A. Selections from September 20, 2017
This is a Nederlog of
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last four years:
I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch) 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.
On the moment I have 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
2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
September 20, 2017
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:
in The New York Times is said to be by The New York Times. It is true
it is a quite long article. It starts as follows:
I have said over 1 1/2 years ago that in my - psychologist´s
- eyes (with which quite a few
psychiatrists currently agree) that Trump is a madman, and I
also concluded later in 2016 that he is ideologically
speaking best defined as a neofascist,
in the sense in which I use the term (see here if you are
interested in fascism
On Fascism and Neofascism: Definitions), and it seems his latest address to
the United Nations only supports my diagnoses.
If the United States is forced to defend itself or its
will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” President
Trump said in his address to the General Assembly.
He denounced North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-un, saying
the nation “threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of life”
as a result of its nuclear weapons program.
“If the righteous many don’t confront the wicked few, then
evil will triumph,” Mr. Trump said.
Mr. Trump emphasized that it was against the interest of the
entire world for North Korea — which he called a “band of criminals” —
to obtain missiles and nuclear weapons.
“Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself,” he said of
Mr. Trump accused Mr. Kim of overseeing a regime that has
starved its people, brutalized an imprisoned American college student
who was returned home in a coma, and assassinated Mr. Kim’s older
brother, a potential rival, with poison chemicals.
“If this is not twisted enough, now North Korea’s reckless
pursuit of missiles and nuclear weapons threatens the entire world,”
Mr. Trump said.
And I will not pick apart Trump´s madness, but will quote some
“It is an outrage that some nations would not
only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply and financially
support a country that imperils the world,” Mr. Trump said.
The president said that America would act alone if needed.
He emphasized an “America first” agenda, and said that while the United
States would “forever be a great friend to the world and especially to
its allies,” his primary responsibility was to Americans.
“As president, I will always put America first, just like
you as the leaders of your countries will always — and should always —
put your countries first,” he said.
I´d say about
the same thing as has been said about North Korea by Trump (and
North Korea is a sick dictatorship) could be said, and with far
more justification given the atomic weapons of the USA and the many
wars the USA fights since 16 years, about the USA.
And Trump said
he may blow up North Korea all by himself, and - it seems - he also
said or implied that all international laws are baloney, since he
insists that all
countries should do as he does: OUR country FIRST.
seems to be also a reason why the USA´s secret services can
up all emails and everything else of anyone who is not
an American: Everyone not American is - at best - secondary,
and has no
real citizens´ rights whatsoever, in practice.)
Not only did
Trump threaten he will blow up North Korea (with 24 million
inhabitants), but he also extremely much dislikes Iran:
After condemning North Korea, Mr. Trump pivoted to the next
“rogue nation” — Iran.
He called the Iran nuclear deal “an embarrassment” that is
“one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has
ever entered into.”
Mr. Trump has long portrayed Iran as a sponsor of terrorism
and has suggested that the United States may abandon the 2015 deal
negotiated by the Obama administration and five other major powers that
limited Iran’s nuclear activities. So far Mr. Trump has grudgingly
accepted the nuclear agreement despite having described it as a
“It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding
that Iran’s government end its pursuit of death and destruction,” he
only did he threaten war with Iran, he also threatened to
intervene in Venezuela:
Mr. Trump declared that the United States was
“prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela
persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan
people.” He said Mr. Maduro’s government had “destroyed a prosperous
nation by imposing a failed ideology that has produced poverty and
misery everywhere it has been tried.”
“This situation is completely unacceptable, and we cannot
stand by and watch as a responsible neighbor and friend,” Mr. Trump
Mr. Trump’s government has imposed economic sanctions on Mr.
Maduro’s government but has not specified how it would exert further
pressure. Last month, he caused a backlash among Latin American leaders
by suggesting that he could order American military forces to intervene
a whole lot more in this article from the NYT, and it is
Says No Money for Social Programs, But '$700 Billion to Kill People?
Yeah That We Have'
is by Jake Johnson on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
Where were the pundits
and elected lawmakers who complain about the cost of providing
healthcare to all Americans when the Senate voted to spend $700 billion
on the military?
Many critics were
raising this question Monday after the Senate—in what was portrayed
as yet another indication of bipartisan
support for endless war—overwhelmingly
approved the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which will
dump a larger sum of money into the military budget than even President
Donald Trump asked for while also authorizing the production of 94 F-35
dozen more than the Pentagon requested.
Passage of the NDAA—which
this year approves a $700 billion defense budget, an annual increase of
$80 billion—is something of an automated
process in Washington, one that often flies under the radar and
garners little opposition.
Yes indeed, and the
question is a very good one, especially in view of the
fact that already under Obama (and without his great increases
in military spending by the USA) the USA spent more than ten times
as much on what they are pleased to call ¨defense¨ (with some American
troops in 180 countries, I think) as the next largest spender on
weapons and wars.
There is also this in
Adam Johnson, a contributor to
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, argued that the explanation for
this double standard is simple: America's dominant political class and
mainstream commentators view exorbitant military spending as a given.
"Note: neither Vox
or WaPo will have pundits lament over 'where the money will
come from' for [the Department of Defense]," Johnson wrote
following the Senate's vote, implying a reference to those who slammed
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Medicare for All bill on budgetary grounds.
"Money for war just is. Like the tides."
I agree. And this is
from near the end of the article:
"If the additional
military spending over the next ten years instead went to pay off
student debt," Emmons added, "it could come close to wiping it out
Instead, as Monday's vote
revealed, the a bipartisan majority of U.S. senators appear content to
continue unquestioningly pouring money into a military budget that
already far exceeds spending of any other nation in the world.
Only 8 senators voted
against the NDAA, which is expected to become law by the end of this
Indeed - and it would
seem (to me at least) that around 8 (or 5, if we
subtract the Republicans) Senators (from 100 in all) are more or less
honest and more or less independent from ¨their sponsors¨.
I say, and this is a
Falls in Line with Interventionism
This article is by Robert
Parry on Consortiumnews. It starts as follows:
In discussing President
Trump, there is always the soft prejudice of low expectations – people
praise him for reading from a Teleprompter even if his words make
little sense – but there is no getting around the reality that his
maiden address to the United Nations General Assembly must rank as
one of the most embarrassing moments in America’s relations with
the global community.
Trump offered a crude
patchwork of propaganda and bluster, partly delivered as a campaign
speech praising his own leadership – boasting about the relatively
strong U.S. economy that he mostly inherited from President Obama – and
partly reflecting his continued subservience to Israeli Prime Minister
However, perhaps most
importantly, Trump’s speech may have extinguished any flickering hope
that his presidency might achieve some valuable course corrections in
how the United States deals with the world, i.e., shifting away from
the disastrous war/interventionist policies of his two predecessors.
I agree with Robert
that Trump´s ¨maiden address to
the United Nations General Assembly must rank as one of the most
embarrassing moments in America’s relations with the global community¨, and indeed I have been saying
beginning of 2016 that I think he is a dangerous madman
neofascist, as I defined them, and his latest personal
show only supports my diagnoses.
And while I don´t
about Trump´s ¨continued
subservience to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu¨ and do not have ¨a soft prejudice¨ for
Trump, I agree with most of the rest Parry said in the above quotation.
Here are some of the
Yes indeed. Here is one
conclusion drawn by Robert Parry:
Just this century, the
United States has invaded multiple nations without U.N. authorization,
based on various “coalitions of the willing” and other subterfuges for
wars of aggression, which the Nuremberg Tribunals deemed the “supreme
international crime” and which the U.N. was specifically created to
Not only did President
George W. Bush invade both Afghanistan and Iraq – while also sponsoring
“anti-terror” operations in many other countries – but President Barack
Obama acknowledged ordering military attacks in seven countries,
including against the will of sovereign states, such as Libya and
Syria. Obama also supported a
violent coup against the elected government of Ukraine.
For his part, Trump already
has shown disdain for international law by authorizing military strikes
inside Yemen and Syria.
Despite some of
his “America First” rhetoric – tossed in as red meat to his “base” –
Trump revealed a global outlook that differed from the Bush-Obama
neoconservative/liberal-interventionist approach in words only. In
substance, Trump appears to be just the latest American poodle on Bibi
As I said above, I simply do not
know much about the relation between Nethanyahu
(whom I much dislike) and Trump (whom
I much dislike), and
I don´t want to speculate. But apart from this, Parry seems quite right
(although I would not call Obama a ¨liberal¨).
Parry ends his article as follows:
So, what Trump
made clear in his U.N. address is that his “America First” and
“pro-sovereignty” rhetoric is simply cover for a set of policies that
are indistinguishable from those pushed by the neocons of the Bush
administration or the liberal interventionists of the Obama
administration. The rationalizations may change but the endless wars
and “regime change” machinations continue.
Yes indeed - and note
that there are now 16 years of continuous mostly illegal
wars in no less than 7 countries, while it does
seem as if the Deep
military- industrial complex did get
its way with Donald Trump (who said to the United Nations that he
wants to blow up North Korea, intervene militarily in Venezuela, and
who insists Iran is ¨a rogue state¨, or so it seems to me).
Left Seems Pretty United In Opposition to Antifa
article is by Kevin Drum on Mother Jones. It starts as follows:
I don´t believe
in ¨the antifa¨ either, indeed - and both of my parents
were in the real antifascist resistance in Holland and risked
their lives and risked being tortured in the Second World War, as was
my grandfather; both my father
and his father were arrested in June of 1941 and conviceted as
¨political terrorists¨ to concentration camp imprisonment by
collaborating Dutch judges (who were never punished after
WW II, as virtually no one was in Holland, where more than
1% of the total Dutch population was murdered for being ¨of the
wrong race¨), which my grandfather did not survive; and my father also
designed and built (with others) the National Exhibition on WW II
and Resistance in the 1960ies, for which he even (a near miracle
in Holland, for he was a communist since 1935, and communists were
excluded from being knighted until after 1991) was knighted
briefly before his death in 1980. 
Here’s an article that
was posted prominently online today in
the Wall Street Journal:
Violence Has Split the Left
Broadly labeled antifa,
for “antifascist,” such protesters are part of a loose affiliation of
far-left groups and individuals who unite around a willingness to
confront, sometimes violently, anyone they perceive to be an agent of
racism, anti-Semitism or fascism….The antifa tactics are testing the
liberal movement that has galvanized in opposition to Mr.
Trump—creating a rift among its leaders, organizers and demonstrators
about whether to denounce a radical fringe, some of whose
antidiscrimination objectives, if not tactics, they share.
So I do know what real antifascists are and what moved
but I do not believe that a bunch of apparent hysterics without
decent ideas of their own, and who do not even call themselves
antifascists (but instead by the bullshit term
¨antifas¨) are real
anti-fascists like my parents and grandparents were.
In fact, they mostly remember me of the Weathermen
also were much for violence without having any realistic
analysis of their opponents or themselves.
Here is Kevin Drum´s conclusion about the ¨antifas¨:
So: has antifa
really split the left? If by “split,” you mean that the far left
disagrees with the mainstream left, just like it always has, then I
guess so. By any other measure, though, there appears to be nothing but
unity. The vast majority of the left has no use for antifa and no use
for violence on city streets. It’s indefensible to suggest otherwise
unless you can deliver some real evidence.
I agree with Drum,
and I hope he is right: who needs more Weathermen?
Research Reveals There Are More Than 40 Million Slaves Worldwide
This article is by Jessica Corbett on Common Dreams. It
starts as follows:
New research reveals that more than 40 million people,
primarily women and children, were victims of modern slavery in 2016.
"Modern slavery occured in every region of the world,"
according to two
reports released on Tuesday during the 72nd session of the United
Nations General Assembly, and produced by the U.N.'s International
Labor Organization (ILO) and the Walk Free Foundation,
in partnership with the International Organization for Migration (IOM).
The studies were
commissioned to gain a sense of the global situation as the U.N. works
to meet target 8.7 of
the sustainable development goals, which aims to "take immediate and
effective measures to eradicate" modern slavery and human trafficking,
"and by 2025 end child labor in all its forms."
I say! ¨More than 40
million¨ persons is more than three times the total population of
Holland, and I did not know there are (at least) as many
human slaves as over 40 million in the present world.
Here is some more on
the two reports:
Modern slavery is an
umbrella term researchers use to refer to "situations of exploitation
that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence,
coercion, deception, and/or abuse of power," including forced labor,
debt bondage, and forced marriage.
Among the reports key
- An estimated 40.3
million men, women, and children were enslaved worldwide.
- 24.9 million were in
forced labor, working in the sex industry, on construction sites, at
domestic residences, in the agriculture sector, and in factories.
- 15.4 million were "in
marriages to which they had not consented," and "enduring a situation
that involved having lost their sexual autonomy and often involved
- Women and girls
accounted for 71 percent of total victims, and 99 percent of those
forced to work in the sex industry.
- One in four victims
were children, and 21 percent of all victims were children who were
- Over the past five
years, an estimated 89 million people have "experienced some form of
- An estimated 152
million children, or nearly one in 10, remain engaged in child labor.
- Among child laborers,
73 million "are in hazardous work that directly endangers their health,
safety, and moral development."
I say. And I note
that (bolding added) ¨[a]n
estimated 152 million children, or nearly one in 10, remain
engaged in child labor¨.
Here is the last bit
that I´ll quote from this article:
Even so, Walk Free
Foundation's executive director of global research, Fiona David, said,
"What is startling about these new estimates is the sheer scale of the
modern slave trade." When taking into account that "only 63,000 victims
of slavery were reported to the authorities last year," David added,
"the gulf between the problem and the insufficient global response
becomes very clear."
Yes, I quite agree
with the ¨sheer scale of the
modern slave trade¨, and indeed
it seems that about 1 in a 1000 cases of slavery are ¨reported to the authorities¨.
And this is a recommended
 I have now been saying since the 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.
They have claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie.
They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.
And they just don't care for my site, my interests, my values or my
ideas. They have behaved now for 1 1/2 years as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I will
from now on suppose they are (for truth is dead in Holland).
The only 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 (!!).
 While I have been called ¨a dirty
fascist¨ since 1977 (that´s over 40 years ago now) because I
wanted to get a real scientific education in the ¨University¨
of Amsterdam, whereas what I got (all the time) was politicized
and totally false propaganda
from the Stalinist terrorists of the
ASVA and from the fascists and terrorists from the PvdA that formed the
Board of Directors of the UvA. They are all dead: I can say what I
please about them, and indeed they destroyed my life quite
intentionally and between 1977 and 1989; they never
answered any of my mails or letters to them; and they never
excused themselves or their degenerate quasi-university in any way