Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

 Dec 2, 2016

Crisis: Holloway, Prupis, Kahle, West, Truthdig, Orwell
Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1.
How 'We' Will Not Survive Trump
2. As Rule 41 Quietly Passes, Trump to Inherit Expanded
     Hacking Powers

3. Internet Archive Successfully Fends Off Secret FBI
     Order

4. Cornel West on Donald Trump: This is What Neo-Fascism
     Looks Like

5. Preserving Independent Journalism and Fighting the
     New McCarthyism

6. The Orwellian War on Skepticism
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Friday, December 2, 2016.

A.
This 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 of the USA:

Item 1 is about an article by Kali Holloway that is far from happy but quite justified; item 2 is about some of the enormous powers that Donald Trump wioll get from the Nobel Peace Prize winner, the Great Obama (who functioned mostly as Bush Jr.); item 3 is about the Internet Archive (which I like) and lists two successes it had; item 4 is about Cornel West, who correctly identified Donald Trump as a neofascist, but who does not use my definition for it; item 5 is about a conference of Truthdig, that unfortunately (and quite unsafely) got published on Facebook (that I refuse to use, and also, while I like the article, I think "totalitarianism" is a better term than "McCarthyism"); and item 6 is by Robert Parry about "fake news" and the Totalitarian Guardians of "Truth" that are now gathering in an association of mainstream media that also want to shut down any media that are not totalitarian (and the mainstream media use lies and deceptions to make their totalitarian points).

-- 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 on 26.xi and 27.xi and indeed ever since till 1.xii.

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 between Nov
25 and Nov 30, 2016

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. How 'We' Will Not Survive Trump

The first item today is by Kali Holloway on AlterNet:

This starts as follows:

“We will survive Trump,” I keep hearing people say, often followed by a reference to how “we” survived Bush, or Reagan, or Nixon, or so many other historic calamities.

At worst, I’ve seen this sentiment expressed by people whose safety and well-being are all but guaranteed, mostly to dismiss or silence outpourings of fear, anger and grief from the vulnerable and justifiably petrified. At best, I’ve heard it from folks who stand to lose the most in the coming years — whose erasure, exclusion or expulsion were voted for by people eager to make this country exclusively theirs again — in an effort to turn resignation into reassurance, to transform a history of needless suffering into a warped kind of relief that what we’re facing is just more of the awful same.

Yes, and "We will survive Trump" is vague bullshit anyway: Who are "We"; how will "We" survive (in a prison, perhaps?); how many of "We" will or may survive; and who is Trump, are all questions that are suggested by that vague question, but which are all not answered.

Besides: How many did say the same at the start of the reigns of Hitler or Stalin or Mao? I don't know, but they were mistaken. To be sure: I do not know how bad Trump's government is going to be, nor how much of the American laws and rights (in so far as these remain: see items 2, 5 and 6 below) he will be abled to destroy, nor how many people he will lock up, or torture, or abuse. But I am not optimistic, and see no reason whatsoever to be optimistic.

Here is a quick line-up of some of the people Trump has given enormous powers to:

With the most recent election, we now have a vice president-elect who has repeatedly voted in favor of LGBT discrimination, pushed to defund Planned Parenthood, blocked efforts to stop the spread of AIDS while praying about it, and presided over the worst HIV outbreak in Indiana’s history. Pence is joined by Tom Price, the pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, anti-Medicare, anti-LGBT newly appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s attorney general pick, lost out on a federal judgeship in the 1980s for being too racist but may soon be in charge of a criminal justice system that has notoriously failed black and brown people. Trump’s new national security adviser, Michael Flynn, is friendly with white supremacists on social media and propagates the idea that fearing Muslims is rational. All of these people will get to spend the next few years working alongside Steve Bannon, white nationalist sympathizer and propagandist, and now chief strategist to President-elect Trump.

And here are some of the things Kali Holloway foresees:

Survivability will drop off for numerous communities in the next four years. It’s foolish to trust that Trump won’t carry out his promises because of his record as a flip-flopping liar, which should actually be a reason for even less confidence. Even among politicians and reality television stars, Trump stands out as a person who says whatever he needs to in any given moment, without shame or fear of consequences. This president-elect and his cabinet will make terrible decisions for this country, decisions that will be catastrophic for those he targeted during his campaign.

I agree. This article ends as follows:

This is the truth of this election. Yes, some of us will survive the next few years, and the horrible outcomes of this presidency. But "we" as a whole, will not. Because the reality is, "we" never have.

In fact, this is a weak ending because it ends with "the reality is, "we" never have", which suggests (at least) that the present time is like the foregoing times.

I don't think it is, for Trump is a lot worse than merely being another bad Republicam, but this article is recommended.

2. As Rule 41 Quietly Passes, Trump to Inherit Expanded Hacking Powers

The second item is by Nadia Prupis on Common Dreams:

This starts as follows:

Changes to a rule that expand government hacking powers quietly went into effect at midnight on Thursday, after senators failed to halt their implementation.

The amendments (pdf) to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure now allow intelligence agents to get warrants to hack into computers that are outside of the judicial district where the warrant was issued, if the target is using anonymity or encryption software like virtual private networks (VPNs), Tor browsing, or other protection tools.

Yes. I also am skeptical that Tor browsing and internet protection tools will survive Trump's government. I hope they will, but I doubt it. Also, I think for those who oppose governments of any kind, computers and cellphones ought to be out, for the simple reason that there are tenthousands or hundreds of thousands of trained mathematicians who are well-paid by the NSA and many other secret services to break in or circumvent them, and one never knows whether they have succeeded (until it is too late and one is arrested or blown up).

Then there is this on the excellent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize:

The new provisions are particularly troubling in light of the incoming presidential administration. As Common Dreams has
previously noted, President Barack Obama spent much of his time in office expanding and building upon controversial policies that saw civil liberties eroded on many fronts—and now all that unchallenged power will be in President-elect Donald Trump's hands.

Yes, precisely. Here are two critics of the NSA:

"By sitting here and doing nothing, the Senate has given consent to this expansion of government hacking and surveillance," Wyden said Wednesday. "Law-abiding Americans are going to ask 'what were you guys thinking?' when the FBI starts hacking victims of a botnet hack. Or when a mass hack goes awry and breaks their device, or an entire hospital system and puts lives at risk."

National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted, "Without a debate or any new law, the rights of every American—and basic privacy of people around the world—have been narrowed."

Quite so. And in fact one now sees (or at least: one now ought to see) that personal computers and cellphones were THE tools for the secret services to start controlling everyone, in secret also, while meanwhile the "legal" resources have been put together to arrest and shut up everyone who is not quite as the government or the secret services desire him or her to be.

To what extent this will happen remains to be seen, but Trump's goverment looks awful.

3. Internet Archive Successfully Fends Off Secret FBI Order

The third item is b
y Kim Zetter on The Intercept:

This starts as follows:

A decade ago, the FBI sent Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive, a now-infamous type of subpoena known as a National Security Letter, demanding the name, address and activity record of a registered Internet Archive user. The letter came with an everlasting gag order, barring Kahle from discussing the order with anyone but his attorney — not even his wife could know.

But Kahle did eventually talk about it, calling the order “horrendous,” after challenging its constitutionality in a joint legal effort with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. As a result of their fight, the FBI folded, rescinding the NSL and unsealing associated court records rather than risk a ruling that their surveillance orders were illegal. “This is an unqualified success that will help other recipients understand that you can push back on these,” Kahle told reporters once the gag order was lifted.

First of all: I like the Internet Archive and am a member since quite a number of years. And in fact, I have used it quite a lot and also downloaded rather a lot, although the vast majority my downloads probably interest very few: Mathematical logic, and the writings of William Hazlitt. (I like both, but few do.)

Next, National Security Letters that come with a gag order are neofascistic instruments (see [2] below for my meaning of "neofascism"): They are incompatible with democracy and with real democratic law. Anyone who has to go to court must have the right to say so in public.

And therefore it is a good thing that Kahle withstood this neofascistic order - but while that is good, he was also one the very few - from over 300,000 people who received such orders, as far as I can see, since 2003 - to protest.

Here is some more about the last point:

The bureau continued to issue tens of thousands of NSLs in subsequent years, but few recipients followed in Kahle’s footsteps. Those who did achieved limited but important transparency gains; as a result of one challenge, a California District Court ruled in 2013 that the everlasting gag orders accompanying NSLs are unconstitutional, and last year Congress passed a law forcing the FBI to commit to periodically reviewing such orders and rescinding them when a gag is no longer necessary to a case.

I am sorry, but for me all gag orders are neofascistic, as is the surveillance of everyone by the NSA, the GCHQ and very many other secret services.

Here is some more on National Security Letters:

National Security Letters are one of the most powerful and ubiquitous tools the FBI uses to obtain user information from internet service providers and other businesses, since they don’t require court approval and are therefore easily issued. There are three statutes that grant authority to use NSLs — the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act all have provisions allowing the use of NSLs for different kinds of records. These NSLs can compel internet service providers, financial institutions, and other businesses to hand over subscriber names and addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and transactional records showing account activity, while preventing the recipient from telling the subscriber about the request so that he or she can challenge the NSL.

So once again: I think "the police" (to use a vague term) may request data about specific persons who are suspected, with evidence, of some crime, indeed rather precisely as the Fourth Amendment details it. Here is the Fourth Amendment (<-Wikipedia):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Everything that goes beyond this is abuse of power by the government, while if these abuses are also accompanied by a gag order, they are - for me - plain anti-democratic neofascism.

Then again, I fear that under Trump's government this is going to be the rule and the norm. And please note that this means very many may be arrested or prosecuted with gag orders, which means that no one will ever hear about this (in all probability).

This is not a democracy: it is ever expanding neofascism.

4. Cornel West on Donald Trump: This is What Neo-Fascism Looks Like

The fourth item is by Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh on Democracy Now!:

This starts as follows (after an introduction):

AMY GOODMAN: Well, to talk more about the election of Donald Trump, his cabinet picks, and much more, we’re joined by Cornel West, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University. During the Democratic primary, he endorsed Bernie Sanders. After Hillary Clinton won the nomination, West made headlines when he endorsed Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. Welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us.

CORNEL WEST: I just thank God for Democracy Now!
because journalism is almost dead as we move into this neofascist age. And thank god you all are still willing to tell the truth.

In fact, I think it does make sense to concentrate on the adverb "still":

I do not know what will happen under Trump's government, but I - for one - will not be amazed if it tries to shut down (somehow, by new laws or by secret manipulations) the non-mainstream media, because these are the only media left that try to do decent and honest journalism and that try to tell the truth.

Here is some more:

AMY GOODMAN: Well, your response to the election of Donald Trump and now the cabinet he is appointing around him?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think he’s already betrayed working people in terms of making sure, in his view, that Wall Street is in the driver’s seat. And what I mean by that is that in an emerging neofascist moment, you have the rule of big business, which is big banks and big corporations. You scapegoat the most vulnerable. It could be Muslims, Mexicans, gay brothers, lesbian sisters, indigenous peoples, black peoples, jews, and so on. And then you also have militaristic orientations around the world.
Yes, that seems to me a reasonable diagnosis. As to the neofascism that Cornel West named (which I think is correct, though not very clear) there is this:

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But, you’ve also said, Dr. West, you just said that his administration will be neofascist. Could you explain? What do you mean by that, neofascist as opposed to fascist, and what the two mean?

CORNEL WEST: What neofascist — it’s an American style form of fascism. What I mean by that is we’ve had neoliberal rule from Carter to Obama. That neoliberal rule left in place a national security state. It left in place massive surveillance. It left in place the ability of the president to kill an American citizen with no due process. That’s Obama. That was the culmination of the neoliberal era. Now you get someone who is narcissistic — which is to say out of control psychologically — who is ideologically confused — which is to say, in over his head — and who does he choose? The most right wing reactionary zealots which lead toward the arbitrary deployment of law, which is what neofascism is, but to reinforce corporate interests, big bank interest, and to keep track of those of us who are cast as peoples of color, women, jews, Arabs, Muslims, Mexicans, and so forth, and so — So, this is one of the most frightening moments in the history of this very fragile empire and fragile republic.
This is not bad, but West mentions three different things here: Neofascism, neoliberalism, and Trump's psychopathological problems. I will say some about each of these, and start with Trump's psychopathological problems.

First, I have an excellent degree in psychology, and I believe Trump is an evident megalomaniac (aka grandiose narcissist) (and this last link refers back to March 14, 2016). Some of my reasons were given on March 14, 2016, and in fact I think most who got a degree in psychology or psychiatry should agree with me. It seems they don't, in part because most of them are more interested in money for themselves than in truth or science; in part because many of them hide behind "one should not diagnose without personal knowledge" (which can be safely regarded as impossible in case of the president of the USA and as serving their own high incomes); and few say so now he is the president-elect.

Then again, while it is my guess this will become quite important in Trump's presidency, it is not very relevant for Trump's neofascism, to which I turn now.

Second, by neofascism I understand something specific, which I defined in note [2]. This also is a better definition than 22 others that I have
considered, indeed also rather seriously, and I do maintain that Trump's ideas, values and appointments in his government-to-be mostly match my definition. Check it out if you doubt this!

Third, about neoliberalism. As I said under my definition of neofascism (and see [2]: it is quite clear):
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).
Again, you can check neoliberalism (<- Wikipedia) - which has a good introduction - against my definition of neofascism. I think you will find that they are - often, not always - very similar.

Here is the last bit that I'll quote from this interview with Cornel West:

CORNEL WEST:  (...) We were hoping, with brother Bernie Sanders, that we could bring the neoliberal era to a close. And by neoliberal, what I mean is, when you see a social problem, you financialize, you privatize, and militarize. You get mass incarceration on the one hand, privatize schools — I know sister Diane Ravitch, on of the great prophetic voices of our time, in this regard will talk about this later — and then you militarize, which is to say drop bombs on seven Muslim countries and then wonder why Muslims are upset.

Yes indeed - but I add that I think my definition is considerably clearer
than Cornel West's, though
indeed he and I seem to have similar ideas about this.

And this is a recommended article.

5. Preserving Independent Journalism and Fighting the New McCarthyism

The fifth item today is by Emma Niles on Truthdig:

This starts as follows:

The Truthdig team sat down for a live conversation Thursday to discuss The Washington Post’s uncritical piece that cites the shadowy organization PropOrNot as a source.

The team spoke about PropOrNot’s alarming McCarthyist sentiments, the importance of independent journalism, and the Post’s failure to adequately check its source.

The conversation was streamed onto our Facebook page.
It so happens that I like Truthdig but I refuse to use Facebook (and Google, and Yahoo and Bing). So I am sorry, but I did not see this, and will not as long as it is on Facebook.

As to PropOrNot: For me these are anonymous neofascists and liars, and the only reason they became prominent is that someone from the Washington Post embraced their lies, which I think he did because he wants to end the non-mainstream news sides in the USA - which are these days the only places where you'll find news that was gathered for reasons of truth rather than for reasons of propaganda, deception, or fraud.

Here is some more on what PropOrNot did (all anonymously, all without any real evidence):

Prop Or Not lists dozens of organizations purportedly functioning “as Russian propaganda outlets.” Truthdig is one of the outlets listed, as Deputy Editor Kasia Anderson writes:

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. The targeted outlets on PropOrNot’s list—including Truthdig, Truthout, the Black Agenda Report, Naked Capitalism, along with the Ron Paul Institute, The Drudge Report, InfoWars, Russia Today and WikiLeaks—represented a wide range of viewpoints and political positions.

Other journalists have also weighed in to critique the Post’s piece, as Anderson notes. In a piece published Monday, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi published a response titled “The ‘Washington Post’ ‘Blacklist’ Story Is Shameful and Disgusting.”

And Taibbi was quite correct. Here is Chris Hedges:

Chris Hedges, a Truthdig contributor, also spoke with Taibbi regarding the Post piece. As Taibbi relates:

Chris Hedges of Truthdig, who was part of a group that won the Pulitzer Prize for The New York Times once upon a time, said the same. “We were named,” he tells me. “I was not contacted.”

Hedges says the Post piece was an “updated form of Red-Baiting.”

“This attack signals an open war on the independent press,” he says. “Those who do not spew the official line will be increasingly demonized in corporate echo chambers such as the Post or CNN as useful idiots or fifth columnists.”

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton also zeroed in on the “obviously reckless and unproven allegations” made by Timberg.

“In other words, the individuals behind this newly created group are publicly branding journalists and news outlets as tools of Russian propaganda—even calling on the FBI to investigate them for espionage—while cowardly hiding their own identities,” Greenwald and Norton write.

Yes, indeed. And Chris Hedges also is quite correct: This is the first of probably many more attacks on the only decent journalism there now is in the USA.

This is a recommended article.

6. The Orwellian War on Skepticism

The sixth and last item today is by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews:

This starts as follows:

Under the cover of battling “fake news,” the mainstream U.S. news media and officialdom are taking aim at journalistic skepticism when it is directed at the pronouncements of the U.S. government and its allies.

One might have hoped that the alarm about “fake news” would remind major U.S. news outlets, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, about the value of journalistic skepticism. However, instead, it seems to have done the opposite.

Note that this means that "the mainstream U.S. news media" are actively working to destroy any news media that are "directed at" possibly doubting and at least seriously investigating "the pronouncements of the U.S. government and its allies."

Here is how the mainstream media these days understand "truth":

The idea of questioning the claims by the West’s officialdom now brings calumny down upon the heads of those who dare do it. “Truth” is being redefined as whatever the U.S. government, NATO and other Western interests say is true. Disagreement with the West’s “group thinks,” no matter how fact-based the dissent is, becomes “fake news.”

Indeed: "The Truth" = "What Our Fine Government Says", and also no one needs to do any checking of anything Our Fine Government says, that is also soon to be led by the renowned Truth-speaker Donald Trump, who never lies, and never deceives. Believe Donald Trump or else you'll be prosecuted seems to be the new norm.

Here is more on the background:

As veteran war correspondent Don North reported in 2015 regarding this new StratCom, “the U.S. government has come to view the control and manipulation of information as a ‘soft power’ weapon, merging psychological operations, propaganda and public affairs under the catch phrase ‘strategic communications.’

“This attitude has led to treating psy-ops — manipulative techniques for influencing a target population’s state of mind and surreptitiously shaping people’s perceptions — as just a normal part of U.S. and NATO’s information policy.”

Now, the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress are moving to up the ante, passing new legislation to escalate “information warfare.”

Anyone who favors "manipulative techniques for influencing a target population’s state of mind and surreptitiously shaping people’s perceptions" is a sick, degenerate and totalitarian neofascist, who does not protect his population but who lives to deceive it.

Also, the more I read about these totalitarian and neofascist techniques, the better I think were my guesses of 2005 (Dutch) and 2012/2014 (English). That is, it seems more and more likely to me that 9/11 was created on purpose, to take over the state and all private computers, and make everything totalitarian and neofascistic. (And no, I have no proof. But my guesses were quite sharp, and were all from before knowing anything about Snowden.) [3]

Here is what the mainstream media in the USA are up to these days:

But the unpleasant truth is that the mainstream U.S. news media is now engaged in its own fake-news campaign about “fake news.” It’s publishing bogus claims invented by a disreputable and secretive outfit that just recently popped up on the Internet. If that isn’t “fake news,” I don’t know what is.

Yes indeed. It is totalitarian trash, in short, though I have to add that it is also quite dangerous, because the totalitarian mainstream has much more money (and much more government support) than the non-totalitarian non-main- stream.

Here is one of the reasons why I will probably much more often join the terms "totalitarian" and "mainstream":

An organization of some 30 mainstream media companies
already exists, including not only The Washington Post and The New York Times but also the Atlantic Council-connected Bellingcat, as the emerging arbiters – or ombudsmen – for truth, something Orwell described less flatteringly as a “Ministry of Truth.”

In fact, a congregation of totalitarian mainstream media dedicated to seeing to it that only their kind of totalitarian trash reaches the public, seems to me both a lot sicker and also more devious than a Ministry of Truth: A state organ may be assumed to speak for the state, but news organizations that see to it that only the news that is approved of by the government is read by the public seems  considerably more corrupt and more devious to me.

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

The New York Times has even editorialized in support of Internet censorship, using the hysteria over “fake news” to justify the marginalization or disappearance of dissident news sites.

It now appears that this 1984-ish “MiniTrue” will especially target journalistic skepticism when applied to U.S. government and mainstream media “group thinks.”

Yes, indeed - and as I said: If the mainstream news media see to it that only their own kind of totalitarian propaganda gets printed, which to me seems both more corrupt and more devious than leaving this to the Ministry of Truth or the NSA.

And it seems it will be pretty difficult for the non-mainstream media to survive inside the USA, that is very rapidly moving towards a totalitarian neofascist state, with a totalitarian neofascist press, and nothing else for the public to know the (real) truth.

If internet survives more or less as it is now, there may still be possibilities for the 330 million Americans to know what is or may be really true, but it seems to me that even that is far from guaranteed:

One must be prepared that the secret services from now on are every- where, in secret, where an internet computer or a cellphone are used (and they also soon may be able to take out any American who is an opponent of the government, and without this being known by anyone else).

This is a recommended article, in which there also is considerably more than got reviewed here.

--------------------------
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] It is my intention to repeat both articles (of 2005 and of 2012/2014) in the beginning of 2017.

       home - index - summaries - mail