Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

 Nov 27, 2016

Crisis: Pentagon Rising, Fake News, About Fidel Castro
Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1.
A Pentagon Rising
2. Some Fake News Publishers Just Happen to Be Donald
     Trump’s Cronies

3. Reflections on the Death of Fidel
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Sunday, November 27, 2016.

A.
This is a crisis log with 3 items and 3 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 an interesting article about the Pentagon, that may (once again) get hundreds of billions of tax money under Trump for even more wars; item 2 is about fake news, truth and advertisements; and item 3 is about a decent article about Fidel Castro.

Also, there is an earlier Nederlog, mostly in Dutch, about my youth and an organization that probably no one ever heard of - the OPSJ - in which I was a member for some three years. (This is in Nederlog mostly for personal and sentimental reasons.)

-- 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 as
was 19.xi. 20.xi again was a stinking mess, as was 21.xi and 22.xi. It was correct on 25.xi. And horrible the 26.xi.

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 as were 19, 20, 21 and 22.xi. This also was
correct on
25.xi and the 26.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. (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. A Pentagon Rising

The first item today is
b
y William Hartung on TomDispatch, with an introduction by Tom Engelhardt:

This is from the introduction:

It couldn’t be stranger when you think about it (which few here care to do).  In the latter part of the twentieth century and the first years of this one, Washington did what no power in history had ever done.  It garrisoned the globe with a staggering number of military bases in a remarkably blanket fashion (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and a few similar places aside).  In these years, it just built and built and built. At one point, there were something like 1,000 installations in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, from bases large enough to be small American towns to tiny combat outposts.  In 2015, there were at least 800 significant U.S. bases in foreign countries (and more small camps and places where U.S. military equipment was pre-positioned for future use).  No great power, not even Britain at its imperial height, had ever had such a global military “footprint,” such an “empire of bases,” and yet in this country it was as if no one noticed, as if it were of no importance at all.  The media rarely even acknowledged the existence of such bases.  They were never considered news.  They played no part in American politics.  They went largely unmentioned in “the homeland,” despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of American military personnel, their families, private contractors, and others cycled through them annually.

Yes indeed, and it is good to start this article with this manner of introduction, because (i) it makes clear what the USA did, especially since the Soviet Union collapsed: "In 2015, there were at least 800 significant U.S. bases in foreign countries (and more small camps and places where U.S. military equipment was pre-positioned for future use).  No great power, not even Britain at its imperial height, had ever had such a global military “footprint,” such an “empire of bases, (..)”" while (ii) it also makes clear that the largest part of the US media pretended nothing like this happened: "yet in this country it was as if no one noticed, as if it were of no importance at all.  The media rarely even acknowledged the existence of such bases.  They were never considered news.  They played no part in American politics."

And the background seems to be this:

Particularly in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, those bases reflected a growing belief in Washington that it might indeed be possible for a single nation, the planet’s “sole superpower,” to militarily dominate the planet, lock, stock, and barrel.  As a result, investment in the U.S. military proceeded apace and the urge for it to be everywhere only spread.  At one point in recent years, the Pentagon’s budget was larger than those of the next 10 countries combined, including a number of allies; and as Nick Turse has reported, by 2015, the Pentagon had created a vast secret military, its Special Operations forces, which played a role in 147 countries, a figure for the record books.
Incidentally, there are in all 190 undisputed states ("countries", in the above quotation) and 16 disputed ones: If we just consider the undisputed states this means that the USA's secret (!!) militaries are in 147/190 states = in 77% of the world, at present.

So yes, it seems as if the Pentagon proceeded and proceeds on the basis of a belief that "
it might indeed be possible for a single nation, the planet’s “sole superpower,” to militarily dominate the planet, lock, stock, and barrel".

Now we get to the article that got introduced. I will quote only from its beginning and ending. William Hartung starts as follows:

As with so much of what Donald Trump has said in recent months, his positions on Pentagon spending are, to be polite, a bundle of contradictions.  Early signs suggest, however, that those contradictions are likely to resolve themselves in favor of the usual suspects: the arms industry and its various supporters and hangers-on in the government, as well as Washington’s labyrinthine world of think-tank policymakers and lobbyists.
I think that everything Trump said in his bids to become president can be safely neglected, if only on the simple ground that 71% of his factual claims that were checked have proven to be false. Then again, I think his ideology is fairly easy to recognize and it is neofascistic (in my sense, that is explained in note [2]).

But first, here is a bit of history about the incredible amounts of money that the Americans invest in the Pentagon:
Let’s start with a baseline look at the Pentagon’s finances at this moment.  At $600 billion-plus per year, the government is already spending more money on the Pentagon than it did at the peak of the massive military buildup President Ronald Reagan initiated in the 1980s.  In fact, despite what you might imagine, the Obama administration has pumped more tax dollars into the military in its two terms than did George W. Bush. According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, the U.S. currently spends four times what China does and 10 times what the Russians sink into their military.
Note this massive military buildup started under Reagan, was mostly maintained under Bill Clinton, was strengthened under Bush Jr. and was even more strengthened under Obama (the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize).

But this
massive military buildup may be strengthened yet again:

Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that, if Trump faithfully follows the Heritage Foundation’s proposal, he could add more than $900 billion to the Pentagon’s budget over the next decade. Trump asserts that he would counterbalance this spending splurge with corresponding cuts in government waste but has as yet offered no credible plan for doing so (because, of course, there isn’t one).

You won’t be surprised to learn, then, that the defense industry, always sensitive to the vibes of presidential candidates, has been popping the champagne corks in the wake of Trump’s victory.  The prospects are clear: a new Pentagon spending binge is on the horizon.

Veteran defense analyst David Isenberg has convincingly argued that the “military-industrial-congressional-complex,” not the white working class, will be the real winner of the 2016 presidential election.

Yes indeed - and here is the link to Eisenhower's earlier military-industrial complex (<- Wikipedia), that is very well worth reading, if you didn't already.

Next, Hartung presents a fairly long list of persons proposed by Trump for national security purposes and discusses what these may mean for the Pentagon.
He starts this as follows:

What other evidence do we have that Trump will follow through on his promises to dramatically increase Pentagon spending? One clue is his potential appointees to national security positions.

I think it is interesting, but leave this all to your interests. And I will only quote the ending of the article:

At present, with its proposals for steep military spending increases and deep tax cuts, Trump’s budget plan looks like Reaganomics on steroids.  A Democratic Congress and citizens' movements like the nuclear freeze campaign managed to blunt Reagan’s most extreme policy proposals.  The next few years will determine what happens with Mr. Trump’s own exercise in fantasy budgeting.

Yes indeed. I have two factual additions: There is no Democratic Congress now (at least for the first two years of Trump's presidency), and the Republicans have generally been very strong in creating great governmental debts, that then had to be filled by the next Democratic president.

And in fact this is very frightening, for if these military budgets are going to be applied in a major war, we probably will be all dead in a nuclear war.

This is a recommended article.

2. Some Fake News Publishers Just Happen to Be Donald Trump’s Cronies

The second item is by Lee Fang on The Intercept:

This starts as follows:

The extraordinary phenomenon of fake news spread by Facebook and other social media during the 2016 presidential election has been largely portrayed as a lucky break for Donald Trump.

By that reckoning, entrepreneurial Macedonian teenagers, opportunists in Tbilisi and California millennials have exploited social media algorithms in order to make money — only incidentally leading to the viral proliferation of mostly anti- Clinton and anti-Obama hoaxes and conspiracy theories that thrilled many Trump supporters. The Washington Post published a shoddy report on Thursday alleging that Russian state- sponsored propagandists were seeking to promote Trump through fabricated stories for their own reasons, independent of the candidate himself.

But a closer look reveals that some of the biggest fake news providers were run by experienced political operators well within the orbit of Donald Trump’s political advisers and consultants.

I should start this review by saying that I appear to be one of the very few who either is too intelligent or too moral to be lured by the mafia promises of Facebook that tells you that you don't need to build your own site in html, for this Facebook does for you, "all for free", and that you are also promised to get the advertisements you may want "all for free", while you "only have to permit" that the owners and operators of Facebook know everything about you, and can do with all that knowledge what they like.

I hate advertisements for over 55 years now [3]; I think somebody who promises you payment in selected advertisements for knowing everything about you is a criminal freak who ought to be in prison; but clearly there now are some 4 billion people (mostly not the mostly gifted, to put it politely) who disagree with me. Or at least: They have a Facebook account, and seem to see no problem at all in that.

Well ... I do not have Facebook and I do not want Facebook, and indeed I also do not have a cellphone and do not want a cellphone, and I will never have either of these, for I think these are the tools of the neofascists (as indeed is the computer, for that as well allows the secret services to know everything about anyone with an internet computer).

So I have not seen any fake news spread by Facebook, because I despise Facebook, and indeed I do not even know whether I have seen any fake news, although I suspect articles I have seen in The Guardian and the NRC- Handelsblad (which seemed as if they were paid for, in part at least, by the companies that were "journalistically reviewed", but I do not know this).

But here is some about "real fake news", by a company that spreads a lot of it, that is called LifeZette:

One video produced by LifeZette this summer, ominously titled “Clinton Body Count,” promoted a conspiracy theory that the Clinton family had some role in the plane crash death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., as well as the deaths of various friends and Democrats.

The video, published on Facebook from LifeZette’s verified news account, garnered over 400,000 shares and 14 million views.

Another LifeZette video, picking up false claims from other sites, claimed that voting machines “might be compromised” because a voting machine company called Smartmatic, allegedly providing voting machines “in sixteen states,” was purchased by the liberal billionaire George Soros. Soros never purchased the company, and Smartmatic did not provide voting machines used in the general election.

I say. And I do say so, because it seems to me that if you read or see such news, what you do first is to check it out, namely by doing a quick search and/or checking Wikipedia, which also both are quite easy and quite fast.

But it seems only the gifted these days think there are real political, scientific or religious facts, and it are only the gifted who believe in the existence of such real facts that do not depend on people's fantasies and desires.

In case you are offended by my phrase "only the gifted", I am really sorry, but I do have strong evidence: Everyone who attended the University of Amsterdam was told in 1978 in the official and public opening of the academic year 1978, by professor M.A. Brandt that

"Everybody knows that truth does not exist".

Next, it turned out that the vast majority of the students of the University of Amsterdam soon also believed that truth does not exist, as did the vast majority of the lecturers and professors of the University of Amsterdam, and it also turned out that, because the majorities thought so anyway, it needed not much publication, and it was only with some odd people like me that there was any "discussion", albeit that generally was mostly reduced to calling me "a fascist" or "a dirty fascist", because I did believe in truth and in science.

All of this dates back 39 years now, and that spirit still dominates the University of Amsterdam, though few explicitly say these days that "everybody knows that truth does not exist", because that turns out to be a bit difficult to combine with any real science (which the UvA also pretends to do, and indeed
sometimes does).

But until 1995, when the Dutch universities were taken from the students to whom the universities were given in 1971, postmodernism (that insists there is no truth, and there are no facts: all there is are texts and interpretations) was by far the most dominant ideology in the Dutch universities, as was (quasi-)marxism in the period from 1971 till 1982 (that then shifted to postmodernism, which included most of the previous quasi-marxists).

And I have been sketching this background because this cost me a lot (i.a. an illegal denial of the right to take an M.A. in philosophy, and many years of active discrimination), and because it lasts already 39 years in my experience.

We turn back to the present (which in fact has been much influenced by 35 years of
postmodernism, and especially in the universities):

Another LifeZette article, which went viral in the week prior to the election, falsely claimed that Wikileaks had revealed that a senior Hillary Clinton campaign official had engaged in occult rituals. Ingraham’s site regularly receives links from the Drudge Report and other powerful drivers of Internet traffic.

But LifeZette, for all its influence, pales in comparison to the sites run by Floyd Brown, a Republican consultant close to Trump’s inner circle of advisers.
There is in fact considerably more in the article than is reproduced here, and the following bit is also one from several in the article:

Brown’s sites churn out bombastic headlines with little regard to the truth. One viral piece shared by Brown’s news outlets claimed that President Obama had redesigned the White House logo to change the American flag to a white flag, “a common symbol for surrender, which has many people wondering if Obama was trying to secretly signal to America’s enemies that he was surrendering.” The Facebook post touted the article with the line, “We all know Obama hates the United States, but what he just did to the White House logo is beyond the pale.”

As the fact-checking website Snopes was quick to note, it was no signal of surrender and the bleached white version of the White House logo, complete with a white flag, was not even an Obama creation. The white logo dates back to as early as 2003, under the Bush administration, which used it for official documents.

This was again (as usual) something that is very easily checked. We will come to that below, but first a bit that correctly makes clear fake news is not only spread by the right but also by the left:

The growth of fake news isn’t confined to Trump or to conservative sites. A number of left-wing political sites have trafficked in demonstrably false stories, including deceptive pieces stoking fear about vaccines. Earlier this year, when critics called for Clinton to release the transcripts of her three paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, as well as to other interest groups, Daily News Bin, a new liberal website specializing in viral hits, published a piece titled, “Video surfaces of Hillary Clinton’s paid speech to Goldman Sachs, and it’s completely harmless.” The video embedded in the piece, however, was not one of Clinton’s paid speeches; it was a public event sponsored by Goldman Sachs.

Now we turn to the background of fake news and especially its popularity and credibility. These are the opinions of professor Judy Muller:

“We live in a time when people don’t care about facts,” said Judy Muller, professor of journalism at the University of Southern California.

During the last three months of the campaign, Buzzfeed News found that the top 20 best-performing hoax stories related to the election had more Facebook engagement than the 20 best-performing stories from major news outlets.

Buzzfeed News may be factually quite correct, but since I have more than 38 years of widespread experiences of people who tell me that "everybody knows that truth does not exist", I know that Judy Miller speaks nonsense:

Of course ordinary people still believe in the ordinary facts they acquired in their education: They don't start doubting their own names, their families' names, their addresses, and so on, and so forth (through a rather long list) and indeed they also do not doubt the truth of the falsities they so very easily spread (e.g. that I was "a fascist" because I was not a Marxist or because I believed in science [4]):

What
ordinary people doubt are precisely the things ordinary people do not know much or anything about (in realistic, factual terms): Science, politics and religion specifically.

Again, what ordinary people doubt or deny in science, religion and politics is not just anything, but is precisely everything they have prejudices against - and these tend to be real scientific facts they can't understand, real political facts they do not want, and all religious claims that do not support their own prejudices.

Here is the ending of the article:

But the demand for fake news is unlikely to subside.

A recent study by Stanford University researchers found that students have difficulty discerning between fake content, corporate sponsored advertorial content posing as journalism, and legitimate news.

“People only care about opinions that support their own biases,” said Muller. “So they’re not reading other people’s facts, they’re not checking the facts, and they don’t want to know — and that’s the scariest development to me.”

This is better, for Muller is correct that ordinary (!) "people only care about opinions that support their own biases" - which means that in effect they are so arrogant that they reject anything that conflicts with their opinions, and Muller is also correct in diagnosing what this arrogance consists in: "they’re not reading other people’s facts, they’re not checking the facts, and they don’t want to know".

But this does not apply to "all facts", but only to the - mostly - scientific political and religious facts that ordinary people dislike or disbelieve, generally without any rational ground.

3. Reflections on the Death of Fidel

The third item today is by Steve Wasserman on Truthdig:

This starts as follows:

Nearly 60 years ago, Herbert Matthews of The New York Times interviewed a rebel-with-a-cause most people thought was dead. Matthews’ scoop in the tangled jungle of Cuba’s Sierra Maestra proved the man was alive. His name (which in its entirety was but four syllables) would soon come to be known the world over. To his followers, the first two syllables would suffice: “Fi-del.” Castro’s quest to topple Cuba’s strongman, Fulgencio Batista, captured the imagination of millions. Victory, secured after only two years of urban insurrection and guerrilla warfare, catapulted the 32-year-old former lawyer and son of a wealthy landowner into the ranks of revolutionary stardom. After the catastrophes and crimes that had befallen the 1917 Bolshevik project, Castro seemed at first to herald something new. His was the first socialist revolution, after all, to have been made without the central participation of the Communist Party (and even, it appeared, against the party). (...) previous socialist revolutionaries had seemed grimly puritanical; by contrast, Castro’s barbudos [bearded revolutionaries] appeared almost to be bohemians with guns. Democracy and radical reform were poised to replace dictatorship and social misery.

This is a good introduction, which is one reason for me to select this article from the many there are about Fidel Castro's death. Also, it consists of five pages, which means that I only select a few bits that interest me.

The first is this:

It is perhaps hard at this remove to summon up the Eros, the sheer vitality, of the revolution Castro made. The seduction of his flamboyant leadership, his spontaneity of spirit, was almost impossible to resist. He was virile, glamorous, in a word, sexy. He relied less on Marxist dogma than on photogenesis to capture the minds and hearts of millions. He was, as the late Marshall Frady once wrote, “an almost Tolstoyan figure in the profusion of his exuberance and imagination. Among all the premiers and statesmen over the globe, he was at least the one figure who seemed unquestionably, tumultuously alive.” Not only were Castro and his barbudos better-looking than the corrupt politicians and gangsters they overthrew, they knew it, and it is easy to see, on the evidence of the many iconic photographs of the period, how it was that a “golden legend,” as Régis Debray once called it, arose.

Yes and no, I'd say, but perhaps part of the reason I say "no" is that I am a heterosexual male myself, and while I willingly concede that "Castro and his barbudos [were] better-looking than the corrupt politicians and gangsters they overthrew, they knew it, and it is easy to see" it is also true that nearly all
of the politicians opposed to them were a lot older.

And there is another reason for Castro's popularity in (especially) the Sixties and also to an extent in the Seventies, and that is that they seemed, at least from 1965 onwards, much more like the bohemians, the beatniks, the hippies, the alternatives and the progressives that became quite popular then, than they seemed to be like politicians, even though they were both politicians and armed.

Here is some background on Castro:

Castro claims to Ramonet to have thwarted over the years more than 500 attempts to assassinate him. There is no reason to doubt him. When Castro took power, Cuba’s population was 6 million; nearly a million would flee to the United States. Today, Cuba’s population has nearly doubled, and nearly half were born after Jan. 1, 1959. Ramonet’s interviews with Castro elicited a rather startling admission, confirming and elaborating upon comments made more than 20 years ago to Gianni Mina, the Italian television journalist: Castro says that in the first years after he came to power there were “about 300 counter- revolutionary organizations” trying to organize his overthrow. Resistance to his rule, he admits, “spread to all the provinces in the country” and involved thousands of armed men. So fierce and protracted was the opposition that the fight to suppress it “cost us more lives than the war against Batista had.”

The main reason this is copied is that it states the number of Cubans fairly precisely: 6 million when Castro took over power; a bit over 11 milion in 2015.
But the other facts are noteworthy as well: Castro's life has been threatened a lot, and the fight against the counter-revolutionairies of the early 1960s took more lives than winning the revolution (and this was like the Soviet Union).

Then there is this, which I think is also correct:

Geography is fate. It was both Castro’s curse as well as his blessing that the United States was so near. It was easy to banish his opposition and send it packing across the Florida Straits. Or, to put it another way, it is unlikely that, after Castro’s demise, unmarked mass graves will be found filled withH the remains of opponents who had been made to disappear. Cuba is not Chile under Pinochet or Argentina under the generals. Or Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Or Russia under Stalin.

That is: While I do not like Castro, he indeed was not a mass murderer.
Then again, the folllowing seems also true:

It is nonetheless true, however, that Castro, with the indispensable subvention of the Soviet Union, set about creating a police state to enforce an ethic of self-denial and unremitting labor. But nothing worked, neither incessant moral hectoring nor harsh laws.

But quite a few people did fall victim to these efforts, to the best of my knowledge. There is also this:

Nor could the Cuban revolution be exported, as Castro hoped, despite the exemplary work of tens of thousands of doctors and teachers in a score of countries.

Yes - and Castro, and Guevara, and the Cubans tried a lot, both in South- America and in Africa.

Then there is this judgement about Castro, that also seems mostly correct to me:

As for Castro, all things must pass. His early ideals of libertarian socialism are nowhere in evidence. Today it is abundantly clear that Castro was essentially a practical caudillo for whom power mattered above all else. (..) As he admits to Ramonet, the Soviet Union provided the crucial support without which the United States might well have crushed him.

More precisely: In practice, Castro was not much of a libertarian socialist, and behaved like caudillo (<- Wikipedia), that is as a "a military-landowner who possessed political power and exercised it in a form considered authoritarian by its adversaries. The term can be translated into English as leader or chief, or more pejoratively as warlord, dictator or strongman and has been used to refer to charismatic populist leaders." (From the Wikipedia.)

Then this happened around 1991:

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba was bereft: “We lost all our markets for sugar, we stopped receiving foodstuffs, fuel, even the wood to bury our dead in. From one day to the next, we found ourselves without fuel, without raw materials, without food, without soap, without everything.” Castro’s repeated and increasingly feverish attempts to diversify the country’s economy had largely failed. Today the tyranny of cash-crop monoculture remains unbroken: the Cuban economy is, again, dependent on sugar, tobacco and tourism.

And this is in fact as it was in 1959, before the revolution - which also means (I think) that the revolution mostly failed, for the Cubans did have the thirty years from 1959 till 1989 to change "the tyranny of cash-crop monoculture" (which I know from the middle 1960ies they were - verbally - very much for).

Here is a sum-up of Castro from near the end of the article:

His lust for power and a sense of messianic mission prevented him. What Simon Leys once wrote of Mao’s China can as well be said of Castro’s Cuba: “Nations which do not have the opportunity of getting rid of their geniuses are sometimes liable to pay very dearly for the privilege of being led by them.”

I don't think Castro was a genius although I agree he was quite clever. But this does seem to me a fairly good diagnosis of Castro: He was a caudillo; he was much interested in personal power; he was not a mass murderer; and he may have meant well (granting that he was a caudillo with much interest in his personal power).

And I am also afraid that most or all of the good things he brought to Cuba will rapidly disappear if his brother also dies, and that the USA will get much more power in Cuba, and that - in the end - the most that Castro achieved was a period of Castrism that failed with his death, since it was far too much concerned with his person and his power.

This is a recommended article.

--------------------------
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] I can still recall the reasons quite well: This was in 1960, when I realized there were quite a few advertisements for Bols gin in the street, and wondered why they were there, since I also knew that on Fridays there were quite lot of drunks (since Friday was payday), and I wondered why one would
advertise for products like alcoholic drinks that evidently upset quite a large number of lives.

And this very soon expanded to a deep distaste for all advertisements (except perhaps very simple ones that said one could buy X at Y). I still have a strong distaste for all advertisements and also for all advertisers: I think they are intentional liars and frauds.

[4]
I have been called "a fascist" from 1977 till 1989 (and I did not study in all those years and was ill since 1.i.1979 and still am) and was called "a fascist" because I said clearly and honestly that I was not a Marxist and that I believed in science. I absolutely never was a fascist (with two proletarian communist parents, two anarchist grandparents, and a communist grandfather) but then those claiming to be marxists were all liars: I really know what a Marxist is - my parents were, my grandfather was, and I was one between 18 and 20 - and no one I ever met in the University of Amsterdam was a real Marxist:

Everybody lied, everybody conformed, everybody collaborated, and everybody did so (apart from about 1 in 20) because the Dutch universities were in the hands of the students from 1971 till 1995, and the students were led by people who were all members of the Dutch Communist Party (at least till 1983, when most of them became postmodernists).

And why did I not mention that both my parents were communists since the 1930s or 1940s? Because I liked my parents and strongly disliked those who accused me of being a fascist without knowing anything about me: I thought - quite correctly - they were all frauds (they
lied to get an easy degree and to make a lot of money, which most of them also succeeded in) and they were all totalitarians. (Meanwhile, all of them - to the best of my knowledge - are neoconservatives/neoliberals.)

       home - index - summaries - mail