1. In the Trump Era, Leaking and
Whistleblowing Are More
Urgent, and More Noble, Than Ever
in the White House: An Interview With Noam
3. A White Nationalist & Anti-Semite
in the Oval Office:
Trump Taps Breitbart's Bannon as Top Aide
President Trump, Is the American Experiment
5. There's No Normalizing
President-Elect Trump (Or at
Least, There Shouldn't Be)
Alert, America: The Worst Is Yet to Come
is a Nederlog of Tuesday, November 15, 2016.
is a crisis
log with 6 items and 6 dotted links and it consists of some
further deliberations on the meanings of Trump's election as president
Item 1 is about Greenwald on whistleblowers; item 2 is about Chomsky on Trump's election; item 3 is about Goodman on the anti-semitic alt right man Bannon, who was appointed by Trump as his chief of staff; item 4 is about Engelhardt's expectations (and I agree - it seems - that the American experiment is over, now that a neofascist like Trump has been elected as president); item 5 is about Fulton on the normalizing tendencies of the
propagandistic and lying mainstream media; and item 6 is about John Whitehead who braces himself for the worse that is yet to come.
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. And it
still does (on 11 - 14.xi.2016).
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: This worked correctly on 11 and 12 xi.2016, but not
before nor on 13.xi.2016. It was OK on 14.xi.2016.)
And I think now this happens intentionally on both my
sites, for this did not happen for 20 years on the one,
12 years on the other.
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. In the Trump Era, Leaking and Whistleblowing Are More
Urgent, and More Noble, Than Ever
The first item today is by Glenn Greenwald on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
For the past 15 years, the U.S. government under both parties has
invented whole new methods for hiding what it does behind an
increasingly impenetrable wall of secrecy. From radical new legal doctrines designed to shield its behavior from judicial review to prosecuting sources at record rates, more and more government action has been deliberately hidden from the public.
Yes indeed - and that was the beginning of systematic govermental totalitarianism, which often predates dictatorship, simply because it is both
very authoritarian, done by a very small group with large governmental powers,
very anti-democratic, and is mostly done in secrecy.
Here is praise for the few who did something against systematic govermental totalitarianism:
One of the very few remaining avenues for learning what the U.S.
government is doing — beyond the propaganda that it wants Americans to
ingest and thus deliberately disseminates through media outlets — is
leaking and whistleblowing. Among the leading U.S. heroes in the war on
terror have been the men and women inside various agencies of the U.S.
government who discovered serious wrongdoing being carried out in
secret, and then risked their own personal welfare to ensure that the
public learned of what never should have been hidden in the first place.
Yes, and here is what the few who did this did succeed in releasing:
Many of the important, consequential revelations from the last two
administrations were possible only because of courageous sources who
came forward in this way. It’s how we learned about the abuses of Abu Ghraib, the existence of torture-fueled CIA “black sites,” the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, the wanton slaughter carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recklessness and deceit at the heart of the U.S. drone program, the NSA’s secret construction of the largest system of suspicionless, mass surveillance ever created, and so many other scandals, frauds, and war crimes
that otherwise would have remained hidden. All of that reporting was
possible only because people of conscience decided to disregard the U.S.
government’s corrupt decree that this information should remain secret,
on the ground that concealing it was designed to protect not national
security but rather the reputations and interests of political
Indeed - but it was done by a few courageous individuals who worked for the government, and a few courageous journalists, while much of their stories were not told, or retold falsely, by the mainstream media.
Here is Glenn Greenwald's expectation for what the Trumpian presidency will mean for transparency:
Yes indeed - and this did not even take into account Trump's attempts to ban parts of the press (like The New York Times and The Washington Post) and Trump's extremely vindictive campaigns and court cases against those who dared to criticize him.
Donald Trump has not yet been inaugurated, but all the signs point to a
presidency that will be deeply hostile to basic precepts of
transparency. During the campaign, he repeatedly violated long-standing
norms of disclosure, including even a refusal to make his income tax
returns public, and already has broken with tradition by refusing during the transition to provide basic information about his whereabouts or activities.
Beyond that, the institutions of the executive branch are
well-trained to resist transparency as much as possible and have been
vested with countless tools to conceal their most important activities.
Institutional inertia by itself, let alone once exacerbated by Trump’s
own anti-transparency impulses, all but guarantees the Trump presidency
will be aggressively antagonistic to basic public accountability.
And this is a recommended article (which underplays rather than overplays the totalitarian dangers of the Trumpian presidency).
2. Trump in the White House: An
Interview With Noam Chomsky
The second item is by C.J. Polychroniou on Truthdig and originally on Truth-out:
This starts as follows:
Nov. 8, 2016, Donald Trump managed to pull the biggest upset in U.S.
politics by tapping successfully into the anger of white voters and
appealing to the lowest inclinations of people in a manner that would
have probably impressed Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels himself.
But what exactly does Trump’s victory mean, and what can
one expect from this megalomaniac when he takes over the reins of power
on January 20, 2017? What is Trump’s political ideology, if any, and is
“Trumpism” a movement? Will U.S. foreign policy be any different under a
Some years ago, public intellectual Noam Chomsky warned
that the political climate in the U.S. was ripe for the rise of an
authoritarian figure. Now, he shares his thoughts on the aftermath of
this election, the moribund state of the U.S. political system and why
Trump is a real threat to the world and the planet in general.
These are all good questions and good points - and I have
been following previous installments of C.J. Polychroniou's interviews
with Noam Chomsky, for there were several, and they were all
interesting and competent.
Here are three of Noam Chomsky's basic difficulties with the present political atmosphere (which is rightist and totalitarian):
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans
are facing the most important question in their history—whether
organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know—and
are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
Similar observations hold for the other huge issue
concerning human survival: the threat of nuclear destruction, which has
been looming over our heads for 70 years and is now increasing.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing
fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza,
none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a
loss to find appropriate words.
Note that the first difficulty is in fact about the environmental destruction that great parts of the corporations commit willingly and knowingly since 1972, when the first report on the environment appeared, in the form of a global model, with predictions: The Limits To Growth. And while there are some good criticisms of the model, it seems in 2016 that it was rather correct from the start and still is mostly correct. This is from Wikipedia (on "The Limits"):
In 2016 a report published by the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on Limits to Growth
concluded that "there is unsettling evidence that society is still
following the ‘standard run’ of the original study – in which overshoot
leads to an eventual collapse of production and living standards".
I think Noam Chomsky is quite correct this is an extreme danger for humanity.
The same goes for the second problem, which is "the threat of nuclear destruction", that with Trump's election as president of the USA got very much enhanced, because - I am a psychologist - Trump is not sane.
And about the third difficulty Chomsky registers, which essentially is the very outspoken totalitarian and propagandistic orientation of the present mainstream media, he is correct as well (and this really was the end of American democracy, which happened mostly during Bush Jr's presidency: I am sorry, there is no real democracy when most of the voters are systematically lied to and propagandized, as if they are cattle or subhumans).
In fact, here is one of the results of the totalitarian propaganda that has been spread by the mainstream media for something like ten years now:
Exit polls reveal that the passionate support for Trump was inspired
primarily by the belief that he represented change, while Clinton was
perceived as the candidate who would perpetuate their distress. The
“change” that Trump is likely to bring will be harmful or worse, but it
is understandable that the consequences are not clear to isolated people
in an atomized society lacking the kinds of associations (like unions)
that can educate and organize. That is a crucial difference between
today’s despair and the generally hopeful attitudes of many working
people under much greater economic duress during the Great Depression of
Note that at this time the many poor and non-rich know and understand a whole lot less about the real situations they are living in than did the many poor and non-rich during the Great Depression, and the main differences are the disappearance of almost any paper and of almost any TV-news that was honest and factual rather than dishonest and propaganda.
There is next this on the Democratic Party:
The Democratic Party abandoned any real concern for working
people by the 1970s
One of the great achievements of the doctrinal system has
been to divert anger from the corporate sector to the government that
implements the programs that the corporate sector designs, such as the
highly protectionist corporate/investor rights agreements that are
uniformly mis-described as “free trade agreements” in the media and
commentary. With all its flaws, the government is, to some extent, under
popular influence and control, unlike the corporate sector. It is
highly advantageous for the business world to foster hatred for
pointy-headed government bureaucrats and to drive out of people’s minds
the subversive idea that the government might become an instrument of
popular will, a government of, by and for the people.
Yes, indeed. There is this on Brexit and Hitler:
There are definite similarities to Brexit, and also to the rise of the ultranationalist far-right parties in Europe—whose leaders were quick to congratulate Trump on his victory,
perceiving him as one of their own: [Nigel] Farage, [Marine] Le Pen,
[Viktor] Orban and others like them. And these developments are quite
frightening. A look at the polls in Austria and Germany— Austria and Germany—cannot
fail to evoke unpleasant memories for those familiar with the 1930s,
even more so for those who watched directly, as I did as a child. I can
still recall listening to Hitler’s speeches, not understanding the
words, though the tone and audience reaction were chilling enough.
I agree for about half with this. First, while I do not deny there are similarities and analogies between Brexit and Trump's gain, I do not think these are very revealing (for logical reasons: they simply are not conclusive). And second, while I am quite willing to agree that Trump is a neofascist (in my sense, and see note ) he does not come with the very militaristic background of Hitler.
Here is Chomsky on the possible rise of fascism in the USA:
For many years, I have been writing and speaking about the danger of the
rise of an honest and charismatic ideologue in the United States,
someone who could exploit the fear and anger that has long been boiling
in much of the society, and who could direct it away from the actual
agents of malaise to vulnerable targets. That could indeed lead to what
sociologist Bertram Gross called “friendly fascism” in a perceptive
study 35 years ago. But that requires an honest ideologue, a Hitler
type, not someone whose only detectable ideology is Me. The dangers,
however, have been real for many years, perhaps even more so in the
light of the forces that Trump has unleashed.
Hm. I think Trump's ideology is neofascist (in my sense, defined in note )
though I also agree that (i) Trump has said anything whatsoever during
his campaigns that he thought might further his campaigns, and that
(ii) I really think Trump is not sane, which makes him extremely difficult to predict.
Finally, there is this on the Supreme Court and the incredible riches that Trump will very probably give to the very rich like himself, and to the rich:
The Supreme Court will be in the hands of reactionaries for many years,
with predictable consequences. If Trump follows through on his Paul
Ryan-style fiscal programs, there will be huge benefits for the very
rich—estimated by the Tax Policy Center as a tax cut of over 14 percent
for the top 0.1 percent and a substantial cut more generally at the
upper end of the income scale, but with virtually no tax relief for
others, who will also face major new burdens. The respected economics
correspondent of the Financial Times, Martin Wolf, writes that, “The tax
proposals would shower huge benefits on already rich Americans such as
Mr Trump,” while leaving others in the lurch, including, of course, his
constituency. The immediate reaction of the business world reveals that
Big Pharma, Wall Street, the military industry, energy industries and
other such wonderful institutions expect a very bright future.
Yes, indeed. And this is a recommended article.
A White Nationalist & Anti-Semite in the Oval Office: Trump Taps
Breitbart's Bannon as Top Aide
The third item is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!:
This starts with the following introduction:
As the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center are
slamming President-elect Donald Trump for naming Stephen Bannon to
become his chief strategist, we speak with SPLC
President Richard Cohen about Bannon’s role as former head of the
right-wing news outlet Breitbart Media and as Trump’s campaign manager.
"Two weeks after the Charleston massacre, [Breitbart News] ran an
article talking about how people should proudly fly the Confederate
flag," Cohen says. He argues that the alt-right that Breitbart is
associated with "is nothing more than the rebranding of white supremacy,
white nationalism, for the digital age," and calls on President-elect
Trump to "speak out forcefully against all forms of bigotry, and then he
has to follow talk with the walk."
I think Richard Cohen may be a little
mistaken about Breitbart and Bannon, namely in the sense that both were
or are (Breitbart died) rather clever and well educated. Here Cohen is on the difference between the two that he sees:
You know, when—Breitbart traditionally was a very conservative website.
But under Bannon, it’s become a cesspool for white supremacy, according
to one of his former colleagues. You know, the alt-right is white
nationalism. It rejects multiculturalism. It’s opposed to immigration.
You know, the godfather of the alt-right is a fellow named Richard
Spencer. His motto is "All men are created unequal." He believes that
black people are intellectually inferior. He calls for, you know, the
peaceful ethnic cleansing of our country.
Cohen may be right - or perhaps Bannon is more dangerous than that. And here is Cohen's recommendation for the future:
You know, I would just urge people to stand strong, be careful, don’t
give up hope. One of the sad things of the election was, you know, 43
million Americans who were eligible to vote did not. That’s 100 million
people. I don’t know how those 100 million people would have voted, but I
think our democracy will be healthier when everyone speaks.
Hm. This does not sound coherent to me. At any rate, the real figures are that something like 44% of those eligible to vote in the USA did not vote,
and that indeed amounts to something like 100 million Americans (as
opposed to the 120 million who did vote, of which around 60 million -
about 1 in 5 of all Americans - chose for Trump).
4. With President Trump, Is the American Experiment Over?
The fourth item is by Tom Engelhardt on Truthdig and originally on TomDispatch:
This is from near the beginning:
The Wars Come Home
From the moment of the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, in
fact, everything the U.S. military touched in these years has turned to
dust. Nations across the Greater Middle East and Africa collapsed under
the weight of American interventions or those of its allies, and terror
movements, one grimmer than the next, spread in a remarkably unchecked
fashion. Afghanistan is now a disaster zone; Yemen, wracked by civil
war, a brutal U.S.-backed Saudi air campaign, and various ascendant
terror groups, is essentially no more; Iraq, at best, is a riven
sectarian nation; Syria barely exists; Libya, too, is hardly a state
these days; and Somalia is a set of fiefdoms and terror movements. All
in all, it’s quite a record for the mightiest power on the planet,
which, in a distinctly un-imperial fashion, has been unable to impose
its military will or order of any sort on any state or even group, no
matter where it chose to act in these years. It’s hard to think of a
historical precedent for this.
Yes, I think this is mostly correct. And there is this on the rise of neofascism (in my definition, for which see ) in the USA:
I think this is also mostly correct - and I also note that Tom Engelhardt is here saying the same thing as I did (in Dutch) in 2005: The New National Security Neofascist United States of America  was based on enormous amounts of utterly false propaganda about "terrorism".
Imperial Overreach and the Rise of the National Security State
In the end, those seeds, first planted in Afghan and Pakistani soil
in 1979, led to the attacks of September 11, 2001. That day was the
very definition of chaos brought to the imperial heartland, and spurred
the emergence of a new, post-Constitutional governing structure, through the expansion of the national security state to monumental proportions
and a staggering version of imperial overreach. On the basis of the
supposed need to keep Americans safe from terrorism (and essentially
nothing else), the national security state would balloon into a
dominant—and dominantly funded—set of institutions at the heart of
American political life (without which, rest assured, FBI Director James
Comey’s public interventions in an American election would have been
inconceivable). In these years, that state-within-a-state became the
unofficial fourth branch of government, at a moment when two of the others—Congress and the courts, or at least the Supreme Court—were faltering.
And this was the counterpart, that may be formulated as: Only the rich's interests matter, which indeed also was embraced by the majority of the Supreme Court:
At the same time, the basic needs of many Americans went increasingly unattended, of those at least who weren’t part of a Gilded Age
1% sucking up American wealth in an extraordinary fashion. The
one-percenters then repurposed some of those trickle-up funds for the
buying and selling of politicians, again in an atmosphere of remarkable
secrecy. (It was often impossible to know who had given money to whom
for what.) In turn, that stream of Supreme Court-approved funds changed
the nature of, and perhaps the very idea of, what an election was.
This article ends with a question:
Here, however, is a potentially shocking question that has to be asked:
With Donald Trump’s election, has the American “experiment” run its
I think it has. I think the - democratic, Constitution-based - USA is dead, and the Neofascistic United States of America won the elections and gained all powers, including the extremely dangerous one of the incredible
powers of the NSA, which must be assumed to know almost everything
about almost everyone (and which may be used to silence almost any
5. There's No Normalizing President-Elect Trump (Or at
Least, There Shouldn't Be)
The fifth item is by Deirdre Fulton on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
From penning puff pieces to "pivoting to 'Trump as our kooky uncle'"
to glossing over his promotion of white nationalist Steve Bannon, the
media is helping to normalize President-elect Donald Trump, critics
charged this week.
It was a trend that began during the campaign, FAIR's Adam Johnson wrote on Sunday, and it has only accelerated since the election.
"Oprah Winfrey, in an interview with Entertainment Tonight,
said Trump's recent visit to the White House gave her 'hope' and
suggested he has been 'humbled' by the experience," Johnson wrote. "The Guardian's Simon Jenkins told his readers to 'calm down' and that Trump wasn't the 'worst thing.' His college, Nouriel Roubini, insisted the Oval Office will 'tame' Trump. People magazine ran a glowing profile of Trump and his wife Melania (though a former People writer accused Trump of sexual assault). The New York Times' Nick Kristof dubiously added that we should 'Grit our teeth and give Trump a chance.' The mainstays—Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN—while frequently critical, are covering Trump's transition as they would any other."
Yes indeed. And this is very disquieting because Trump is not a normal president and because he does not have normal plans. Then again this also was to be expected, because all of the above are mainstream media - including Oprah Winfrey and The Guardian - and the mainstream media are not properly journalistic anymore, but have been repositioned, already ten years ago or more, as propaganda instruments for the government. 
There is this on Steve Bannon's appointment as the chief strategist to the president:
Needless to say, Trump's transition is hardly run-of-the-mill. Less than a week after his election, Trump appointed Steve Bannon as "chief strategist to the president." Or, as Charles Pierce put it at Esquire, "[t]he president-elect went out of his way to hire a white supremacist and anti-Semite to run his policy shop."
The selection of Bannon, despite his integral role in
Trump's presidential campaign, is radical when one considers his
affiliation with the alt-right movement and espousal of wide-ranging
"But if you picked up any copies of the nation's major newspapers, everything seems normal," ThinkProgress wrote, noting major outlets' portrayal of Bannon as an "outsider" and "loyalist."
indeed. (But as I said: "Major outlets" have been transformed into -
very willing, quite well-paid - propagandizers for the government.)
And here is John Oliver's warning:
And John Oliver, in Sunday's season finale of his show "Last Week Tonight," urged against complacency when it comes to the "Klan-backed misogynist internet troll" who will serve as the nation's 45th president.
"It is going to be easy for things to start feeling normal,
especially if you are someone who is not directly impacted by his
actions," Oliver said. "So keep reminding yourself, this is not normal.
He's abnormal. He's a human 'What Is Wrong With This Picture.' So giving
him a chance, in the sense of not speaking out immediately against
policies he has proposed, is dangerous."
Hm. I quite agree that Trump is "abnormal", for I think he is both insane (and I am a psychologist) and a neofascist (and see note ), but I also think that it will be very difficult or impossible to convince the American majority of that.
After all, the smartest people who write in the USA or were on TV the last year all warned against Trump, and were not heeded by the majority.
6. Stay Alert, America: The Worst Is Yet to Come
The sixth and last item is by John Whitehead on Washington's Blog and originally on the Rutherford Institute:
This starts as follows:
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—Philosopher George Santayana
Stay alert, America.
This is not the time to drop our guards, even for a moment.
Nothing has changed since the election to alter the immediate and
very real dangers of roadside strip searches, government surveillance,
biometric databases, citizens being treated like terrorists,
imprisonments for criticizing the government, national ID cards, SWAT
team raids, censorship, forcible blood draws and DNA extractions,
private prisons, weaponized drones, red light cameras, tasers, active
shooter drills, police misconduct and government corruption.
Yes, indeed. And concentration camps to
lock in those whose political opinions are not close enough to those of
The President/The Leader, although we may need to wait a little into
his presidency. (Hitler had the concentration camp Dachau (<-Wikipedia) opened a week after Hitler's becoming The Leader of Germany).
There is this on the fact that the USA has been played (which I agree to, though not only by Trump and his associates, but by the mainstream media as well, and since 10 years at least):
It’s early days yet, but President-elect Trump—like his predecessors—has already begun to dial back many of the campaign promises that pledged to reform a broken system of government.
The candidate who railed against big government and vowed to “drain the swamp”
of lobbyists and special interest donors has already given lobbyists,
corporate donors and members of the governmental elite starring roles in
his new administration.
America, you’ve been played.
Yes, although - in fairness - Trump has said so many incompatible things that he
has to dial back (or at least makes the impression he tries to) many of his sayings.
There is this on "the Left", which I put between quotes because I do not believe that the majority who regards themselves as on "the Left" is really on the real left :
Unfortunately, in this instance, we all lose because of the deluded
hypocrisy of the Left and the Right, both of which sanctioned the
expansion of the police state as long as it was their party at the helm.
For the past eight years, the Left—stridently outspoken and
adversarial while George W. Bush was president—has been unusually quiet
about things like torture, endless wars, drone strikes, executive
orders, government overreach and fascism.
Yes, but this showed two things, in my opinion: (i) "the Left" made its opinions and values depend not on the real facts, but on what would support "the Left"s power (and it failed:
Clinton was beaten), and (ii) "the Left", at least in so far as these
were leading politicians from the Democratic Party and their followers
were no longer the real left, but were in fact either quite
similar to the degenerates of the Right (the Democratic leaders) or
else to the many who were successfully deceived by their own politicians.
There is this on Trump and Obama:
As The Federalist declares with a tongue-in-cheek approach,
“Dissent, executive restraint, gridlock, you name it. Now that Donald
Trump will be president, stuff that used to be treason is suddenly cool again.”
Yet as Greenwald makes clear, if Trump is about to inherit vast presidential powers, he has the Democrats to thank for them.
A military empire that polices the globe. Secret courts, secret wars
and secret budgets. Unconstitutional mass surveillance. Unchecked
presidential power. Indefinite detention. Executive signing statements.
These are just a small sampling of the abusive powers that have been
used liberally by Obama and will be used again and again by future
Yes, that is all true - and it is a bit optimistic, at least in my opinion, in assuming there will be future presidents after Trump, of which I think there
may only be a 50/50 chance (for with an insane hothead like Trump I think
mankind may praise itself as very lucky if there is no major nuclear war before 2022 - and if there is, this will destroy human civilization).
Then there is this:
After all, presidents are just puppets on a string, made to dance to the
tune of the powers-that-be. And the powers-that-be want war. They want
totalitarianism. They want a monied oligarchy to run the show. They want
bureaucracy and sprawl and government leaders that march in lockstep
with their dictates. Most of all, they want a gullible, distracted,
easily led populace that can be manipulated, maneuvered and made to fear
whatever phantom menace the government chooses to make the bogeyman of
I do not think that the president
of the USA is a mere puppet on a string, but I agree there is something
like the Deep State, that probably exists in a fairly full blown form
since 2001, but that did exist in part at least for some 30 years
previous to this. The problem is that its existence is secret, or at least it was until now.
Then there is this:
This is the terrible power of the shadow government: to maintain the status quo, no matter which candidate gets elected.
War will continue. Surveillance will continue. Drone killings will
continue. Police shootings will continue. Highway robbery meted out by
government officials will continue. Corrupt government will continue.
Profit-driven prisons will continue. Censorship and persecution of
anyone who criticizes the government will continue. The militarization
of the police will continue. The government’s efforts to label
dissidents as extremists and terrorists will continue.
In such a climate, the police state will thrive.
In fact, I think all these "continue"s may very well be understatements: My own fear is that each of the items that Whitehead says "will continue" (and I agree) not only will continue, but will grow very much worse.
And there is this:
We’ve already torn down the rich forest of liberties established by
our founders. They don’t teach freedom in the schools. Few Americans
know their history. And even fewer seem to care that their fellow
Americans are being jailed, muzzled, shot, tasered, and treated as if
they have no rights at all. They don’t care, that is, until it happens
to them—at which point it’s almost too late.
This is how the police state wins. This is how tyranny rises. This is how freedom falls.
I agree. Here is the ending of the article:
Indeed, if we’re repeating history, the worst is yet to come.
Yes indeed. And "the worst" may be worse than anyone can imagine now.
And this is a recommended article.
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 am saying
this not because I want to
offend but because I want to explain,
and my own explanatory definition of neofascism is this:
is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with a centralized powerful authority, where
the opposition is propagandized and suppressed or censored, that
propounds an ethics which has profit as
its main norm, and that has a politics that is rightwing, nationalistic, pro-capitalist,
anti-liberal, anti-equality, and anti-leftist,
and that has a corporative
organization of the economy in which multi-national corporations are
stronger than a national government or state, b. A political philosophy or
movement based on or advocating such a social system.
Also, I am
rather certain that most (not: all) of those who style
themselved as "neoliberals" in fact are neofascists as defined
(even though they probably do not like the term).
And this is
fascism as I
is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with centralized authority and a dictator, that
suppresses the opposition through propaganda, censorship and terror,
that propounds an ethics founded
on discipline, virility, and collectivism, that has a politics that is
totalitarian, anti-liberal, anti-individualist,
anti-equality, and anti-Marxist, that is also authoritarian,
rightwing and nationalistic, and often racist, and that has a corporative organization of the economy, b. A political philosophy or movement based on or
advocating such a social system.
following if you are interested: On Fascism
and Neofascism: Definitions.
(This lists 22 definitions of the term "fascism", and critically
reflects on them.)
 I am sorry, but with a neofascistic president with neofascistic plans that is what the USA has become: the NUSA (and you can read the added "N" as "New" or as "Neofascistic").
 Yes, indeed - and the same holds also for The Guardian and The Huffington Post, as can be seen from the fact that both made copying their stuff (which means: discussing the lies of their journalistic propagandists) very much more difficult than it would otherwise be. (In case this is not obvious to you: They play their mainly "leftist" mainly well-educated audience in a different
manner than do their rightist competitors who write for the badly
educated. But in the end they are Clintonite, Obamite or Blairite, very
much rather than honest leftists.)
 I am sorry but I know:
Both of my parents were communists for 45 years; one of my grandfathers
was a communist; and my mother's parents were anarchists. And while I
gave up Marxism aged 20 because I disagreed with its economic
treachings and its totalitarianism, I have been a leftist since then.
So yes, I know that my parents and grandparents and myself all were
genuine leftists, whereas the vast majority of the "leftists" I"ve met
since the late 1970ies (!!) were not proper leftists, but were in fact
dishonest careerists (and indeed everyone I met as a "leftist" - very often
members of the Dutch Communist Party - in the University of Amsterdam
now (and quite often since 1992) is a "neoconservatist" (again not because they honestly believe this, but because this seems their best bet to try to keep their large incomes).