from July 30, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Monday,
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 July 30, 2018:
1. Michael Cohen Takes a Bullet
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. Our 'Rentier Capitalism' Is One More Nail in Earth's Coffin
3. The Permanent Lie, Our Deadliest Threat
4. New York Times Publisher Asks Trump to Reconsider
5. Ahed Tamimi and Her Mother are Freed from Jail
1. Michael Cohen Takes a Bullet
This article is by
Charles Blow on The New York Times. It starts as follows:
to Michael Cohen. He’s finally getting something right.
let’s state forthrightly that Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyer, the
fix-it man, the one who mopped up Trump’s messes, the one who said he
would “take a bullet for
the president,” is an incredibly unsavory character and a bully.
thought himself a tough guy, Trump’s muscle collecting the crumbs of
instance, in 2015 he threatened a
Daily Beast reporter who was writing about the time Trump’s first
wife, Ivana, claimed Trump had raped her, only to later say that she
didn’t want her use of the word rape “to be interpreted in a literal or
to that reporter, Cohen erroneously — and outrageously — claimed, “You
cannot rape your spouse,” before launching into this tirade:
will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the
courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have.
And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you
possibly know … So I’m
warning you, tread very [expletive] lightly, because what I’m going to
do to you is going to be [expletive] disgusting. You understand me?
write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’
and I’m going to mess your life up … for as long as you’re on this
frickin’ planet … you’re going to have judgments against you, so much
money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it.”
is not a likable man, or one deserving of sympathy.
Yes indeed. In case you don't know who Michael
Cohen is, this was a link: Cohen used to be Trump's special counsel
and also served as vice-president of the Trump Organization. And he is
in some legal trouble both about Trump's behavior and his own behavior.
Here is some more from the article:
is becoming incredibly clear that Cohen has broken from the president,
as he keeps signaling that he is willing to disclose whatever he knows
of Trump’s concealments. And he could know quite a bit.
CNN reported on
Friday that “sources with knowledge” told the network that Trump
knew of the infamous Trump Tower meeting during the campaign in which
Russians promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.
to the report:
alleges that he was present, along with several others, when Trump was
informed of the Russians’ offer by Trump Jr. By Cohen’s account, Trump
approved going ahead with the meeting with the Russians, according to
That revelation would be
damning if true, not only because Trump and his associates have
repeatedly lied about the nature of that meeting, but also because it
would go more directly to the heart of collusion and conspiracy.
I say, although I do not know, and I do not know
because, while I do believe that Trump in various senses did commit "collusion and conspiracy" I do not believe Hillary Clinton's story, and
I also do not know what "collusion
and conspiracy" the writer
of the article refers to.
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
Cohen attorney Lanny Davis told
CNN’s Chris Cuomo last week:
is Giuliani out falsely disparaging Michael Cohen — because they fear
him.” Davis continued:
do they fear, Chris? Why am I representing him? They fear that he has
the truth about Donald Trump. He will someday speak the truth about
this, Trump world will seek to destroy him. Michael Cohen will indeed take
that bullet, metaphorically speaking of course — not for Trump, but
Possibly so, but I do not know what Cohen knows. Then
again, if he does know things the telling if which would endanger
Trump's presidency, I would not at all be amazed if he meets a real
2. Our 'Rentier Capitalism' Is One More Nail
in Earth's Coffin
This article is by Paul
Street on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
“Workers of the world
unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.” This famous socialist
slogan, adapted from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ “The Communist
Manifesto,” struck Noam Chomsky as a poor fit for most people in the
world’s rich nations almost half a century ago.
“There is no doubt,” Chomsky
wrote in August 1969 (when I was a sixth-grader mourning the
Chicago Cubs’ collapse before the onrushing New York “Miracle Mets”),
“that we can learn from the achievements and failures of revolutionary
struggles in the less-developed countries. …” But, Chomsky added, “In
an advanced industrial society, it is, obviously, far from true that
the mass of population have nothing to lose but their chains … [since]
they have a considerable stake in preserving the existing social order.”
Yes, precisely - and I
had the same insight and indeed a bit earlier than Chomsky.
Then again, this was mostly because of my background and curiosity: I
was the child of two very sincere and very courageous communists,
my father had quite a few of the books of Marx, Engels, Lenin and
in his bookcases, and I had started reading in them in 1964, and
indeed initially believed most things.
Then again, our family
had been quite poor from 1950 till 1965, in part because many were
poor, and in part because my father was a well-known communist and
well-known strike leader, which made him getting any work often a
matter of his future mates willing to strike so that he would get work.
But by 1965 we, indeed
like the rest of Holland, got considerably more money and it were these
two facts that made me doubt the Marxist class analysis, which
is sketched in the first sentence of the above quote: In the first
place, I thought "class" or "classes" or "class solidarity" all very
vague concepts (and it did not work at all e.g. in WW I),
and in the
second place, I realized what Chomsky said: Ordinary workers, doing
ordinary jobs all had considerably more to loose than just their
(although I guess this was more or less true in the 1800s when Marx
And this were two of
the reasons why I gave up the communist class concept: I believed in
the rich and the poor, but not so much in a class of workers extended
over Europe, feeling solidarity, and cooperating.
Back to Street:
Precisely - and I like to
add that the "“30 golden
years” of 1945 to 1975" were in fact mostly the outcome of Keynes
(who was not at all a Marxist but a liberal) and
his Keynesian economics. And in economical terms, neoliberalism was the
end and the opponent of Keynesianism.
occurred in Western Europe, where les trentes glorieuses
After four-plus decades of
neoliberalism, we now live under the rule of a rentier capitalism, in
which the top 10th of the upper U.S. 1 percent owns as much wealth as
the nation’s bottom 90 percent. CNBC
reported last fall that 57 percent of Americans have less than
$1,000 in savings; 39 percent have no savings at all.
(the “30 golden years” of 1945 to 1975) brought unprecedented
middle-class expansion and prosperity combined with a significant
reduction in inequality and poverty. Things have changed. Inequality
has resurged significantly in the “advanced” nations (what one
academic calls “the affluent capitalist democracies”), bringing
depressing expansions of poverty.
Here is one analysis (that doesn't mention Keynes, but seems correct):
Four basic underpinnings of
the more broadly shared prosperity in the post-World War II years have
been undone inside the “advanced” nations, helping to create such
shocking inequality and poverty in the U.S.
First, rising productivity
used to be matched by rising wages. However,
beginning in the 1980s, U.S. wages stagnated while productivity
continued to soar.
Second, rising employment
used to generate corresponding wage hikes. This is no longer the case.
Today, when employment rises, wages stay stagnant or fall because the
new jobs pay worse than the old jobs. The long
Obama-Trump “recovery” is biased toward—one might even say
contingent upon—the expansion of low-paid jobs, as has been most job
growth in the long neoliberal era.
Third, rising employment
used to produce more tax revenue for the public sector. Again, this
isn’t true today, because so many new jobs pay too little and
governments have raised the threshold for paying income tax.
Fourth, rising company
profits used to lead to higher average pay. That, too, has gone away.
As the British economist Guy Standing noted in his indispensable 2016
Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay”:
“Profits are more concentrated in [largely high-tech] firms that don’t
employ many workers. Employment has grown mainly in low-tech sectors,
weakening the link between profits, employment, and wages.”
I think the above is
mostly correct, and like to add that the last statement of the above
quote seems to empirically contradict Marx's analysis of profits.
Then there is this,
with which I am less happy because it introduces "a new “global class structure”":
Across the “rich” nations,
Standing found, a new “global class structure” has been “superimposed
on preceding class structures.” It consists of six core constituent
elements defined largely by their ability or inability to garner income
from the ownership of property and from the political power and policy
influence that flow from that possession: “a tiny plutocracy (perhaps
0.001 percent) atop a bigger elite, a ‘salariat’ (in relatively secure
salaried jobs), ‘proficians’ (freelance professionals), a core working
class, a precariat, and a ‘lumpen-precariat’ at the bottom.”
Again, this might
have been phrased as: There are the very rich; the somewhat rich; the
freelancers; the core working "class"; the office workers, and the real
poor. I would have agreed to that analysis, but not to
casting this analysis into a "class analysis" (that is, moreover "superimposed
on preceding class structures"),
because I do not believe in "classes" such as seem intended.
Here is more on -
Marx's - "working class":
The classic working class,
or proletariat—people working in stable, full-time wage positions
usually with schooling that matches the skills their jobs require—is
fading, except in China and India. It has been shrinking dramatically
in the “developed” world throughout the neoliberal era, a period of
savage deindustrialization in the rich nations. That’s because big
capital and the better-off salaried and professional “elites” have
increasingly relied less on the production of goods and services for
their wealth and income as they make more money on the parasitic
extraction of rents rooted in the monopolistic ownership of assets.
Quite so: The very rich
realized there is much more profit from workers who earn 1 or 2
a day than from workers who earn 7 to 20 dollar an hour, and so the
neoliberals reworked the laws and allowed the rich to transport their
industries to the poorest of the poor nations, in order to make
themselves the richest of all the rich there had ever been.
And in case you are 18
now, and not rich, I am afraid your future in 30 to 50 year
will be extremely much poorer than even I am - and I have earned
the last 50 years than anybody else who managed to remain out of
prison: I absolutely never got as much as "the legal
other things because, while my ex and I have a "serious chronic
disease" for forty years (!!!)
now, this was never admitted
till March of 2018.
Here is more by Street:
It has nothing to do with
the mythical “free market” capitalism that neoliberal politicians claim
to uphold. It’s about the rich using the state to make themselves
richer and to thereby—since wealth is power and pull—deepen their grip
on politics and policy.
Precisely. And indeed "“free market” capitalism" either was a
straight lie from the rich or else it was an utterly false
There never were "free markets" after 1800 or so.
Here is more:
The “plunder of the
commons” has put humanity on the path to ecological self-extinction as
we march to the plainly fatal mark of 500 carbon parts per atmospheric
million by 2050, if not sooner.
Yes, I quite agree.
Since I'll be 100 in 2050, I very probably shall not make it,
and I am
quite glad for myself, but those who are 18 now will be 50 in 2050, and
I am afraid - always if they are not rich - that their lives
(even) harder than mine, and their chances much smaller.
Here is the last bit
that I'll quote from this fine article:
Yes, I quite agree and
this is a strongly recommended article.
As Marx (a great devotee
of science) would certainly recognize if he were granted a
posthumous research trip into the 21st century, capitalism has not
produced its own working-class “gravediggers” (the “revolutionary”
industrial proletariat he thought he saw coming into being in his
time). The profits system is not the “dialectical” midwife of
socialism. It is an environmental as well as social, political and
spiritual cancer—an exterminist endgame wired to take us beyond mere
precarity to full-on extinction. If all of us—from the bottom up and
top down—don’t figure out how to become the undertakers of this
commons-plundering rentier regime, the insight of onetime leading
neoconservative philosopher Francis Fukuyama will be borne out, though
not in the sense he meant: Capitalism will indeed mark “the
end of history and the last man,” through literal extinction.
Permanent Lie, Our Deadliest Threat
This article is by Chris Hedges on Truthdig. It starts as
follows - and I should add that since Chris Hedges is currently on
holiday, Truthdig reprinted an article of him from 2017, which I then
Here it is once again, with some notes and some very small changes (of
The most ominous
danger we face does not come from the eradication of free speech
through the obliteration of net neutrality or through Google algorithms
that steer people away from dissident, left-wing, progressive or
anti-war sites. It does not come from a tax bill that abandons all
pretense of fiscal responsibility to enrich corporations and oligarchs
and prepares the way to dismantle programs such as Social Security. It
does not come from the opening of public land to the mining and fossil
fuel industry, the acceleration of ecocide by demolishing environmental
regulations, or the destruction of public education. It does not come
from the squandering of federal dollars on a bloated military as the
country collapses or the use of the systems of domestic security to
criminalize dissent. The most ominous danger we face comes from the
marginalization and destruction of institutions, including the courts,
academia, legislative bodies, cultural organizations and the press,
that once ensured that civil discourse was rooted in reality and fact,
helped us distinguish lies from truth and facilitated justice.
Brandt (who still seems alive ) told his
audience during the public
opening of the "University" of Amsterdam, in August 1978, that my
father and mother
were sick liars when they said there truly had been a Holocaust,
that my father and mother were sick liars
when they told that both my
father and his father had truly
been locked up in Nazi concentration camps, for he told his
audience the following, that is literally translated:
knows that truth
does NOT exist"
the sick fascistic totalitarian
lies that "Everybody knows" that it cannot
be possibly true that there
was a Holocause ; that it cannot
possibly true that there were Nazi
concentration camps, or even that Holland had truly been occupied by the Germans between 1940
and 1945: All utter
baloney according to professor M.A. Brandt, historian.
knows that truth
does NOT exist", according to Brandt.
I leave this for now, except for adding that (i) this statement
that "Everybody knows that truth does not
exist" was the official ideology of
the "University" of Amsterdam at least during its communist
years (from 1971 till 1983) and its postmodern
1984 till 1995); that (ii) this was so precisely because
it served the interests of many students in the "University" of
Amsterdam, who had been given the formal majority in each and
Dutch university in 1971 (which was a unique
situation in the whole
world); that (iii) I was one of the circa 5% (!!) of
the students who opposed this; and that (iv) to show me their thanks and
the absolute nature of their tremendous power in Amsterdam
(a) I was first terrorized - while
ill, living with an also ill wife
- for three years in the student flat in which we had to live,
while (b) I was next terrorized -
while ill - for three and
half years by the illegal soft
and hard drugsdealers who were mayor Van Thijn's very good
personal friends, while also (c) I was - still ill - also denied the legal right
of taking my M.A. in philosophy from the
"University" of Amsterdam very briefly before taking it,
because I had criticized the incompetent parasites who "taught"
me philosophy: This was forbidden both by "the philosophers" of
the UvA (none whom ever published anything, while
receiving millions) and it was forbidden by the fascist
functioned as the Board of Directors of the "University" of Amsterdam.
Here is more by Chris Hedges:
Donald Trump and
today’s Republican Party represent the last stage in the emergence of
corporate totalitarianism. Pillage and oppression are justified by the
permanent lie. The permanent lie is different from the falsehoods and
half-truths uttered by politicians such as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush
and Barack Obama. The common political lie these politicians employed
was not designed to cancel out reality.
Yes and no, but the
reasons for my (also) saying no are somewhat technical: I do not
believe in a "permanent lie" of the kind Hedges may believe in,
and indeed I do not because of the ways in which humans learn
which very strongly presupposes some understanding of
the facts in
front of one's nose.
The permanent lie is not
circumscribed by reality. It is perpetuated even in the face of
overwhelming evidence that discredits it. It is irrational. Those who
speak in the language of truth and fact are attacked as liars, traitors
and purveyors of “fake news.” They are banished from the public sphere
once totalitarian elites accrue sufficient power, a power now granted
to them with the revoking
of net neutrality.
People do not tell their young children "See, this is a dinky
toy. You can smell it, taste it, touch it, and see it. But really it
does not exist. It simply isn't
there: you are imagining
things." And the result of lying a lot by people who have you
in their power does not lead to a
quasi-reality of (supposed) lies opposed to a reality of (supposed) truths, but into confusion and uncertainty.
In fact, something like this happens (and this is also quoted
“The result of a
consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that
the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie,
but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and
the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to
this end—is being destroyed,” Hannah
Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism.”
I mostly agree.
Next, there is this, with which I mostly disagree, indeed in
because it is too negative, and in part because it seems to
underestimate (!!) both the greed and the utter dishonesty of those
trying to popularize some form of totalitarianism:
The permanent lie is
the apotheosis of totalitarianism. It no longer matters what is true.
It matters only what is “correct.” (...)
First, what is
"totalitarianism"? One can't believe the very rapidly
disintegrating Wikipedia anymore (but check it out if you want to) 
but the proper definition of totalitarianism is this (and it is
mine, and is based on very extensive reading):
They hold reality, including
science and the rule of law, in contempt. They seek to banish those who
live in a reality-based world defined by intellectual and moral
autonomy. Totalitarian rule always elevates the brutal and the stupid.
These reigning idiots have no genuine political philosophy or goals.
They use clichés and slogans, most of which are absurd and
contradictory, to justify their greed and lust for power.
Totalitarian: Ideology or religion that is
pretended to have final answers to many important
human questions and
problems and that is pretended to be thereby justified to
persons who do not agree with the ideology or the religion.
Note that this does not
itself have anything to do with lying,
deceiving, or falsifying (although I agree they usually are
involved indirectly). What matters is simply an ideology or religion
with extremist pretensions about what it's followers are
allowed to do
with those who disagree with it: These may be killed or locked
simply because they disagree.
Second, not only does totalitarianism itself not have much to
do with lying etc. (that is: totalitarianism may simply be believed by
its followers) but it also does (usually) not have much to do
with an opposition between "a reality-based world" and one which is not thus based (for in fact
most totalitarians insist their ideology implies
it alone is true).
Third, I agree mostly with the rest: Totalitarians
"brutal and (..) stupid"; totalitarians usually strongly rely
on "clichés and slogans"; indeed many of these tend to be "absurd and contradictory"; and totalitarianism in fact tends to justify the "greed and lust for power" of the leaders of the totalitarians.
But I also think that totalitarians usually have some "genuine political philosophy or goals", and namely that their own
species of totalitarianism is both valid and the final
Then there is this, which happens to be by a Dutch psychiatrist. And I
am sorry, but I disagree with this as well (and I am - i.a. - a
psychologist who disbelieves in the
“The venal political
figures need not even comprehend the social and political consequences
of their behavior,” psychiatrist Joost A.M. Meerloo wrote in “The Rape
of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and
Brainwashing.” “They are compelled not by ideological belief, no matter
how much they may rationalize to convince themselves they are, but by
the distortions of their own personalities. They are not motivated by
their advertised urge to serve their country or mankind, but rather by
an overwhelming need and compulsion to satisfy the cravings of their
own pathological character structures. The ideologies they spout are
not real goals; they are the cynical devices by which these sick men
hope to achieve some personal sense of worth and power. Subtle inner
lies seduce them into going from bad to worse. Defensive
self-deception, arrested insight, evasion of emotional identification
with others, degradation of empathy—the mind has many defense
mechanisms with which to blind the conscience.”
How does Joost
Meerloo know that what moves totalitarians
or rich men is not their "ideological belief" (stupid,
inconsistent and made up mostly of wishful
thinking as this may be) but in fact is made up from "the distortions of their own personalities" (or "the cravings of their own pathological
I do not know. But being a psychologist I do know that
real mental illness is not common, while - also being a
philosopher - I know that all ideologies, and
indeed the greatest part of most philosophies, are not true.
In brief, I strongly prefer to maintain that those I disagree
with are usually not mad and may very well be
(privately, at least) quite convinced of "the truth" of the ideology they
happen to believe in, indeed also in part because the ideologies one does
believe in normally are both familiar, not difficult, and rather
amenable to one's own personal interests.
This does not mean that I may not think that they are
dishonest, ignorant, immoral or unethical, but then again none
of these - very ordinary(!) - shortcomings coincides with some state of
Finally, here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
“Those who can make
you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,” Voltaire
In fact, when I had a site
I very soon - I think already in 1997 - opened it with
believe in absurdities,
I take it this is
translated from precisely the same French source as the
translation I use (and indeed Hedges' translation may be more correct -
though indeed I don't know).
But I do like Chris Hedges, even if I do not quite
agree with them, because he writes well, he is interesting, he usually
makes a lot of sense, and he also is a really brave man.
And if I differ with him about truth, as I do in
the above, this is in part because I am a real philosopher, and in part
because my battle with the "university" of Amsterdam started now over
40 years ago. This is a recommended article.
York Times Publisher Asks Trump to Reconsider Anti-Media Rhetoric
This article is by Darlene Superville on Truthdig and
originally on The Associated Press. It starts as follows:
The publisher of the
New York Times said Sunday he “implored” President Donald Trump at a
private White House meeting this month to reconsider his broad attacks
on journalists, calling the president’s anti-press rhetoric “not just
divisive but increasingly dangerous.”
Well... I suppose I more
or less agree with Sulzberger, indeed also because he is the new
publisher of The New York Times. Then again, while I can agree to the
purpose and the fact of the meeting, it does not amaze me at
all that Trump only heard what he wished to hear, and that the
probably was senseless.
In a statement, publisher
A.G. Sulzberger said he decided to comment publicly after Trump
revealed their off-the-record meeting to his more than 53 million
Twitter followers on Sunday. Trump’s aides had requested that the July
20 meeting not be made public, Sulzberger said.
“Had a very good and
interesting meeting at the White House with A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher
of the New York Times. Spent much time talking about the vast amounts
of Fake News being put out by the media & how that Fake News has
morphed into phrase, “Enemy of the People.” Sad!” Trump wrote.
Sulzberger, who succeeded
his father as publisher on Jan. 1, said his main purpose for accepting
the meeting was to “raise concerns about the president’s deeply
troubling anti-press rhetoric.”
“I told the president
directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but
increasingly dangerous,” he said.
Sulzberger said he told
Trump that while the phrase “fake news” is untrue and harmful, “I am
far more concerned about his labeling journalists ‘the enemy of the
people.’ I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a
rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.”
Here is more by Sulzberger:
“I warned that it was
putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of
our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country’s greatest
exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press,” the publisher
Sulzberger added that he
made clear that he was not asking Trump to soften his attacks against
the Times if he thinks the newspaper’s coverage is unfair. “Instead, I
implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I
believe are dangerous and harmful to our country,” he said.
As I said, I think that
what he said was correct, but probably was not heard by Trump. And this
is a recommended article.
Tamimi and Her Mother are Freed from Jail
article is by Ray
McGovern on Common Dreams and originally at Consortiumnews. It
starts as follows:
When they left
prison on Sunday Ahed Tamimi and her mother Nariman received a
hard-earned heros’ welcome from Palestinians and others opposed to
Israel’s occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands seized in
1948 and enlarged by the Israeli army in 1967.
Ahed is 16 years old. Last
December, an Israeli soldier shot her cousin in the face. The next day
Israeli soldiers menacingly showed up at her house the West Bank
village of Nabi Saleh. What would you do?
Ahed slapped one of the
armed-to-the-teeth soldiers. While some Israeli politicians said she
should be put away for life and others demanded a sentence of at least
ten years, the Israeli occupiers sentenced her to eight months for the
slap seen around the world. Her mother Nariman filmed the incident and
was thrown in jail too, this time for incitement. (It was not the
activist Nariman’s first time in an Israeli prison.)
I say, because I did
not know all this. And it is here because I like Ray
think Ahed Tamimi is quite brave.
Here is one more bit:
(..) I had a chance to ask
Bassem about the nonviolent, but frontal, resistance to Israeli
occupation and colonization.
“Your sons have been beaten
and badly wounded and one’s still in prison; your wife is in and out of
prison: your brother-in-law was killed by a sniper bullet; you yourself
have been tortured in prison; your house is on the list for demolition
— why do you persist; why encourage such actions?” I asked.
“We have no alternative,”
Bassem replied matter-of-factly, “it is our land and our life. I will
not tell my children or my people to acquiesce in the Israeli
occupation — ever.”
I say. This is a
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 (!!).
 He seems to have died earlier in 2018.