Nov 19, 2016

Crisis: Greenwald, Harrison, Ford, Parry, State Terrorism, Truth-out, Snowden
Sections                                                                     crisis index

The Stark Contrast Between GOP’s Self-Criticism in
     2012 & Democrats’ Blame-Everyone-Else Posture
2. Top WikiLeaks Editor: Democrats Should Be Happy
     About the Organization’s Commitment to Transparency

None of Them Has Ever Been My President
4. What to Do About ‘Fake News’
5. UK Set to Approve Most Extreme Spy Bill in 'History of
     Western Democracy

6. Resisting Despair: Speaking Truth in the Face of Trump
7. Snowden To The World: Stop Letting Facebook Control
     Your News

This is a Nederlog of Saturday, November 19, 2016.

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 a Glenn Greenwald article that (quite correctly, though a bit early) criticizes the present Democratic Party (that I expect to change rather a lot real soon); item 2 is about Wikileaks' Sarah Harrison, who published a good defense of Wikileaks; item 3 is about an article by black activist Glen Ford mostly about Obama (I like it); item 4 is about a good article by Robert Parry on "fake news" (most of the articles about "fake news" are - in my opinion - fake news that aim at setting up an Orwellian Ministry of Truth run by Google and Facebook); item 5 is about the legal arrival of Great Britain among the nations which pretend they are democracies but are in fact dictatorships; item 6 is about an article by the Truth-out staff that is brave; and item 7 is about Snowden's advice about Facebook: Stop Using It! (I agree, and never did.)

-- 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). 18.xi. was correct.

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.
18.xi. was correct.

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. (And this is not "automatic": it changes from day to day.)

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. The Stark Contrast Between GOP’s Self-Criticism in 2012 and Democrats’ Blame-Everyone-Else Posture Now

The first item today is by Glenn Greenwald on The Intercept:

This starts as follows:

It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: “the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that’s essentially a smoking pile of rubble.”

One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken.

Hm. Yes and no, I'd say.

I suppose I agree with the statement that "the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force", which indeed is quite true (I think) when one stresses "political" and considers that the current Clinton-headed Democratic Party lost most everything it once had.

When one stresses instead "Party" I think it is more questionable, although I guess the situation will be a lot clearer in two or three months time, when the
fight who is to lead the Democratic Party after Clinton's defeat probably will have been settled.

At present, the Democratic Party made no mistakes whatsoever, according to its present Clintonite leadership:

At least thus far, there is virtually no evidence of any such intention. Quite the contrary, Democrats have spent the last 10 days flailing around blaming everyone except for themselves, constructing a carousel of villains and scapegoats – from Julian Assange, Vladimir Putin, James Comey, the electoral college“fake news,” and Facebook, to Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein, millennials, Bernie Sanders, Clinton-critical journalists and, most of all, insubordinate voters themselves – to blame them for failing to fulfill the responsibility that the Democratic Party, and it alone, bears: to elect Democratic candidates.

Yes, indeed - but OK: It has been just 10 days, and the Clintonites and Obamites still lead the Democratic Party. I hope they will soon disappear, but indeed they certainly haven't as yet:

The self-exonerating mentality of Democrats is particularly remarkable in light of how comprehensive their failures have been. After the 2012 election, the GOP immersed itself in unflinching self-critique even though it still held a majority in the House and dominated governorships and state houses. By rather stark contrast, the Democrats have now been crushed at all levels of electoral politics, yet appear more self-righteously impressed with themselves, more vindicated in their messaging and strategic choices, than ever before.

While Democrats point fingers at anyone they can find, the evidence mounts that all critical sectors of their party’s apparatus fundamentally failed.
This is probably also true. Then again, I think one has to wait a little more to see how the Democratic Party will be reshaped, and who will get the power in it.
(And I agree this is quite important.)

2. Top WikiLeaks Editor: Democrats Should Be Happy About the Organization’s Commitment to Transparency

The second item is
by Alexander Reed Kelly on Truthdig:

This starts as follows:

Writing in The New York Times, Berlin-based journalist and WikiLeaks editor Sarah Harrison responded to accusations that the publication “abett[ed] the candidacy of Donald J. Trump by publishing … information about Hillary Clinton’s campaign and its influence over the Democratic National Committee” in the weeks preceding the 2016 presidential election.

Proponents of this critique, she said, imply that “a news organization should have withheld accurate, newsworthy information from the public.”
Yes indeed: I think Harrison is quite right. Here is some more from Harrison:

Despite the mounting legal and political pressure coming from Washington, we continue to publish valuable material, and submissions keep pouring in. There is a desperate need for our work: The world is connected by largely unaccountable networks of power that span industries and countries, political parties, corporations and institutions; WikiLeaks shines a light on these by revealing not just individual incidents, but information about entire structures of power.

While a single document might give a picture of a particular event, the best way to shed light on a whole system is to fully uncover the mechanisms around it — the hierarchy, ideology, habits and economic forces that sustain it. It is the trends and details visible in the large archives we are committed to publishing that reveal the details that tell us about the nature of these structures. It is the constellations, not stars alone, that allow us to read the night sky.

I think she is quite right in this as well, as she is about the following (still Harrison's writing):

At times we receive individual documents, but we have come to specialize in large collections. Over the last decade we have vetted, indexed and published an average of 3,000 documents per day, including over 300,000 reports covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures and over 120,000 documents from the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also curate the Public Library of United States Diplomacy, the world’s largest collection of diplomatic cables (nearly three million).

WikiLeaks has transformed more than 10 million documents into a unique searchable archive, not only making our website the world’s largest online library for suppressed information, but also enabling greater contextualization through relationships across publications.

The - short - article ends thus:

“We publish without fear or favor, bringing transparency to powerful factions and secretive institutions, not taking any sides except that of the truth,” Harrison continued. “We believe in the democratization of information and the power that knowledge gives to people to further peace, accountability and self-determination.

“WikiLeaks will continue publishing, enforcing transparency where secrecy is the norm. While threats against our editor are mounting, Mr. Assange is not alone, and his ideas continue to inspire us and people around the world.”

I hope she is right. And this is a recommended article.

3. None of Them Has Ever Been My President

The third item is by Glen Ford on Truthdig and originally on Black Agenda Report:
This starts as follows:
As a revolutionary Black nationalist whose socialism predates my facial hairs, I have no problem saying Donald Trump is not my president. Neither is the current occupant of the White House, nor were any of the Democrats, Republicans and Whigs that preceded him.

On a chilly November day in 2009 a newly-created coalition, of which I was a co-founder, marched on the White House to denounce and renounce Barack Obama as a tool of white supremacy and the imperial war machine. “Obama, Obama, you can’t hide – We charge you with genocide,” we shouted, indicting the First Black President for the crimes he was busily committing in service to his masters on Wall Street.
I say, for I did not know that. And I think Glen Ford was right, and indeed also
saw a bit sooner through Obama than I did (though I had more or less gotten Obama's pattern of deceptions by the end of 2009 as well).

Here is Glen Ford on Obama and his actions:
Obama mobilized NATO air forces and jihadist proxies to destroy Libya, which had previously enjoyed the highest living standard in Africa. He redeployed these same al Qaida terrorists to Syria, killing 400,000 people, displacing half the surviving population and bringing the U.S. to the very brink of nuclear war with Russia. This so-called “Son of Africa” has effectively occupied most of the continent through a U.S. Military Command (AFRICOM) that was less than a year old when Obama was sworn into office. The African Union provides diplomatic cover for the CIA-run “peace keeping” mission in Somalia, while U.S. conventional forces have infiltrated the militaries of all but two African nations. The holdouts, Eritrea and Zimbabwe, are under constant threat of regime change. Obama joined George Bush and Bill Clinton in perpetuating the 20 year-long slaughter in the Democratic Republic of Congo that has claimed more than six million lives, the worst genocide since World War Two (“Obama, Obama, you can’t hide, We charge you with genocide!”)
I can't rationally judge everything that is said in the above paragraph, but to the best of my knowledge it is correct.

Here is the last bit that I'll quote from this article:

For those who fear Trump’s “fascism,” the threat level depends on how he uses the arsenal of repressive tools bequeathed to him by the Obama administration. These legal, infrastructural and technological instruments of the national security state are fascist in their intent; they were made for the purpose of tracking, disorganizing, neutralizing and locking up dissidents, and disinforming the public at large. Thus, President Obama and his predecessors were fascist-minded, whether you call their administrations operatively fascist or not.
I agree, except that I propose "neofascist" rather than "fascist", for reasons that are briefly explained in note [2] and at considerably more length in my On Fascism and Neofascism: Definitions.

And I think it makes sense to assume that Trump will abuse "the arsenal of repressive tools bequeathed to him by the Obama administration". How precisely remains to be seen.

This a recommended article.

4. What to Do About ‘Fake News’

The fourth item is by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews:

This starts as follows:

In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory, a hot new issue – raised by President Obama in an international setting on Thursday and touted on The New York Times’ front page on Friday – is the problem of “fake news” being disseminated on the Internet.

Major Internet companies, such as Google and Facebook, are being urged to censor such articles and to punish alleged violators. Also, teams of supposedly “responsible” news providers and technology giants are being assembled to police this alleged problem and decide what is true and what is not.

But therein lies the more serious problem: who gets to decide what is real and what is not real? And – in an age when all sides propagate propaganda – when does conformity in support of a mainstream “truth” become censorship of reasonable skepticism?

First, I think it is or ought to be very clear that I am the only person (etc.) who decides "what is real and what is not real" and the same holds for everyone else: Only real human persons, who moreover are - ideally speaking -  intellectually capable and rationally informed, and who are neither very angry nor very prejudiced, are to be the judges of the asserted "truths" that the propagandists in the mainstream media and the governments produce.

And second: No, this does not mean "what is real" or "what is the truth" are relative or matters of personal taste and emotions, for I gave four conditions
that - if they were satisfied, which they largely are not - would make "the news" probably considerably more reliable:

"The news" must be written by people who are (i) intellectually capable (and I think most journalists are not, or at least are less capable than I am (who got the best marks on my B.A. and M.A. and only did not end up as a professor because I am ill for 37 years now); (ii) rationally informed (again I am quite certain that most journalists are not, also if they are quite honest [3]); (iii) not very prejudiced (formulated this way to allow everyone some prejudice [4]); and (iv) also are not very angry (formulated this way to allow everyone some anger).

Will this make "the news" reliable? No, but if the majority of journalists would satisfy these criterions, which the majority does not, it is likely that the news would be more reliable. And that is indeed also about the maximum one can hope to get from "the news", supposing this still is mostly free and made by
diverse organizations that do not have to support certain positions.

Here is Parry on the mainstream media:

I am surely no fan of Internet hoaxes and baseless accusations. Yet, I also recognize that mainstream U.S. news outlets have made horrendous and wholesale factual errors, too, such as reporting in 2002-03 that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program (The New York Times) and was hiding stockpiles of WMD (many TV and print outlets, including The Washington Post).

And, mainstream outlets getting such life-and-death stories wrong was not just a one-off affair around the Iraq invasion. At least since the 1980s, The New York Times has misreported or glossed over many international issues that put the United States and its allies in a negative light.

I basically agree, though I should like to add that among my reasons to despise most mainstream media [5] are not only their lies and misrepresent- ations but also the more subtle propaganda, the coloring, and (in Holland, e.g. in the NRC Handelsblad) plenty of articles you do not know whether they are written in collaboration with suppliers they do advertise for or not. (My guess is: most are, these days).

Next, there is this on on the fake news about "fake news", for this is really fake news that attempts to set up an overal Orwellian Ministry of Truth that will decide (in secret, very probably, and without any appeal) which news is not "fake" (that supplied by the mainstream media, is my guess) and which new is "fake" (all the news not supplied by the mainstream media, and all the news that opposes Trump, is my guess):

So, who are the “responsible” journalists who should be anointed to regulate what the world’s public gets to see and hear? For that Orwellian task, a kind of Ministry of Truth has been set up by Google, called the First Draft Coalition, which touts itself as a collection of 30 major news and technology companies, including the Times and Post, tackling “fake news” and creating a platform to decide which stories are questionable and which ones aren’t.

Quite so. Since Google is a neofascistic organization (check out [2]: it is mostly quite correct about Google [6]) that is only interested in maximizing its own profits or its own powers, this must be considered a neofascistic plan that aims to destroy the suppliers of real news.

Here is more:

While it’s undeniable that some false or dubious stories get pushed during the heat of a political campaign and in wartime – and journalists have a role in fact-checking as best they can – there is potentially a greater danger when media insiders arrogate to themselves the power to dismiss contrary evidence as unacceptable, especially given their own history of publishing stories that turned out to be dubious if not entirely false.

It’s even more dangerous when these self-appointed arbiters of truth combine forces with powerful Internet search engines and social media companies to essentially silence dissenting opinions and contrary facts by making them very difficult for the public to locate.

Arguably even worse is when politicians – whether President-elect Donald Trump or Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan or President Obama – get into the business of judging what is true and what is false.

Yes, precisely: What Google+Facebook created their "fake news" bullshit for is to get all the power for themselves, so that they can produce all the fake news they want to, and besides propagandize as much as they can.

And these are the real rules that apply, according to Robert Parry:

It’s simply important to do one’s best to inform the American people and the world’s public as accurately as possible. Awarding trust is best left to individual readers who must be the ultimate judges of what’s real and what’s fake.

I completely agree. And I don't want Google, Facebook or Twitter, and I add that if you use them you are using the anonymous uncontrollable tools of neofascism (see [2] for my meanings).

This is a recommended article.

5. UK Set to Approve Most Extreme Spy Bill in 'History of Western Democracy

The fifth item today is by Nadia Prupis on Common Dreams:

This starts as follows:

The U.K. surveillance bill known as the "Snooper's charter" is poised to become law after passing both houses of Parliament this week. It only needs to be approved by Royal Assent, which is expected to happen by the end of the year.

The Investigatory Powers (IP) Bill is, as transparency advocates describe it, the most extreme surveillance law ever passed by a democracy. Approved amid the chaos of the post-Brexit vote and President-elect Donald Trump's historic upset, the bill has implications that reach far beyond its borders.

I agree for the most part, though I think it is a mistake to describe the present Great Britain as "a democracy": It would have been far more correct to describe the present Great Britain as a royalty whose few hundreds of parliamentarians and governors nearly all insist, completely falsely, that they are genuine democrats. [7]

And here is a survey of the neofascistic powers (see item [2]) that the GCHQ and the English government arrogate to themselves:

Open Rights Group summarized the bill's most pertinent provisions:

  • Internet Service Providers could be obliged to store their customers' web browsing history for a year. The police and government departments will have unprecedented powers to access this data through a search engine that could be used for profiling.
  • The security services will continue to have powers to collect communications data in bulk.
  • The police and security services will have new hacking powers.
  • The security services can access and analyze public and private databases, even though the majority of data will be held about people who are not suspected of any crimes.

The bill codifies the statutes revealed in 2013 by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, "as well as increasing surveillance by the police and other government departments," Killock continued. "There will continue to be a lack of privacy protections for international data sharing arrangements with the U.S. Parliament has also failed to address the implications of the technical integration of GCHQ [the U.K.'s Government Communications Headquarters] and the NSA."

All four dotted points are explicitly fascistic powers (see item [2] below). In case you doubt this, here is the United Nations privacy chief Joseph Cannataci:

The United Nations privacy chief Joseph Cannataci previously called the bill "worse than scary," saying at an Internet Governance Forum panel in Brazil last week, "It is the golden age of surveillance, [governments have] never had so much data. I am just talking about metadata, I haven't got down to content."

"Mass surveillance is alive and well but governments are finding ways of making that the law of the land," Cannataci said. He also criticized the U.K. media and pro-surveillance members of parliament for what he called "an offensive" to distort the debate and push new powers into law.

I know he neither used the words "fascist" nor "neofascist", but then (i) very probably his father and grandfather have not survived resp. 3 years and 9 months or been murdered in German concentration camps, nor has his direct family been in the communist restistance against Nazism, and neither has he been called "a dirty fascist" for many years by the sado-fascist terrorists of the ASVA [8], while all these things hold for me, and (ii) he does say the bill is "worse than scary" and he also says that "[i]t is the golden age of surveillance", which was in the 20th Century THE field in which the Nazis and the Communists excelled - but without knowing as much as 1% of 1% of 1% of what the present secret services know.

Then there is this:

Snowden also wrote, "The U.K. has just legalized the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy. It goes farther than many autocracies."

I more or less halfly agree: I think the UK did legalize "the most extreme surveillance" that ever existed, but in consequence I deny them the right to style themselves "democracies": Any country in which the secret services are legally permitted to surveil everyone in everything without almost any control and without any specific legal justification is not a democracy, but is a dictatorship.

For yes, I agree with Snowden that it "goes farther than many autocracies" - but I also want a consistent terminology, and secret services that are legally allowed to go "farther than many autocracies" are not the secret services of any real democracy, but are the secret services of an aspiring tyrrany.

And here is some background:

Killock noted in an op-ed for Newsweek last week that "[a]ll of these practices appear to have existed for many years, in secret and without a Parliamentary vote. Hidden creative interpretations of our existing laws allowed so-called 'bulk powers' to gather information about millions of people, secretly tap internal cables belonging to Google or Yahoo! and to hack foreign companies, such as Belgium's national telecoms provider, turning them into [GCHQ] surveillance conduits. The only reason we know, of course, is because of Edward Snowden's actions, revealing what the U.S.'s NSA and Britain's GCHQ were up to."

I agree. But for me the border was reached and crossed as soon as these illegal neofascistic powers that are only good for organizing a tyranny became legal:

Any government that legalizes that all of its own inhabitants can be spied upon in secret, regardless from anything they did, while all their private data are locked into private dossiers that will follow them all their lives, is not a democracy but is a dictatorship. In legal fact.

Welcome to the dictatorships, Great Britain!

6. Resisting Despair: Speaking Truth in the Face of Trump

The sixth item today is by Truth-out staff on Truth-out

This starts as follows:
The scene at Truthout last week was bleak. There's no denying that our hearts were heavy in the wake of the Trump victory, not because we thought Hillary Clinton was the answer to this country's problems, but because of the long list of terrifying new dangers posed by a Trump administration. However, the day after the election, we came together for an all-staff meeting. We listened to each other, comforted each other and began to lay plans for building a force for justice-powered journalism in the face of fascism. We drew strength from the knowledge that we have an imperative role to play in the resistance -- and then we got to work. What follows is a compilation of our reflections on the challenge before us, and what we're going to do to take it on.
I like Truth-out. It is one of the non-mainstream media I can trust in principle,
and indeed I have also learned, in the past over eight years of writing about the
crisis, that I simply cannot trust any of the mainstream media in principle. [9]

There are 14 personal statements by journalists and editors, which you can all read by clicking on the above last dotted link. I select one, by the editor of Truth-out,
William Rivers Pitt, because he is the editor and because of the position he takes:
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast," wrote American navalcrisis commander John Paul Jones in 1778, "for I intend to go in harm's way." Those words, written in the harrowing cacophony of the Revolution, have special meaning for me as I contemplate the role of Truthout in encompassing the astonishment of a Trump administration. Here is a man who, by his own words and deeds, lives for vengeance, and has made clear his desire to lay waste to journalists and journalism in his quest for total adoration. We who sail these waters are now in active legal peril, make no mistake. I say: let them come. To quote another howl of defiance from days gone by, not one step back. Where there is truth, we will tell it. Where there is damage, we will expose it. I intend to go in harm's way, should the need arise. We will not be stopped.
I like it, but I am also a realist who knows much about Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia:

If Trump's government is going to be explicitly neofascist - and it seems it is - Truth-out will be closed (quite possibly because they are, according to Trump's government, "terrorists", simply because they write other things than Our Great Leader Trump desires: See here).

Snowden To The World: Stop Letting Facebook Control Your News

The seventh and last item today is by Josie Wales on Rage Against The Bullshit and originally on

This starts as follows:

In an attempt to rationalize the fact that Donald Trump has been elected as the next president of the United States, a growing movement is lashing out against “fake news sites,” even labeling them responsible for the election results.

I have explained above what I think the Google + Facebook inspired lashing out against "fake news sites" is: Fake news about "fake news" that intends to give all control to the anonymous algorithms of Google + Facebook.

I very much dislike Google and Facebook. I never became a member of Facebook (sorry: I am intelligent) and have not been using Google at all (apart from Youtube, I admit) for about eight years now (nor Yahoo, nor Bing).

In any case, here is Edward Snowden's opinion:

Fake news sites are certainly problematic in a world where the majority of people get their news from social networks; a good portion of those people don’t even read articles before sharing themFacebook and Google have responded to the hysteria by announcing their decision to ban what they deem to be fake news sites from their advertising platforms. This is a cause for concern for many reasons.

As Edward Snowden pointed out, “[t]o have one company that has enough power to reshape the way we think, I don’t think I need to describe how dangerous that is.” Snowden addressed the fake news issue in detail via Beambot at Fusion’s Real Future Fair on Tuesday.

“I don’t think many people need to have this explained to them, that when you type something into the Google search box, it’s Google that decides what you get back. When you go to your Facebook page, it’s Facebook that decides what news it is that you see on your page.

When you go to a platform like Twitter, or any of these, really, the voices that are heard are the ones that are selected and permitted by the corporation.”

He identifies the source of the problem as a lack of competition.

There seems to be no alternative to the larger services. Because of this network effect, because [of] the first mover advantage. When you get a Google or a Facebook or Twitter in place, they never seem to leave.”

His solution? Don’t rely on Facebook for your news. By banning websites from their platform, they are essentially telling users they aren’t intelligent enough to decide for themselves what is and is not news.

I completely agree - and yes: Facebook and Google and Twitter are "essentially telling users they aren’t intelligent enough to decide for themselves what is and is not news". If you remain a member or a user of any of them then you agree that you are not capable of deciding what is and is not true, and you agree that you think their anonymous and secret algorithms are capable.

And this is a recommended article.
[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).

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] That most journalists are not rationally informed about most things they write about, indeed also if they are quite honest and do their best to be factually correct can be deduced quite easily from the premiss that all ordinary journalists must write every working day about quite a few things they did not
know about before.

In fact, I think I know it a bit better, for I lived for 3 years with a woman who was a - good, honest, intelligent, mostly factually correct - journalist.

[4] William Hazlitt wrote - quite correctly! - "I cannot even leave the room without prejudice", and this shows the extent of all our judgements on prior judgements, which is what "prejudice" means, even though it tends to be used in the more exclusive sense of criticizing those of someone's supposed prior judgements that someone else thinks are not correct.

[5] I do despise the mainstream media for two main reasons, the first of which is general and has nothing to do with my personal history:

I think the mainstream media are where they are - acting basically as propagandists and liars for their governments - because they wanted to. It is true there was an important external reason, namely the loss of most advertisements, but it is also true they might have answered (and ought to have answered) quite differently from how they did answer.

And it seems to me that they did answer as they did - to the effect: "we agree we must relay the news the government and the multi-national corporations provide to us without investigating its truth" - mostly because they knew this would make their jobs nice, easy and well paid.

I am sorry, but I find that despicable, although I understand it very well.

[6] About Google or Facebook and neofascism: They definitely are strongly for their very own profits and strongly for multi-nationals that are stronger than governments. Together with their many lies, their secrecies, and the many billions earned for their extremely few extremely rich owners, I think that is sufficient to provide a foundation for my claim they are, in fact, neofascistic, also because considerable parts of the politics on which they may be claimed to fail the diagnosis of being neofascists - essentially the bit: "rightwing, nationalistic, anti-liberal, anti-equality" - are mostly a matter of propaganda, and about the real attitudes of the real owners not much is known.

[7] I explain my position lower down in the article. It comes to this, essentially:

Any government that legally decides to investigate everything all its inhabitants say, do, call, write, know, value, are interested in, and much more, including their pornography, is not a democratic government (legally) but is in fact a dictatorial government (whatever it calls itself).

You cannot have your secret services in secret investigate absolutely everyone in absolutely everything (meanwhile compiling huge dossiers on them that may be used against them all their lives by all following governments of whatever political color) without being a dictatorial state.

Since Great Britain legally changed the law so that its secret services are now allowed to investigate everything anyone says, writes, does, calls, knows, values, desires, is interested in etc. etc. all without any specific legal reason, Great Britain is now a dictatorship maintained by its thousand or so members of parliament and government (together with the press and quite a few of its institutions and many of its bureaucrats).

(And I am very, very sorry, but I also am neither blind nor stupid.)

[8] Each of the sado-fascistic terrorists of the ASVA that I met between 1977 and 1995 can start a court-case to me, where they should know my background and should know that I request from any of them 6 million euros for calling me "a (dirty) fascist" many times, and for fucking up my studies and the studies over everyone else who studied between 1977 and 1995 in the University of Amsterdam, for all that time the students of the ASVA had the absolute power in the University of Amsterdam (which they only used to make successes of their leaders). (Read ME in Amsterdam, though this is mostly in Dutch.)

[9] In fact, this is about "can trust in principle", and mainly about the "principle". What I am saying is not that I distrust everything that I read from mainstream news sites nor that I trust everything that I read on non- mainstream news sites: what I am saying is that I hold that the mainstream media are these days mostly concerned with propaganda (quite consciously, also) and often do not care to investigate its truth, wherease non-mainstream media are not mostly concerned with propaganda and tend to investigate the truth of the articles they publish. (But yes: the mainstream may publish the truth, and certainly does sometimes, and the non- mainstream may publish propaganda, and certainly does sometimes.)

       home - index - summaries - mail