1. Social Media’s
2. iPhones Secretly Send Call History to Apple, Security
3. WTF: Climate Activists
Ask World Leaders "Where's the
Finance?" to Deal with Global
4. Trump-Loving GOP Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Define
Protests as a Form of
Angela Merkel Sounds Death Knell for TTIP—But Don't
Thank Donald Trump
6. The Euro Is Murdering Europe
Should We Give Donald Trump a Chance? |
The Resistance with Keith
Olbermann | GQ
is a Nederlog of Friday, November 18, 2016.
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
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.
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: It keeps being horrible most days. And it
still does (on 11 - 17.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 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,
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. Social Media’s Globe-Shaking Power
The first item today is by Farhad Manjo on The New York Times:
This starts as follows:
Hm. Here are my comments on these first three
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
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
internet has loosened our collective grasp on the truth, and
efforts to fight that dismaying trend are obviously worth pursuing.
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.
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
And besides, I must say I resent it that I am reigned
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 ) 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
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:
Manjo isn't straightforward, and must
be understood from the words he uses: He says (falsely, by the way )
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
“You only need to have iCloud itself
enabled” for the data to be sent, said Vladimir Katalov, CEO of
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
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"
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.
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,
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.
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
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. 
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
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
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).
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?
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Then Piketty is quoted:
economist Thomas Piketty in a piece published Wednesday at the Guardian:
"The tragedy is that Trump's program will only strengthen the trend
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
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
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  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
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
Quite so! It was an explicit neofascistic 
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 ) - designed to be without any
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  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
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  - a neofascistic
superstate (and see again note ) 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
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  for what I mean.
And this is a recommended article.
Should We Give Donald Trump a Chance? | The Resistance with Keith
Olbermann | GQ
The seventh and last item today is
(<- 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
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
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  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.
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.)
 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.
 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).
 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.
 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
 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.)