1. Nader: Trump is a
Freeloading, Pontificating Empty
Suit Who Has Cheated on
Everything He's Done
2. A Trump
Presidency Would Likely Be Even Worse Than
3. Into the Unknown: Government Surveillance After
CETA Advances, Reports Warn Deal Will Ruin
Economies, Cement Corporate
This is a Nederlog of Tuesday, September 20, 2016.
is a crisis log with 4 items and 4 dotted links: Item 1
is about a good interview with Ralph Nader about Donald Trump (and
there are 5 more inter- views with him at Democracy Now!); item 2 is about why a Trump presidency will be - very
probably - much worse than most think; item 3
is about how the British are transforming their government in the
neofascist direction by surveilling everyone and
keeping this secret;
and item 4 promises again a change in the
neofascist direction, this time of Europe, by the adoption of CETA,
that provides all rights and all regulations to the rich
In case you visit my
Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need
to click twice
to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for me, but
possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my
In any case, I am now (again) updating
the opening of my site with the last day it was updated.
(And I am sorry if you have to click several times to see the
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was.)
Nader: Trump is a Freeloading, Pontificating Empty Suit Who Has Cheated
on Everything He's Done
item today is by Amy
Goodman on Democracy Now!:
This starts with the following
As The New York Times reports Donald Trump
received at least $885 million in New York City tax breaks for his real
estate projects since 1980, and also sued three mayoral administrations
when the city sought to deny him tax breaks for a pair of Trump
skyscrapers, we speak with consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Trump is "a
freeloader on the backs of taxpayers who have to make up the difference
for the taxes he doesn’t pay, or get less public services," Nader
Incidentally, $885 million in tax breaks means that
Trump received on average between $20 million and $30
million dollars each year.
And I like Ralph
Nader (<-Wikipedia) who was interviewed by
Democracy Now! and indeed is on the Democracy Now! site with no less
than six interviews. This is from the part where Nader speaks about
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about—I want to go through
the records of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. How would you
characterize Donald Trump and what he represents, from foreign policy
to domestic politics, specifically what he is saying that he would do
as president of the United States?
RALPH NADER: Well, you don’t know what he’s
going to do, and he doesn’t know what he’s going to do. He’s basically
wondering how he ever got to the top of the Republican Party and turned
it into the Trump dump. He has no impulse control. He has no factual
content in his head. He doesn’t really know much about anything other
than being a gambling casino czar that goes bankrupt and creams off the
crop and leaves the devastation to the workers and the creditors and
the small business suppliers. Donald Trump has cheated everybody he has
been able to cheat. He’s cheated workers, small businesses, taxpayers.
He’s cheated creditors. And almost everything he attacks people for, he
has done in spades. He refuses to release his tax returns, because it
not only shows he hardly pays any taxes and he’s a corporate welfare
king getting all kinds of freebies from the taxpayer, but he has
entanglements with his partnerships all over the country and the world
that may prove very embarrassing to him. So, this is what the
Republican Party has reaped by allowing the electoral process to be
commercialized and corporatized. So, if you say, "What is he going to
do?" the one thing we know is, if anybody dares offend his ego, they’re
going to get a lash back. And when you’ve got your hand on the nuclear
button and you’ve got the kind of power you have in the White House,
that’s a very dangerous option.
I agree - to the best of my knowledge, which
meanwhile (after writing more than 1300 Nederlogs on the crisis alone) is
pretty informed -
with all that Ralph Nader says, but I want to add one more thing
because I am a psychologist:
AND these kinds of facts very strongly suggest
that Donald Trump is mad, besides
being a major liar and a major cheater, while he besides - Nader is
right! - hardly or not at all knows many of the facts a future
president of the USA should know.
There is this on Trump's relations to his
supporters, who are mostly poor and badly educated white folks:
AMY GOODMAN: For his supporters, they may say
the man uses the loopholes, which means he knows the loopholes, and
then he’ll close the loopholes. Is that true?
RALPH NADER: That’s interesting. The millions
of his supporters would be very, very critical of a neighbor that
worked the welfare system unfairly. And he’s a corporate welfare king.
He’s a freeloader. He’s a freeloader on the backs of taxpayers who have
to make up the difference for the taxes he doesn’t pay, or get less
public services. So, to the Trump supporters, who are believed to take
any criticism of Trump personally, to them, I say, reduce Trump to a
neighbor, and see if you’d really want to live next to that man, who is
a boastful, pontificating empty suit and who lies as a matter of
conviction rather than just principle.
I think Ralph Nader's answer is quite good,
although I don't think it will change the opinions of most of his mostly
poor and badly educated white folks, whose existence, stupidity and ignorance are
important, and not only to Americans but also to
Europeans like me - and I am sorry, but I decided almost
ago that THE main dangers in politics,
and ethics are
the almost total lack of decent education, the native or acquired
many, and the consequent ignorance of very many voters, and I
think the same.
And while I did change my mind the last 50 years on quite a
number of points,
I did not change my mind on that point. 
Here is more by Nader on the enormous cheat
(deceiver, liar, fraud) that
Donald Trump is:
There is more in this interview and - as I said -
there are five more on the site of Democracy Now!
RALPH NADER: Yeah, well, for example, he’s gone
bankrupt deliberately four or five times in his Atlantic City and other
casinos, because he rakes off the cream from the bankruptcy, and he
gets rid of his debts. So he’s cheating his creditors. He’s cheating
his workers, who are left on the street. With Trump University, he’s
cheated his students. That’s now in litigation. He’s cheated the
taxpayers, because anybody who’s a corporate welfare king is a
freeloader on the backs of middle-class taxpayers, who have to pay
their taxes. And he’s boastfully cheated on matrimony. Imagine a guy
boasting about cheating in the past on his own matrimony. And you have
evangelicals supporting him? You see, this—he is doing us a favor by
showing us the degree of disintegration in our society, civically and
That’s why we’re holding this four days’
convocation in Washington, two at Constitution Hall, called "Breaking Through Power."
This article is recommended.
2. A Trump
Presidency Would Likely Be Even Worse Than You Think
The second item is by Steven Rosenfeld on AlterNet:
This starts as follows:
Americans have a habit of badly
misjudging presidential candidates, living with awful results and
forgetting. Ronald Reagan squandered the Cold War’s peace dividend with
tax cuts for the rich and left America deeply in debt. Donald Trump is
hawking that same approach with added chaos: high-end tax cuts, more
military spending and new trade tariffs, which will trash the economy.
I agree, and add that there are at least two
reasons why "Americans have a habit of badly
misjudging presidential candidates": (1) a large
part of the Americans have no adequate ideas about either politics
therefore (2) a large part of the Americans are simply deceived and
by very many (often rich, often corrupt) politicians.
Then there is this, which I like a lot:
Hillary Clinton keeps reminding
audiences what Maya Angelou said: “When someone shows you who they are,
believe them the first time.” In that vein, Keith Olbermann’s recent video
reels off hundreds of Trump’s vicious attacks, lies, boasts, ego and
dark fantasies. “The Republican Party has actually nominated for
president an irresponsible, unrealistic, naive, petulant, childish,
vindictive, prejudiced, bigoted, racist, Islamophobic, antisemitic,
misogynist, fascistic, authoritarian, insensitive, erratic, disturbed,
irrational, inhuman individual named Donald John Trump,” he sums up.
“This is madness!”
Yes indeed, and here are the links to my
review of Keith Olbermann's recent video, and a link to the video
itself and its
text: Quite instructive, quite honest, and based on
many linked facts.
Next, there is this on what a Trumpian presidency might mean:
Nobody can know what will happen
if Trump is elected. No politician gets everything they promise. But if
you compare the differences in the proposals and attitudes put forth by
Clinton and Trump, you get a quick sense that this election’s results
will affect our daily lives in dramatically different ways. Many people
don’t appreciate the presidency’s power, even as Congress tries to
sabotage it. Others say that American government can withstand a
demagogue. Do we really want to find out?
I agree that "[n]obody
can know what will happen if Trump is elected",
although I do insist that whatever happens it will be a major
and very unfair mess.
Here are 11 areas where Clinton and Trump
are poised to take the country in starkly different directions.
Steven Rosenfeld puts it in the form of 11 questions, each of
elucidated by text. I only give the questions here: If you
read the texts, click on the last dotted link above:
1. Will there be a
revival of American racism against
My own answers to these questions, in
so far as these can be answered by a yes or no answer is a probable
in 10 out of 11 cases. Question 10 has no yes or no answer, and my own
feeling is: Very far.
2. Will police
reform, criminal justice reform and gun
control, be totally lost?
3. Will the use of
force abroad grow like the embrace of
force at home?
4. Will gains made
by women be set back decades?
5. Will the
economy be trashed by a debt-fed bubble?
6. Will climate
change be ignored?
7. Will student
debt and tuition remain sky high?
8. Will health care be recaptured
9. Will the rich
keep getting richer?
10. How far will
civil rights be rolled back?
11. Will right
wingers control the Supreme Court for
In any case, this is also a recommended article.
3. Into the Unknown: Government Surveillance After Brexit
The third item is by Harmit Kambo on Common Dreams, and Harmit Kambo is
the Director of Campaigns & Development at Privacy
This starts as follows:
As the UK Parliament returns from
its summer break, everyone’s back to talking about Brexit. But there’s
another policy of existential significance to our democracy that we
really need to be talking about. I refer here to the innocuously named
‘Investigatory Powers Bill’. The House of Lords have been debating the
‘bulk powers’ - what we would call the mass surveillance measures - of
the Bill over the recent days. We are literally weeks away from the
most draconian and far-reaching surveillance legislation of any
democracy becoming law.
I say, for I missed the fact that
Britain is voting in a few weeks time on the degree of neo-fascism
which it will be governed, for that is what total
surveillance of everyone is for and will bring about:
Given that it's all about state
surveillance powers, no wonder the government gave this legislation a
name so boring that it has just slipped under the public’s radar
undetected. 267 pages of highly complex, technical and very confusing
clauses brings to mind Voltaire: “The secret of being a bore is to tell
everything”. Not that they are telling us everything, of course.
Despite the length of the legislation, it's highly ambiguous: there are
plenty of ‘known unknowns’ and ‘unknown unknowns’ about what state
bodies’ newly-lawful surveillance practices will entail.
Loss of almost all rights, of almost all freedoms, of almost all legal
protections of almost anyone; change of the ordinary people into
surveilled sheep or slaves; and the triumph of the rich and their
political governors. 
Also - since the wars that the US and Great Britain started are going
on for fifteen years now, and since I know about the total
of everyone since 2013, I am certain all of this was willed
Here is some more on the new "laws" that will introduce more and more
neofascism until they are totally removed:
As the UK’s all-encompassing
ambitions for government surveillance powers look to pass into law,
there is also an important question now over whether in a post-Brexit
Britain key judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU) will be able to curb those excesses. Perhaps they could have.
People have often looked to international bodies to act as a
bulwark on the worst excesses of laws such as those promised by the
Investigatory Powers Bill. But the current political climate leaves us
with no such guarantee.
I very much doubt that the Court of Justice of the European Union will make any
human rights in Europe have been totally sickened and mostly
destroyed by the European version of the once very good original 1948
Declaration of Human Rights: What the Europeans put in its place is
absolute opposite of human rights, for the simple reason that almost
each and any human right it assigns, is assigned in the context of
explicit regulations that give the police and the secret service all
rights to break any human rights. 
And second, because the British left the European Union: Why should
they care for judges that belong to a federation they no longer
Finally, this is what threatens for the Bill of Rights the British had:
It will be replaced by a bill of "rights" that assigns their
"rights" to the police and the secret services:
But the twist in the story - and
the twist of the knife - is that the UK Government is pushing forward
with its plans to scrap the UK Human Rights Act, and attempt to fulfill
our ECHR obligations with a new ‘Bill of Rights’. Make no mistake, the
British government is not undertaking such a drastic, complex, and
constitutionally fraught process to give Britons more human rights. So
no one knows if these judgments will be worth the paper they're written
on in a post-Brexit UK.
Actually, I suppose myself that "these judgments will be worth the paper they're
written on": They are undemocratic, they are
unequal, they give
the police and the secret services all powers, they will deny that the
British have any decent human rights, but formally it will all
"the parliament" (made up mostly of liars for their own advancements)
has approved or will approve.
I think neofascism is approaching fast, both in the USA and
Great Britain. And most of the corrupt politicians we have these days want
it, for it will benefit themselves (but no: they will never
call it what I call it).
CETA Advances, Reports Warn Deal Will Ruin Economies, Cement Corporate
The fourth item is by Lauren McCauley on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
As the pro-corporate Canada-Europe trade
deal notched another victory on Monday, a pair of new studies
underscored how the health, rights, and livelihoods of people on both
sides of the Atlantic will suffer under the pending deal.
Germany's minority Social Democratic
Party (SPD) voted
in favor of the Comprehensive
Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), making it increasingly likely
the trade deal will be approved by the country's Parliament. The
backing came despite the fact that on Saturday over 300,000 people
across Germany marched
in opposition to the deal and its "toxic" sister agreement, the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
I am not amazed that the German Social
Democrats wipe their asses with the rights and freedoms of their voters
(and all other Germans):
The Dutch social democrats do so already
for at least 28 years, for in each of these years they have freely
agreed to support the illegal drugsdealers to deal
their illegal drugs, and doing that they
have protected an illegal turnover in illegal drugs of all kinds that
now probably, in 28 years, approximates a trillion dollars  (not quite, but close).
But hardly anybody cares in
Holland, and since Maarten van Traa was either murdered or killed in a
very strange accident, hardly anyone in Holland even mentions
that each year (since 1988) about 10 billion Euroos worth
in just marijuana and hashish are turned over illegally, and
probably at least double that if the other drugs (cocaine,
heroine, ecstasy etc.) are also counted in.
Indeed, if there is anything in
the press (rarely) as a rule the earnings and the turnovers are divided
by 100 or 1000, and most "facts" that are mentioned are false,
while absolutely no one asks about the integrity of Dutch
policians, of Dutch judges, of Dutch district attorneys, given
that each of them knows or ought to know that with their
permission in Holland each year, for 28 years now, between
$10 billion and $25 billion euroos are turned over in Holland in
illegal drugsmoney, that are protected (since 28 years) by
all Dutch politcians, all Dutch judges, and all Dutch district
But nobody cares, and illegal drugs are
cheap and easily available, in Holland. I think probably the same
will happen to
the CETA in Germany:
As Deutsche Welle noted,
CETA "is scheduled to be signed by Ottawa and Brussels next month.
However, each [European Union] member state would then need to fully
ratify the agreement for it to come into force."
that the agreement will only increase corporate power and that its
provisions will "water down or abolish environmental, health, and
consumer protection regulations."
AND - this critic says - it will
introduce neofascism, by making everything that upsets the
projected profits of the multi-nationals a crime that will be
by new "courts" of "law" that are not
accessible for anyone but states and multi-national corporations, and
that are headed by lawyers who work for the multi-national corporations.
Here is more on the new "legally" (to be) introduced neofascism:
Indeed because these threats to
the environment, the public, the democracy, the national governments,
national courts, and the hitherto existing laws SPELL
neofascism (but yes: I know the politically
correct "left" doesn't like to offend anyone
important by naming them properly).
According to the study, CETA would
"arguably grant ever greater rights to foreign investors than NAFTA,
increasing the risk that foreign investors will use CETA to constrain
future government policy."
What's more, the report points out that
Canadian subsidiaries of U.S.-headquartered multinationals will also be
able to use these provisions to sue European governments. Given that
E.U., Canadian, and U.S. companies are already "among the most frequent
users of investment arbitration...there is every reason to expect that
they will use CETA to rein in government measures."
Commenting on the study, Nick Dearden,
director of the UK-based Global Justice Now, said
the agreement "would open up [E.U.] government to a deluge of court
cases by North American multinational corporations and investors. It
presents a threat to our ability to protect the environment, to protect
the public, and to limit the power of big banks. It's thoroughly
undemocratic and must be stopped."
This ends as follows:
My answer: The end seems to be neofascist
government that rules
for the rich, and only the rich, and degrades everyone else to a
totally surveilled slave, who risks arrest and disappearance if they
say or write anything anywhere that might been seen as criticism of the
government or the rich.
"There are a lot of myths about free
trade and CETA. Here's an independent study that suggests that there
aren't economic gains—only job losses, inequality, and the erosion of
the public sector," said
Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians.
"But that's only the economic part,"
Barlow added. "We haven't begun to quantify the damage to our laws,
policies, and democracies through regulatory harmonization and
corporate lawsuits challenging our environmental and social standards.
Not to mention attacks on farmers and municipalities. So what are we
getting out of this?"
That seems the most probable future. (I am very
glad I was born in 1950 and not later, but that's just about me.)
And indeed I never will, and totally reject the Dutch prejudice
part of the Dutch laws) that "everyone is equivalent to everyone else",
for this implies that my father and grandfather (both locked up
concentration camps by the Nazis, whom they resisted, which my
grandfather did not survive) are of the same human value as
fascists etc. Utter trash - though I do agree (if asked) that very
Dutchmen had the courage to go into the resistance against the Nazis.
(But both my father and my mother did.)
Besides, I also believe that there are at least as large
differences in human beings intellects as there are in their faces or
shapes: We are all alike, as apes without fur, but some are a
lot smarter than others. (And no, this doesn't make them
into better human beings: How good someone is and
dares to be depends less on his intelligence
than on the values
she really has.)
 Everybody may see this differently, but
I insist both on my opinions and on my rights
to utter them, and I like to add that my opinions are those
of a 66 year old who took one of the best psychology M.A.'s ever, after
having been denied - totally illegally - the right to do the M.A. in
Also, my opinions on fascism and neo-fascism are not only based on a
huge amount of readings in politics (the last link only links a
little, though what it links is quite
important to know) but also on the fact that my grandfather was
arrested by the Nazis for resisting the Nazis and murdered in a
concentration camp, while my father
(his son) survived more than 3 years and 9 months of four concentration
(and he indeed was knighted in 1980, it seems as the only
ever to be knighted as long as the Dutch Communist Party
O, and the last link contains the English translation of his memories
of the concentration camps that my father (barely) survived.
 Here is just one example (and many
of the articles of the so-called "European Convention on Human Rights"
are thus conditioned, which makes it not a convention on human
rights, but a convention on the rights of the police, the secret
services and the government. Again, compare the classical
Declaration of Human Rights that contains none
of these conditions):
This is Article 8 on your privacy, your correspomdence and your
personal freedoms in the European Convention:
This means that the secret services and the
completely free "in the interests of national security, public safety
or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others" to rape all
on personal freedom, privacy and protected correspondence.
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his
private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others.
In contrast, here is the corresponding Article 12 of the real
All spying amd surveilling was
and forbidden by article 12; almost all spying and surveilling
are legal and permitted for virtually any
reason under article 8.
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon
his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of
the law against such interference or attacks.
It is the same with most other articles: The so-called "European Convention on Human Rights"
is - compared to the 1948
Declaration of Human Rights - an intentional
 Simply because
according to the one and only
parliamentary report that was written on it, that was pretty
thoroughly researched (i) the amount of only soft drugs sold
from Holland is nearly 10 billion euroos
each year, while (ii) if the other drugs - cocaine, heroine, ecstasy
etc. - are included, the totals "get much higher". And since in 1996
there were almost
as many users of cocaine, heroine or ecstasy as there were of soft
drugs, and since the Van Traa Report said explicitly that "the dealing
in" illegal "drugs is one of the most important and quickest growing
sectors in the Dutch economy", I think it is fair (since cocaine, heroine or ecstasy are a lot
more expensive than marijuana and hashish) to put these amounts to (at
least) 15 billion euroos each year, which makes the total amounts in 28
years 28 * 25 billion euroos
= 700 billion euros.
I think myself - who survived nearly four years of terror and
threats from the softdrugs-dealers that mayor Van Thijn of Amsterdam
gave his “personal permission" to deal from the bottom floor of the
house where I lived, that these 700 billion illegal euroos owe
their existence to (ex-)mayor Van Thijn, who proposed these deals
between the law and the illegal dealers in drugs.
Here is a link
to the Dutch note in which these billions are argued (not by me:
By parliamentarians and others who wrote the report).
The only question I have (to which I do not know the answer)
is: How much did Van Thijn appropriate of these 700 billions?
(I will never know, for the Dutch will never