from September 13, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Thursday,
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 September 13, 2018:
1. America's 'Deadly, Dangerous and Destabilizing Role' in
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. Humans Could Trigger a Huge Vegetation Change
3. Kavanaugh Has No Business Sitting on Supreme Court
4. Ten Years After the Crash, Tax Competition Threatens the
Economy and Democracy
5. 9/11 – A Firefighter’s Perspective
'Deadly, Dangerous and Destabilizing Role' in Global Arms Supply
This article is by
Valerie Vande Panne on AlterNet and originally on Independent Media
Institute. It starts as follows:
Yes, quite so.
want peace—in the world, in their country, and in their own homes and
Even the most
committed Trump supporter might want peace in Latin America and the
Middle East—if it means “illegal” refugees stop “pouring” in to the USA.
were deployed to 149 countries in 2017 alone.
to a 2016 International Criminal Court report, U.S. troops allegedly
committed war crimes in Afghanistan, and the U.S. military and CIA
allegedly tortured at least 88 people in Poland, Romania, and other
countries as well.
So why is it then that so many
Americans work for private, for-profit companies profiting from war?
And why are so many Americans invested financially in the merchants of
death profiting from war and manufactured terror
around the globe?
And it may be added that since the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991, the USA, with by far the biggest army plus investments in
the whole world, has effectively taken over most of the world,
from China and some associated states, and indeed has done so in part
by having its troops deployed in no less than 149 countries
in most countries in the world).
Besides, the questions in the last quoted paragraph may be answered
quite plausibly - as is no doubt clear to Vande Panne - by just
repeating the word that occurs three times in the last paragraph: For
Here is some more, namely about a new report by CodePink:
new report, War
Profiteers: The U.S. War Machine and the Arming of Repressive Regimes,
a handy guide to the companies that manufacture weapons, and who they
are selling them to. The report is primarily focused on Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed
Grumman, and Raytheon—the
largest military manufacturers in the U.S., and their deals with Saudi
Arabia, Israel, and Egypt.
States is the leading purveyor of arms sales, global war and
militarism,” the report
800 military bases in 80 countries around the world, the U.S. has a
larger military budget than the next
seven countries combined, as well as an arms industry that
dominates the global arms trade.”
And not only that, the USA's aggression is being dressed in propaganda:
It’s not just the
arrogant language leaders use, but also the corruption of language. The
notes that, “Officially sanctioned terms like ‘defense’ and
‘security’ act as a subterfuge to diminish and camouflage the deadly,
dangerous and destabilizing role that the United States is playing in
agree. Here is the ending of this article:
This is a strongly
The numbers of
people working in this sector—nearly half
a million officially in the Big Five mentioned in the report—is
troublesome considering the number of EPA employees who have left under
the Trump administration: an “exodus”
of over 1,600
employees who are refusing to be a part of the problem rather than
As Eisenhower said,
“Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing
imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with
arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.” That can start by moving
your money—and your employment—to a different sector. But first, arm
yourself with knowledge.
You can access the full
CodePink report here.
Could Trigger a Huge Vegetation Change
This article is by
Tim Radford on Truthdig and originally on Climate News Network.
It starts as follows, and is a bit more about the coming several
hundreds of years than is usual in Nederlog, but then I have
been concerned about increasing feedback effects ever since
first reading "The Limits
to Growth" in 1972:
The planet’s greenery –
prairie grasslands, riverine swamps, Sahel drylands, European
woodlands, tropical rainforest and Alpine meadows – could be about to
by a huge vegetation change as the world warms at a dangerous
The warning comes not from
computer simulations of what could happen under the notorious
“business-as-usual” scenario, in which humans go on burning ever
greater quantities of fossil fuel, to raise the levels of greenhouse
gases in the global atmosphere, but from a simple natural experiment
while humans were still Neolithic nomads.
Between 21,000 and 14,000
years ago, near the end of the last Ice Age, the
world warmed by between 4°C and 7°C [7.2 F and 12.6 F]. And
the world’s plants preserved a register of the changes during that era.
Yes indeed, although
there also are considerable differences with - say - 15,000
An international research
team reports in the journal Science that
they collated and examined the data based on the fossilised pollen
evidence of bygone ecosystems from 594 sites on every continent except
Antarctica, to record the way forests died back, new species invaded,
and the nature of the landscapes changed.
And, they say, there is
evidence that climate change is already imposing a new plant hierarchy
on the landscape, and major transformation could be on the way. But
there are two big differences between the climate shift near the end of
the last Ice Age and the present global warming.
Back then, the temperature
rise, and the shifts in vegetation, took thousands of years. Then, the
temperature shifted between familiar boundaries: glacial and
But under the
business-as-usual scenario, humans are now warming the world at a rate
an estimated 65 times faster than late in the last Ice Age. And since
the temperatures are already much higher, any changes in the next
century or so could exceed anything the world experienced in the last
two million years.
This is simply true,
though indeed the implications are speculative. Then again,
there must be large changes simply because the temperatures "in the next century or so could exceed
anything the world experienced in the last two million years".
Here is the last bit
that I quote from this article:
“If we allow climate change
to go unchecked, the vegetation of this planet is going to look
completely different than it does today, and that means a huge risk to
the diversity of this planet,” said Jonathan
Overpeck, of the University of Michigan, one of the scientists who
launched the five-year study.
“We’re talking about global
landscape change that is ubiquitous and dramatic. And we’re starting to
see it in the United States, as well as around the globe.”
Possibly so. All I
affirm here is that there probably will be big changes in
the next few hundreds of years - that is, provided Trump does not
a nuclear war. And this is a recommended article.
Has No Business Sitting on Supreme Court
This article is by Robert Reich
on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
Yale Law School, from which
Brett Kavanaugh got his law degree, issued a statement about him with
glowing quotes from professors attesting to his impeccable legal
Perhaps the Yale Law
faculty deemed his credentials impeccable because he graduated from
Yale Law School. Then again, Clarence Thomas also graduated from Yale
Law School (as, in full disclosure, did I).
The reason Kavanaugh should
not be confirmed has nothing to do with his legal credentials. It’s the
blatantly partisan process used by Trump and Senate Republicans to put
him on the Supreme Court.
Yes indeed: I quite
agree with Reich. Here is more by him:
So it’s not enough that a
prospective Supreme Court justice have impeccable legal credentials.
The person must also be chosen impeccably, so that the public trusts he
or she will fairly and impartially interpret the Constitution.
Process matters, now so
more than ever.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed,
it will be due to a process that has violated all prevailing norms for
how someone should be chosen to be a Supreme Court justice.
Quite so. Here Reich starts
list of several arguments that I will not copy. His main argument,
think, is this:
The Trump administration
has asserted executive privilege to shield 100,000 page of Kavanaugh’s
White House records from release – an assertion so broad that senators
can’t even read behind closed doors documents that might shed light on
issues the public might reasonably consider important, such as whether
Kavanaugh endorsed the Bush administration’s infamous torture memos.
That is: You simply
cannot nominate someone - for life, also - to the
Supreme Court on the
basis of the fact that those who have to approve his nomination are denied
the reading of over 100,000 pages of materials that may be
quite relevant to the legality of his nomination.
That is itself not
justice, but a mockery of justice. Reich also mentions these facts:
Meanwhile, Trump himself is
an unindicted co-conspirator in a government criminal case concerning
campaign finance violations in the 2016 election. He is also under
government investigation for possibly obstructing justice, and for
colluding with a foreign power to intrude in the 2016 election on his
But Senate Republicans are
unwilling to delay a vote on Kavanaugh until these cases are resolved.
I'd say that the Senate Republicans are behaving very
unreasonable here, but I like the arguments to be mostly limited to the
missing 100,000 pages of evidence on Kavanaugh's past behavior.
Here is the ending of Reich's
When a sitting president
spews venom daily, and when Congress has become a cauldron of bitter
partisanship, American needs a Supreme Court that can be trusted to
fairly manage our national disagreements. The Constitution demands no
Tragically, Brett Kavanaugh
will further divide us. For this reason alone, he shouldn’t be
Well... I don't quite
that the - agreed upon - fact that "Brett Kavanaugh will further divide" the Americans is a good reason not
nominate him. I do agree that the fact that 100,000 pages
about his past behavior have been repressed is a very
good reason not
to nominate him. And this is a recommended article.
Years After the Crash, Tax Competition Threatens the Global Economy and
article is by Wayne Swan on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
Ten years ago, the
global financial system was rocked by the largest crisis since the
On September 15,
2008, the US investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for
bankruptcy after its highly leveraged housing loan portfolio finally
collapsed under the weight of widespread mortgage defaults. The global
economy lost its nerve, and hundreds of thousands of individuals lost
their jobs, their homes and livelihoods.
The loss of potential
output in advanced economies over the next several years was the
equivalent of wiping
the German economy off the map. The crisis that followed Lehman
Brothers’ collapse was the almost inevitable culmination of decades of
lax financial regulation.
I agree with this,
although I believe that the (bolding added) "loss of potential
output" is a fairly speculative
Then again, I also
want to stress the fact that this Nederlog and this site
are the only ones that
consistently have spoken about the
crisis the last ten years, even though it was and has been a
for the 90% that are not very rich nor belong to those that the very
rich pay well.
Here is some more:
Despite the early
remedial efforts of the G20, the crisis has still left lasting scars on
many measures of output and employment,
ensuring that at
least some moves to roll back regulations that would weaken
financial systems have been roundly rejected.
While the pace of
regulatory repeal may have slowed, a parallel race to the bottom – in
corporate tax – has accelerated. And its consequences threaten to be
just as long‑lived as the fallout from the financial crisis.
The trends are
troubling. In late 2017, Donald Trump slashed US corporate tax rates
from 35 to 21 per cent, driving record share buybacks and CEO
the expense of wage growth for the rest of the workforce.
In fact, I think a
somewhat more plausible reading may be that most deregulations have
been done, and now is the time to hand the rich most of the
the taxes they once paid, namely by slashing their taxes. (If I
well, incidentally, in the time when America was great in Trump's
which are the Eisenhower years of the 1950ies, the taxes the rich
were 69% or 79% of their gross incomes.)
Here is more:
As a group of leaders
from government, academia, and civil society, the Independent
Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT), of which I am a member, is
convinced that ending the race to the bottom on corporate tax is a
matter of global urgency. Tax is not only the price we pay for a
civilised society, or the quid pro quo levied on the private
sector for the provision of public infrastructure and a healthy and
well-educated workforce. Tax is also an essential safety valve which
allows democratic governments to curb the power of unelected corporate
leviathans – some
of which now boast a net worth higher than the GDP of some G20
This article ends as follows:
Quite so. And this is a
strongly recommended article.
For the ICRICT, the
fairest and most effective approach is for
multinationals to be taxed as single firms doing business across
Without global responses such as these,
economies can falter, and democracies fail. The lopsided society that
encourages a race to the bottom and permits multimillionaires and
multinationals to hold 10 per cent
of global GDP in tax havens is toxic for democracy and foments
the kind of populist backlash that allows authoritarianism to
flourish. By continuing to run the race to the bottom on corporate
tax, governments run away from their democratic responsibilities and
hurtle headlong into the next global crisis.
– A Firefighter’s Perspective
article is by Greg Bacon on The Off-Guardian. It starts as follows:
Here we are, at the
17th anniversary of the event which shocked America–and most of the
world–that was protected by massive lies still in use today. I am going
to use two examples to show the readers why the official 9/11 story is
a fraud and massive psyops campaign to give the USA an excuse to
illegally invade nations, kill millions, wound millions more, create
untold misery and fear for innocent people, at the same time knocking
off predominantly Islamic states that Israel wanted destroyed and which
would make Wall Street & defense contractors a ‘killing’ off the
killings. And to use the 9/11 lies to justify an ever-growing police
state both in the USA and most of the West, especially England.
Yes, I think Greg Bacon is
probably correct, and in any case I am one of those who never
believed "the official 9/11 story", indeed for reasons that Greg Bacon
discusses in the rest of this article.
In fact, he proceeds by showing that he is a
real and prominent fireman. I will quote none of this, but I quite
Here is the first important piece of evidence that Bacon has that is
not - at all - covered by "the official 9/11
story", and it has to do with the
fact that more
than a 1000 of the victims of 9/11 have not even been identified by a
DNA analysis, and this for the reason that there simply is no
DNA of them to be found - which in fact is very strange:
bones–especially the large ones, the femur and pelvic bones, are very
resilient and tough. Modern crematoriums can’t even completely incinerate some human bones:
So what kind of energy was
needed to obliterate a human body into hundreds of pieces? Not a
pancake collapse, that’s for sure. But we still have over 1,000 WTC
victims that have NOT been ID’d, because they haven’t been able to find
any DNA to test.
Again, what kind of energy
does it take to vaporize a human body. Not the energy generated by a
structure fire and building collapse.
I agree with
add as an aside that the Wikipedia spouts pure propaganda
Minute bone fragments and vaporized bodies weren’t the only oddities
from the official story line. When the South Tower collapsed–more like
exploded–it ejected a steel beam weighing about 20 tons, sent it flying
thru the air over 350 feet, and still had enough energy left over to
impale itself in the Deutsche Bank building.
I agree with this is as
well, and indeed both make a similar point: The fires that
destroyed the WTC victims were far hotter than they would have
been if they were only kerosene.
Here is Bacon's
Now the lies are being
recycled again, this time the MSM and White House have put Iran in it’s
psychotic gun sights, even though they had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and
are NO threat to the USA, but which Israel wants destroyed so they can
be the only ME power, both financially and militarily.
If we let those
blood-thirsty WH maniacs attack Iran, the world’s economy will probably
collapse, since very little oil will be shipped out of the Persian
Gulf. If you think the 2008 MBS fraud that set off that recession was
bad-and it was-attacking Iran would be an even bigger economic
I am asking those that are
still with me to find their voice and be like that Howard Beale news
anchor character in the movie “NETWORK” that would standup during his
newscast and shout, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this
That’s what we need to do
regarding the 9/11 LIES. We need to expose the truth or forever resign
ourselves and offspring to a life of poverty, tyranny, terror attacks,
misery and a police state that will smother our inner light.
I thank you the reader, for
your precious time and OffGuardian for being gutsy enough to print this
blog. For as we all know, telling the truth can get one in a lot more
trouble than telling lies.
I basically agree,
although I also think that (i) truth and the U.S. government
rapidly growing more and more incompatible, and that (ii) the
Wikipedia's utter and pure propaganda
assures me that those who disagree with the "the
official 9/11 story" are
"conspiracy theorists" - which both support my conclusion that
there will be no true story about 9/11. And this is a