1. The Frankenstein
Monster Speech: Trump Was a
Rampaging, Paranoid Demagogue
Should Be Applauded for Removing the
Mask of U.S. Power
3. ‘End of Growth’ Sparks Wide Discontent
4. Neoliberalism's Decades-Long Attack on Public
This is a Nederlog of Sunday, October 16, 2016.
is a crisis log with 4 items and 4 dotted links: Item 1 is about Donald Trump, "Pussygate" and the question why the mainstream media only moved against Trump since "Pussygate"; item 2 is about WikiLeaks, and more or less OK, but too weak; item 3
is about "globalization", but I think it mistakes some reactions by
some acadermics/intellectuals with more widespread objections (which
tend not to be about "globalization"); and item 4
is a quite interesting article about "neoliberalism" which seems
mistaken especially in insisting on the propaganda term "neoliberalism",
where I think the - I agree: politically very incorrect - term neofascism seems far more appropriate.
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need
to click/reload twice or more
to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for
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 very sorry if you have to click/reload several times
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
C. In case you visit my Danish site: It now
works again (!), but I do not know how long it will keep working. The
Dutch site still is a mess (but wasn't on Oct 15).
I am very sorry, and none of it is due to me. I
am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that
also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
I will keep this introduction until I get three successive days (!!!)
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen that
for many months now.
Frankenstein Monster Speech: Trump Was a Rampaging, Paranoid Demagogue
The first item today is by Chauncy DeVega on AlterNet and originally on
This starts as follows:
This is followed by a good summary of Trump's
"paranoid style", which I leave to your interests, which again is followed by
this question and answer:
On Thursday, Donald Trump used 51
minutes and approximately 5,000 words to deliver a rage-filled and
almost manic speech to his followers at a rally in West Palm Beach,
Florida. There Trump explained how Democratic presidential nominee
Hillary Clinton and “the media” were conspiring to destroy him. He
reiterated how he would put Clinton in jail if elected president.
Apparently, Trump—and American sovereignty—is also being undermined by
an international cabal of banks that’s led by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Trump also told his faithful followers that he is a good and honorable
man who is being destroyed by lying women who falsely accused him of
Trump’s speech is the paranoid style that has been common to
movement conservatism since the 1950s, amplified by the rumor mongering
and conspiracy theories that are presented as truth throughout the
right-wing news media entertainment echo chamber.
the American corporate news media’s morality before “Pussygate”?
corporate news media outlets gave Donald Trump at least $3 billion in
free advertising. To that end, they encouraged his rise to power in the
Republican Party out of an obsessive need to present a “horse race”
narrative that would draw ratings. There was little attention paid to
the well-documented evidence that Trump’s temperament, as well as
public and private behavior, disqualified him a priori from being
president of the United States.
important, American corporate news media organizations, for the most
part, refused to identify Donald Trump for what he is—a willfully
ignorant fascist, racist, nativist, sexist bigot—out of a fear of being
branded as “unfair” or “biased” against conservatives. They were also
afraid to describe his white supporters as being driven by racism and
racial animus, instead preferring to assign the term “economic
insecurity” to describe their motivations.
In this moment (and unfortunately too
many others before this fiasco), the American corporate news media
failed to guard, watch over and protect American democracy. The Fourth
Estate kowtowed to a fascist.
Yes and perhaps no. I explain:
I agree the American corporate news media did give Trump "at least $3 billion in free advertising",
although I don't know how correct the figure is: They certainly gave
Trump trainloads of free publicity, for at least 9 months.
And I also agree with much of the rest, and notably that the "American corporate news media organizations" "refused to identify Donald Trump
for what he is—a willfully ignorant fascist, racist, nativist, sexist
bigot" (and yes, I know terms like "fascist" are
politically very incorrect, even if they are, in this case, rather adequate).
My "perhaps no" consideration is this: The mainstream news media are
described as if they are all more or less independent entities, that
take their own decisions.
I doubt they are: First, there are not many distinct mainstream news media left; second, there are hundreds
of millions of dollars
spread around to further neoconservatism, "neoliberalism" or (as I
prefer to call it) neofascism by billionaires like the Koch brothers
and Sherwood Adelson - and I should believe that the mainstream media
are independently making their own decisions to support Trump
and to NOT report on his deficiencies?
To be sure, I have no proof, but it seems to me more likely that the
few distinct mainstream media that are left in the USA "kowtowed to a
fascist", in DeVega's terms, not merely or not only because their
editors wanted to, but that their editors wanted to because they also
were paid to do so by some billionaires (indirectly, perhaps).
It certainly seems more likely to me than the alternative, that somehow
all editors made their own private, personal independent decisions -
and they all agreed on giving Trump more than 9 months of free
And this is a recommended article.
2. WikiLeaks Should Be Applauded for Removing the Mask of
The second item is by Eric Ortiz on Truthdig:
This starts as follows:
The latest chapter of WikiLeaks’ courage
is exposing the cowardice of the United States political system.
Julian Assange should be praised for
having the guts to stand up to power and reveal how the sausage gets
made in Washington, D.C. His journalism—and that is what WikiLeaks is
doing—is a public service.
Yes, I agree. Then again, most Dutchmen probably do not, for they are being propagandized with the same shit as is used in the United States for the same end.
Thus the Dutch NRC-Handelsblad - which I read from 1970 till 2010, and then gave up because it then was changing into a propaganda-sheet, which how has totally
happened - yesterday had an article, with a charicature of Putin
whispering in Assange's ear, with the title "The Russian connection of
Wikileaks". (I didn't even try to read it, because one is very
happy to get admission to the NRC-site if one doesn't pay great sums.
Normally you get an advertisement to the effect that the NRC is a very fine paper but you don't get access because you didn't pay a subscription.)
Then there is this in the article:
Of course, the Clinton campaign
and Democratic Party want inconvenient truths to remain in the shadows.
released by WikiLeaks may not show they have done anything illegal,
but their actions straddle the ethical line. Admit nothing. Deny
everything. That is the company mantra. How refreshing would it be if
our leaders took responsibility for their actions, acknowledged their
wrongs and served the will of the people?
I think I am less impressed by Clinton and the Democratic Party than Eric Ortiz is, for I don't think they are "embarrassing America" or "are missing an opportunity to show
leadership and be presidential": They are not "embar- rassing America" because they are saying what most of the media are saying, and they are showing "leadership", after their own fashion.
Deflection is not a show of strength. By
choosing to demonize WikiLeaks, blame Russia and vilify Donald Trump,
the Clinton camp and the oligarchs and plutocrats in their orbit are embarrassing
America and exposing the illusion
of democracy. They also are missing an opportunity to show
leadership and be presidential.
Then there is this:
“The American liberal press, in falling
over themselves to defend Hillary Clinton, are erecting a demon that is
going to put nooses around everyone’s necks as soon as she wins the
election, which is almost certainly what she’s going to do,” Assange
told The New York Times during an Aug. 31 interview
on Facebook Live.
What Hillary Clinton does if she is
elected president remains to be seen. But if how she has handled the
WikiLeaks case and her campaign is any indication, integrity may not be
at the top of her agenda.
I agree with Assange that one cannot at all
rely on Hillary Clinton's promises, who seems to operate as Obama did:
Promise anything your voters want to hear, and do so very publicly before you are elected; hardly give your voters anything after you're elected, but don't say so publicly at all.
Then again, given that the only real choice is between Clinton, who I agree is quite bad but not insane, and Trump, who is extremely bad in a neofascist way and - according to this psychologist - quite insane, I definitely am for Clinton.
This article ends as follows:
I more or less agree (and the quote is by Juvenal), though politics is a lot dirtier than "not always" telling the truth.
Politics is a dirty business. Things are
not always as they appear. That is why we—America—get bread and
As the poet Juvenal wrote, in his tirade
against the Roman people, some Americans now care more about the
spectacle than the struggle.
… Already long ago, from when we sold
our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the
People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil
office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes
for just two things: bread and circuses.
WikiLeaks has removed
the mask of U.S. empire. It is revealing the true
machinations of power.
And also, while I definitely agree with Juvenal, whom I have read, both in the quotation and in the suggestion that many of "the people" "have abdicated" their duties, I wonder who Eric Ortiz thinks he is addressing.
Then again, he is right (in my opinion) in defending Wikileaks.
‘End of Growth’ Sparks Wide Discontent
The third item is by Alastair Crooke (<- Wikipedia) on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
Raul Ilargi Meijer, the long-standing
economics commentator, has written both
succinctly – and provocatively: “It’s over! The entire model our
societies have been based on for at least as long as we ourselves have
lived, is over! That’s why there’s Trump.
“There is no growth. There hasn’t been
any real growth for years. All there is left are empty hollow sunshiny
S&P stock market numbers propped up with ultra-cheap debt and
buybacks, and employment figures that hide untold millions hiding from
the labor force. And most of all there’s debt, public as well as
private, that has served to keep an illusion of growth alive and now
increasingly no longer can.
“These false growth numbers have one
purpose only: for the public to keep the incumbent powers that be in
their plush seats. But they could always ever only pull the curtain of
Oz [Wizard of Oz] over people’s eyes for so long, and it’s no longer so
“That’s what the ascent of Trump means,
and Brexit, Le Pen, and all the others. It’s over. What has driven us
for all our lives has lost both its direction and its energy.”
Meijer continues: “We are smack in the
middle of the most important global development in decades, in some
respects arguably even in centuries, a veritable revolution, which will
continue to be the most important factor to shape the world for years
to come, and I don’t see anybody talking about it. That has me puzzled.
Yes and no, I think:
I think Meyer is mostly right in insisting
that the economy (since 2008, and also going back to 1980, but with
some qualifications) is showing little growth and is only making money for the rich and the very rich, and he is also mostly right (I think) in insiting that "[w]e are smack in the
middle of the most important global development in decades" (at least) while not many are talking about it.
But I think he is mistaken about "the ascent of Trump means,
and Brexit, Le Pen, and all the others": These are political phenomena which happen - let's say - 'in a different time scale' than economical phenomena (which happen over decades, at least, for the most part). Also, it seems Trump will not win the elections (and I certainly hope so), while Brexit won unexpectedly and with a few percentages.
There is also this:
Globalization is stalling
– not because of political tensions (a useful “scapegoat”), but because
growth is flaccid as a result of a veritable concatenation of factors
causing its arrest – and because we have entered into debt deflation
that is squeezing what’s left of discretionary, consumption-available,
So what might the “turning tide” of globalization actually mean? Does
it mean the end of the neo-liberalist, financialized world? That is
hard to say. But expect no rapid “u-turn” – and no apologies. The
Great Financial Crisis of 2008 – at the time – was thought by many to
mark the end to neo-liberalism. But it never happened – instead,
a period of fiscal retrenchment and austerity was imposed that
contributed to a deepening distrust of the status quo, and a crisis
rooted in a widespread, popular sense that “their societies” were
headed in the wrong direction.
Neo-liberalism is deeply
entrenched – not least in Europe’s Troika and in the
Eurogroup that oversees creditor interests, and which, under European
Union rules, has come to dominate E.U. financial and tax policy.
Hm. I really don't know that "[g]lobalization is stalling" and I've never thought that the crisis of 2008 (that still persists for everybody who does not belong to the 10% of the richest) marked "the end to neo-liberalism"
And this seems also mistaken to me:
Recall, Stephen Hadley, the former U.S.
National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush, warning
plainly that foreign-policy experts rather should pay
careful attention to the growing public anger: that “globalization was
a mistake” and that “the elites have sleep-walked the [U.S.] into
“This election isn’t just about Donald
Trump,” Hadley argued. “It’s about the discontents of our democracy,
and how we are going to address them … whoever is elected, will have to
deal with these discontents.”
In short, if globalization is giving way
to discontent, the lack of growth can undermine the whole financialized
global project. Stiglitz tells us that this has been evident for the
past 15 years — last month
he noted that he had warned then of: “growing opposition in the
developing world to globalizing reforms: It seemed a mystery: people in
developing countries had been told that globalization would increase
overall wellbeing. So why had so many people become so hostile to it?
How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist –
said would make everyone better off, be so reviled? One answer
occasionally heard from the neoliberal economists who advocated for
these policies is that people are better off. They
just don’t know it. Their discontent is a matter for psychiatrists, not
This “new” discontent, Stiglitz now
says, is extended into advanced economies. Perhaps this is what Hadley
means when he says, “globalization was a mistake.” It is now
threatening American financial hegemony, and therefore its political
That is: While I agree that " “globalization was
a mistake” and that “the elites have sleep-walked the [U.S.] into
danger”", I also think these insights are mostly limited to some academics/intellectuals.
4. Neoliberalism's Decades-Long Attack on Public Universities
The fourth and last item today is by Gus Bakakis on Truthout:
starts as follows:
Fifty-five years ago, as a white working-class veteran, I was able to
graduate from the University of California without debt. I was the
first in my family to do so. Entrance was easy: there was room and I
was in the top 10 percent of my high school class. I paid a small
service fee, but no tuition, since my education was free. My living
expenses were covered by my part-time job, my G.I. benefits and cheap
room and board at my parents' house. After graduation, I had many job
prospects. The future looked good.
Over the years, things have changed. I
probably couldn't get in today. The University of California cannot
accommodate all of the eligible students. Tuition, installed in 1970, has
hugely increased. Wealthier and out-of-state students have nearly
replaced the working class of my day. The state has failed to invest the resources necessary to keep
pace with demand. And good jobs, after a debt-burdened graduation, are
hard to get. Why? The answer lies in the economic shift caused by the
business community in its attempt to regain control of the economy from
the effects of FDR's New Deal.
Yes, I mostly agree (and Gus Bakakis must be some 10 years older than I am), although I would say that "the
business community" tried "to regain control of the economy" from the Keynesians (whose views had reigned rather supremely from 1946 till 1980) rather than from FDR's New Deal.
This economic crisis opened the door to the return of
the "economic royalists," represented by the growing power of the
conservative movement and the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the '80s.
The Reagan administration mobilized and promoted a heartless
formulation of capitalism: neoliberalism.
This was a model based on replacing the state with the market as a way
to coordinate the economy. It stood for a world in which human
relationships are forced to conform to an ideal of economic
competition. The individual is transformed from a citizen into an
independent economic actor. Under the regimes of President Reagan in
the US and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the UK, neoliberalism
led to massive tax cuts for the rich, the destruction of trade unions,
a growing inequality of wealth, deregulation, privatization,
unemployment and the decline of public services -- with the exception
of prisons and the military-industrial complex.
Yes, I agree, and indeed I date the economic changes and the economic crisis especially to 1980, around the time both Thatcher and Reagan were elected and formed governments, and indeed the following list of "[t]he main principles of neoliberalism" seems correct (in one formulation):
Then again, given
that "neoliberalism" wants to get rid of government control; doesn't
want social services; has only one moral value: profits must be as
large as possible; has only a very few extremely rich owners (who
control everything, including states and media); denies that
there is any public good; and seeks enormous reductions of tax payments
for the extremely rich corporations and the very wealthy... how does "neoliberalism" differ from neofascism?!
The main principles of neoliberalism are:
- The rule of the free market around
the world from restrictions imposed by government (also known as
- The cutback of money spent for social
services (also known as austerity).
- The reduction of government
regulations for everything that could hamper profits.
- The privatization of government
ventures leaving wealth in a few private hands.
- The focus on individual
responsibility over that of the public good.
- Tax reductions for corporations and
It really is a good question according to me, and indeed I do not see much difference between what is (totally falsely) called "neoliberalism" and what I call neofascism - but then I may know too much about politics and fascism, I agree (and be too honest, perhaps). .
Here is more, about the influence of Lewis Powell Jr. (<- Wikipedia):
Yes, but again "neoliberalisn" was itself a propaganda term: The only liberty the "neoliberals" were really for was the liberty of the rich to exploit the non-rich without any regulation, law or norm, except that the profits must be as high as they can be made.
One aspect of the project of
neoliberalism was to reshape the population's understanding of the
purpose of public institutions, such as schools and universities, to
fit the corporate model. This transformation was part of a larger cultural shift that began in the '70s and '80s,
when policy-makers started to see higher education more as a private
(rather than public) good.
The plan to transform the higher education
system to meet the needs of neoliberalism can be most clearly seen in a
memo sent by Lewis Powell, a future member of the Supreme Court, to the
US Chamber of Commerce in 1971.
Here is some on the changes Lewis Powell Jr. proposed:
Further, he argued that
... it is essential that spokesmen for
the enterprise system -- at all levels and at every opportunity -- be
far more aggressive than in the past ... There should be no hesitation
to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek
destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation
to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the
enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize
politically those who oppose it.
The Powell memo's plan was to: a) defund
public higher education; b) then "save" the universities
with ideologically focused corporate funding friendly to "free
enterprise;" c) turn universities into corporations; and d) turn the
students into consumers who became educated labor products.
Yes, indeed, and most of this happened - but again: given
that "neoliberalism" was against public education; was for brainwashing
and propagandizing students with capitalist baloney; made the
universities into corporations (!!); and turned the students into
receivers of economical baloney and propaganda, but mostly - except for
a few studies - little real science, how did these "neoliberal" plans and projects to radically alter the universities differ from neofascist plans and projects to radically alter the universities?! 
Again, there are these facts about the current American economy:
And I ask again: If the corporate share fell by 66%; if the biggest and richest American firms pay no federal taxes; if US corporations can simply not pay $ 90 billions, while US corporations keep $1.2 trillions in profits to themselves... how does these enormous advantages for the richest differ from neo- fascism?!
In an Americans for Tax Fairness fact sheet on corporate tax rates, we can see that:
- The corporate share of federal tax
revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years.
- General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and
23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes.
- US corporations dodge $90 billion a
year in income taxes.
- US corporations officially hold $2.1
trillion in profits offshore.
There is also this:
We now have a new
neoliberal-inspired military industrial complex consisting of
companies, agencies, militarized policing, hidden budgets, a "deep state," private mercenaries and lobbyists
that make Eisenhower's warning mild by comparison. Our budget
priorities keep the country on a war footing, and our economy allows
for military and homeland departments to be virtually untouchable. The
current excuse for funds is "terrorism," but under neoliberalism, the actual purpose is to
control the world's resources for American capitalism and to stop other countries
from competing with us.
I agree Eisenhower's (<-Wikipedia) warnings about the military-industrial complex (<- Wikipedia) were extremely "mild" compared to the vast machine for enormous profits that it became; I agree there is now a heavily militarized police and a deep state (<-interesting reference); I agree the USA is now conducting wars "against terrorism", they say, for 15 years now; and I agree that one of the real ends is to make and to keep the USA THE most powerful nation on earth - but again: Why isn't all of this more like neofascism than like "neoliberalism"?!
Finally, there is this:
I do not know that "neoliberalism" (which for me is the nice-sounding utterly false name for what is and was in fact neofascism) "is in decline", if only because the answers to that depend very much on who you ask, though I agree on the stunningly false rhetoric terms it consistently abused.
Even though neoliberalism is in decline due to the 2008
depression and weak recovery, its values and accomplishments have
staying power. By using rhetoric like "individual freedom," "liberty,"
"personal responsibility," "privatization" and the "free market," it was able to undo much of the New
Deal and restore corporate power, and in the case of higher education,
be responsible for the rise in tuitions and decline in educational quality.
All in all, I like this article and I recommend reading all of
it, but - you may have realized by now - I have the rather
serious question why many people can see through "neoliberalism" yet fail to see it is, in fact, the best approximation of neofascism that I know or have ever heard about.
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months now. I
do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of
(really: the KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from
2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control
myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because
"you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which
is the perfect excuse never to do anything
By now, this seems a very real possibility: I do know a lot about
politics; I do also know a lot about fascism; and relatively few know
as much or more, and again relatively few are as honest as I am in
saying what I really think. (And yes, I agree and I know that being
honest may cost you a lot.)
 I think they didn't, but then I know I have been denied the right to take an M.A. in philosophy because I was a believer in truth and science in the University of Amsterdam (which from 1971-1995 was in the hands of the students, mostly, who did not believe in truth nor in science, and who were - if leading - first communists, till 1984 and then postmodernists, till 1995).