from August 19, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Sunday,
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 August 19, 2018:
1. Truth-Testing Trump’s 250-Plus Attacks on the Russia
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. Your Boss Is Making More Than You Do. Maybe 3,101 Times
3. Have British Spies Been Hacking the EU?
4. It Is Netanyahu, Not Corbyn, Who Deserves 'Unequivocal
5. Codetermination? Why Not Just Powerful Unions Instead?
Trump’s 250-Plus Attacks on the Russia Inquiry
This article is by
Linda Qiu on The New York Times. It starts as follows:
federal investigation into whether Russia actively sought to help
Donald J. Trump win the White House in 2016 has been hanging over his
head since even before the election. As president, he has repeatedly
criticized the special counsel inquiry and has questioned whether it is
the best use of time and taxpayer funds.
of the criticism has amounted to presidential opinion — like in calling James B.
Comey “the worst F.B.I. director in history.” On Twitter alone, he
has used the words “witch hunt” in over 100 posts.
whole situation is a rigged witch hunt,” Mr. Trump told reporters on
Friday at the White House. “It’s a totally rigged deal. They should
be looking at the other side.”
hundreds of other statements, since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, included
bold assertions about the Russia investigation that have demanded being
hasn’t always been wrong. Mr. Trump’s estimates of the inquiry’s price
tag, and his accusations of political bias as demonstrated in texts
between F.B.I. officials, are among presidential claims that have
passed the truth test.
analysis by The New York Times found more than 250 examples of
exaggerated, misleading or flat-out false claims by Mr. Trump about the
this is the only bit that I quote from this article. The main
reason is that the rest of the article is charting Trump's veracity,
which comes out as nearly though not totally zero (0).
article is recommended, because I think it is important that the media
(in so far as they have any decency left) should check
Trump's factual claims.
also think I should add that I am a psychologist who not only believes
the factual truth
that Trump is a gross liar, but whose
explanation (in fact since 2 1/2 years now) is that Trump is not sane
(he has a narcissistic
personality disorder, in psychiatrese) and that besides he is a neofascist in my
sense, for the simple reason that he satisfies 9 out 9 criterions
for not being sane, and he satisfies 10 out of 10 criterions
for being a neofascist (and if you disbelieve the latter fact,
check out my definition of neofascism).
may disagree, but the chances are that you know a lot less about
psychiatry and psychology than I do, and also that you know a lot less
about fascism and neofascism than I do.
in any case: It is a simple factual truth that
Trump is a major liar, and this is a recommended article.
Boss Is Making More Than You Do. Maybe 3,101 Times More.
This article is by
Ilana Novick on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
There’s new data to back up
the nagging feeling that millions of U.S. workers experience every
payday: Their bosses really are making hundreds of times the amount the
average worker does.
On average, that would be
312 times, according to a new report from the Economic
Policy Institute, which analyzed the 2017 compensation of chief
executives from America’s 350 top companies.
The disparity, The
Guardian explained Thursday, “came after the bosses of America’s
largest companies got an average pay rise of 17.6% in 2017, taking home
an average of $18.9m
in compensation while their employees’ wages stalled, rising just
0.3% over the year.”
It’s a gap that’s been
widening since the 1990s, the article continues: “In 1965, the ratio of
CEO to worker pay was 20 to one; that figure had risen to 58 to one by
1989 and peaked in 2000, when CEOs earned 344 times the wage of their
Yes, this is nearly all
quite correct (factually
correct!) although I would say that (i) the big changes towards the
rich started seriously with the nominations of Thatcher and Reagan in 1979/1980,
and also (ii) these were major and rightist reactions against Keynesianism,
that had been mostly ruling the - quite successful - economies of the
West from 1946 till 1980.
Also, I should like to
add what I learned from the Dutch mega-rich managers:
In fact, the mega-rich (Dutch) managers all belong to a kind of supermen or superhumans
(‹bermensche, in German) who all are - in their own opinions -
such specially gifted alpha-males (for the the greatest part)
that they deserve to get hundreds or thousands or indeed more
times the amounts of money that ordinary non-supermen (Untermensche,
in German) receive.
You might disagree, but
the answers of the superhuman managers simply insist that if you do it
is because you lack the excessive gifts of the superhumans like them.
Here is some more from
You see, Steve Easterbrook
and Doug McMillon are supermen, at least in terms of what I've
from the Dutch supermen. Anyway... this is a recommended article.
disclosures rules allowed the EPI to bring this information to
light. It compels companies to publish the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay.
The rule, a Washington
Post article explained this year, was part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank
legislation passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
It took until 2015 for the
disclosure rule to be finalized, the Post explained, because of
resistance from business advocacy groups “that said it would be onerous
and expensive to calculate.”
It survived unscathed and, The
Guardian explains, allowed American workers to confirm their worst
suspicions about CEO
Last year McDonald’s CEO
Steve Easterbrook earned
$21.7m while the McDonald’s workers earned a median wage of just
$7,017–a CEO to worker pay ratio of 3,101-to-one. The average Walmart
worker earned $19,177 in 2017 while CEO Doug McMillon took home
$22.8m–a ratio of 1,188-to-one.
British Spies Been Hacking the EU?
article is by Annie
Machon on Consortiumnews. It starts as follows:
Just after midnight
on Aug. 16, I was called by LBC Radio in London for a comment on a
breaking story on the front page of The Daily Telegraph about British
spies hacking the EU. Even though I had just retired to bed, the story
was just too irresistible, but a radio interview is always too short to
do justice to such a convoluted tale. Here are some longer thoughts.
I started with a link to Annie Machon who
started her professional life, after her education at Cambridge
University, as an agent of MI5 (the English spies) in 1991, from which
she resigned in 1997.
For those who cannot
get past the Telegraph paywall, the gist is that that the European
Union has accused the British intelligence agencies of hacking the EU’s
side of the Brexit negotiations. Apparently, some highly sensitive and
negative EU slides about British Prime Minister Theresa May’s plan for
Brexit, the Chequers Plan, had landed in the lap of the British
government, which then lobbied the EU to suppress publication.
Of course, this could
be a genuine leak from the Brussels sieve, as British sources are
claiming (well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?). However, it is
plausible that this is the work of the spies, either by recruiting a
paid-up agent well placed within the Brussels bureaucracy, or through
Here is some more:
We also have
confirmation from one of the early 2013 Edward Snowden disclosures that
GCHQ had hacked its way into the Belgacom network—the national
telecommunications supplier in Belgium. Even back then, there was an
outcry from the EU bodies, worried that the UK (and by extension its
closest intelligence buddy, the U.S.), would gain leverage with stolen
Yes, I agree. (Also, as an
aside: It seems likely that both the spies from the USA and
Britain get around not spying on persons from their own
letting them be spied upon by their colleagues in the other country,
and exchanging their findings.)
So, yes, it is
perfectly feasible that the UK could have done this, even though it was
illegal back in the day. GCHQ’s incestuous relationship with America’s
National Security Agency gives it massively greater capabilities than
other European intelligence agencies. The EU knows this well (...)
Here is more about Great Britain:
On Jan. 1, 2017, the
UK government finally signed a law called the Investigatory Powers Act,
governing the legal framework for GCHQ to snoop. The IPA gave GCHQ the
most draconian and invasive powers of any Western democracy. Otherwise
known in the British media as the “snoopers’ charter,” the IPA had been
defeated in Parliament for years, but Theresa May, then home secretary,
pushed it through in the teeth of legal and civil society opposition.
This year, the High Court ordered the UK government to redraft the IPA
as it is incompatible with European law.
I think this is also true,
and in fact I think that both the GCHQ and the NSA have been
whomever and whatever they could hack (which is nearly everything)
since 2001 at the latest, and that they have extremely
dossiers about very many persons, though indeed it also may be true
that these quite often have not (yet) been read by human eyes.
The IPA legalized what
GCHQ previously had been doing illegally post-9/11, including bulk
metadata collection, bulk data hacking, and bulk hacking of electronic
It also gave the
government greater oversight of the spies’ actions, but these measures
remain weak and offer no protection if the spies choose to keep quiet
about what they are doing.
Here is Machon's conclusion:
So, perhaps this is
indeed a GCHQ hack. However justifiable the move might be under the
nebulous concept of “national security,” this event will poison further
the already toxic Brexit negotiations. As Angela Merkel famously, if
disingenuously, said after the Snowden revelation that the U.S. had
hacked her mobile phone: “No spying among friends.” But perhaps this is
an outdated concept—and the EU has not been entirely friendly to Brexit
I think she is probably
correct, and this is a recommended article.
Is Netanyahu, Not Corbyn, Who Deserves 'Unequivocal Condemnation'
article is by Richard Silverstein on Common Dreams. It starts as
Everyone and their brother
in the UK - at least the tabloid media and pro-Israel apologists - has
got it into their heads that the Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn laid
on the grave of the Palestinian mastermind of the Munich massacre
while visiting Tunisia in 2014. Is any of this true?
Well, yeah, some of it. He
was in Tunisia. He did lay a wreath. He did honour the memories of dead
Palestinians. But nothing beyond that. He laid a wreath that
commemorated the 60 Palestinians and Tunisians who died in an Israeli
revenge attack on PLO headquarters in Tunis. He did
not lay a wreath at the grave of Salah Khalaf, also known as Abu
Iyad, the former deputy to Yasser Arafat, who was assassinated by
Israel in 1991 and who is buried nearby in the same cemetery.
I think this is all
quite correct. Here is some more:
Before we get into high
dudgeon over this, let's remember that many Israeli presidents and
prime ministers have blood on their hands - terrorist blood. Yitzhak
Begin and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi all ordered the murders, bombings and
assassinations of both British and Palestinian civilians. Ben-Zvi even ordered
the assassination of a Palestinian Jew, Jacob Israel de Haan, a
charismatic anti-Zionist leader who he deemed a threat to the early
Yishuv political movement.
These men are lionized by
the Israeli state and its citizens. They are heroes of the nation.
Israelis flock to their graves in droves and opine upon their role in
building the nascent state. Why then do we condemn someone like Corbyn
for holding sympathies for the Palestinian dead, while ignoring the
exact same behaviour by Israelis? It's beyond hypocrisy. In fact, it's
Well... Jacob Israel de
Haan was murdered nearly 100 years ago, in 1924. I think that is quite
long ago. Then again, I agree with Silverstein that Corbyn has been
dealt with quite unfairly (and still is, in many of the
propagandistic papers, simply because they dislike - and fear
Here is more:
Well... the positions of
Netanyahu and Corbyn are quite different, but I admit that I
Corbyn (without agreeing with him) and that I dislike Netanyahu. And in
any case, many English papers did and do lie a lot about Corbyn.
Why shouldn't we condemn
Netanyahu as roundly as others condemn Corbyn? Corbyn has never ordered
anyone assassinated. He's never ordered an invasion of any foreign
country. All of which Netanyahu has done again and again.
Not only is this Tunis charge
completely fabricated, the incident in question is known, and Corbyn spoke
about it and explained it in a TV interview over a year ago.
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
Contrary to what the
Telegraph reports, Corbyn's gesture does not indicate support for the
Brotherhood. It indicates support for victims of a brutal massacre by
the Egyptian military junta. But then, this is hardly the first time
the British press has pushed out Islamophobic propaganda. In their
desperation to deliver a fatal blow to Corbyn, a significant section of
the UK's media will continue to lie and lie and lie.
Yes, I agree with that
and this is a recommended article.
Why Not Just Powerful Unions Instead?
article is by Kevin Drum on Mother Jones. It starts as follows:
I have published about
Warren's proposal before (here) and
this is an addition. Here is Kevin Drum's proposal:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
thinks big corporations have too much power, so next week she’ll be introducing
new legislation to address that:
Warren’s basic idea is that
workers have lost power over the past few decades and therefore have
seen sluggish wage growth. At the same time, this has allowed
management and shareholders to pocket
profits of corporations since they don’t have to fight workers for
a bigger share.
That’s where my bill
comes in. The Accountable Capitalism Act restores the idea that giant
American corporations should look out for American interests. Corporations
with more than $1 billion in annual revenue would be required to get a
federal corporate charter. The new charter requires corporate
directors to consider the interests of all major corporate
stakeholders—not only shareholders—in company decisions. Shareholders
could sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those
This approach follows the
“benefit corporation” model, which gives businesses fiduciary
responsibilities beyond their shareholders….My bill also would give
workers a stronger voice in corporate decision-making at large
companies. Employees would elect at least 40% of directors.
Why not instead
propose a truly simple and powerful proposal to boost unionization
throughout the American economy? If your goal is to increase the power
of the working class, this is the way to do it. It’s been done in
America before, notably during the “Golden Age” of the 40s and 50s when
America was supposedly greater than it is now. It produced a strong
economy. It didn’t pauperize the rich. It’s easy for workers to
understand. And you’re going to need a Democratic president and 60
Democratic senators to pass it, just like Warren’s bill. If the
Democratic Party is ready for Warren’s new idea, it’s ready for my old
idea. What’s not to like?
Actually, why not both?
Anyway... this is a recommended article.
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 (!!).