in fact in a small
minority. And this is a strongly recommended article.
4. Jeremy Corbyn Denounces Efforts to
This article is by
Jessica Corbett on Truthdig and originally on Common Dreams. It starts
Yes and I agree with
Here is some more:
Key figures in the United
Kingdom’s Labour Party are speaking out against the possible
extradition of Julian Assange to the United States after British police
arrested the WikiLeaks founder and forcibly dragged him
out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London Thursday.
“The extradition of Julian
Assange to the U.S. for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and
Afghanistan should be opposed by the British government,” tweeted Jeremy
Corbyn, the opposition party’s leader.
Yes, I agree also with
Here is more by her:
Along with his concise
comment, Corbyn posted a video in which Labour MP and Shadow Home
Secretary Diane Abbott says:
And we should recall what
WikiLeaks actually disclosed: Who can forget the Pentagon video footage
of a missile attack in 2007 in Iraq, which killed 18 civilians and
two Reuters journalists? It is the monumental amount
of leaks such as this that lifted the veil on U.S.-led military
operation in a variety of theaters, none of which have produced a
favorable outcome [for] the people of those countries. Julian Assange
is not being pursued to protect U.S. national security. He is being
pursued because he has exposed wrongdoing by U.S. administrations and
their military forces.
No, I disagree: If
would have had "protections
whistle-blowers, those who take
personal risk to disclose wrongdoing in the public intrest" then Assange would not
have been forced to
seek asylum in the Ecuadorian enbassy in the first place.
Abbott also shared the
video and said on Twitter, “In this country we have protections for
whistleblowers, those who take personal risk to disclose wrongdoing in
the public interest.”
Here is some more:
Perhaps - but who are
American "liberals"? (I don't know.)
Glenn Greenwald is among
those arguing that the indictment “poses grave threats to press
freedom.” In a piece for The Intercept Greenwald co-authored with
Micah Lee, he also called out media outlets for misrepresenting the
indictment in reports Thursday.
Linking to a Guardian column
by Owen Jones, Greenwald pointed out on Twitter Friday that people on
“the actual left” in the United Kingdom, the United States, Latin
America, and Europe have denounced the extradition effort while “U.S.
establishment liberals have largely cheered it.” As Greenwald put it,
that shows “liberals are authoritarians who revere U.S. security
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
Yes, I agree and this is
“Whatever you think of
Assange, his extradition to the U.S. must be opposed,” Jones wrote in
his column Friday. “Extraditing the founder of WikiLeaks is an attempt
by the U.S. to intimidate anyone who exposes its crimes.”
5. After 7 Years of Deceptions About Assange,
the US Readies for Its First Media Rendition
This article is by Jonathan
Cook on Common Dreams. This is from near its beginning:
Yes, this seems mostly
correct. Here is some more:
From the moment he
sought asylum, Assange was cast as an outlaw. His work as the founder
of Wikileaks—a digital platform that for the first time in history gave
ordinary people a glimpse into the darkest recesses of the most secure
vaults in the deepest of Deep States – was erased from the record.
Assange was reduced
from one of the few towering figures of our time—a man who will have a
central place in history books, if we as a species live long enough to
write those books—to nothing more than a sex pest, and a scruffy
The political and
media class crafted a narrative of half-truths
about the sex charges Assange was under investigation for in Sweden.
They overlooked the fact that Assange had been allowed to leave Sweden
by the original investigator, who dropped the charges, only for them to
be revived by another investigator with a well-documented political
I think this is also true of the "political and
Here is some more:
The political and
media establishment ignored the mounting evidence of a secret grand
jury in Virginia formulating charges against Assange, and ridiculed
Wikileaks’ concerns that the Swedish case might be cover for a more
sinister attempt by the US to extradite Assange and lock him away in a
high-security prison, as had happened to whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
the 2016 verdict of a panel of United Nations legal scholars that the
UK was “arbitrarily
detaining” Assange. The media were more interested in the welfare
of his cat.
they ignored the fact that Assange had been
given diplomatic status by Ecuador, as well as Ecuadorean citizenship.
Britain was obligated to allow him to leave the embassy, using his
diplomatic immunity, to travel unhindered to Ecuador. No “mainstream”
journalist or politician thought this significant either.
Yes, I agree. Here
I think this is also
mostly correct. Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
And possibly most
egregiously of all, most of the media refused to acknowledge that
Assange was a journalist and publisher, even though by failing to do so
they exposed themselves to the future use of the same draconian
sanctions should they or their publications ever need to be silenced.
They signed off on the right of the US authorities to seize any foreign
journalist, anywhere in the world, and lock him or her out of sight.
They opened the door to a new, special form of rendition for
This was never about
Sweden or bail violations, or even about the discredited Russiagate
narrative, as anyone who was paying the vaguest attention should have
been able to work out. It was about the US Deep State doing everything
in its power to crush Wikileaks and make an example of its founder.
I fear this is also
correct, and this is a recommended article.
Still the media and
political class is turning a blind eye. Where is the outrage at the
lies we have been served up for these past seven years? Where is the
contrition at having been gulled for so long? Where is the fury at the
most basic press freedom—the right to publish—being trashed to silence
Assange? Where is the willingness finally to speak up in Assange’s
It’s not there. There
will be no indignation at the BBC, or the Guardian, or CNN. Just
curious, impassive—even gently mocking—reporting of Assange’s fate.
And that is because
these journalists, politicians and experts never really believed
anything they said. They knew all along that the US wanted to silence
Assange and to crush Wikileaks. They knew that all along and they
didn’t care. In fact, they happily conspired in paving the way for
today’s kidnapping of Assange.
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 3 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 (!!).