Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

 Nov 18, 2016

Crisis: "Social Media", iPhones, Climate, Totalitarian "Law", Merkel, Euro, Olbermann
Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1.
Social Media’s Globe-Shaking Power
2. iPhones Secretly Send Call History to Apple, Security
     Firm Says

3.
WTF: Climate Activists Ask World Leaders "Where's the
     Finance?" to Deal with Global Crisis

4. Trump-Loving GOP Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Define
     Protests as a Form of 'Terrorism'

5. Angela Merkel Sounds Death Knell for TTIP—But Don't
     Thank Donald Trump

6. The Euro Is Murdering Europe
7. Should We Give Donald Trump a Chance? |
     The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ
    Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Friday, November 18, 2016.

A.
This is a crisis log with 7 items and 7 dotted links and it consists (mostly) of some further deliberations on the meanings of Trump's election as president of the USA:

Item 1 is about the power of the social media (but I did not like the article, which seems to me to be propaganda for more governmental control); item 2 is about Apple's pretensions to help its users to phone in private; item 3 is about the lack of finance in the UNO to invest in stopping climate change (I think this is quite intentional, and will not change until the UNO is radically changed); item 4 is about one of the first of probably very many totalitarian laws that are being prepared for the Trumpian presidency; item 5 is about the TTIP (which still has not been definitely killed, and which may become reality as soon as Trump is president); item 6 is about the Euro and Europe (and is an interesting article); and item 7 is not an article but a video by Keith Olbermann, who set himself upas the head of the resistance against Trump.

-- Constant part, for the moment --
B. In case you visit my Dutch site: It keeps being horrible most days. And it still does (on 11 - 17.xi.2016).

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 to see the last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. [1]

C. In case you visit my Danish site: This worked correctly on 11 and 12 xi.2016, but not the day before nor on 13.xi.2016. It was OK on 14.xi.2016 and on 15.xi.2016. But not on 16 and 17 xi.

And I think now this happens intentionally on both my sites, for this did not happen for 20 years on the one, nor for 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.

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.
---

1. Social Media’s Globe-Shaking Power

The first item today is by Farhad Manjo on The New York Times:
This starts as follows:

As the technology industry came to grips in the last week with the reality of a presidential election that did not go its way, many in Silicon Valley landed on the idea that widespread misinformation spread online was a primary factor in the race’s outcome.

On Monday, both Google and Facebook altered their advertising policies to explicitly prohibit sites that traffic in fake news from making money off lies. That’s very likely a worthwhile fix, even if it comes too late. The internet has loosened our collective grasp on the truth, and efforts to fight that dismaying trend are obviously worth pursuing.

Yet it would be a mistake to end this investigation at fake news. In fact, the dangers posed by fake news are just a symptom of a deeper truth now dawning on the world: With billions of people glued to Facebook, WhatsApp, WeChat, Instagram, Twitter, Weibo and other popular services, social media has become an increasingly powerful cultural and political force, to the point that its effects are now beginning to alter the course of global events.

Hm. Here are my comments on these first three paragraphs:

Paragraph 1: I doubt it. For one thing, Hillary Clinton got significantly more votes than Donald Trump did: she lost in the Electoral College, and not with the number of votes; for another thing, and more importantly, the differences in votes between the two presidential candidates were not large; while also I suspect that "Silicon Valley" may be exaggerating its importance by insisting that it was the "widespread misinformation" that helped Trump gain the presidency.

Paragraph 2: I don't think Google and Facebook can be taken seriously as "helpers of ordinary people", and indeed I also do not think it are the leaders of Google or Facebook who should decide what is and isn't "fake news": This is only credible if this is decided by people who do not have any commercial interests in Google or Facebook.

And besides, I must say I resent it that I am reigned in by Manjo under the epitheton that I belong to those whose grasp on the truth has loosened. I must suppose this holds for Farhad Manjo (for he says "we"), but it doesn't hold for me: I have been opposing the neofascists (see [2]) who insisted that "Everybdoy knows that truth does not exist" since 1978; I was even denied the right to take my - brilliant - M.A. in philosophy because of that; and I strongly resist - after 38 years of fighting for truth - that I am made out as one whose "grasp on truth" "has loosened".

Paragraph 3: I agree and I disagree. I agree in that I also think that "
billions of people glued to Facebook, WhatsApp, WeChat, Instagram, Twitter, Weibo and other popular services" is not a good idea, but it seems I disagree with Manjo's reasons.

That last point may not be obvious in the quote, so here is some more on what Manjo seems to mean:

The election of Donald J. Trump is perhaps the starkest illustration yet that across the planet, social networks are helping to fundamentally rewire human society. They have subsumed and gutted mainstream media. They have undone traditional political advantages like fund-raising and access to advertising. And they are destabilizing and replacing old-line institutions and established ways of doing things, including political parties, transnational organizations and longstanding, unspoken social prohibitions against blatant expressions of racism and xenophobia.

Most important, because these services allow people to communicate with one another more freely, they are helping to create surprisingly influential social organizations among once-marginalized groups.
Manjo isn't straightforward, and must be understood from the words he uses: He says (falsely, by the way [3]) that "social networks" "subsumed and gutted mainstream media"; they "destabilized" "established ways of doing things", and they replaced "social prohibitions against blatant expressions of racism and xenophobia".

These words suggest Manjo doesn't like Facebook. I don't either, but not for Manjo's reasons.

Indeed, if Facebook were what it pretends to be - a means for people who are too stupid or too lazy to build their own sites in html to contact each other easily - and nothing else, I would be in favor of it, for I am in favor of democracy.

But Facebook is not at all what it pretends to be: It is a dataminer that works for profit, and assigns advertisements for virtually anything to its users if it is being paid for that, and it guarantees it is being paid for that, by getting all private data from its users to find out who they are and what they want. And it is not dedicated to serving the people who are its members, but to making the highest profits for its owner. And besides that, it is basically very secret and very dishonest.

For me this was obvious from the start, and I never accepted any membership of Facebook, and warned strongly for its dangers in 2011.

Manjo is not at all interested in furthering democracy: he is interested in controlling democracy and manipulating it so that it has outcomes he likes - which is indeed also precisely Mark Zuckerberg's line (except that Manjo and Zuckerberg may not agree on the shape they desire its users to show).

Here is more on the kind of world Manjo wants, that he fears Facebook may destroy:

For people who like an orderly, predictable world, this is the scariest thing about Facebook; not that it may be full of lies (a problem that could potentially be fixed), but that its scope gives it real power to change history in bold, unpredictable ways.

But that’s where we are. It’s time to start recognizing that social networks actually are becoming the world-shattering forces that their boosters long promised they would be — and to be unnerved, rather than exhilarated, by the huge social changes they could uncork.

Again I note that what scares Manjo about Facebook is that "its scope gives it real power to change history in bold, unpredictable ways" - which is to say that he fears the decisions of its users, even if these decisions were not based on lies and were strongly democratic decisions. And note that Manjo has no
criticisms of Facebooks datamining, stealing of privacy, or about dishonesties of Facebook about Facebook.

I could quote more but stop. I think I have made it fairly clear that Manjo is for more control of Facebook because he fears the number of its users, and also - I take it - because he loves control.

He should have said so, instead of writing a piece of propaganda for more control.

2. iPhones Secretly Send Call History to Apple, Security Firm Says

The second item is
by Kim Zetter on The Intercept:

This starts as follows:

Apple emerged as a guardian of user privacy this year after fighting FBI demands to help crack into San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone. The company has gone to great lengths to secure customer data in recent years, by implementing better encryption for all phones and refusing to undermine that encryption.

But private information still escapes from Apple products under some circumstances. The latest involves the company’s online syncing service iCloud.

Russian digital forensics firm Elcomsoft has found that Apple’s mobile devices automatically send a user’s call history to the company’s servers if iCloud is enabled — but the data gets uploaded in many instances without user choice or notification.

“You only need to have iCloud itself enabled” for the data to be sent, said Vladimir Katalov, CEO of Elcomsoft.

I say. To start with, it seems to me a mistake to present Apple as "a guardian of user privacy". I do not think they are or ever were, nor was this their reason for encrypting their phones: I think their reason was to get more customers, and to make more profit. This does not deny that they helped protect privacy - but not as a guardian, but because helping users to maintain some privacy helped them to increase their profits.

And indeed my stance (Apple isn't interested in your privacy: Apple is interested in making a profit) is strongly supported by their abuse of the iCloud, which runs automatically, and circumvents most of the protections for securing privacy that Apple introduced to get more customers.

Once you are a customer, and have iCloud, all your privacy except the content of your conversation is gone:

The logs surreptitiously uploaded to Apple contain a list of all calls made and received on an iOS device, complete with phone numbers, dates and times, and duration. They also include missed and bypassed calls. Elcomsoft said Apple retains the data in a user’s iCloud account for up to four months, providing a boon to law enforcement who may not be able to obtain the data either from the user’s phone, if it’s encrypted with an unbreakable passcode, or from the carrier.

And they retain the data for up to four months to give the NSA all opportunities to load these data down to their own servers, where they very probably will be kept forever.

Here is more, including more thefts of the privacy of Apple users, that shows Apple is gathering all it can get, and thus is both abusing its users with iCloud, and bullshitting, lying and propagandizing about their concers for "user privacy"

It’s not just regular call logs that get sent to Apple’s servers. FaceTime, which is used to make audio and video calls on iOS devices, also syncs call history to iCloud automatically, according to Elcomsoft. The company believes syncing of both regular calls and FaceTime call logs goes back to at least iOS 8.2, which Apple released in March 2015.

And beginning with Apple’s latest operating system, iOS 10, incoming missed calls that are made through third-party VoIP applications like Skype, WhatsApp, and Viber, and that use Apple CallKit to make the calls, also get logged to the cloud, Katalov said.

Because Apple possesses the keys to unlock iCloud accounts, U.S. law enforcement agencies can obtain direct access to the logs with a court order.
Precisely. And please understand it does so - it very probably wants its users to believe - because it wants to help the government with its "War on Terrorism", and therefore its millions of users are promised privacy that in fact they don't really have.

Here is more on the dominant lack of interest of Apple to secure the real privacy of its users:

The syncing of iCloud call logs would not be the first time Apple has been found collecting data secretly. A few months ago, The Intercept reported about similar activity occurring with iMessage logs.

Chris Soghoian, chief technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said he’s not surprised that Apple is collecting the information.

“It’s arguably not even the worst thing about iCloud,” he told The Intercept. “The fact that iCloud backs up what would otherwise be end-to-end encrypted iMessages is far worse in my mind. There are other ways the government can obtain [call logs]. But without the backup of iMessages, there may be no other way for them to get those messages.”

Incidentally, nothing of the above applies to me, but this is mainly because (i) I dislike Apple almost completely from the start (after Apple II) and never used them seriously except for an Apple II around 1980, while also (ii) I have always regarded iClouds as an extra-ordinary stupid and silly idea: Why store your data on a server of a provider, when you can also store it, and vastly more safely, on a USB-stick?!

And I suppose one major difference between me and most other users of computers is that I know how to program since 1973. [4]


3. WTF: Climate Activists Ask World Leaders "Where's the Finance?" to Deal with Global Crisis

The third item is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!:
This starts with the following introduction:

The United Nations says it hopes to mobilize $100 billion to combat climate change and to help compensate victims of global warming. But activists at the climate summit in Morocco say countries are pledging far too little. At a protest today, they held signs reading "WTF?" or "Where’s the Finance?" "The worst part is, $100 billion is not even close to what we need for climate finance," says Aneesa Khan of the group Earth in Brackets. "The amount we need is in the trillions." We get response from Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former U.N. high commissioner for human rights.

I say, which I do because this is the first time I read this and also because it amazes me a little. And what amazes me a little is not the fact that "trillions" are needed to allow the United Nations to do much for the climate (I think I agree with such an estimate), but the fact that Aneesa Khan and others believe (?) that they may get them.

Here is an explication of Aneesa Khan's ideas:

AMY GOODMAN: Final comments as we wrap up this discussion, Mary Robinson? Here at the climate talks at the U.N., the U.N. has said it hopes to mobilize 100 billion U.S. dollars to combat climate change and to help compensate victims of global warming. But activists, who moments ago held a protest here at the COP, say that countries are pledging far too little. They held a small protest holding signs reading "WTF"—not what you think, or maybe it is, but it’s "Where’s the finance?" This is Aneesa Khan of the group Earth in Brackets.

ANEESA KHAN: If we’re looking at the amount that’s been pledged, what we have is only between $18 billion to $34 billion. The worst part is, $100 billion is not even close to what we need for climate finance. The amount that we need is in the trillions. We spent $13 trillion to bail the banks out during the financial crisis, but we can’t even come close to this. The way that this climate finance process has been happening right now has us saying, "WTF?" Where’s the finance? Where’s the equity? Where’s the justice?
That is, in reality the $100 million dollars is also not reached: What was reached is between $18 billion and $34 billion, which is between 1/5th and 1/3rd (appr) of $100 million dollars (which again is at most 5% of "trillions" of dollars).

So what they really have is between 1/100th and 1/60th of the amount they need at least (according to their own estimates), here taken to be 2 trillion dollars.

Here is Mary Robinson:

MARY ROBINSON: I very much agree. Climate finance is incredibly important. That $100 billion is incredibly important, but I also agree with what she said: It must trigger trillions. That’s extremely important. That’s the public—the money coming from governments and from public sources. That must leverage the private sector.
I think it is very unlikely to succeed. The reason is fairly simple and comes in two parts: One. Most governments these days are headed by corrupted politicians and utterly corrupted bureaucrats who both serve the multi-national corporations and the local rich (to which they often themselves belong) [5].
Two. The
multi-national corporations and the rich are only interested in what is profitable (for them) in the short term, and nearly all of the money invested in the climate will not be profitable (at all) in the short term.

Indeed, I hope I am mistaken but indeed would be quite amazed if I am.


4. Trump-Loving GOP Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Define Protests as a Form of 'Terrorism'

The fourth item is by Kali Holloway on Alternet:

This starts as follows - and shows one of the sort of legal changes that I suspect will become very normal under Trump:

A Trump-supporting Republican lawmaker is trying to legally define protests, like some of those erupting across the country against his candidate of choice, labeled a form of “terrorism.” In a statement issued Wednesday, Washington state Senator Doug Ericksen says he is drafting a bill that would allow for felony prosecution of protesters who “intentionally break the law...by obstructing economic activity.” Considering that almost all protest could be defined as getting in the way of business interests, Ericksen’s bill is an obvious attack on citizens’ First Amendment rights.

In fact, I am much less concerned about the First Amendment than I am about totalitarianism: This is an explicit totalitarian law that aims at shutting up everybody who disagrees with The Leader Trump.

Here is some more:

In an unvarnished look at the trickery we may see plenty of in Trump’s America, Ericksen says he will propose creating “a new crime of economic terrorism” which could be used against those whose protest activities “block transportation and commerce, cause property damage, threaten jobs and put public safety at risk.”

Note that what Ericksen is really saying: We will call everybody "terrorists" who somehow - however indirectly - obstructs any economic activity (which in fact may be applied to absolutely anyone, even for preferring this kind of bread over that kind of bread: If I do, then I must be terrorizing the baker of the kind I did not take, for I am "obstructing" his sale of one bread), and we aim to lock them up. As terrorists.

Why not have them shot or lynched on the spot? (But this is the kind of legislation I do expect under Trump.)

5. Angela Merkel Sounds Death Knell for TTIP—But Don't Thank Donald Trump

The fifth item today is by Deirdre Fulton on Common Dreams:

This starts as follows:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday at a joint press conference with U.S. President Barack Obama that negotiations over the corporate-friendly TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between Europe and the United States "will not be concluded now" that Donald Trump has been elected to succeed Obama.

It is a victory for the millions of people on both continents who voiced opposition to the massive deal. But social justice campaigners across Europe refuse to give the credit to Trump, saying that thanks to public outcry, the TTIP was "already dead" long before November 8.

Indeed, a coalition of European civil society groups and trade unions just this week warned that Trump merely exploited economic unease in order to win the presidential election, and that "[d]espite his rhetoric, Trump fully believes in deregulation, privatization, and putting profit before people."

I agree with the last quoted statement - "[d]espite his rhetoric, Trump fully believes in deregulation, privatization, and putting profit before people" - but
I also definitely disagree with the pretensions of "social justice campaigners" who insist that they have beaten the TTP and the TTIP.

No they have not: Obama was very strongly for the TTP, the TTIP, the TISA and the CETA; Hillary Clinton was very strongly for the TTP, the TTIP, the TISA and the CETA (she declared herself against some of them when she still hoped to be elected, but these professions can be taken as dishonest); and almost all of the politicians and bureaucrats who govern the EU were very strongly for the TTP, the TTIP, the TISA and the CETA, and therefore - while I do not deny the opponents of the TTIP (etc.) did get something done - it seems far more likely to me that they would have been defeated if Trump had not declared himself against this kind of treaties and got elected as president.

Indeed, he may change his mind as soon as he is president, and then there still will be the TTP, the TTIP, the TISA and the CETA. (And I do not consider this unlikely.)

Then Piketty is quoted:

Furthermore, argued economist Thomas Piketty in a piece published Wednesday at the Guardian: "The tragedy is that Trump's program will only strengthen the trend towards inequality."

For example, Piketty wrote, Trump "intends to abolish the health insurance laboriously granted to low-paid workers under Obama and to set the country on a headlong course into fiscal dumping, with a reduction from 35 percent to 15 percent in the rate of federal tax on corporation profits, whereas to date the United States had resisted this trend, already witnessed in Europe."

I agree. Here is more by Piketty:

The main lesson for Europe and the world is clear: as a matter of urgency, globalization must be fundamentally re-oriented. The main challenges of our times are the rise in inequality and global warming. We must therefore implement international treaties enabling us to respond to these challenges and to promote a model for fair and sustainable development.

[...] From this point of view, CETA, the E.U.-Canada free trade deal, should be rejected. It is a treaty which belongs to another age. This strictly commercial treaty contains absolutely no restrictive measures concerning fiscal or climate issues. It does, however, contain a considerable reference to the "protection of investors." This enables multinationals to sue states under private arbitration courts, bypassing the public tribunals available to one and all.

Again I agree, and indeed I add that the CETA in enabling "multinationals to sue states under private arbitration courts, bypassing the public tribunals available to one and all" is an explicit neofascistic treaty (which - of course! - was welcomed by all the multi-national corporations and by almost all European politicians and all European bureaucrats).

And this is a recommended article.

6. The Euro Is Murdering Europe

The sixth item today is by F. William Engdahl (<- Wikipedia) on New Eastern Outlook:

This starts with the following introduction (which is bold in the original):
The Euro is murdering the nations and economies of the EU quite literally. Since the fixed currency regime came into effect, replacing national currencies in transactions in 2002, the fixed exchange rate regime has devastated industry in the periphery states of the 19 Euro members while giving disproportionate benefit to Germany. The consequence has been a little-noted industrial contraction and lack of possibility to deal with resulting banking crises. The Euro is a monetarist disaster and the EU dissolution is now pre-programmed as just one consequence.
I agree with most of this and indeed I also was never a proponent of the EU nor of the Euro: Both seemed to me then (in the 1990ies and early 2000s) totali- tarian projects that were calculated to help the multi-national corporations and
the policians - and I think I was quite right.

Here is more:

Those of you familiar with my thoughts on the economy will know I feel the entire concept of globalization, a term which was popularized under the presidency of Bill Clinton to glamorize the corporativist agenda that had just come into being with creation of the World Trade Organization in 1994, is fundamentally a destructive rigged game of the few hundred or so giant “global players. Globalization destroys nations to advance the agenda of a few hundred giant, unregulated multinationals.
Yes indeed - and to destroy "nations to advance the agenda of a few hundred giant, unregulated multinationals" is and was an explicit neofascistic [2] project that was furthered by both most politicians - "left", right and center - and by the lawyers and CEOs of the multi-national corporations.

And here is more with which I also agree - and I like to add this is the first
time I read this diagnosis from somebody else:

The faltering US project known as Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership or the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is little more than Mussolini on steroids. The most powerful few hundred corporations will formally stand above national law if we are foolish enough to elect corrupt politicians that will endorse such nonsense. Yet few have really looked closely at the effect that surrender of currency sovereignty under the Euro regime is having.
Quite so! It was an explicit neofascistic [2] project, that clearly was introduced by the lawyers of the multi-national corporations for what must have been plainly understood neofascistic reasons, though indeed the reasons were very probably not called by that name, but motivated in terms of profit.
The problem with the creation of the European Monetary Union (EMU) prescribed in Maastricht Treaty is that the single currency and the “independent” European Central Bank were launched without being tied to a political single legal entity, a genuine United States of Europe. The Euro and the European Central Bank is a supranational creation without answerability to anyone.
I agree with the last sentence - which may be restated in a clearer fashion by saying that the Euro and the European Central Bank were created by bureaucrats who for their own advancements and profits, and indeed were quite consciously - I am firmly convinced (without proof [6]) - designed to be without any political control.

But I very much doubt whether the European Union would have been a success if there were "
a political single legal entity", and I should add that I did try to understand the Maastricht Treaty in the early 1990ies, but did not succeed, indeed like almost everybody else, I am rather certain: it was made extremely difficult to understand on purpose (I am very firmly convinced: if I couldn't understand it in spite of trying, few could).

Here is how a very few non-elected EU-bureaucrats contribute to their own riches [7] and to the riches of the multi-national corporations they serve (whether they know this or not):
The EU bureaucrats have a cute name for this disconnect between unelected central bank officials of the ECB controlling the economic destiny of the 19 member states with 340 million citizens of the so-called Eurozone. They call it the “democratic deficit.” That deficit has grown gargantuan since the 2008 global financial and banking crisis and the emergence of the not-sovereign European Central Bank.
I start with noting that "the “democratic deficit" has two meanings (at least): There is the enormous amount of money that the ordinary people of Europe   have been forced to cough up from their taxes to save the banks, and there is
the enormous lack of any influence of the ordinary people of Europe over their own destinies, and indeed their own tax money, because the - extremely few, completely unelected - European bureaucrats have taken over most power and most influence.

Here is some more on how this was realized:
Under the Euro and the rules of Eurogroup and ECB, decisions are no longer sovereign but central, taken by not-democratically appointed faceless bureaucrats like Holland Finance Minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, President of Eurogroup. During the Cyprus bank crisis Dijsselbloem proposed confiscating all depositor money, big or small, to recapitalize the banks. He was forced to back down at the last minute, but it shows what is possible in the coming EU bank crisis that is pre-programmed by the defective Euro institution and its fatally flawed ECB.
To which I can only say: Yes indeed - Dijsselbloem is quite willing to take all the money every ordinary European inhabitant has, and give it to the (also unelected) heads of the European banks to help them solve their financial problems, and Dijsselbloem can do so because the European Union has been
designed to be - on purpose, I am quite sure [6] - a neofascistic superstate (and see again note [2]) where no one except the very rich and the bureaucrats and politicians who serve them have any real power.

This article ends as follows:
In 1997 before his death, one of my least-favorite economists, Milton Friedman, stated, “Europe exemplifies a situation unfavorable to a common currency. It is composed of separate nations, speaking different languages, with different customs, and having citizens feeling far greater loyalty and attachment to their own country than to a common market or to the idea of Europe.” On that, I have to say, he was right. It’s even more so the case today. The Euro and its European Central Bank are murdering Europe as effectively as the Second World War did, only without the bombs and rubble.
I agree both with Engdahl's estimate of Milton Friedman as with his estimate of this particular quotation of Friedman. And if "[t]he Euro and its European Central Bank are" not "murdering Europe as effectively as the Second World War did", they certainly, together with the powerful unelected European bureaucrats and many of the corrupted European politicians, are busy surrecting a neofascist Europe - and see note [2] for what I mean.

And this is a recommended article.

7.
Should We Give Donald Trump a Chance? | The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ

The seventh and last item today is by Keith Olbermann (<- Wikipedia) and is a video. I think Olbermann sounds too angry, but he has an important point, and also seems to be one of a minority in the media who does not try "to normalize" Donald Trump now that Trump has been elected.

The video takes 6 min 9 sec, and is well worth seeing:
As you can see, Keith Olbermann is organizing The Resistance to Donald Trump and says he will fight against Trump by all possible legal and non-violent means. He also said he is willing to cede his position to politicians or other qualified people.

I agree Trump must be resisted and I think it is wise to say that such resistance will only use
legal and non-violent means.

I doubt whether Olbermann will succeed, but then he probably conceives himself to be an in-between candidate, whose position is meant to be taken over by some politician.

And there are other reasons as well: See item [4] for a proposal to make Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, and others who protest Trump, to be made out as "terrorists" and be prosecuted for disagreeing with Our Great Leader Trump (e.g. by diminishing Trump's profits)- which is what I have warned for in 2005 and in 2012, where the last item is in English (the first is in Dutch), and was somewhat improved stylistically in 2014.

Each of the last three links is strongly recommended, and indeed I will again upload the 2014 link in January 2017: It seems to me I theorized quite well in 2012 and 2005.

And this video is recommended.

--------------------------
Notes
[1] Alas, 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 whatsoever for anyone).

[2]
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:
Neofascism 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 stateb. 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 defined it:
Fascism 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.
See the following if you are interested: On Fascism and Neofascism: Definitions. (This lists 22 definitions of the term "fascism", and critically reflects on them.)

[3] What I think is false is the claim that ""social networks" "subsumed and gutted mainstream media"". Not if the mainstream media are the printed press: This was "gutted" by far fewer advertisements.

[4] Namely in Fortran for a mainframe (where the programs had to be handed in on cards). In fact, this did not help much or anything with a PC, but then I learned Applebasic in 1979-1980 (on a friend's machine), and had my own computer since 1987, on which I learned to program fairly to very well in Basic, Pascal, Prolog, Smalltalk, Python and Assembler. Also, while I thought in the 1980ies and 1990ies something like "most people who get a PC want to learn to program it", from the 2000s on I learned that in fact few learn any programming language.

This really is one of the main reasons why relatively few understand that computers with internet-connection are very dangerous (to anybody who has ideas and values that oppose the government, these days).


[5] I am sorry if you disagree, but I have never voted since 1971 (when I did not have to vote anymore) for the simple reason that I could not discover any politician that I regarded as honest and intelligent. (It may be that my standards are not quite like yours, indeed, but this is the reason.)

And these days I think that the majority of all politicians who get to be prominent are corrupted with money from the very rich. You may disagree, but apart from my personal experiences (which you don't have), one important reason is that it is, in fact, in case you owe hundreds of millions or several billions, not very difficult to buy politicians somehow (quite possibly in an apparent legal way), and a lot cheaper than help them win elections.

Finally, if all you are interested in as a CEO is profit for your company (which is what Milton Friedman said is all that matters and all that should matter), then you are crazy if you don't try to buy politicians, especially if this can be done (as is often the case: "lobbying") with little or no risk.

[6] I probably will use phrases like this - "I am firmly convinced, but have no proof" - rather a lot more in the future, because (1) I am quite clear that most politicians are corrupt frauds who are only out for their own power and riches (like most people, indeed: all I am saying is that they are nothing special, and especially not in an ethical or moral way); because (2) it are the politicians who have served the rich now for over 35 years, during which time many of the rights of their voters were broken down, and during which time only the rich got better (a lot also); and because (3) the politicians have made it difficult or impossible to know what they do or to know who controls them by making enormous amounts of information that should be shared with the public secret.

[7] You may believe that the top European bureaucrats are not rich and do not try to be rich. If so, I think you are very naive. (Almost everyone likes to be rich; nearly everyone tries to be rich; if you are a powerful European bureaucrat, you have excellent chances on becoming rich.)

       home - index - summaries - mail