from December 21, 2017
This is a Nederlog of Thursday, December 21,
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.
moment and since 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
Section 2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from December 21, 2017
Jill Stein Says Senate Request for Docs on
Russia Probe is “New
2. Hail to the Warmongers
3. 'We Do Not Forgive...We Do Not Forget': Angry Vows to Oust
GOP After Tax Scam Vote
4. US-Led Assault on Mosul Killed Ten Times More Iraqi
Than Military Admitted
5. A Brief, Blood-Boiling History of the Opioid Epidemic
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:
Stein Says Senate Request for Docs on Russia Probe is “New McCarthyism”
This article is by Amy Goodman and Juan González on
Democracy Now! It starts with the following introduction:
Intelligence Committee has asked Dr. Jill Stein, the 2016 Green Party
presidential candidate, for documents as part of its probe of Russian
interference in the 2016 election. Committee Chair Richard Burr of
North Carolina said on Monday that they are looking for potential
“collusion with the Russians.” Among the actions that reportedly drew
their attention was Stein’s attendance at a 2015 dinner in Moscow
sponsored by Russian state-run TV network RT, where she sat at the same
table as Russian President Vladimir Putin. Also at that table was
Michael Flynn, who went on to become President Trump’s national
security adviser and has since entered into a plea agreement with
special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election
interference. Flynn pleaded guilty to a single felony count of lying to
the FBI about his conversations with
Russia’s U.S. ambassador. We speak with Dr. Jill Stein, the 2016
presidential nominee for the Green Party.
I start this review by saying something about Jill Stein, about
do not know very much, but I did study her ideas and
her modes of expression prior to the last presidential election.
The brief of it is this: I liked the program of her party considerably
better than the programs of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But I
would never have voted for her (if given the chance, which I did not
have because I am Dutch) for two fundamental reasons: First, she didn't
have a chance of being elected (and in fact scored around 1% of all
votes). And second, she just is not good enough in public expression of
Also, except for the last point, Jill Stein is not responsible,
although the last point does count for me.
Here is Jill Stein (and sorry for deleting "DR.": I may call myself
"Drs." but I rarely do, while she is supposed to be an
egalitarian, while I am not really ):
DR. JILL STEIN:
I think I agree with all
of this, and indeed there is also this point, that I let here be made
by Amy Goodman with the help of Glenn Greenwald:
The Senate Intelligence
Committee contacted us and basically sent a letter requesting documents
that we might have that would shed light on potential Russian
interference in the election. And they were very clear in their letter
that they were not targeting us. They were not blaming us. There was no
suspicion of collusion. And this was also clarified in their dialogue
with our legal team. And then, suddenly, when it hit the press two days
ago, suddenly, the Senate Intelligence Committee changed its story, and
now, suddenly, we were being investigated for collusion. So, this has
been kind of a surprise.
Nonetheless, we support this
limited inquiry into interference, targeting, in particular, Russian
interference. And transparency is very important. So we have agreed,
from the beginning, to cooperate with the legitimate and important aims
of the committee and its mission. On the other hand, I think we’re in a
perilous moment for democracy, and it’s very important that this
inquiry not be a launching pad for political intimidation and for the
effort to silence political opposition. That’s a very dangerous
Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted Tuesday, “Click on
'Jill Stein' that’s trending & you’ll see countless leading
Dems–with large platforms–strongly implying if not outright stating
she’s a Kremlin agent: all because of a Congressional inquiry. They
couldn’t better replicate McCarthyism if they tried.”
Yes indeed. And "McCarthyism" -
in my view - should be replaced by "Totalitarianism",
even though that
is false by the sick and degenerate utterly false and totally partial
"definition" now supported by Wikipedia, that for this and other
reasons has totally lost my trust: Their definition of "Totalitarian"
is utter crap, and very much helps the totalitarians
(for it denies they are totalitarians unless it is part of a
state and a political system - which just is total crap).
Finally, here is Jill Stein again:
I more or less agree, but - you
know - also speaking quite fluently myself always, I think - you know -
that somebody who expresses herself - you know - like this, is not
particularly fit - you know, to my mind - as a president of the USA
(though I am willing to agree she would have been a better and
intelligent president than Donald Trump).
DR. JILL STEIN:
This is a shameful commentary, not only on the Republican Party, but
really, I would say, on all of Congress, on the bipartisan
establishment, which has—you know, the public is profoundly opposed to
this bill. It’s something like—you know, it’s got a support level
that’s, you know, just down at the 30 percent level. It’s really
pathetic that Congress is as unresponsive as it is and that the
so-called opposition party, in the form of the Democrats, have been
focusing on Russia and not focusing on the harm being done right here
in our own country.
This is why, you know, to my
mind, the crisis of our democracy now is a crisis of economic survival,
of economic security, of our climate, of the endless war, which is also
costing us more than half of our discretionary budget.
This is a recommended article.
to the Warmongers
This article is by Maj. Danny Sjursen on Truthdig. It
starts as follows (after a quotation I skip):
They all want to be “war
presidents.” Most American chief executives learned long ago that the
express lane to high approval ratings—at least initially—lay in
military excursions and martial bombast. Just ask the Bush
presidents, father and son.
Domestic consensus is hard.
care policy: unpopular. The new tax
reform bill: very unpopular.
But bombings, raids, even
the death of an American commando or two are always good for a
rally-round-the-flag publicity boost. And make no mistake: President
Trump, the former reality TV star—and still my commander in
chief—always can sniff out good ratings.
Yes, I think that is
all correct, but there should be an addition: The American
may "want to be “war
presidents”", but in fact most of the wars they have conducted since
9/11 simply are illegal by American law, that requires the
Congress for wars, and did not get that.
Here is more on warmaking (by
Sjursen, who is a military man):
Yes indeed. Here is
Sjursen's personal choice:
Perpetual war, of course,
is now as American as apple pie. In the span of my own military career,
we’ve even been through several names for the campaign. First, we
called the actions the “war on terror,” then “Operation Iraqi/Enduring
Freedom,” then the “long war,” and now who-knows-what. But despite
changing tactics and several rebrandings, we seem no closer to victory.
What remains is the culture of conflict, the reality of death and
certainty of protracted war.
And, of course, the war
culture demands its own discourse. Here, the president and a bevy of
politicians stand ready to spew martial rhetoric on demand. A
bipartisan array of mainstream Beltway figures agree that warmaking is
oh so “presidential.” To unleash the war machine is to appear utterly
“serious” as a commander in chief.
As for me, I’m no
longer moved by uniformed pageantry, truculent swagger or bellicose
action. While not an outright pacifist, my heart now lies forever with
dead children on Baghdad’s streets and all the other helpless, innocent
refuse of the chaos America unleashed in a troubled region.
Yes indeed: I agree and
sympathize with Sjursen. Here is the last bit that I quote from him:
What we—veterans, activists,
human beings, take your pick—cannot countenance is bluster from a
generation of leaders who have never seen the horror of combat. Not
that all soldiers are right, or superior or more ethical. Far from it.
But shouldn’t the line be drawn somewhere? I set that line at
irresponsible, toxic gusto from policymakers spared by college
spurs or the demise
of conscription. They never have had to grapple with the honest,
visceral stench of warfare.
Do not be fooled.
Nationalism, patriotism and the whole lot are at their core
militaristic and chauvinistic emotions. We Americans are a violent lot
and revere savagery in its sundry forms. Many men cling to the
combative language of “national defense” because they—and guess who
they vote for—sense a crisis of manhood, one that ties directly to the
Weinstein scandal, et al. For these countless, terrified men—civilians
and veterans alike—war and militarism are the last bastions where
vulgar masculinity, in word and deed, remain acceptable.
I agree with the first
part, but not quite with the last part, and I am not a military man but
a psychologist, and as such I think that (i) Weinstein was less
interested in sex than in sadism, as are
some others of the very rich rapists: They could all
rented expensive prostitutes, but did not, quite possibly because
prostitutes would be less scared and much less in their personal power, and (ii)
while I do not know the extent of "vulgar masculinity" in the USA, I think I do know that this does not
coincide with widespread sadism.
But this is a
recommended article. And see item 4 below.
Do Not Forgive...We Do Not Forget': Angry Vows to Oust GOP After Tax
This article is by Julia Conley on Common Dreams. It
starts as follows:
Republicans celebrate their narrow passage of a tax overhaul bill that
has the approval of only 33 percent of Americans, progressive leaders
urged supporters to keep their anger over the legislation, called the
#GOPTaxScam by critics, in mind as the country heads into 2018.
By approving this measure, said Indivisible
statement, the Republicans have "demonstrated that they care not
for their constituents, or for democratic institutions, or even for
objective reality. They care only about power and the short-term
enrichment of themselves and their wealthy donors."
Yes, I agree. There is also this:
"Our message to the GOP is
simple," said Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, in a tweet.
"We will replace you, and then we will repeal your god-awful
But even though the proposal, if fully
enacted, will to lead to "pain and suffering" for years to come, said
Levin, his group and others vowed to hold the Republicans accountable.
"This is the GOP's Ghost of Christmas Future," he said. "They will be
replaced, and their abominable legislation will be repealed."
Well... I agree it would be nice "to hold the Republicans accountable", but I don't think that is very
without something like a revolution in the USA.
Assault on Mosul Killed Ten Times More Iraqi Civilians Than Military
This article is by Andrea Germanos on Common Dreams. It
starts as follows:
The number of civilian
causalities from the U.S.-backed battle to retake the Iraqi city of
Mosul from the Islamic State was 10 times higher than previously
reported, an Associated Press investigation finds. That
figure, says a human rights group, shows a brazen disregard for the
need to minimize civilian harm.
"We are horrified, but not
surprised, by these new figures," said
Lynn Maalouf, head of research for Amnesty International in the Middle
I say. I do so because I did
not know this, although I thought so. And I thought so because wars
these days seem to be directed by both warring armies not so
much against the opponent armies
- as used to be the case -
but against the civilian population that is
or may be behind the
This was so in Vietnam; it
was so in Iraq; it was so in Afghanistan; and it is true in more wars:
Target the civilians, for if you kill enough of them, the
support for the army will be less (and they are much easier to
kill, by the droves also).
In fact, this is wholly
against the legal rules of war. Here is the ending of this article:
"The failure of Iraqi and
coalition forces to acknowledge and investigate civilian deaths in
Mosul is a blatant abdication of responsibility. We are demanding
transparency and an honest public account of the true cost to civilians
from this war, as well as an immediate investigation by U.S.-led
coalition and Iraqi forces into the violations and unlawful attacks
documented by Amnesty International and other independent groups during
the battle for Mosul," she added.
Questioned by AP
about the tally, coalition spokesman Col. Thomas Veale said, "It is
simply irresponsible to focus criticism on inadvertent casualties
caused by the coalition's war to defeat ISIS."
Yet as author and
commentator Tom Engelhardt has previously observed,
"from Afghanistan to Libya, the war on terror has (not to mince words)
been murder on civilian populations."
What kind of sick
is Col. Veale? The American Army is
killing 10 times more civilians
than they claim they do.
Anyway... I agree with
Tom Engelhardt, but reformulate the point a bit: The war on terror
the Americans engage in consists for a major part of terrorism by
American army and the American security forces of
very many civilians.
And this is a
Brief, Blood-Boiling History of the Opioid Epidemic
This article is by Julia Lurie on
The scale of the
overdose epidemic is hard to fathom. In 2016, overdoses claimed 64,000
lives—more than the US military casualties in Vietnam and Iraq
combined. The origins of today’s crisis, a perfect storm of potent,
easily accessible opioids, trace back to aggressive pharmaceutical
marketing and liberal painkiller prescribing in the 1990s and
2000s. Here’s how it happened:
And since I am now nearly 40 years ill with a serious and painful
physical disease that all these nearly 40 years
has been totally denied
(until this year: See February 25,
2017), in the case of myself
and my ex (also a psychologist, also ill as long as I
am) 9 out of 10
of the 30 or medical doctors we consulted were plainly total liars, who also, in
case whatsoever, knew what M.E. is, although this was very clearly
described by a fine English medical man in 1965.
I have given up on medical "scientists" (in Holland): 9 out of
10 are plain and evident liars, who only
in their own financial well-being and merely pretend to
care for their
But this is my personal choice that was directed by my personal
experiences with FAR too many utterly incompetent lying Dutch doctors.
Then again, the same or worse is true in the USA, for there medical men
have helped to kill 64,000 persons merely in 2016. They did so by
prescribing - as medical doctors - opium, heroin and much stronger
opioids, all of which are strongly addictive by simply denying
lying through their teeth) that these were addictive: They are, and
strongly so. But who cares amongs the very rich American medics?
Well, here is some evidence:
Purdue Pharma debuts OxyContin with the most aggressive marketing campaign in pharmaceutical
history, downplaying its addictiveness. Over the next five years, the
number of opioid painkiller prescriptions jumps by 44 million.
Arthur Sackler, whose family owns Purdue Pharma, is posthumously
inducted into the Medical Advertising Hall of Fame
for “bringing the full power of advertising and promotion to
Purdue distributes 15,000 copies of “I Got My Life
Back,” a promotional video featuring a doctor saying opioids “do not have serious medical side
effects” and “should be used much more than they are.” It also offers
new patients a free first OxyContin prescription.
These were all utter
lies, but of course these utter lies helped medical persons
to make a
whole lot of money for themselves.
Here is the last bit
that I quote from this fine article:
An estimated 64,000 Americans die of drug overdoses—more than all US
military casualties in the Vietnam and Iraq wars combined. In December,
Congress passes legislation
allotting $1 billion to fund opioid addiction treatment and prevention
efforts over two years.
President Donald Trump declares
a public health state of emergency, which opens up a fund of just
$57,000. The GOP tries repeatedly to repeal Obamacare, a move that
would take away addiction treatment coverage for an estimated 3 million Americans.
Quite so - and see
Trump's enormous largesse: $57,000 (not paid by him, of course).
And this is a strongly
recommended article: This is how many "medical persons" take
care of their patients in the USA.
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 (!!).
 I am for equal treatments of people (in
similar circumstances) and of equal laws applying (equally!) to
all people, but I do not think different persons are equals.
In fact, I think there is at least as much difference in
intelligences as there is in faces, lengths, strengths etc. and none of
these differences argue for personal equality.
Finally about this point. There also is a lot of hypocrisy
connected with this. Everybody agrees that - e.g. - female beauty may
vary a great lot from person to person. Well, if that is a relevant
difference between persons, then so is the difference in intelligence
that allows the one to easily become a doctor, and the other not to
finish high school.
 Since I am also not crazy, I will
consult doctors if I am in pain or ill, but indeed I will not
accept their diagnoses unless I explicitly agree, which is rather easy for
me, since the (English) Wikipedia is quite good about diseases (but
not about politics) and indeed I am a psychologist and also quite
well-informed about science and medicine.