from March 22, 2018
B. More Selections
This is a
Nederlog of Thursday,
And as you see above, I have added today another section B.
do not know how often I will do so, but I did so yesterday mostly because of ME/CFS
(which my ex and I have for nearly forty years, which is now
called ¨a serious chronic disease¨, which indeed it is, but my ex and I
did not get any help
whatsoever all these 40 years, except by a very few rare medics, while
our characters, our honesty, and our
intelligence were systematically and for forty
years blackened by 9 out of 10 medical
people I met), and I am doing so again today because of
Facebook (which I hate and despise ever since I knew about it).
I will probably not continue tomorrow but it may happen again (if
I get enough sleep, which now - after a mere forty years - is a
problem I have that is admitted I do have, by Dutch
doctors, and not because I am ¨insane¨ or ¨a psychosomatizer¨,
but because I have ¨a serious chronic disease¨, which is also the first time in nearly 40 years
that I heard this from medical minds).
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last five years:
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.
Section 2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from March 22, 2018
1. What Mark Zuckerberg Said Years Ago About Facebook Could
Amid the Cambridge Analytica
2. Zuckerberg Breaks Silence on Cambridge Analytica,
Apologizes for Data
Facebook's Latest Data Breach Reveals Silicon
Valley's Fortunes Are
Built on Pilfering Privacy
4. Facebook Will Never Change Unless We Force It To
5. Fox Commentator Leaves Network, Calling it ‘Propaganda
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:
Mark Zuckerberg Said Years Ago About Facebook Could Haunt Him Amid the
Cambridge Analytica Scandal
article is by Mehreen Kasana on AlterNet. It starts as follows:
A 2010 New
Yorker profile of Facebook CEO Mark
Zuckerberg may haunt him now amid Cambridge Analytica news. The
profile, written by Jose Antonio Vargas, details a leaked exchange
between the Facebook creator and a friend who wasn’t identified.
The chat log was
first leaked to the technology website Silicon Alley Insider and
messages from Zuckerberg in which he brags to an unnamed
friend about having unfettered access to the data of any Harvard
student he wanted. When the friend asks Zuckerberg how he gained such
access, the social network creator mocked people’s supposed naivete.
"Yeah, so if you ever need
[information] about anyone at Harvard, just ask," Zuckerberg said to
his friend. He added, "I have 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, [and]
SNS." The friend sounds surprised, and asks, "What? How'd you manage
that one?" Zuckerberg replied, "People just submitted it. I don't know
why. They trust me. Dumb fucks."
Well... I absolutely love Zuckerberg´s quotation -
Zuckerberg: "They trust me. Dumb
fucks." - and I will repeat
it wherever I have to speak about his horrific means of
getting $70 billion dollars out of the currently two billions of ¨dumb fucks¨ he misleads, lies to, propagandizes
and generally deceives
into giving him commands over the - utterly fucked over,
completely abused - private information they own and should keep
not think anyone else frauded more than 2 billion people,
for it is an absolutely obvious fraud - and in case you deny
this here is the definition of ¨fraud¨ (minus note numbers):
In law, fraud
is deliberate deception
to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal
right. Fraud itself can be a civil wrong (i.e., a fraud victim
may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud or recover monetary
compensation), a criminal wrong (i.e., a fraud perpetrator may
be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities) or it may
cause no loss of money, property or legal right but still be an element
of another civil or criminal wrong. The purpose of fraud may be
monetary gain or other benefits, such as obtaining a passport or travel
document, driver's license or qualifying for a mortgage by way of false
And here is the other
bit I quote from this fine article:
Zuckerberg, who never
disputed the tasteless conversation, later said he
“absolutely” regretted the chat.
I totally accept
that, were it only because I believe this is the last honest public statement Zuckerberg made since
2004. (I certainly have no evidence for Zuckerberg´s
honesty and besides: people who earn $70 billions by committing a
fraud on two billion naive and ignorant internet users cannot be
trusted at all.)
And this is a strongly
Breaks Silence on Cambridge Analytica, Apologizes for Data Breach
This article is by Jordan Riefe on Truthdig. It starts as
You may trust
someone who deceived
over 2 billion naive and ignorant users of internet, but I absolutely
never will until Zuckerberg is - completely demonstrably - poorer
than I am: He is a 2 billionfold deceiver of naive and ignorant
internet users, who ¨trust
[Zuckerberg] ¨ because
they behaved as utterly stupid and ignorant ¨Dumb fucks",
in Zuckerberg´s own words.\
Breaking his silence for
the first time since reports last weekend that the political data firm
Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained information on 50 million
Facebook users, Mark Zuckerberg weighed in with a post on
afternoon. In a 937-word explanation he blamed himself, but he also
blamed Cambridge University researcher Aleksandr Kogan, who mined the
data then lied about destroying it.
With Facebook facing
investigations by attorneys general in both Massachusetts and New
York, Zuckerberg assured one and all that the problem has already been
I started Facebook, and
at the end of the day I’m responsible for what happens on our platform.
I’m serious about doing what it takes to protect our community. While
this specific issue involving Cambridge Analytica should no longer
happen with new apps today, that doesn’t change what happened in the
past. We will learn from this experience to secure our platform further
and make our community safer for everyone going forward.
And here is some more on Cambridge Analytica:
Yes indeed - and I told
you above that ¨Facebook¨ [is]
¨deceiving users by telling them certain information could be private,
“then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public,” the FTC
said when it announced the settlement —which bars the company from
misrepresenting the privacy or security of user information¨ and I also
told you this is fraud,
for money, namely (so far) $70 billion, all for
Earlier this week, CEO Alexander
Nix was caught on hidden camera bragging about the firm’s illicit
acts and has been subsequently suspended. Writing for the Mercury
News, Rex Crum and Levi Sumagaysay sum up the worst month in
Facebook’s 10-year history.
The Trump campaign used
Cambridge Analytica early on, and the former employee of the firm,
Chris Wylie, has said the firm’s data and analysis helped shape the
politically divisive tone of the Trump campaign.
Among the consequences so
far: The Federal Trade Commission is reportedly investigating whether
Facebook violated a consent decree that was part of a privacy
settlement the company reached with the agency in 2011. Violations
could result in fines of $40,000 a day per violation.
Then, the privacy issue
du jour was that the FTC had accused Facebook of deceiving users by
telling them certain information could be private, “then repeatedly
allowing it to be shared and made public,” the FTC said when it
announced the settlement —which bars the company from misrepresenting
the privacy or security of user information.
The Cambridge Analytica
mess comes as the company is still dealing with the fallout from its
role in helping spread fake news and propaganda by Russian trolls, an
idea Zuckerberg scoffed at two years ago—in fact, he called it “crazy.”
And this is a recommended article.
Latest Data Breach Reveals Silicon Valley's Fortunes Are Built on
This article is by Steven Rosenfeld on AlterNet. It starts
One of the worst weeks in
Facebook’s history—its stock tumbled, Congress and Parliament demanded
top executives testify and explain, and the Federal Trade Commission opened
a new investigation—is due to a simple fact: the company shares and
sells privacy-breaching profiles of millions of users.
Facebook’s latest troubles
rose to the top of the news this weekend when a series of investigative
reports in the U.S. and Britain found that private political consulting
firm Cambridge Analytica, created by Trump’s former political guru
Steve Bannon, had stolen 50 million Facebook user profiles. The
profiles were intended to be used in the 2016 election for the
electoral equivalent of psychological warfare: to push, prod, play on
prejudices, you name it, and provoke millions of Americans in swing
states to vote for Donald Trump—or not to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Precisely - and
I am sorry if I repeat some information, but I really dislike
and despise the mega-fraudulent Facebook.
Here is more, and I
think the following diagnosis of both Facebook and the
internet, that was in fact designed
by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the late 1960s (!!) to help introduce a
totally new kind of society he called then ¨the
technotronic society¨, where anonymous spies
from the govern- ment knew virtually
everything about virtually everyone
(except the very richest), but in fact he very probably meant neofascism
(though he would never have called it by that honest
(..) Facebook’s problems
stem from the fact that it's a privacy-busting social media platform.
But this feature, which
some people find deeply disturbing, isn’t unique in Silicon Valley.
Rather, it is indicative of what’s coming under the rapidly
developing Internet of Things. That realization puts Facebook’s
latest political turmoil, and the various governmental responses, into
an odd category: what’s noisy today isn’t likely to change what’s
coming tomorrow, as the loss of privacy is a given for the touted
benefits of a wired world.
Yes indeed - and I am very
sorry I do believe this, for it means that apart from a major
economical collapse followed by a successful revolution, the total population of the earth except the very
richest will be a totally open book for the very richest and
for the governmental spies.
Here is more:
(..) [A]cademics and others
who study social media, including the information gathering practices
powering its lucrative advertising business, say that everybody using
social media like Facebook should know their private lives are being
mined for profit. Needless to say, most social media users are not
thinking about that when sharing personal thoughts or taking part in
some public political activity.
Yes indeed: I fully
agree that the asocial frauds from Facebook should be known as
such by ¨everybody using
social media like Facebook¨
but evidently the vast majority is too ignorant or too
stupid not to exchange their total privacies for the
chance of getting advertisements
that might save them a few pennies (while destroying their local
Here is more (and
Potter is a professor of journalism):
Potter explained that
social media users have signed away their rights to privacy by opening
accounts in their names on these platforms. “Facebook is just one of
many social media platforms aggregating our lives, and most users
we hold these companies accountable, they will continue to dominate
other aspects of our lives.”
But Potter makes a larger
point—one that casts whatever pending action the FTC may take in a diminished
light: whatever fine they may levy will be a business expense and
not impede Silicon Valley’s evolving drive to monitor people’s
behaviors and tie in their digital devices to create a so-called
Internet of Things.
Well... I certainly don´t
think Potter´s claim that ¨most
way sensible (though he is, of course, quite correct about ¨most
users¨): Even I, who is highly academically qualified
and very intelligent find the lawyers´ texts I ¨should read¨ almost
completely incomprehensible, which also is the case because
texts have been designed to be almost completely incomprehensible for anyone who is not both
a lawyer and thoroughly knowledgeable
about the other laws that do apply to the subject at hand. (Almost
no one is.)
Then again, I think
Potter´s ¨larger point¨ is quite correct in the second
paragraph I quoted:
(1) the whole fucking internet has
been DESIGNED to find out as much as is possible about everyone who is
neither a billionaire nor a government spy, while (2) ¨whatever fine they may levy will be a
business expense and not impede Silicon Valley’s evolving
drive to monitor people’s behaviors¨.
Here is the last bit
that I quote from this fine article:
The specter of a disruptive
digital Big Brother disturbs privacy advocates such as the Electronic
Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, which for years has called
on the FTC to pressure Facebook to abide by its 2011
consent decree—which the latest disclosures about Cambridge
Analytica’s theft of millions of user files appear to have flaunted.
Frank Pasquale, a law
professor and EPIC
advisory board member, told Pew’s researcher that expansion of the
Internet of Things will result in a world that is more “prison-like”
with a “small class of ‘watchers’ and a much larger class of the
experimented upon, the watched.” In another article,
he predicted the Internet of Things “will be a tool for other
people to keep tabs on what the populace is doing.”
While others offer less
doomsday-ish scenarios, one impact is certain: privacy will vanish.
Yes, Pasquale is quite
¨the Internet of Things
will result in a world that is more “prison-like” with a “small class
of ‘watchers’ and a much larger class of the experimented upon, the
And this may be
done by a few tenthousands in the USA,
who will eventually enslave everybody else (who doesn´t own
billions), and indeed quite possibly will also be quite capable of
totally disappearing anyone whose opinions do not conform to the
opinions the very few believe they ought to have.
This is a strongly
Will Never Change Unless We Force It To
This article is by Kevin Drum on Mother Jones. This is from
near its beginning:
Mark Zuckerberg has
learned not to admit this publicly anymore, but back in the day he was
pretty open about the fact that he personally believed the world would
be a better place if we all got over our privacy bugaboos. Facebook was
his way of helping that along: every default in the software was set
for maximum exposure, and he figured that everyone would soon get used
to this and we’d all be comfortable with everyone knowing everything
In pursuit of this vision, Zuckerberg has relentlessly followed the
same strategy for years: reduce privacy within Facebook in every way
possible until somebody gets mad. Then he apologizes, says he “didn’t
realize” how sensitive Facebook’s customers were about this, and
eliminates the one specific thing people are complaining about—but
I completely agree with
this except for one thing: It is certainly not true that - through Facebook?!
through Apple?! through Google?! through Amazon?!
¨we’d all be
comfortable with everyone knowing everything about ourselves¨
On the contrary! Firstly, the whole
fucking internet has been DESIGNED
to find out as much as is possible about
everyone who is neither a billionaire nor a government spy,
and secondly, no
one except the very rich and the government
spies and terrorists
will know anything whatsoever about anyone else,
while thirdly, very probably the vast majority also will not
known how much of their own private data
(and that of friends, friends of friends etc. etc.) have been plundered
by the very rich, the government´s spies, or the government´s terrorists.
Then there is this, that I believe to be correct, but do
not know to be so:
And finally there is this:
So what we have is a
controlling CEO with a monomaniacal personal vision that
lines up perfectly with his company’s business vision. This
is not all that common. Usually CEOs have diffuse power to begin with,
and their personal beliefs are often in conflict with what’s good for
the business. Facebook isn’t like that. Zuckerberg has absolute
control, and his vision matches perfectly with what’s best for
In other words, what happened
with Cambridge Analytica wasn’t just some glitch. It’s Facebook’s
As a country, we’ve
made it crystal clear that we don’t care about personal privacy. We
mock European privacy directives. We ignore the dozens of companies
that do exactly the same thing as Facebook but have lower profiles. We
allow credit reporting companies to collect anything they want with no
oversight at all when they screw up and wreck someone’s life.
On a personal level, we’re routinely willing to turn over every detail
of our lives in return for a $1 iTunes coupon.
I mostly agree (and am not an
American), but I do think everyone can
do more and indeed should
If we don’t like the idea of
Facebook making our personal lives an open book to anyone, we can do
something about it. The way to do that is to elect “politicians” who
will write “laws” that regulate it. But Republicans don’t like
regulations in general, and Democrats are queasy about regulating
Silicon Valley since they get lots of money from there.
Firstly, everyone can stop doing Facebook, and secondly, everyone
should use as few internet companies as possible (and I only
use a browser, e-mail and ftp).
(But unfortunately few agree, alas.)
Commentator Leaves Network, Calling it ‘Propaganda Machine’
This article is by Emily Wells on Truthdig.
I simply say
I like this, even though it is also quite certain that
I disagree with Ralph Peters on many things. But the above
seems honest, it certainly is correct in my view, and
therefore this article, that is recommended, is reviewed here.
Longtime Fox News
commentator Ralph Peters left the network on Tuesday, and in
an email to colleagues called the channel a “propaganda machine for
a destructive and ethically ruinous administration.” He added that he
is “ashamed” to be associated with it.
Peters regularly appeared
on Fox News and Fox Business Network for nearly a decade. He was
formerly a lieutenant colonel in the Army, serving in infantry and
military intelligence units in Southeast and Central Asia, Russia,
Burma (now Myanmar), and Pakistan.
His farewell email,
published by Buzzfeed, reads:
Four decades ago, I took
an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to “support and defend
the Constitution,” and that oath did not expire when I took off my
uniform. Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional
order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified
paranoia among viewers. Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of
the association. Now I am ashamed.
In my view, Fox has
degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for
conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and
ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts—who have never
served our country in any capacity—dismiss facts and empirical reality
to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice
Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served)
and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as
Robert Mueller—all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of
“deep-state” machinations—I cannot be part of the same organization,
even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system
of government for profit.
6. Now we know who
Trump really is
7. We Have Spent $32 Million Per Hour on War Since 2001
8. On March 22, 1968
In fact, this section B has not appeared in Nederlog
for a long time - until yesterday. Then I dud reintroduce it, mostly
because there was news on ME/CFS, of which my ex and myself are
suffering not almost 40 years.
we know who Trump really is
This article is by Lucian K. Truscott
on Salon. It starts as follows:
You need know
only two things about the Trump presidency to understand what kind of
man he is. We learned fairly early on that the Trump administration is
the first in memory to bar release of its daily logs of visitors to the
White House. More recently, we learned that Trump demanded from the
start that all senior White House staff sign NDA’s, non-disclosure
agreements, similar to the contracts signed by the employees of the
Trump Organization and his campaign.
These are not
actions taken by the president of a democracy. They are the actions of
I more or less
agree: I think they probably are by an aspiring dictator, or by a neofascist,
or by a madman, and I do
agree with Truscott that they are certainly not the actions any
democrat would have taken.
Here is some more:
agreements signed by White House staff are said to forbid talking about
any “confidential” information, defined as “all non-public information
I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties,” according to the Washington Post. One report on
the White House NDA’s said that violation of the contracts could result
in a $10 million fine payable to the federal government. Whether or not
these contracts are enforceable — and legal experts say they aren’t – is beside the
point. They are evidence that Trump cares only about loyalty to
himself, not to the Constitution or the nation.
I hope the legal experts are
right, but in any case this does show indeed at least one
aspect of what Trump really is doing: He is running the
presidency of the USA as if it is his totally private and totally
secret business empire.
Have Spent $32 Million Per Hour on War Since 2001
This article is by Stephanie Savell on
Common Dreams. This is from close to the beginning:
First, the economic costs:
According to estimates by the Costs of War project at
Brown University’s Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, the war on terror has cost
Americans a staggering $5.6
trillion since 2001, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
$5.6 trillion. This figure
includes not just the Pentagon’s war fund, but also future obligations
such as social services for an ever-growing number of post-9/11
It’s hard for most of us to
even begin to grasp such an enormous number.
It means Americans spend
$32 million per hour, according to a counter by the National Priorities Project
at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Put another way: Since
2001, every American taxpayer has spent almost $24,000
on the wars — equal to the average down payment on a house, a new Honda
Accord, or a year at a public university.
I say! And no, while I
very probably would have answered that the economic costs of ¨the war
on terror¨ (that in fact was meant to instititutionalize terror on
everyone by the states' terrorists who
assemble in the secret services) do run ¨in the trillions¨ (if only
because the USA has been warring now in several countries for
seventeen years), but I would not have guessed the - quite
astounding - number given here.
Here is some more:
As of 2015, when the Costs
of War project made its latest tallies,
up to 165,000 Iraqi civilians had died as a direct consequence of U.S.
war, plus around 8,000 U.S. soldiers and military contractors in Iraq.
Those numbers have only
continued to rise. Up to 6,000 civilians were killed by U.S.-led
strikes in Iraq and Syria in 2017 –– more civilians than in any
previous year, according to the watchdog group AirWars.
In addition to those direct
deaths, at least four
times as many people in Iraq have died from the side effects of
war, such as malnutrition, environmental degradation, and deteriorated
Note that this means
that - until 2015 - 660,000 Iraqis
lost their lives because of the American intervention into their
Here is more:
Meanwhile, the war
continues to spread, no longer limited to Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria,
as many Americans think. Indeed, the U.S. military is escalating a
shadowy network of anti-terror operations all across the world — in at
nations, or 40 percent of countries on the planet.
I mostly agree with
Savell, although I have two remarks: (i) the USA is fighting (namely by
using drones) in 7 countries to the best of my knowledge, and
(ii) while I agree that the USA is present in no less than 76 countries
to see to its own interests there, it is not fighting in most of these
countries - to the best of my knowledge.
Here is the last bit
that I quote from this article:
Until a broad swath of the
American public gets engaged to call for an end to the war on terror,
these mushrooming costs — economic, human, social, and political — will
just continue to grow.
Yes, I agree though I
also think this is a very depressing though very probably
quite true judgement. And this article is strongly recommended.
8. On March 22, 1968
This is the last article I review today, and in fact it
is a reprint from yesterday,
that I do reprint because today it is
50 years ago that the failed revolution in France started:
If you are considerably younger than nearly 68, which is my
age, chances are that you do not know much about May 1968,
when a revolution nearly did happen in France. That revolution
was defeated quite probably because the Communist Party of
(PCF), that was quite strong in 1968, refused to collaborate
students, the anarchists, the progressives and the leftists in May of
You find above a link to the English Wikipedia, from which I
quote this bit to explain why I think a revolution did nearly
happen in May 1968:
The protests reached
such a point that political leaders feared civil
war or revolution; the national government itself
momentarily ceased to function after President Charles de Gaulle secretly fled France
for a few hours. The protests spurred an artistic movement, with songs,
imaginative graffiti, posters, and slogans.
“May 68” had an impact on French society that
resounded for decades afterward. It is considered to this day as a
cultural, social and moral turning point in the history of the country.
I did not know that De Gaulle had fled France in
1968, but I did go to Paris twice in 1968: First in May 1968,
with some friends, and then again all by my self in June 1968.
And I wrote about May '68 in May 2008
in Nederlog, indeed quite a few times, albeit in Dutch. In case you
read Dutch, here is a link to a collection of the articles I wrote in
There are 14 articles assembled
there (as links) and I can recommend all.
I do not know how much attention will be paid to this fifty
years later, but I suppose there will be some articles, and I will try
to follow them, and I may review some of them, although I do not
really believe I will learn anything about May '68 that I did
not know for quite a long time.
But to those younger than me I say: It did
look and feel like a real revolution in
May '68, and indeed this is the only case
of a possible revolution that I - more or less - participated in.
And it may be interesting for those born too late to take part in it.
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 (!!).