1. Capitalists of the
This Is an American Tragedy: Republicans Must Step
Up and Defeat Donald Trump
3. 'Hypocrite' Holder Says Snowden Performed
4. Establishment Democrats Courting
5. Bill Kristol Announces That ‘There Will Be An
Independent Candidate’ To
Sabotage Donald Trump
This is a Nederlog of Tuesday, May 31,
is a crisis log. There are 5 items with 5 dotted links: Item 1 is a quite interesting article about capitalism (with several precisifications by me); item 2
is by a supporter of Clinton who also thinks that the Republicans ought
to get rid of Trump (and again I precisify some, and also disagree with
some); item 3 is about Eric Holder, who still has
opinions on Snowden (that I am not much inter- ested in, but I am
interested in getting Holder in court, for not prosecuting the
bankers); item 4 is mosty about Sanders vs Clinton (and I agree Hillary Clinton is - at least - a far less capable candidate than Bill); and item 5
is about an assurance by Republican Bill Kristol that there will be an
independent candidate to make Trump fail in becoming the next US
1. Capitalists of the World, Unite!
The first item is by Mike Krauss on Truthdig and originally on
This starts as follows:
The other night I watched The
Greatest Cable News Program That Absolutely Ever Was. The host was
extolling the virtues of capitalism, repeating the claims you can read
in The Economist or Wall Street Journal; that capitalism has lifted
many millions out of poverty world wide.
The same broadcast also reported that
most Americans “could not lay their hands on $1,000” in an emergency.
That figure may be on the high side. Other published reports put it at
$400, including what may be available on a credit card.
The program host missed the
contradiction. You can’t be a capitalist without capital. The
overwhelming majority of Americans don’t have any, and are completely
excluded from the “benefits” of the capitalist system he extolled.
First one or two reasons why I review this
Mike Krauss sounds in some ways like my
father (who was both a sincere and intelligent communist and a social
revolutionary from 1935 till 1980, when he died), and he also mostly
has his (quite classical, leftist) ideas about capita- lism and fascism
more or less correctly.
And next, as to the above first quotation: Yes,
that is mostly true but "the capitalist system" is not
only about (not)
having a lot of money, for it is also about laws, politics,
ideologies (at least) - as indeed very many Americans
may find out if Trump gets elected president.
Then there is this:
Capitalism is not a form of government.
It is a system of wealth management. It does not create wealth, but
only allocates it. It is indifferent to the welfare of people. It has
no social purpose. Private profit is everything.
Over several decades, as millions in
Asia and elsewhere have seen living standards rise, tens of millions of
Americans have seen theirs fall dramatically – low wages, and lost jobs
– in a massive re-allocation of wealth abroad from the once large and
prosperous American middle class.
Again yes and no: Capitalism is
a set of
and an ideology
about what society
should be like that has been
accepted for over a hundred years now (in "the West")
in its more or less present
shape, and these values and their associated ideology have been
incorporated in laws and in politics.
But there are several possible
and systems of basic values for capitalism, and to say that it is "indifferent to the welfare of people. It has no social
purpose. Private profit is everything" is true
only of an extreme form of capitalism, that indeed grew dominant since Reagan and Thatcher, but was not
the same extent and in the same form before
they got political
Then there is this:
In order to mask the growing poverty in
America, the capitalists introduced massive credit, debt and propaganda
to sustain the illusion of prosperity among enough Americans to head
off a revolt against an economic system that clearly no longer works
Americans are now drowning in debt:
families, students, businesses, state and local governments and school
Yes, indeed - and incidentally, these
enormous debts are also a means to keep the
And here we get to why Mike Krauss reminds
me of my father:
In order to form and protect monopolies,
capitalists must dominate governments. These monopolies were once
national in scope. Now they are global. The form of government that
capitalists have always favored is fascism – the integration and
primacy of corporate interests in the government, for which the
military is an agent.
Think Nazi Germany. Its purpose was not
military domination or even control of individual liberty. These were
incidental to the first purpose: the global primacy of German
corporations and the German 1 percent.
This is - to be sure - more
simple-minded than my father's analysis (who was very intelligent but
not well educated, but who knew a lot of Marx, Engels, Lenin and
which he also had to teach for nearly 20 years to all members
of the Communist Party in Amsterdam ), but this is
less as he told me, in my teens (and before).
And there is this, which needs an addition
or introduction that says something
When the bankers and their politicians had
finally succeeded in deregulating
capitalism under Reagan and
(especially) Clinton, they could export their industries from
United States to much cheaper countries (in terms of wages),
with the following effects:
As the accumulated wealth of the
American middle class was re-allocated abroad by the capitalist system,
the capitalists began
the drive to eliminate the drag on profits of global competition by
consolidating into global monopolies.
That is the purpose of the Trans Pacific
and Trans Atlantic “trade” deals promoted by U.S. President Obama,
British Prime Minister Cameron and the global cartel of banksters they
represent, who provide the financing (debt) to enable the capitalists
to compensate each other for lost future profits when one is aggregated
into a new and larger monopoly by another.
The article ends like this:
Capitalists of the world unite! The
fascist future is in reach.
Yes indeed - and it may be added
worked at least 35 years to get to the position in which the very
rich could claim they owe nearly everything, and indeed now they
to be able to change all existing laws and all existing politics and
policies into a much harsher fascist system that almost only serves the
rich (of course, always in the name of "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!").
This Is an American Tragedy: Republicans Must Step Up and Defeat Donald
And I agree with Krauss that the main political threat in the West
these days (and since Bush Jr., at the latest) is the introduction
neofascistic state, government, laws, and policies, which will
probably lead to the manifold
repressions of everyone who publicly objects if Trump gets to be
president of the USA.
The second item is by Seán Patrick Donlan on Salon:
This has a subtitle, which I will quote:
It's time for honest Republicans
to speak out against this dangerous, unprincipled vulgarian. Who has
Only a few, it turns out. I must admit
not amazed, because I think I know since some 45 years
people are considerably more totalitarian
than they let on (in
times of democracy and welfare) and (ii)
the people who are seriously interested in politics tend to be more
tarian than ordinary people (in almost every party of any orientation,
Then again, while I may agree with Mr. Donlan's estimate of
(yes he is - among other things - a "dangerous,
unprincipled vulgarian") I disagree with
admiration for Hillary Clinton.
But in the following he is somewhat reasonable:
Trump is not merely a Republican
dilemma, but an American tragedy. Ideally, conservatives would
acknowledge their role in enabling his candidacy, in moving the
boundaries of acceptable rhetoric so far from reason that he can lie
indiscriminately without fear of correction by journalists anxious for
their next story. But more immediately, Republicans must find ways to
defend their principles without capitulation to a vulgarian seemingly
without principles of any sort.
I agree that many more Republicans than
Donald Trump degenerated their political speech, but I also think the
reason that they were successful is mostly the fault of the
and/or their editors, who no longer, in the main media at least,
get at the facts or the truth, but mostly try to deceive their
public that the propaganda
they bring is "news".
And there is this, which is correct:
Honest conservatives appreciate
the real differences between Clinton and Trump. As conservative writer PJ
O’Rourke said on NPR, “Clinton is the second-worst thing that can
happen to this country, but she’s way behind in second place. She’s
wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal
parameters.” As he suggests, Trump is something else, something
relatively new to American politics, and something to be feared. At
stake is both the soul of the GOP and the collective civility of
American political discourse.
O'Rourke is right ,
and indeed if I were asked
to brand Trump with an adjective as he brands his opponents: The
lunatic Trump. For someone who says and claims what he says
and claims only can be a real lunatic. 
Indeed, I am not by far the only one. Here is a quotation about and by
Republican Bobby Jindal (<- Wikipedia) who
Then again I must also admit that by
last, Republican Jindal decided that he too would prefer his
to his country, and that he too would support
the “absurd egomaniac, dangerous, unstable,
unserious, egomaniacal madman and Narcissist" that is Donald Trump.
made fun of Trump, called him names,
and all-but-laughed at him in a performance reminiscent of the way
Trump himself has mocked the rest of the GOP field.
“absurd,” “a carnival act,” “insecure,” “weak,” “dangerous,”
“unstable,” “unserious,” “shallow,” “hothead,” “small,”
“substance-free,” “power-hungry shark,” “egomaniacal madman”: Those
were just a few of the names Jindal called Trump in his 10 minute
speech …. “I want to say what everyone is thinking about Donald Trump
but afraid to say,” Jindal said. “Everybody knows this is true.”
I say... (and that was - also - an
illustration of the strenght of principle, the honesty and the personal character and courage of Republican former
candidates for the presidency).
3. 'Hypocrite' Holder Says
Snowden Performed Important 'Public Service'
item is by Lauren McCauley on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Though he acknowledged that Edward Snowden
did indeed perform a "public service" by starting a national
conversation about government surveillance, former Attorney General
Eric Holder still insists that the NSA whistleblower should be
prosecuted for supposedly "harming American interests."
"We can certainly argue about the way in
which Snowden did what he did, but I think that he actually performed a
public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the
changes that we made," Holder told
David Axelrod in an interview on CNN's "The Axe Files," which
was published on Monday.
I say. And this from the criminal who refused to do -
already in 1999! - anything against the criminal acts of the very rich
and very powerful American bankers. 
Holder's comments come one week after a
former Department of Defense official revealed
that the Pentagon has deliberately harassed and silenced whistleblowers
who attempted to raise concerns through the proper channels—information
which, for many, validated Snowden's decision to go public with his
advocates said Holder's remarks were "hypocritical"
given the extreme number of whistleblowers that were prosecuted
during his tenure.
In fact, the Department
of Defense official is John Crane, who did a good interview on
Democracy Now! that I reviewed on May 24,
4. Establishment Democrats Courting Disaster
item is by John Atcheson on Common Dreams:
This lists several myths with which "well-meaning",
"honest", journalist "friends" of Bernie Sanders (very prominent in The
Guardian, but also elsewhere) have tried to destroy his candidacy.
Here is one of them:
Myth #1: Sanders can’t win and
his supporters can’t “do the math.” In an attempt to make it
a self-fulfilling prophecy, the entire Establishment is declaring the
race to be over. A typical slant used by pundits, the Party elite, the
corporate media and the rest of the confederacy
of dunces that has opposed Sanders from the start is that Sanders
supporters “can’t do the math.” To hear them tell it, he’s been
mathematically eliminated, or he has “no pathway
to victory” and holding on is just hurting Hillary’s attempts to beat
Here’s the reality: Sanders needs 885
delegates to get the nomination; Hillary needs 613; there are 930
delegates remaining to be won and it is unlikely that either candidate
can clinch the nomination without the aid of superdelegates. Meanwhile,
Sanders is surging, while Hillary is self-destructing, so many of those
superdelegates may be rethinking their commitment to Hillary. And if
they aren’t, they ought to be.
I completely agree - and it is the "confederacy
of dunces" that can't do the math and who
are willing to lie in every way that serves their own interests, and
those of the few very rich.
I skip a myth and arrive at number three:
I think John Atcheson may be correct on
Hillary Clinton's being a lousy candidate. I don't know how she would
appear if her opponent was not
Myth #3: Sanders needs to drop
out; Hillary will do better when she can focus on Trump. If
Sanders’ numbers make him bulletproof, Hillary’s make her a sitting
duck. A wounded sitting duck. She has a high net unfavorable rating,
and she’s even more distrusted than Trump in some polls, so political
attack ads will land on fertile ground.
Her unfavorability and distrust issues are
not just the result of the decades long assault on her by what she
calls the “vast, right-wing conspiracy,” although that’s certainly real
enough. No, Hillary’s problem is that she’s a lousy
candidate. In fact, in both 2008 and this year, she got
less popular as
soon as she began to campaign for the Presidency.
Trump but McCain or Romney, but I do know she mostly lacks the talents
that made Bill Clinton and Barack Obama presidents: A great amount of - fundamentally very false and very dishonest - charm, and flair, and
ready wit, and good command of language, in talking to the press or to supporters. She can't dissemble well
enough, and even her laughter sounds (and is, undoubtedly) quite unnatural.
I don't know about the last part I'll quote:
The main reason I don't know is that I am not
convinced that "Trump can only win if voter
low" - and I don't know how Atcheson can know
Trump can only win if voter turnout is
low, and Hillary Clinton all but guarantees a low turnout.
It doesn’t help that she has a
history of lying, then doubling down on her lies when caught –
something she’s doing again with the IG’s report on the emails.
The closer we get to the Convention, the
clearer it is that Sanders is a far better candidate in the general
But I agree Sanders is the far better presidential candidate than
5. Bill Kristol Announces That ‘There Will Be An Independent
Candidate’ To Sabotage Donald Trump
item is by Michael Snyder on Washington's Blog and originally on the Economic Collapse Blog:
This starts as follows:
It has long been my contention
that the elite are more than willing to
do whatever they have to do to keep Donald Trump out of the White
House. There are many forms that this could take, and one
potential option just became a little bit clearer. On Sunday, the
founder and editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, announced on
Twitter that there “will be an independent candidate–an impressive one,
with a strong team and a real chance.” Kristol has very, very
deep ties to the Republican elite, and so this is certainly not an idle
I say. In fact, I don't know what "the elite"
in the USA is going to do about Trump, and indeed I don't even know who
or what Snyder understands by "the elite". This doesn't mean he may not
be right; it merely means that I haven't
seen the evidence.
As to Bill Kristol:
This is the Wikipedia-lemma on him, and while I don't like him at all,
I agree that (i) he "has very, very
deep ties to the Republican elite" and (ii) he
is right that Trump should be stopped.
According to Snyder, this is the plan:
Hm. Again I don't know who
are what Snyder understands by "the elite" , while I deny that
Kristol etc. "know precisely what they are doing": People in
Of course Kristol and the others that he
is working with know precisely what they are doing.
There is no way in the world that
Romney, Sasse, Kasich or Cuban could win. But that wouldn’t be
the goal anyway. The goal would simply be to deny five or ten
percent of the vote to Trump so that Hillary would win in a landslide.
At one time it seemed like such sabotage
would not be necessary, but now polls have begun to shift and the elite
are beginning to panic.
real politics rarely "know precisely what they are doing" (and besides, Trump
is extremely unpredictable).
Then again, this is a quite interesting possibility: An alternative Republican candidate that is meant to derail Trump and get Clinton elected.
 In fact he was (Dutch)
"scholingsleider" in Amsterdam (which had by far the largest number of
communists in Holland) from 1951-1969. The Dutch term means something
like "leader of education" (in the principles of Marxism- Leninism).
 This must have
cost P.J. O'Rourke considerable trouble (I guess) for he was
for many years a strong Republican, who wrote books (that were rather
popular) with titles like "Republican Party Reptile", which was meant
as a - rather sarcastic - self-description. And I agree he is right, at
least about the fact that Trump is beyond all ordinary parameters,
simply because he is a nut. (In case you don't think so, see the next note.)
 As I have said several times: I am a psychologist, and I do not
think Trump is sane: one who talks like Trump does cannot be sane. In
case you doubt my qualifications (you may), read the rest of this item.
 Yes, Eric Holden filed his candidacy for Attorney Generalship (Head of the Ministry of Justice) in 1999, when he wrote that he would not
prosecute the managers of big banks, simply because - he thought -
"they are too big to fail". And I think that was - quite intentionally
also - the formulation of a criminal end for an Attorney General, which he did reach under Obama, when he also did as he had promised in 1999.
This is - anyway - a quite vague term, especially because "the (real)
elite" may not at all coincide with "the (social) elite", that is a lot
easier to identify, and generally consists of the leaders in politics,
the economy, and perhaps some other fields, like religion and law (but
both of these last two items are farther removed from real social power
than political and economical leaders).
If we are talking about "the (real) elite" I
think that what it tends to mean are the top of the very rich who also
come from families of the very rich, and who are in their forties or
fifties or older. Also, "the (real) elite" generally does not
participate in politics or in economy in the foreground, but they are, if active,
rather active at private meetings and conferences of their likes.
Also, most are not widely known for their elitist activities,
and indeed the closest estimates that I heard about "persons belonging
to the real elite" are estimates for Holland (of several decades ago) that it was in fact mostly ruled (indirectly) by 200 persons from the real elite, and for the USA, in 2004, by George Carlin, that there are some 800-900 of the very rich who make up those who mostly rule (again indirectly) the USA.
I know none of this is precise, but as I said:
"the (real) elite" is a vague term, that is difficult to precisify,
because most of the activities of the real elite are kept secret,
hidden, and in the background.