in all the world is more dangerous, than sincere ignorance and
-- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
from April 9, 2019
This is a
Nederlog of Tuesday,
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 three 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 April 9, 2019:
1. Reckoning With Failure in the
War on Terror
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. As NATO Marks 70th Anniversary A New
Nuclear Arms Race
3. The Many American Lies Trump Has Laid Bare
4. Sanders Vows to Ban 'Disastrous' Anti-Labor 'Right-to-Work'
5. The Insect Apocalypse Is Coming
With Failure in the War on Terror
article is by Chris Hedges on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
Donald Trump’s ascendancy
the presidency, as Max Blumenthal points out in his insightful book “The
Management of Savagery: How America’s National Security State
Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump,” was made possible
not only by massive social inequality and concentration of wealth and
political power in the hands of the oligarchic elites but by the
national security state’s disastrous and prolonged military
Yes, I think the above
is true - and the "concentration
of wealth and political power in the hands of the oligarchic elites" started (in the USA)
in 1980, with the election of Reagan as president, while "the national
security state" furthered Brzezinski's 1968-1969 project of
- everybody overseen by anonymous spies who can
read everything one
writes, and know everything there is to know about anyone -
grew itself spectacularly with the introduction of the internet, and
has been prospering ever since. (For more on Brzezinski's project see
here: Crisis: propaganda
and Control: Brezezinski 1968.)
Here is some more on
what the anonymous spies caused:
the national security apparatus have resulted in hundreds of thousands
of deaths, over 5 million desperate refugees fleeing to Europe, the
destruction of entire cities, the squandering of some $5 trillion of
U.S. taxpayer money, rampant corruption and criminality. The mandarins
of national security, rather than blunt the rise of radical jihadism,
have ensured its spread across the globe. The architects of this
imperial folly have a symbiotic relationship with those they profess to
hate. The two radical extremes—the interventionists in the national
security apparatus and the radical jihadists—play off of each other to
countenance ever-greater acts of savagery. The more perfidious your
enemy, the more your own extremism is justified. We are locked in a
macabre dance with the killers we created and empowered, matching war
crime for war crime, torture for torture and murder for murder.
Yes indeed, although perhaps
this may be rather reformulated: "The national security apparatus"
the anonymous spies of the government (and many other governments, but
let's leave these out for the moment) are there, in part, to create
largest possible investments in weapons
of all kinds, which is why war
is both uppermost in their minds and strongly in their
Here is some more:
The binary view of the
imagined by right-wing ideologues such as Richard Pipes
during the Cold War, defined as a battle to the death against godless
communism, has been reimagined by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and American neocons such as Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Fred Fleitz,
Kagan, Steve Bannon, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald
Rumsfeld and leaders of the Christian right including Gary Bauer
Bennett to become a battle to the death between the “barbarity” of
Islam and the “civilized” ethic of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a
rebranding of the Cold War, so useful to the retrograde forces of
capitalism in crushing popular dissent and so profitable to the arms
Yes indeed, although in fact the
previous Cold War, between the USA and the USSR
(that went down in
1991 and was replaced by capitalism), also still lingers on,
because average Americans who lived between 1950 and 1990 swallowed enormous amounts of propaganda
about "the Russians" (as is also shown by Russiagate).
Here is some more:
Those in the alternative
who question the Russia narrative and chronical the imperial disasters
are in this new version of the Cold War branded as agents of a foreign
power and hit
with algorithms from Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to
deflect viewers from reading or listening to their critiques.
Politicians, such as Bernie Sanders and Labour Party leader Jeremy
Corbyn, who push back against the war lust are smeared with the same
nefarious charge. It is, as Blumenthal writes, a desperate bid by the
war industry and the interventionists to mask the greatest strategic
blunder in American history, one that signals the end of American
Yes indeed - and this is
of the - very many - signs that the internet was designed as and
functions as the best way towards neofascism
that has ever been
designed: Now totalitarianism
- except of course on Wikipedia, that completely
"totalitarianism" to fit Brzezinski's definition of it, which
completely incompatible with Orwell's use of the term - gets
and extremely strongly furthered by the programs used by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter that
make it impossible or difficult to find anti- fascists.
And this is the ending of the
The corporate state, its
legitimacy in tatters, seeks to make us afraid in order to maintain its
control over the economic, political and military institutions. It
needs mortal enemies, manufactured or real, at home or abroad, to
justify its existence and mask its mismanagement and corruption. This
narrative of fear is what Antonio
Gramsci called a “legitimation doctrine.” It is not about making us
safe—indeed the policies the state pursues make us less secure—but
about getting us to surrender to the will of the elites. The more
inequality and injustice grow, the more the legitimation doctrine will
be used to keep us cowed and compliant. The doctrine means that the
enemies of the United States will never be destroyed, but will mutate
and expand; they are too useful to be allowed to disappear. It means
that the primary language of the state will be fear. The longer the
national security state plays this game, the more a fascist America is
Yes indeed - and once
again I point to the main example of the neofascists,
which was the fascist
(or Nazi) Hermann Goering, who said this:
And it still works, and
this is a strongly recommended article.
NATO Marks 70th Anniversary A New Nuclear Arms Race
article is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! I abbreviated the title. It
starts with the following introduction:
Commemorations—as well as
protests—were held last week to mark the 70th anniversary of the
formation of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. President Trump used the anniversary to push for NATO countries to increase military spending.
During an Oval Office meeting with NATO
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump demanded Germany and other NATO countries increase their military spending
from 2 to 4 percent of GDP. The push for
more military spending could benefit U.S. weapons manufacturers
including Boeing. This comes as Acting Pentagon Chief Patrick Shanahan
is under investigation for improperly advocating on behalf of Boeing,
where he worked for 30 years. We speak with Joe Cirincione, president
of the global security foundation Ploughshares Fund.
I say, although I knew
about half of the above (but not about Boeing). Here is some
GOODMAN: We turn now to
continue our look at the 70th anniversary of the founding of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The
alliance was formed April 4th, 1949. Commemorations, as well as
protests, were held last are to mark the anniversary. President Trump
used the anniversary to push for NATO
countries to increase military spending. During an Oval Office meeting
Tuesday with NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, President Trump demanded Germany and other NATO countries increase their military spending
from 2 to 4% of GDP.
The push for more military spending could benefit U.S. weapons
manufacturers, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and others. This comes
as Acting Pentagon Chief Patrick Shanahan is under investigation for
improperly advocating on behalf of Boeing, where he worked for more
than 30 years.
Yes. Incidentally... what
is the use of the NATO if
the whole block it was designed
to oppose in 1949 has completely disappeared
since 1991?! It is
certainly not anymore "to stop communism".
Then there is this:
CIRINCIONE: We’re cursed
in this discussion by a very narrow definition of national security.
We’ve all come to accept that national security equals military forces
and weapons, when, in fact, as you point out, a national security is
more often determined by the health and welfare of its citizenry, the
system of justice, whether citizens feel that they’re engaged in the
country and have a role in the governance of that country. And spending
on military is just one small part of national security, but this has
become the test of whether a country is carrying its fair burden.
But let’s put this in perspective. What are we talking about here? The
world as a whole, every year, spends about $1.7 trillion on military
weapons and forces. One-point-seven. The United States and our NATO allies account for $1 trillion of that. So
more than half of all global spending is spent by the United States and
our NATO allies. The NATO
allies alone account for about $240 billion. That’s what they spend.
What are they spending it to guard against? Well, if you think that
Russia is the main threat, Russia only spends about $66 billion every
year on defense.
Who makes the money off of this? Well, most of the money that we spend
in this country on defense, and that the Europeans spend, go to a
relative handful of defense contractors: Boeing, Lockheed Martin,
Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, etc. And they lobby incessantly for these
kind of increases, in Washington, in NATO
headquarters, in the capitals of Europe.
Yes indeed: I think the above
quoted bits are a very sound argument. Here is one more bit:
CIRINCIONE: This is the
kind of Cold War policy that we thought was behind us. We thought the
arms race was over. It’s not over. We are in a new arms race. Every
single nuclear-armed country is building new nuclear weapons and
heading towards a confrontation point. You’ve got to be a real optimist
to think that you can keep thousands of nuclear weapons in fallible
human hands indefinitely and something terrible is not going to happen.
I am very worried about the direction of the arms race, the direction
of our policies.
Yes indeed, and so am I.
this is a very strongly recommended article.
Many American Lies Trump Has Laid Bare
This article is by
Andrew Bacevich on Truthdig and originally on TomDispatch. This is from
near its beginning:
Yes, although I also
that the phrase "the common good" might work in the USA if
redefined to mean "the common good of white protestant Archie Bunker
types", although this is an aside.
Let me offer seven
illustrative examples of myths that the Trump presidency has
Myth #1: The purpose of
government is to advance the common good. In modern American
politics, the concept of the common good no longer has any practical
meaning. It hasn’t for decades. The phrase might work for ceremonial
occasions — inaugural addresses, prayer breakfasts, that sort of thing
— but finds little application in the actual business of governing.
Here is more:
Yes, that simply is true: The
Republicans, since Reagan, were the big spenders
claimed to be the opposite).
Myth #2: Good
entails fiscal responsibility. This is one of the hoariest
shibboleths of modern American politics: feckless Democrats tax and
spend; sober Republicans stand for balanced budgets. So President
Ronald Reagan claimed, en route to racking up the massive deficits
that transformed the
United States from the world’s number one creditor into its biggest
debtor. George W. Bush doubled down on Reagan’s promise. Yet during his
presidency, deficits skyrocketed, eventually exceeding a trillion
dollars per annum. No apologies were forthcoming. “Deficits don’t
matter,” his vice president announced.
Here is more:
Yes, I think this is also
simply true, although I think I should add that "justice" comprises
great lot more than the actions of the Supreme Court, and that it seems
to me that at least a part of the judges in the USA still seem to work
more or less decently.
Myth #3: Justice is
blind. The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
and the controversies surrounding his confirmation affirmed in
unmistakable terms what had been hidden in plain sight since at least
1987 when Robert Bork was denied a seat on the court. The Supreme Court
has become a venue for advancing a partisan agenda.
Here is more:
Yes again: This also seems
quite true - and to call the men (and women) who mostly prepare for
"wise men" was anyway another lie.
Myth #4: The “wise
are truly wise. To keep America safe, protect core U.S.
interests, and promote peace, presidents since World War II have sought
advice and counsel from a small self-perpetuating group of foreign
policy insiders claiming specialized knowledge about how the world
works and America’s proper role atop that world. In the 1960s, thanks
to the disastrous war in Vietnam, the reputation of this cadre of “wise
men” cratered. Yet they weren’t finished, not by a long shot. Their
ranks now including women, they staged a remarkable comeback in the
wake of 9/11. Among the ensuing catastrophes were the wars in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
Here is more:
Precisely - for (in case
you didn't know) the Persian Gulf is on the other side of the globe
compared to the USA. (But then again, American troops and American
bases are located in most countries anyway.)
Myth #5: The Persian
is a vital U.S. national security interest. For decades now,
Americans have been fed this line with unhappy results. Dominating the
Persian Gulf, we’ve been told, is essential to preserving our way of
life. Stripped to its essentials, here’s the gist of the argument: They
have the oil and we need it.
Hee is more:
I think this is not
formulated well, for it seems - to me, at least - better formulated as
"Prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace depend on Washington's
helping Israel" (which is a myth as well).
Myth #6: Prospects
Israeli-Palestinian peace depend on Washington playing the role of
honest broker. Here, too, let’s give President Trump his due.
He has definitively exposed the entire peace process as a fiction and a
fraud. In fulfilling the
promise made by previous presidents to move the U.S. embassy to
Jerusalem and by endorsing the
Israeli claim to the Golan Heights, Trump has
stripped away the last vestiges of pretense: Washington favors just one
side in this festering dispute, as it has since at least the 1960s.
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
Myth #7: War is the
continuation of policy by other means. So, in a riff on Prussian
military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz’s famous maxim, generations of
American statesmen and military officers have professed to believe.
Originally styled Operation Enduring Freedom, the war itself has
certainly endured. It began when this year’s crop of high school
graduates were just leaving the womb. In terms of total length, it’s on
track to outlast the Civil War (1861-1865), U.S. participation in the
two world wars (1917-1918, 1941-1945), the Korean War (1950-1953), and
the Vietnam War (1965-1973) combined.
Again, I fail to say
how Clausewitz's dictum has been turned into a myth, although I agree
that the US has been fighting "wars against terrorism" for nearly
years since 2001. But this is a strongly recommended
article, in which
there is considerably more than I quoted.
Vows to Ban 'Disastrous' Anti-Labor 'Right-to-Work' Laws
This article is by
Julia Conley on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
Yes indeed, and I agree
with Sanders and like to add that the "so-called "right-to-work" laws" were intentionally called that,
again is a sign of how much is falsified in American politics. For
laws were in fact laws that made unionizing more difficult, which in
turn strongly helped the employers to pay as little as possible to
Sen. Bernie Sanders on
Monday told a gathering of union machinists that as president he would
keep states from undermining their rights by pushing for a federal ban
on so-called "right-to-work" laws.
Calling the rules
told the International Association of Machinists that he would
call on lawmakers to pass the Workplace Democracy Act, a proposal which
he has regularly introduced in Congress since 1992 and which he plans
to bring to the Senate floor once again in the coming days.
Under "the most significant
labor legislation introduced in very, very long time...we will end once
and for all the disastrous right-to-work laws in 28 states," Sanders
said to loud applause.
Here is one more bit:
Precisely. And this is a strongly
Under right-to-work laws,
unions are barred from requiring that all workers contribute dues if
they benefit from the union's contract. The laws have been aggressively
governors and lawmakers in recent years, with proponents claiming
they protect workers from being forced to join a union.
"The reality is that
federal law already makes it illegal to force someone to join a union,"
the AFL-CIO says.
"The real purpose of right to work laws is to tilt the balance toward
big corporations and further rig the system at the expense of working
families. These laws make it harder for working people to form unions
and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working
Insect Apocalypse Is Coming
article is by Robert Walker on Truthout. I abbreviated the title. It
starts as follows:
In a new report, scientists
of a precipitous drop in the world’s insect population. We need to pay
close attention, as over time, this could be just as catastrophic to
humans as it is to insects. Special attention must be paid to the
principal drivers of this insect decline, because while climate change
is adding to the problem, food production is a much larger contributor.
released by researchers at the Universities of Sydney and Queensland
and the China Academy of Agricultural Sciences, concluded that 40
percent of insect species are now threatened with extinction, and the
world’s insect biomass is declining at 2.5 percent a year. In 50 years,
the current biomass of insects could be cut in half. Such a sharp
decline could trigger a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems.”
Yes indeed, and I
written about the disappearance of many insects before, which
I have also explained before, very much less food for humans (and
mammals, birds etc.).
Here is some more:
While the volume of
research on the threat of species extinction is growing rapidly, most
of the focus has been on the declining population of fish and large
mammals. Compared to larger species, insect species and their
populations get very little attention. In making their report, the
authors conducted a comprehensive review and found 73 historical
studies of insect decline. That’s a tiny fraction of the reports
written about the population loss of larger species. Yet arthropods (insects, spiders,
crustaceans) account for about half
of the world’s animal biomass — 17 times more than humans.
Precisely - and incidentally,
it also is a fact that far less is known about insects
about larger animals.
Here is one reason why
insects are important:
percent of bird species rely upon insects as a primary food source,
and birds consume up to 500
million tons of insects every year. Moreover, it is estimated that 80
percent of wild plants depend upon insects for pollination.
I think it is a
presumption that as the insects decline by 2,5 per cent per year, so do
the 60 percent of the birds who feed on them.
Then there is this:
The World Wildlife Fund
estimates that wildlife populations, on average, have declined 60 percent since 1970. The
International Union for Conservation of Nature now classifies 26,000
species as threatened with extinction, and leading scientists
publicly warn that a “sixth mass extinction” has commenced.
Note that "since
is just less than 50 years. Well... in these 50 years there is no less
than a 60% decline in wildlife. And of course I agree that
this is well
described as the “sixth
Finally, here is the
explanation for what is happening to insect life and wildflife:
Simply put, the insect
decline, in one form or another (including climate change), is
attributable to humans. Our growing numbers and our appetites are
driving insects to extinction. There is no letup in sight.
Humans already use
a land mass about the size of South America to produce crops for
consumption and an area nearly the size of Africa to feed our
livestock. Add in the pesticides and fertilizers that we depend upon to
boost crop yields, and it’s no wonder that insect populations are
I completely agree
this is a strongly 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 3 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 (!!).