1. Waiting for the
2. Journalists Decry Washington Post’s Story on Source
That ‘Blacklisted’ Truthdig
and Other Outlets
3. Conflicts of Interest Could Put Trump in Violation of
Constitution 'On Day One
4. All the Tools to Suppress Dissent and Kill
Are Already in Place
5. Trump’s Seven Techniques to Control the Media
6. These Are The 48 Organizations That Now Have Access
To Every Brit’s Browsing
is a Nederlog of Monday, November 28, 2016.
is a crisis
log with 6 items and 6 dotted links and it consists (mostly) of some
further deliberations on the meanings of Trump's election as president
Item 1 is about a fine article by Chris Hedges, who expects the barbarians (and I think he is probably right); item 2 is about crazy propaganda that seems designed to help forbid the alternative media in the USA; item 3
is about the enormous conflicts of interest that are created by Trump's
businesses (which I think Trump will carry on with as president); item 4
is about all the tools that have been created by Bush Jr and Obama to
suppress dissent and kill free speech, that are now delivered into
Trump's hands; item 5 is about Trump's techniques to control the media (which will soon be extended by new laws); and item 6
is on the parliamentary decision that brought about Neofascist Great
Britain, where everything anyone does is now (almost) fully known to no less
than 48 governmental institutions (without any defense or any security for anyone who was an ordinary citizen).
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). 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 on 26.xi and 27.xi.
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.
was correct as were 19, 20, 21 and 22.xi. This also was
correct on 25, 26 and 27.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. (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.
keep this introduction until I get three successive days
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen
for many months now.
1. Waiting for the Barbarians
The first item today is by Chris Hedges on Truthdig:
This starts as
Yes indeed - or at least: This is what I think is the likeliest outcome as well: Some sort of crisis that would seem to motivate the imposition of martial law
We await the crisis. It could be
economic. It could be a terrorist attack within the United States. It
could be widespread devastation caused by global warming. It could be
nationwide unrest as the death spiral of the American empire
intensifies. It could be another defeat in our endless and futile wars.
The crisis is coming. And when it arrives it will be seized upon by the
corporate state, nominally led by a clueless real estate developer, to
impose martial law and formalize the end of American democracy.
in the USA, after which Trump - who is both a mad megalomaniac and a neofascist (see  for my understanding of neofascism) - can do as he pleases with everyone he dislikes.
Next, Chris Hedges poses a great number of questions on the first of the two pages his article takes. Here is the beginning of the list:
I think all of these questions are justified, though answering them rationally and reasonably
in any detail may be either difficult or contentious. But here is one
broad and systematic answer that seems quite good to me (and I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch) and have meanwhile published over 1400 articles just about it):
When we look back on this sad, pathetic
period in American history we will ask the questions all who have slid
into despotism ask. Why were we asleep? How did we allow this to
happen? Why didn’t we see it coming? Why didn’t we resist?
Why did we allow the corporate state to
strip away the rights of poor people of color and force them to live in
terror in mini-police states? Why did we build the world’s largest
system of mass incarceration? Did we not see that the rest of us would
be next? Why did we agree that those defined by the state as terrorists
could not only be deprived of their rights but be assassinated? Did we
think the state would restrict itself to persecuting and murdering
Muslims? Why did we remain silent as the state arrogated to itself the
right to detain and prosecute people not for what they had done, or
even for what they were planning to do, but for holding religious or
political beliefs that the state deemed seditious? Why did we stand by
and permit the state to torture? Did we not see that once rights became
privileges the state would one day revoke them?
The failure of our capitalist
democracy was collective. It was bred by ignorance, indifference,
racism, bigotry and the seduction of mass propaganda. It was bred by
elites, especially in the press, the courts and academia, who chose
careerism over moral and intellectual courage. Our rights as citizens
were taken from us one by one. There was hardly a word of protest.
Yes indeed - and to reformulate this a little: The main causes were ignorance, stupidity  and indifference for the fates of others in the American public; mass propaganda, lies and dishonesties in the mainstream media; and corrupt elites in the press, the courts and academia "who chose
careerism over moral and intellectual courage". 
Where were the lawyers, judges,
law professors and law school deans who should have ferociously
defended our rights to privacy, due process and habeas corpus? Why
didn’t they challenge Barack Obama’s signing into law Section 1021
My own answer is that most of "the lawyers, judges,
law professors and law school deans" are not really any of that kind ("lawyers, judges,
law professors and law school deans"). What they were - for a long time also, in my opinion - are persons trying to get a lot of money for themselves, and who gave up all or most of their ethical, professional and academic stances to make a lot of money. 
of the National Defense Authorization Act?
Section 1021 overturns the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibited
the military from acting as a domestic police force. The section also
permits the military to carry out extraordinary
rendition of U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and hold them
indefinitely in military detention centers.
Then (and there are more - quite interesting - questions that I skip) there is this on the economists and political scientists:
And where were all the economists
pointing out the absurdity of the neoliberal ideology
that told us that human society should be governed by the dictates of
the market—that is, until the market collapsed in an orgy of fraud and
corruption and needed the government to bail it out? Why did the
political scientists chase after “value-free” data, carry out
quantitative projects and seek an unachievable scientific clarity?
The economists mostly followed the fraud Milton Friedman who explicitly said that the only thing a corporation should be committed to is to maximize its own profits: Every other norm should be discarded. Also, economy is not a real science, for the most part: Very much is propaganda, much of it is ideology, and indeed also many economists seem to believe that they are doing science because they know some mathematics (which is false).
As for the political "scientists": Their science is mostly not a real science either, and besides nearly all of them were and are corrupted by money and by the - totally false - denial of any values.
Then there is this about the modern academics  which seems quite right to me (and I know modern academics now since 1977 and have known a great many of them: I have met maybe 5 honest and intelligent ones, and many hundreds dishonest or stupid ones - and that is all without speaking about their sciences, which are mostly not
real sciences in most cases, in so far as I know - and I've read for 50
years in many real sciences, pretended sciences and partial sciences,
and have an excellent M.A. in psychology and an excellent B.A. in
Why did those in academia commit
intellectual treason? They traded their intellectual integrity and
autonomy for tenure, publishing contracts, lecture fees, research
grants and coveted deanships or college presidencies.
Yes, precisely. I have known very few academics (of many hundreds) who were not corrupted in these ways: Nearly everyone I have known in Holland in academia is explicitly corrupt, and has been corrupted by money and lack of any maintained standards other than personal profit.
There is this on the poor and on the press:
Why did the press render the poor
and the working poor invisible? Why did it walk away from its role as
the investigator of corruption and abuse of power? Why did it become a
courtier to the elites?
The poor are systematically not considered because almost no one in any elite speaks for them, and that is the case mainly because the elites - who write or speak professionally - cannot profit from the poor.
As to the press: It got corrupted in part because investigating corruption and abuse of power is risky, and because there was no money for it, neither in the paper press, which lost lots of money due to lack of advertisements,
nor in TV, that anyway was mostly corrupted by the rich to speak for
the rich. And the press became "courtiers to the elites" from a lack of
any real ethical, moral or scientific standards; because propagandizing is much easier than investigating; and because doing propaganda-as-"news" pays well.
There is this on morality, religion and political correctness:
Where were the great moral and
religious truth tellers? Why did they use the language of identity
politics as a substitute for the language of social justice?
I am an non-religious atheist and will for that reason skip religion. As to morals (and ethics, which is something different, and would have been more in place here): It was mostly lost by the ordinary nearly omni-present propaganda, or indeed was there but in a fraudulent fashion (and also quite long ago, in Holland at least).
As to political correctness: This is what modern "leftism" was reduced to, already in the 1980ies and 1990ies: Totally insane demands that one should not offend anyone, not even in speech. (Also, I think this was itself a product of propaganda. And it has nothing to do with real leftism, and a lot with real cowardice and totalitarianism.)
Then there is this, which is somewhat personally interesting to me:
The desiccation of our liberal
institutions ensured the demise of our capitalist democracy. History
has amply demonstrated what was to come next. The rot and political
paralysis vomited up a con artist as president along with an array of
half-wits, criminals and racist ideologues. They will manufacture
scapegoats as their gross ineptitude and unachievable promises are
I agree with this, but my personal point is that Chris Hedges seems to have disagreed with me for a long time (very probably without knowing anything about me: I do not send my stuff around), for I maintained (and maintain)
there is capitalism-with-a-human-face (say, schematically, from 1946 till 1980) and capitalism-without-a-human-face (schematically from 1980 till 2016), and indeed this may now be replaced by capitalism-with-an-inhuman-
face aka neofascism (and see note ).
There is this on the crisis this article started with:
Our ruling mafia will use the
crisis much as the Nazis did in 1933 when the Reichstag was burned. It
will publish its own version of the “Order of the Reich President for
the Protection of People and State.” The U.S. Constitution will be in
effect suspended. Personal freedom, including freedom of expression,
freedom of the press, freedom to organize and freedom of assembly, will
be abolished. Privacy will be formally eradicated. Search warrants will
This is an expectation and a prediction of the - near - future. I think it may well be correct (and privacy already has been eradicated in Great Britain: See item 6 below).
Here is the last bit that I'll quote, which is again an expectation and a prediction:
Anyone who is not white or
“loyal” will be attacked, first verbally and then physically. Everyone
will be constantly watched. The prisons will swell. Militarized police
will no longer be confined to operating in marginal communities.
Lethal, indiscriminant force by the state will be common. The courts
will condemn with little or no evidence. The press will utterly unplug
itself from reality and speak to us as if we lived in a functioning
democracy. Academics will burrow deeper into their holes of
obtuse jargon and quantitative irrelevance. The last remnants of our
labor unions will be crushed.
I fear this may well be correct - and Chris Hedges is one of the persons who runs a considerable risk, as indeed do many of the journalists who write on alternative news sites, such as Truthdig, AlterNet, Common Dreams, Mother Jones, Truth-out and ProPublica.
And this is an excellent article that is strongly recommended.
2. Journalists Decry Washington Post’s
Story on Source That ‘Blacklisted’ Truthdig and Other Outlets
The second item is by Kasia Anderson on Truthdig:
This starts as follows, with an Editor's note:
Editor’s note: Glenn Greenwald’s and
other journalists’ criticism (below) refers to a recent Washington Post article that
suggested Truthdig and numerous other news outlets were propagandists
for Russia. The Post’s story is based on unsubstantiated allegations by
an anonymous organization. Truthdig
never has and never would propagandize for anyone.
I have paid attention to an earlier article by Lee Fang on The Intercept: See yesterday's Some Fake News Publishers Just Happen to Be Donald Trump’s Cronies.
But this is new and the present article starts as follows:
A new McCarthyism has emerged in the
wake of the contentious 2016 presidential election: Several independent
thinkers and independent publications that criticize established power
structures and policies have been accused of being pro-Russia
What’s more, one anonymous source of
these accusations has been given wide media exposure thanks to The
Washington Post’s uncritical treatment and tacit stamp of legitimacy.
On Thursday, Post reporter Craig Timberg published an article that relied
heavily on the source, a vaguely defined organization promoting its
claims via a sketchy website called
What concerns me most here is the publication of totally untested and completely unverified bullshit (which is bullshit for that reason: anybody can lie, and anybody anonymous can say anything without the least personal responsibility) by the Washington Post, that seems to turn into a neofascist (see ) publication.
Here is some the Washington Post wrote - without saying that no one (in the media) knows who PropOrNot is, nor who finances it, nor of any real evidence for their claims:
PropOrNot’s monitoring report, which was
provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release,
identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian
propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at
least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that
stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed
more than 213 million times.
Some players in this online echo chamber
were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers
concluded, while others were “useful idiots” — a term born of the Cold
War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet
Union propaganda efforts.
For me the above is sick baloney, because it is without evidence, without personal responsibility, and may be total fantasy, but it is also very frightening.
Before turning to that, here is my stance on anonymous messages: Everybody who hides behind an alias should not be copied; and everybody who writes without evidence should not be copied. 
Here is why this anonymous bullshit is very frightening:
Despite the seriousness of PropOrNot’s
allegations, not to mention its call for “official action,” the
organization’s motives, institutional affiliations and methodology were
all left unaccounted for and uncontested in the Post’s article, even as
Timberg repeated claims that effectively blacklisted more than 200
outlets. Truthdig, Truthout, the Black Agenda Report, Naked Capitalism
and many others were included on PropOrNot’s list, along with the Ron Paul
Institute, The Drudge Report, InfoWars, Russia Today and WikiLeaks.
In fact, I think this may well be the start of a campaign to forbid any of these - which will be the end of alternative media in the USA. Is this possible? Quite.
And this is a recommended article.
3. Conflicts of Interest Could
Put Trump in Violation of Constitution 'On Day One
The third item is by Deirdre Fulton on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows and is about Donald Trump's global business interests:
President-elect Donald Trump's global
business interests continue to come under intense scrutiny, with two
top ethics lawyers +saying the Electoral College must reject Trump on
December 19 if he does not divest
his holdings and establish a truly blind trust.
Norman Eisen, chief ethics counsel for
Barack Obama, told ThinkProgress this
week that "the founders did not want any foreign payments to the
"This principle," explained ThinkProgress
editor Judd Legum, "is enshrined in Article 1,
Section 9 of the Constitution, which bars office holders from
accepting 'any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind
whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.'" The provision, he
said, is aimed at limiting foreign influence over the president.
I think it may be safely assumed that Trump does not know the Constitution, and almost as safely that he will also not abide by it.
In turn, "to vote for Trump in the
absence of such complete divestment...would represent an abdication of
the solemn duties of the 538 electors," said Harvard law professor
Laurence Tribe to ThinkProgress, concurring with Eisen's
analysis of Trump's holdings.
"Trump's ongoing business dealings
around the world would make him the recipient of constitutionally
prohibited 'Emoluments' from
'any King, Prince, or foreign State'— in the original sense of payments and not necessarily gifts — from the very moment he
takes the oath," Tribe said.
This is one reason why Trump will probably say "Fuck you!": He gets paid; he doesn't receive "gifts". There is also this:
As Michael J. Green, who served on the
National Security Council in the administration of George W. Bush, and
before that at the Defense Department, told the New York Times
for its exposé
published Sunday: "It is uncharted territory, really in the history
of the republic, as we have never had a president with such an empire
both in the United States and overseas."
Indeed, the Times piece
suggests that rather than disentangling their business interests,
"Trump's family appears to have been preparing for the transition to
the Oval Office and ways to capitalize on it both in the United States
and around the globe."
the last bit is probably correct: Being president is just another
expansion of Trump's empire, and he will probably do everything he can
to keep controlling his empire while being president.
Here is one risk:
Yes indeed. And this is a recommended aerticle.
It all lends credence to Eisen's warning
to ThinkProgress: the country is facing a "wholesale
oligarchic kleptocracy of a kind that we have never seen before in our
4. Donald Trump's Surveillance State: All the Tools to
Suppress Dissent and Kill Free Speech Are Already in Place
The fourth item is by Thor Benson on AlterNet and originally on Salon:
This starts as follows:
When Donald Trump takes office in
January, he will inherit a surveillance state that George W. Bush
largely created and that President Obama refused to rein in. As has
been explained before,
privacy is vital to a democracy, and the fate of free speech and the
free press are in the hands of a thin-skinned bully who doesn’t seem to care for them.
“Surveillance powers have a history of
abuse in totalitarian societies,” Neil Richards, a law professor at
Washington University in St. Louis, told Salon. “They also have a long
history of abuse in the United States, from wiretapping to new forms of
Richards also explained that American
agencies have created files on dissidents and used their power to
disrupt political expression.
Yes indeed. I have explained this many times before in Nederlog since 2013,
and refer you to these in case you need explanations.
Here is some more:
When people know they’re being watched,
they tend to not speak out. If you’re considering protesting, writing
about the president or acting in any political manner, you’re less
likely to do so when you think those you’re opposing are keeping tabs
“There’s fairly significant evidence to
back the idea that when you think you’re being watched you tend to
conform, in large part because humans are fairly conformist animals,
and we like making sure that our neighbors don’t hate us,” Margot
Kaminski, an assistant professor of law at Ohio State University, told
Salon. “This is the reason the Stasi established its version of a
surveillance state in East Germany, because if people think they’re
being watched all the time, they’re more likely to move toward the
mean, which means less dissent.”
I think Ms Kaminski sounds quite naive. I agree with her that the great majority of people is both conformistic and much more so than they should be, but this
is neither the reason for the Stasi nor for the KGB and the Gestapo:
These were less out for making people
conform (which was mostly done by more ordinary means, like The Party
and The Komsomol and The Pravda, in the Soviet Union) than for arresting, torturing and killing or locking up anybody who protested totalitarianism.
And as soon as something like totalitarianism gets established in the USA (which may happen simply by forbidding most of the alternative media) this is what will happen in the USA as well.
There is this on Trump's enormous (megalomaniac) thirst for revenge on anybody who dared to criticize him:
Considering Donald Trump is known for being a person who
relishes revenge, it seems highly plausible that he will use
the vast powers of the presidency to pursue personal vendettas. A man
who can’t stop himself from writing an angry tweet in the middle of the
night when someone offends him is likely not someone who will crack
open a book on civil liberties before targeting a political enemy with
surveillance powers and more.
What I think Trump very probably will do is change the laws - and that will be the complete end of what remains of democracy in the USA: To protest Trump may soon be a crime (legally, for the Republicans very soon will own the whole government).
There is this on the American police and the powers of government:
Although Donald Trump will not have
direct control over local police departments, he will likely be able to
influence them significantly. As we saw with the War on Drugs, police departments can be
coerced into behaving as the federal government wishes by
offering funds tied to the prioritization of specific
goals. The federal government can also convince police departments to
adopt specific technologies, like surveillance technologies, by
offering them large grants.
I don't know whether the above is "coercion", but it does seem as if the federal government mostly will have the police it desires to have.
Finally, there is this on the surveillance state that was created by Bush Jr. and Obama:
Our surveillance state has few checks and balances, and it is controlled
almost exclusively by the executive branch. If President Obama wants to
use his final months wisely, he should do everything he can to change
this. In absence of that, we can only rely on a few vocal
Democrats and Republicans in Congress, including Sen. Ron Wyden
(D-Ore.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), to stand between us and an
all-seeing, all-hearing orange- skinned Orwellian nightmare.
Forget about Obama: A man who for eight years extended Bush Jr.'s surveillance state will not try to stop it now. And I also do not expect much from Wyden or Paul:
The power is (from January 20, 2017 onwards) in the hands of "an
all-seeing, all-hearing orange-skinned Orwellian nightmare".
5. Trump’s Seven Techniques to Control the Media
The fifth item is by Robert Reich on his site:
This starts as follows:
Democracy depends on a free and
independent press, which is why all tyrants try to squelch it. They use
that, worryingly, President-elect Donald Trump already employs.
Yes indeed, though I do not think much of democracy is left, after 15 years
of breaking it down systematically. Then again, there is still some left that
soon may be destroyed, and indeed may soon be made illegal.
Robert Reich discusses the following seven ways in which "tyrants" have abused the press. I give the titles and do not give the text, for which you are referred to the last dotted link:
1. Berate the media.
2. Blacklist critical media.
3. Turn the public against the media.
4. Condemn satirical or critical comments.
5. Threaten the media directly.
6. Limit media access.
7. Bypass the media and communicate with the public
Reich ends as follows:
The word “media” comes from
“intermediate” between newsmakers and the public. Responsible media
powerful accountable by asking them hard questions and reporting on
do. Apparently Trump wants to eliminate such intermediaries.
Historically, these seven
techniques have been used by demagogues to erode the freedom and
independence of the press. Even
before he’s sworn in, Trump seems intent on doing exactly this.
Yes. And as soon as he is sworn in, he can start changing the laws. And as soon as the laws are as he desires them to be, the alternative media will be dead.
This is a recommended article. Here is the last bit on privacy, which now is dead in Great Britain, where it was killed by parliament:
6. These Are The 48 Organizations That Now Have Access To
Every Brit’s Browsing History
The sixth and last item is by Don Quijones on Raging Bull-Shit:
This starts as follows:
Last week, in a troubling development
for privacy advocates everywhere, we reported that the UK has passed
the “snooper charter” effectively ending
all online privacy. Now, the mainstream media has caught on and
appears to be displeased. As AP
writes today, “after months of wrangling, Parliament has passed a
contentious new snooping law that gives authorities — from police and
spies to food regulators, fire officials and tax inspectors — powers to
look at the internet browsing records of everyone in the country.”
For those who missed our original
reports, here is the new law in a nutshell: it requires telecom
companies to keep records of all users’ web activity for a year,
creating databases of personal information that the firms worry could
be vulnerable to leaks and hackers. Civil liberties groups say the law
establishes mass surveillance of British citizens, following innocent
internet users from the office to the living room and the bedroom. They
Yes, indeed - and I have "welcomed" the news as I think fit: Great Britain has changed to Neofascist Great Britain, where the government, the police and the secret services hold all powers, and were everybody who is not part of the government, the police or the secret services, and who is also not very rich, has been turned into an open book for the government, the police and the secret services.
It was the end of all democracy, and democracy was finished by an act of parliament, who may as well in majority be reckoned as belonging - for a long time already - to the government,
the police, the secret services, and the very rich, which in all may be
some hundred thousands of powerful persons, or a few thousands or
tenthousands without the police.
Here is a sketch of what happened in Great Britain that made it into Neofascist Great Britain:
Coming at a time when the mainstream
media is lashing out at non-traditional websites, which it brands
either with the derogatory “altright”, or simply slams as “Russian
propaganda” to deflect from the fact that the MSM has been exposed as
being a PR arm of the ruling establishment, the Investigatory Powers
Bill- called the “snoopers’ charter” by critics – was
passed by UK Parliament this month after more than a year of debate and
amendments, and with its passage shifts “1984” from the
fiction to the non-fiction section, as the formation of the
surveillance police state is now effectively complete.
Indeed, an alternative name is Orwellian Great Britain. There is also this - which in fact seems to me too optimistic:
This is too optimistic in my view because the secret services and now also the police and many other governmental institutions know everything about anybody, which is in fact tens of millions of times more than the KGB knew about the population it controlled.
In a move right out of the Soviet
Union’s darkest days (which never even imagined central planning to the
extent that modern “developed market” central bankers have unleashed
this decade), the law requires telecommunications companies to store
for a year the web histories known as internet connection records — a
list of websites each person has visited and the apps and messaging
services they used, though not the individual pages they looked at or
the messages they sent.
The government has called that information
the modern equivalent of an itemized phone bill. But critics say it’s
more like a personal diary.
There is this on the supermen and superwomen who belong to the British government (who have tens of millions of times more power and more knowledge than the KGB had over the population it controlled):
I am - once again - extremely glad that my illness prevented my having children (etc.), for this is neofascism (see ) plain and simple - except it is a neofascism with far more powers to maintain itself and its very small band of very rich people than any other dictator ever had.
Officials won’t need a warrant to access
the data, and the list of bodies that can see it includes not just the
police and intelligence services, but government departments, revenue
and customs officials and even the Food Standards Agency. “My worry is
partly about their access,” Huppert said. “But it’s much more deeply
about the prospects for either hacking or people selling information
Even worse, the new law also makes official
— and legal — British spies’ ability to hack into devices and harvest
vast amounts of bulk online data, much of it from outside the U.K.
This ends as follows:
Renate Samson, chief executive of the
group Big Brother Watch, said it would take time for the full
implications of the law to become clear to the public.
“We now live in a digital world. We are
digital citizens,” Samson said. “We have no choice about whether or not
we engage online. This bill has fundamentally changed how we are able
to privately and securely communicate with one another, communicate
with business, communicate with government and live an online life. And
that’s a real, profound concern.”
It remains to be seen if the UK’s
citizens will be able overturn the law once it does become clear to the
public what has just happened.
Samson is right that "We have no choice about whether or not
we engage online", which itself is a neofascistic shame.
I refuse to use a cellphone. I refuse to use Facebook. I refuse to use Google, Yahoo and Bing. But I am forced to use a computer, which itself has turned out to be THE instrument that created neofascism.
To end: Is there any hope? In fact there is,
but it will not come from the press, the politicians, the governments,
or the rich: The economy will very probably collapse, and if it does it
will probably collapse in a major way.
It will collapse because while the non-rich will be mostly repressed, silent and conformistic, or else dead or disappeared, the rich will continue their specula- tions, which are almost certain to bring down the economy.
What will happen then remains to be seen, but that is the hope I have:
Greed will in the end kill itself, though only after killing many fine
persons, I fear.
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.)
 It is not only ignorance but also stupidity that are quite important, and I do not understand why intelligent people do not say so (apart from Bill Maher, indeed). Well... I do understand, probably: There are now 4 billion mostly stupid people connected by Facebook, and they may censor you anonymously in the crudest and cruellest possible fashion.
And yes, this is a major difference with how things were, and I will soon write about it.
 I do not think one can judge academics really well without
a university degree: You need to know them, and to know them you
generally need to have attended a university. I have and finished it
brilliantly as a psychologist, though indeed I was forced into that by a denial of my legal right to take an M.A. in philosophy (in 1988).
So I do know them, at least in Holland, and I can tell you that between 1977 and 2005 I have met all of 5
intelligent and honest persons within academic life. The
rest were either incompetent or dishonest, and most were both. (And I
am sorry, but speak the truth to the best of my very considerable knowledge. Also the average of my M.A. psychology was 9,3 so I think I ought to have some credit for courage, honesty and intelligence.)
Yes, it really is as simple as that: If you get enough money - as is
the case, mostly - to belong to the richest 10% or 5%, which is what
all lecturers and all professors in Holland do get, it turns out to be extremely easy "to forget" about any other norm than personal profit.
 I am speaking here about the Dutch academics I have known, but of these I have known a lot, for I have studied three
main studies; I was a prominent student who also played an important
role in the university- parliament, through which I met many more
academics; and I have attended the University of Amsterdam regularly
between 1977 and 2005. Also, I have been very much discriminated because I said I was not a Marxist, and I was not a postmodernist, and I also have been denied the legal right to take my M.A. in philosophy.
And I grant I know much more about Dutch academics than about non-Dutch
academics, and there are some differences, but by and large it is my
guess that the majority of the non-Dutch academics are as moral and as
intelligent as the vast majority of the Dutch academics I have known
well: hardly moral and hardly intelligent. (There are exceptions, I know, though indeed mostly in mathematics, physics, chemistry and some other real sciences.)
 Incidentally: I fall under this as
well, for my last name is not Maartensz. The two reasons why I adopted
my alias were that I had been denied the right to take my M.A. in philosophy when I was asked to publish about psychology (which I did here) and I knew already that the majority of the lecturers and professors of psychology "would love to see you dead", while I also had been gassed (literally: I survived because the house was a dump) by the drugsdealers that Amsterdam's mayor Van Thijn had illegally permitted on the bottom floor of the house where I lived, who were also permitted to threaten me with murder, to keep me from sleeping, and to gas me, and against whom nobody in the whole Amsterdam bureaucracy did anything.
Since there also have been many drugs-related murders in Amsterdam, I
decided I would take an alias in 1988. So I believe I am one of the very few who has an alias based on respectable reasons - and I do not abuse it to scold anyone in comments.