1. What Should Left-Wing
Policy Look Like?
This is a Nederlog of Sunday, August 21, 2016.
As usual (since well
over three years )
I spent over an hour looking through over 30 website publications
looking for crisis materials, but I found only one item that I was
willing to review .
Probably, this is because it is Sunday. It also doesn't matter, because
I do have fairly long lists of alternatives, and this is one of the
alternatives: item 1 expands something I wrote four
months ago, in an item called "What Should
Policy Look Like?".
This also is the only item today and in fact it doesn't even
answer that last question, though this has a good reason:
I think the left - as I know it, having parents who were (intelligent,
honest, fair) communists for 45 years - has largely
disappeared or else has very much changed the last 45
years, which means (among other things) that asking the
question "What Should
Policy Look Like?" should be preceded by
an answer to the question "What Is Left-Wing These Days?", and
indeed also by some other questions.
And I did pose that question and four others four months ago. Today I
will take up these five questions; and give some details and
backgrounds about each.
1. What Should Left-Wing Foreign
Policy Look Like?
first (and only) item today is by me, and is a quotation from the
Nederlog I wrote four months ago, on April
23, 2016. The quotation is in this part from April 23:
First, here is the quotation, that has been
changed a little by adding numbers and by including a note in the text:
There is not only (0) hardly any
antiwar movement in the USA (apart from
some veterans, to be sure), (1) there also is a radical
of the real left , that morphed into the quasi-left of
Democratic Party, that stands to the right of Reagan on many issues;
(2) the disappearance of most of the free press; (3) the rather
complete disappearance of any real "leftist ideology" in
the mainstream media, and its exchange to a mostly linguistic
position of political correctness; (4) the morphing of the U.S.
government into a collaboration with the multinational corporations
(especially banking and computing, at least in this administration: it
was oil in the previous one); and (5) the constant secret surveillance of everyone
by the secret services, that probably
dampens the enthusiasm of many to protest the government.
This is quoted with minimal changes from
I think each of these changes was major, and each of
these changes contributed to the disappeareance from the mainstream
media and most of the paper press of most antiwar positions, of most genuine
leftist criticisms of society, and of almost any rational leftist
criticism of the government.
And I am merely briefly
these major changes here. I think they are all very
important, and I
think they also have been very consciously striven for since
1970ies by "the political right" and by "the rich" (to use two
labels, that need expansions, but not here and now).
I think also most of these changes
to the right comprise both of the
large American political parties (both did shift to the right, and
quite a lot as well), and much of what Powell and Reagan wanted for the
right has meanwhile been achieved.
I will probably deal with
these 5 important changes in a later Nederlog.
I will now expand these six points because I think each
constituted a major change in the USA, and they all happened
since 1971, that is within the last 45 years. Also, my point of
reference is 1970, firstly because then none
of the changes I will list had taken place; secondly, because the left,
although varying a lot internally, was still recognizably what it had
been for some 100 or 120 years then; and thirdly because I was 20 in
1970, and recall it very well.
Also, I start with the first change, which also is the least important,
which will allow me to make some more or less statistical remarks that
also applies to the other five changes.
(0) There is at present (in 2016, compared to
1970) hardly any antiwar
movement in the USA (apart from
some veterans, to be sure)
First of all, there clearly is some "antiwar movement" in the
present USA, but it is also true that, compared to 1970, it is very
much less, which is a bit odd because the USA is involved in many wars
Two changes that account for some of the differences are (i) there was very
much more protest in the USA in the second half of the Sixties then
there is today, and (ii) president Nixon terminated the draft
(under which any
male of the appropriate age might be called to soldier for some years)
and replaced it by "a professional army" fully made up of military
There are other reasons why the antiwar movement mostly collapsed, and
indeed it didn't fully, but this will be the case for most of the major
changes I will discuss, and I merely say that I am talking roughly
in this Nederlog, in part because of limitations of space and time, in
part because of normal statistical variations, and in part because no
one knows everything, while in politics
there are very many lies and also very
many attempts to keep many things as secret as possible.
(1) There also is a radical
of the real left, that morphed
into the quasi-left of the
Democratic Party, that stands to the right
of Reagan on many issues
So what is "the real left", that I will continue to call "the
Left" as distinguished from "the left" (between quotes), which is the
later variant, and mostly is not leftish if the Left is
The real left - the Left - are persons who criticize capitalism in
terms of equality and justice, and who want to replace it (by
various means, that vary from elections to revolutions) by some other
social system that is far more equal economically, and far
more just ethically.
The Left, as defined, goes back to the 1820ies (when "socialism" was
first defined) and existed for some 170 years after that, and always
was defined, in principle, as I just did: You were a Leftist because
you did not think capitalism was equal economically, which you
did not think fair, and which you wanted to replace -
somehow - by another social system
that was much more equal economically and much more just, because you
believed that the kind of economical and social changes you were for
were just not realizable under capitalism.
Incidentally: The replacement of capitalism by another system (often
but not always called socialism, in Leftish circles) could happen in
several possible ways, that helped to distinguish various Leftish
parties: There were those - usually called social democrats -
who thought it should happen by elections,
and there were those - usually called communists or anarchists
- who thought it (also) might happen by a real revolution.
But what defined being Left was not the amounts of radicalness
or violence one thought necessary to bring about a revolution, but the
fact that those who belonged to the Left believed - somehow, again,
that might differ a lot - in the arisal of another, better, more
just and more equal different kind
of society than the capitalist one.
The Left (as defined) still exists, but it is far more rare
it was, and is so in good part because the two "leftish"
multi-millionaires Bill Clinton and Tony Blair set out to destroy it
(by the "Third Way"
And they largely succeeded because they got help from many
leaders from leftish parties who were, like Blair and Clinton, much
more interested in their own incomes, their own status
and their own power (like Wim Kok, in Holland),
and who believed that a modicum of "justice" was all that was
required to get a benevolent capitalism, and who completely
discarded any revolution of any kind that would attack
any capitalist or any billionaire and take away anything they had. 
(2) The disappearance of most of
the free press
This took place mostly between 1995 and 2005, and happened in part
for economic reasons:
It became much cheaper and much more effective to
advertise on the internet than it had been in the papers, which meant
that the papers rapidly lost most of their advertisements, and thus
most of their incomes. This made most of them loose money, which again
made them cheap buys for rich men, which is what happened to most
larger papers. (The smaller just went broke.)
But this was not all of the reason the free press mostly disappeared:
This was also the policy of the new owners of the papers that
kept existing, and it was policy of the new editors they introduced:
The new owners were generally rich and rightish; they wanted to see
their own values and prefer- ences in their own papers; and this meant
that most criticisms and most investigative reporting that had appeared
in the papers when these had money through advertising were simply
removed, as were most critical journalists, and were replaced by a
mixture of propaganda,
infotainment and plain amuse- ments for the readers ,
all backed up by claims this was "objective", because journalists
refused to take positions, and showed "both sides" to the questions
they did deal with.
In fact, this was the death of the free press, for a real free
press requires a real knowledge of real facts;
journalists who dare to take positions (and are protected by
their editors); and vigorous critical writing.
If many writers on democracy are right, the death of the free press is
the death of democracy, for the simple reason that most people need
a real free
press to come to understand the real facts.
But this is not all that happened:
(3) There also was the rather
complete disappearance of any real
"leftist ideology" in
the mainstream media, and its exchange to a
position of political correctness
I sketched part of the reasons for the disappearance of the Left (with
a few exceptions, that generally are small, numerically) in (1) and
(2), but in fact considerably more happened that destroyed the Left,
which also was the work of the multi-millionaires Clinton and
Blair, although they also got rather a lot of help from many others:
The Left ideology - we want another social system, that is much
more equal, much more honest, and much more fair - was
almost completely replaced by a "left" ideology that -
completely arbitrarily! 
- denied the possibility of any other social system than capitalism,
and insisted that being "leftish" - instead - consisted of some
environmentalism, considerable amounts of (gerund) feminism ,
and an ideology which was not anti-capitalistic or pro-socialistic
anymore, but which was mostly made up of these three theses:
(1) everybody is equal (or equivalent): You, and Hitler and
are all of the same equal (equivalent) value, as is anybody
else; (2) identity- politics: People are no longer
individuals but are
identified by group-
characteristics, which again are subject to (1);
and (3) political correctness: No one is supposed to say
harmful about anybody, for that would be violence.
I think all of that "leftish" ideology is nonsense, and if being left =
being "leftish", neither myself, nor my - communist - parents, nor my -
communist and anarchist - grandparents are or were "leftish" in any
sense, and indeed the same applies to every classical
Leftist I have ever met (very many, for my father was a
prominent communist). 
(4) The morphing of the
government into a collaboration with the
This is another major change, and there also was a considerable
warning against it, before this really happened, namely
Eisenhower's warnings against what he called the military-industrial
complex (<- Wikipedia) of 1961.
In fact, the depth of this major change is difficult to gauge, because
the relevant information about the US government tends to be much
hidden, or else gets overlaid with large doses of propaganda.
But in any case: Bush Jr.'s government was mainly run by people who
came originally from oil, while Barack Obama's goverment was
mainly run by people from banking or from computing,
many of whom also came and went by "the revolving door" that the
government has created to get the people it wants.
It is very difficult to say how much influence these people
banking, computing or oil have on the government, but it very probably
is very considerable, for otherwise it is difficult to explain the very
many advantages banking and computing were assigned (often by persons
who come from banking or computing, and who also will return to it),
which includes eight years of no prosecutions of any
member of any major bank "because these are too big to fail"
(that is, in other words: because the minister of justice is corrupt).
What is certain - it appears to me - is that this fundamentally
changed the relations between the government and the multinational
so far has worked out extremely well for the profits of the multinational corporations. (Also, this appears to me to be
another example of the major force of corruption.)
(5) The constant secret surveillance of everyone
by the secret services
This is both the last of the five changes; the one about which - by far
- the least is known; and one which is extremely
dangerous, because the secret
services have succeeded, by means of the utter lie of "terrorism"
(which is an
utter lie because
more people are killed by cows than by terrorism), to have
"the right" to steal everything they can get from the computers
and cellphones of anyone anywhere, that is currently of
some 4 billion persons.
For me, this is the beginning of a neofascism, that is, the
dictatorship of the government and/or the multinational corporations
plus the secret services, and that also includes the mostly completely
manipulation of everyone by the secret services, that will guarantee
(once this works well, which it doesn't quite yet) that any government
can do as it pleases, because everyone agrees to it, or else is
sifted out by the secret services, and will somehow disappear in prison
or will be simply killed or otherwise disappear for ever.
This is as far as it gets today. There is a whole lot more to say, but
that has to wait.
For the moment, I merely repeat that someone who asks "What Should Left-Wing Foreign
Policy Look Like?" should first
answer the question what a left-wing policy is,
and somebody who does that on the basis of relevant knowledge will find
that most of the current left-wing is no longer Left as my parents and
grandparents were (and indeed all their friends, and anybody else who
was a Leftist between 1840 and 1970) but is "left" in a completely
different, and fundamentally false and intentionally falsified sense.
And to end this with a comment on today's title "Approaching neofascism: Five major changes in
the USA since 1970":
I do think that each of the changes (1) to (5) is a major danger that
threatens to help bring about neofascism, which will be the subject of
 In fact, this started on June 10, 2013, when I first read
about Edward Snowden. Since then, nearly all of Nederlog is about the
The main reason for that change is that I think that secret services
that know absolutely everything about absolutely everyone
are the best way to impose an eternal fascist dictatorship
on almost everyone.
You may disagree, but I think it is very likely that I know more about politics
- you can check the link - and more about fascism than you do
(for I am 66 with two communist parents who were communists for 45
years, and who were in the antifascist resistance in WW II, in which my
grandfather also was murdered by the Nazis, and I am an intellectual
who has read very much).
And while this does not prove in any way that I am
right, it does give my main reason to write as much about the crisis as
I did, and certainly since June 10, 2013.
 Yes indeed.
In fact, here is a little summary of what I do every day since
over three years: I get up, nearly immediately check between 30 and 40
websites, which takes about 1 1/2 hour, in which I select what I want
to review; select the texts; and write the reviews. Altogether,
depending on the number of items reviewed and the length of the texts
and the reviews, this takes between 4 and (maximally and rarely) 8
hours, after which I can do the other things I have to do that day.
It is therefore - normally, though not always:
sometimes I review something I dislike a lot, but not often - an honor
to be reviewed by me, simply because I generally refuse to
review ill-written stuff, obvious baloney, ordinary trash, and
Finally, and especially because of the badness and the propaganda of
the mainstream media, I think that the only
way an intelligent and interested person does have these days to try to
understand what is happening in the world is to do something like I do
every day: Check out rather a lot of the - especially, but not only -
And since I know that is not well possible for many, that is one
additional reason for Nederlog (as it has been the last 3 years).
 In case you think I accuse Clinton,
Blair and many other "social democrat" leaders of the past 45 years of corruption,
you are quite right:
I do (and Clinton is worth $120 million at present, while Blair
is worth around £80 million: they did extremely well, and were
the examples for many "leftish" political leaders).
 Here is the
repetition of a note I wrote on August 18, since this serves well and
indicates the levels of change in the press that I know best:
Since I am Dutch and unfortunately am
forced to live in Holland (for I am ill and very poor), I do know most
about Holland. Well, I have read the NRC-Handelsblad
daily for forty (40)
years, namely from 1970 till 2010, and I have seen it grow from a
decent liberal academic paper to a good liberal academic paper (in the
1980ies), since when I have seen it decline, and decline, and decline
(and being sold, and resold) to its present awful position of
infotainment-shit with little real news and no intelligent real
It's quite amazing - and no: You don't
need to comment if you haven't read it as long as I have, or don't have
an academic diploma as good as mine. (I know
it looks different for much younger people, and for less intelligent
people: I am formulating the opinion of a man who has read it for over
40 years, and who is very intelligent, not those of a 20
year old with an IQ of 115 who has no idea of what it was like in the
 I do insist that the only
reason Clinton and Blair denied there was any
socialism, was that this position supported their own private
There is absolutely no proof that socialism (or anarchism) in
any of its many different forms is impossible, and indeed there can
be no such proof, because socialism and anarchism are in
the end ethical
positions, that is, they depend on the kinds of values a person
It is possible that many socialists are too optimistic, too kind, too
idealistic etc. - but then again these are values much rather
than facts, and
rarely decided by what the facts are.
 There are in fact at least two distinct
types of feminism: Gerund feminism, which is in the end based
on the physical differences between men and women, and equity
feminism, which is in the end based on the ethical position that
men and women should be treated as legal equals.
I cannot be a gerund feminist (I lack a vulva, as a male), but I am an
equity feminist, though I should add that this is at present a small
minority among feminists.
 This is repeated from yesterday:
My parents and grandparents
(communists or anarchists, who also had the
great - and quite uncommon - courage to resist the Nazis when they occupied
Holland) did not believe any of the above and
neither do I: It is all utterly false bullshit and
baloney: Nobody is equal or equivalent to anyone; no
individual is a
group nor should be identified with a group; and almost everything that can be said, may
be said, also if it
is supposed to harm others, and especially if what is being
said is (probably) true.
I summarized a lot here, and also left out a lot, but I first wanted to
get this out of the way:
If this is what it takes to define a
modern "leftist" I am certainly not a "leftist" and never
was one, nor were my parents and grandparents (and yes, I had a whole
lot to do with those who did
insist on their "leftishness" in the university, but no, I never
mistook this for being Leftist: If my parents were real Leftists, and
were, the politically committed students I met in the UvA all were fakes
- as indeed they were).