1. Julian Assange Speaks
About Hillary Clinton, the U.S.
Election and the Litany of
Charges Against Him
2. James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Anthony
Weiner and Our
Descent Into Pulp Fiction
3. Quotations Relevant To Trump
4. Common Dreams
This is a Nederlog of Sunday, November 6, 2016.
is a crisis log with 4 items and 4 dotted links:
Item 1 is about a good interview John
Pilger had with Julian Assange;
item 2 is about James Comey (the
FBI-director who may have killed
Clinton's dreams to be the next president); item 3
is about two quotes
from my own journal from 2004, about the masses and about Hitler &
Trump (and I did not know who Trump was, in 2004); and item
4 is about
Common Dreams, that badly need money, which I strongly hope they will
get, because they are overall the best internet-daily I know.
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: It was OK for two days now, but again didn't work out
in Holland the last days: It keeps being horrible most days.
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. 
In case you visit my
Danish site: It now
works again (!), but I do not know how long it will keep working. It
did most of the last week so that is something.
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.
keep this introduction until I get three successive days
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen
for many months now.
1. Julian Assange Speaks About Hillary Clinton, the U.S.
Election and the Litany of Charges Against Him
The first item today is by Alexander Reed Kelly on Truthdig, but in
fact the item was made by John Pilger
(<- Wikipedia) and is also on his site:
This starts as follows:
In a 25-minute interview with John
Pilger, an award-winning Australian journalist, WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange summarized his analysis of emails he published from the
personal account of Hillary Clinton’s national campaign chairman, John
Podesta, and much more.
Among the topics: “Pay for play”
arrangements by which foreign officials paid large sums to gain access
to the Clintons while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state; how her
work at the State Department helped facilitate the creation of Islamic
State; why Assange feels sorry for the Democratic presidential nominee;
the contention that Assange is working with Russia to put Donald Trump
in the White House; Ecuador’s suspension of Assange’s internet access;
how he copes with his more than four years of isolation in London’s
Ecuadorean Embassy; his concerns for his family; and the hollowness of
the Western political and media establishments’ case against him.
I say: This was a good idea, indeed in
part because John Pilger is a well-known journalist who has supported
Julian Assange from the start and still supports him:
John Pilger: What’s
the significance of the FBI’s intervention in these last days of the
U.S. election campaign, in the case against Hillary Clinton?
Possibly so. There is more on this topic in
item 2. Then there is this on a lie
by the Clinton camp that is mostly
treated as true by very many mainstream media:
Julian Assange: If you look at the
history of the FBI, it has become effectively America’s political
police. The FBI demonstrated this by taking down the former head of the
CIA [General David Petraeus] over classified information given to his
mistress. Almost no-one is untouchable. The FBI is always trying
to demonstrate that no-one can resist us. But Hillary Clinton
very conspicuously resisted the FBI’s investigation, so there’s anger
within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak.
Pilger: The Clinton campaign has
said that Russia is behind all of this, that Russia has manipulated the
campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails.
Assange: The Clinton camp has
been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is
responsible for everything. Hilary Clinton stated multiple times,
falsely, that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that
Russia was the source of our publications. That is false; we can say
that the Russian government is not the source.
Assange says more about Wikileak's
reliability, and I think he is correct (if only because the Clinton
camp had a strong reason to lie).
Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris,
the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris,
are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hilary
Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving
massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.
Assange: Under Hillary Clinton,
the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth]
more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of
State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar
Pilger: Of course the consequence
of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIL or ISIS is
created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to
the Clinton Foundation.
Pilger: That’s extraordinary.
Well... I don't think this is a proof that
"the very people who are giving money to the
Clinton Foundation" are the same people
as gave the money to creat Isis. But indeed they may be and
that itself is quite odd.
There is also this:
Assange: One of the more
significant Podesta emails that we released was about how the Obama
cabinet was formed and how half the Obama cabinet was basically
nominated by a representative from Citibank. This is quite amazing.
Yes indeed, and I wrote about this a few
days ago, when I also said that I thought it rather likely that the same
thing has already
happened in Clinton's campaign, since in Obama's case these nominations
were also decided in the October before he first became
indeed before he was elected.
Then there is this:
Pilger: You get complaints from
people saying, ‘What is WikiLeaks doing? Are they trying to put
Trump in the Whitehouse?’
Assange: My answer is that Trump
would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he’s
had every establishment off side; Trump doesn’t have one establishment,
maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an
establishment, but banks, intelligence [agencies], arms companies… big
foreign money ... are all united behind Hillary Clinton, and the media
as well, media owners and even journalists themselves.
I don't know. For one thing, there is the FBI-director's very recent attempt to interfere in the
elections (I think). I do hope Clinton wins, simply because
she is sane and Trump is not, but what if Trump wins
the vote? Can they falsify it? (I doubt it but I do not
There is this on Assange's personal
situations, which isn't nice:
Pilger: People often ask me how
you cope with the isolation in here.
Assange: Look, one of the best
attributes of human beings is that they’re adaptable; one of the worst
attributes of human beings is they are adaptable. They adapt and
start to tolerate abuses, they adapt to being involved themselves in
abuses, they adapt to adversity and they continue on. So in my
situation, frankly, I’m a bit institutionalised—this [the embassy] is
the world .. it’s visually the world [for me].
And there is this on Assange's legal
situation, which also isn't nice:
Assange: The U.N. [the United
Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention] has looked into this
whole situation. They spent eighteen months in formal, adversarial
litigation. [So it’s] me and the U.N. verses Sweden and the U.K.
Who’s right? The U.N. made a conclusion that I am being
arbitrarily detained illegally, deprived of my freedom and that what
has occurred has not occurred within the laws that the United Kingdom
and Sweden, and that [those countries] must obey. It is an illegal
abuse. It is the United Nations formally asking, ‘What’s going on
here? What is your legal explanation for this? [Assange] says
that you should recognise his asylum.’ [And here is] Sweden
formally writing back to the United Nations to say, ‘No, we’re not
going to [recognise the UN ruling], so leaving open their ability to
In any case, this was a good interview, in
whch there is considerably more than I quoted, and which is recommended.
2. James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner and Our
Descent Into Pulp Fiction Democracy
The second item is by Bill Blum on Truthdig:
This is from the beginning:
I couldn’t have devised a plotline
approaching what happened the morning of Oct. 28, when FBI Director
James Comey sent a terse,
166-word letter to the chairs of eight congressional committees,
disclosing that the bureau had discovered additional emails that
required it to take further “appropriate investigative steps” regarding
Hillary Clinton’s use of a private internet server during her tenure as
secretary of state. Only last July, Comey had broken the hearts of
Republicans everywhere as he told Congress and the world that the email
probe had been completed and Clinton would not be prosecuted.
So forget WikiLeaks, and forget
Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs and the behind-the-scenes
machinations of John Podesta: Comey’s letter was the ultimate October
surprise, at once- breathing new life into the seemingly moribund Trump
campaign and triggering shockwaves of anxiety and spasms of political
bed-wetting among Democrats.
Hm. I wish journalists stopped telling me
what I should forget (Wikileaks, Clinton's speeches, Goldman Sachs and
John Podesta, no less) in order to concentrate on their topic of the
Here is a bit more about the context of
the e-mails the FBI unearthed:
And then came another, even
more improbable twist: The new emails had been found on a laptop
computer owned by none other than Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former
New York congressman who just happens to be the estranged husband of
top Clinton aide and confidante Huma Abedin. The emails had been
uncovered during the course of a separate investigation into sexual
messages Weiner had dispatched to a 15-year-old North Carolina girl.
That seems all true, and it also seems all
that is known until yesterday (November 5). In particular, what is not
known is what is in these emails, which makes it pretty spooky.
Here is some on Comey's resume:
(..) Comey’s resume includes important
and highly lucrative private-sector stints of a decidedly right-wing
bent. As MarketWatch columnist Brett Arends catalogued in a
post Wednesday, Comey raked in millions a year in salary and stock
bonuses as an attorney working on behalf of defense-contractor giant
Lockheed Martin, and Bridgewater Associates, known as the country’s
largest hedge fund. For a time, he held a seat on the board of HSBC,
the global investment bank that was hit in March 2013 with a $1.3
billion fine for international money laundering.
It does not make him sound reliable. The
last bit I'll quote from this article is this:
So, was Comey’s Oct. 28 letter
the result of his pent-up urge to get back finally at the Clintons and
the Democratic establishment? The highly respected Guardian columnist
Spencer Ackerman asserted
in an article published Wednesday that the FBI has become
“Trumpland,” populated by field agents and other officials rankled over
Comey’s initial decision not to seek criminal charges against Hillary
But this also - it seems to me - does not
really explain why Comey did as he did. Maybe we will never know.
This is a recommended article (but not a conclusive one).
3. Quotations Relevant To Trump
The third item is by me and has no link, since it is based on an
excerpt from my journal for 2004 that I recently made.
There are two English parts in it that are relevant to today's
Trump, about whom I very probably had not
heard at all in 2004 (for I only got fast internet in 2009, and surfing
was extremely bad and slow until then, thanks to "xs4all" ).
Here is first something about Jacob Burckhardt (<-Wikipedia) and the
I am reading
Burckhardt's "Judgment on History and Historians". Here are some
quotations from Trevor-Roper's introduction:
character which Buckhardt's philosophy now increasingly assumed: a
character of conservative pessimism and profound distrust both of the
masses and of the unthinking, materialist civilization whose rise he
now foresaw. Like his great contemporary, Alexis de Tocqueville,
Burckhardt saw the price of democracy more clearly (..) by being
himself, in his family tradition and intellectual outlook, one of its
victims: an aristocrat." (p. 13-4)
fundamentally, that human civilization, which he valued so highly for
its variety and creative strength, is in reality a delicate, precarious
thing which only an educated ruling class can effectively protect
against the revolt of the masses with their numerical strength, their
materialism, their indifference to liberty, their readiness to yield to
demagogic power." (p. 14)
was it leading? Burckhardt's answer was clear. It was leading to the
despotism of the masses, and, he added, 'I know too much history to
expect anything from the despotism of the masses but a future tyranny,
which will be the end of history.' Such a despotism would be ruinous to
art and literature and all the works of the human spirit; it would be
entirely materialist, based on overgrown industrial cities; it would be
levelling, brutal, tyrannical." (p. 15)
people, with their naive belief in 'the goodness of human nature',
might suppose that 'if the state power were completely in their hands,
they could fashion a new existence for themselves'. But no: for 'in
between occurs long, voluntary servitude under individual leaders and
usurpers: people no longer believe in principles, but from time to time
they do believe in saviours. A new possibility of long despotism over
weary people presents itself time and time again.' 'People do not like
to imagine a world whose rulers ignore law, prosperity, enriching work,
industry, credit, etc. and who rule with utter brutality. But these are
the people into whose hands the world is being driven by the
competition among all parties for the participation of the masses on
any and every question.' Again and again Burckhardt dwells on this grim
prospect, the prospect of the dictatorship of Gewaltmenschen, 'the
terrible simplificateurs who are going to descend upon poor old
Europe', especially in the wake of continental wars, and to create, out
of the blind assent of the masses, a hideous ideological tyrrany." (p.
I like Burckhardt and also De
Tocqueville, and both seem not to be much liked by most
"leftist thinkers", indeed in part because they did not trust "the
Well... I do have a real proletarian
background (unlike the vast majority of other university graduates of the previous
century) but I do not like "the masses" either, for the very
simple reason that the majority let itself be deceived time
and again, e.g. in the creation of the Soviet Union and in supporting
And while I deny every poor man is ignorant or stupid (my
parents were neither, although poor and not well educated, and I am
poor and ill but got one of the best M.A.'s ever handed out, and I also
have known quite a few poor men and women like my parents) I do
think the chances are far greater that the majority of the ignorant
poor gets deceived
than that they serve themselves well.
And here is something about a parallel between Hitler and Trump:
through "The mind of Adolf Hitler", which was written in 1943 by an
American psychiatrist Langer, and published in 1972. So far it is
interesting and perceptive. Evidently, Hitler was both a loony and an
actor - secretive, theatrical, megalomaniac, and, in diverse ways,
rather queer. Also, he seems to have been manic depressive, and had an
sm-hang-up, so far as I can see.
explains a few things about the rise of Fortuyn in Holland, and
hence about such types in politics, and why they would get success:
Because they have a theatrical personality, it would seem to me,
exploited for their own conception of their own grandiosity, while
having an intuitive gift of playing to the masses.
three important points relating to what I call a theatrical personality
1. Effective, self-conscious,
2. A strong sense of their own grandiosity
and a strong need for
3. An intuitive feeling for what average
people like to see, and
hear and what moves them
What I have
so far fairly well explains Hitler, Mussolini and Fortuyn, though the
book is less clear, again so far, on social psychology, which is in
fact more important than individual psychology, since what matters is
far less the individual than his appeal to the masses.
In so far as
persons themselves are concerned, the main thing is a sort of
messiah-complex: They believe that they themselves hold the key to
history, and are great individuals. Obviously, in the cases of Hitler,
Mussolini and Fortuyn this is a misconception, and equally obviously,
it might have helped them a lot if they had, instead, believed
themselves to be great actors. But the main point is not what they
believed about themselves, even though this is what motivates them, but
what they succeed in making others believe about them.
The book so
far seems to explain less about Stalin, Mao, Kim and
Castro, to name some leftist dictators, of whom I know comparatively
most about the first two, who also had the most power.
Incidentally, this bloated self-image seems common among leaders of
men: Alexander the Great, Ceasar, Justinian, Mohammed, Timur, Napoleon,
Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro also had it or pretended it, and I can't see
it, except in Alexander and Ceasar, and to some extent in Napoleon. And
of these three one cannot deny that they must have been great generals,
which is at least some sort of greatness in the leading of men.
And I think the same thing is true of
Trump, and more specifically: He is not a great individual, and
neither were Hitler, Mussolini or Fortuyn
(<-Wikimedia), but if he can convince sufficiently many white
hundred-raters he may become as effective as Hitler or Mussolini.
But anyway, one important point is
this: Those who succeed in public are actors, know they are actors, and
use that knowledge. Also, there are examples of less unsavoury
successes that way: Augustus, Aurelius, Franklin, Churchill - all of
whom also seem cleverer than the others I mentioned, and less
megalomaniac as well, if undoubtedly vain.
We will know in three days.
4. Common Dreams
The fourth and last item today is also by me and concerns the plight of
Common Dreams that are overall the best internet magazine I know:
If you click the above image you will know
what you should do if you want to keep Common Dreams alive.
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
"xs4all" (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
 I became a member of the real
xs4all in 1996, but it was sold around 1998 or 2000 to the KPN, which
is Dutch telecom, which promptly took over all the propaganda of xs4all
together with the name, but immediately gave extremely bad "service", while pretending to be "xs4all": From 2001 till 2009 (eight years) I was told that all my complaints about the extremely sick "service" I got from "xs4all" were lies because (literal quote, translated, and very often repeated to me): "Other people are not bothered by this, and therefore you aren't".
And these days they can't even serve my site properly, for I have now for many months no decent connection to "xs4all": I get previous uploads all the time, and it is not updated properly.
I am very sorry. I do not do this. I do not want this. I do not know who do this. It does happen all the time (but not completely consistently).