Donald Trump’s National Security Choices Are Not the
‘A’ Team in Intelligence
2. Are Americans Ready for a Municipalist Movement?
3. Clinton’s ‘Russia Did It’ Cop-out
4. The Real Trump
5. Trump Will Be a 'Severe Disappointment To Millions'
is a Nederlog of Sunday, December 4, 2016.
is a crisis
log with 5 items and 5 dotted links and it consists (mostly) of some
further deliberations on the meanings of Trump's election as president
Item 1 is about an article by John
Kiriakou, which is OK (except that he seems to be thinking that the CIA
is not a (state-)terrorist organization, while the KGB is); item 2 is about an article that seems to be mostly
wishful thinking (of a kind I like, but still); item 3
is about an article by Robert Parry on Clinton's "Russia did it"
(i.e. give the presidency to Trump); item 4 is about an
article about the real Trump in The New York Review of Books; and item 5 is about an interview Spiegel International did
with American journalist Remnick.
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: It keeps being horrible most days and was so on most days in
But on 2.xii and 3.xii it was correct. I say!
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 was so-so till 18.xi and was correct since then (most or all days).
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.
Donald Trump’s National Security Choices Are Not the ‘A’ Team in
The first item today is by John Kiriakou
(<-Wikipedia) on Truthdig:
This starts as
Donald Trump’s efforts to build a
national security team have ricocheted between abject chaos and extreme
conservative ideology. There’s no reason for progressives to be
optimistic about retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as national
security adviser or Rep. Michael Pompeo, R-Kan., as CIA
director. Trump’s national security transition advisers have proven
so far to hold extreme anti-democratic and anti-Muslim views. It’s not
going to get any better.
The real question is whether Trump’s
appointees will refuse to reinstate former President George W. Bush’s
illegal and immoral torture program or whether they’ll carry out the
president-elect’s campaign promises to bring back waterboarding and “a
hell of a lot worse.”
Yes indeed. As to "[t]he real question": I
think there will be more torturing by the USA. And one reason
is that the CIA already had people tortured outside the USA,
indeed since a long time.
Here is something on the quality of the
people that are nominated by Trump in the national security team:
We know already that Trump’s choices do
not constitute the “A” team in intelligence circles. Eliot Cohen, a
senior State Department official under George W. Bush, wrote
in The Washington Post that although he had been a part of the
“Never Trump” movement, he had urged fellow Republicans to accept jobs
in the new administration’s national security structure because the
president-elect needed all the help he could get. But after an exchange
with a close friend on the transition team, Cohen tweeted, “After
exchange w/ Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay
away. They’re angry, arrogant, screaming ‘you LOST!’ Will be ugly.”
I say, although I am not really
amazed. There is also this:
It is possible that things will get even
worse than the prospect of Flynn and Pompeo. Trump has discussed a job
for Jose Rodriguez, former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism
Center from 2002-2004 and CIA deputy director for operations from
2004-2010. Rodriguez not only was the father
of the torture program, but he also destroyed
the tapes documenting actual torture sessions. Although
Rodriguez said he didn’t necessarily want to be CIA director, he added
he would consider a job if offered one, and he hoped the new president
back the torture program.
And I think Rordriguez may well get his
job back, and this time to start pulling nails and putting electrodes
on genitals in Guantánamo. I don't know, but this seems to be
what Trump wanted.
Finally, the article ends as follows,
which seems a little disingenuous to me:
It seems a bit disingenuous to me because of
my definition of terrorism:
The problem now is that it may be
terrorists who are going to run the U.S. intelligence community.
Terrorism: Attempt to get one's way in
politics or religion by violence and murder, directed especially at
For me the CIA already were state-terrorists,
under Obama, under Bush Jr., under Clinton etc. etc. But I agree with
Kiriakou that this time it may be extreme
state-terrorism without any moral bounds and without any
Very many religious and political groups
have indulged in terrorism, if given the chance, though the
perpetrators of terrorism almost always call it by a different
such as "fight for freedom", "guerilla", "righteousness of the
faithful", or "Holy War".
One of the functions of the state is to
protect its population from
terrorism, which often happens by denying the population the right to
bear arms. The great danger of states is that state-terrorism has
been by far the most dangerous and succesful form of terrorism:
Hundreds of millions of individual human beings were murdered in the
20th C alone by state-terrorism. (Fascism, Communism).
2. Are Americans Ready for a Municipalist Movement?
The second item is by Alexander Koloktronis on Truthdig and originally
This starts as follows, and Alexander
Koloktronis is a Ph.D. student at Yale, while I will only give some of
his principal arguments:
I agree (it seems) that Trump is a neofascist (check the reference for my
definition) and I myself am an antifascist with antifascist parents and
grandparents, that proved themselves to be real antifascists by
going into the resistance against Nazism in Holland between 1940 and
1945, which landed my grandfather and
my father as "political terrorists" in Nazi concentration camps,
where my grandfather was murdered.
The mass protests
across the United States in response to Donald Trump’s presidential
election victory constitute a palpable and growing potential for the
formation and constructive utilization of various anti-fascist fronts
and coalitions. While these might be limited to protest and survival in
typical Trump strongholds, the situation is markedly different in urban
In many cities,
anti-Trump demonstrations have included far-left groups,
immigration-rights advocates, Black Lives Matter activists,
reproductive rights supporters and a number of other political actors.
formation of anti-fascist coalitions provides the opportunity to
convert these dreams and aspirations into a concrete and transformative
program at the municipal level. What role can anti-fascism play in
building this alternative?
But then again, until November 9 last I was one of the very
few who identified Trump as a neofascist
or as a fascist
(check the references, for these are my own definitions!). So while I
probably agree more than not with Koloktronis on Trump, I am also a bit
doubtful, and indeed less about Koloktronis than about the average intelligence
of Americans and American voters.
Here are three out of four main arguments of Koloktronis. The first is
program includes canceling “all
federal funding to sanctuary cities.” These serve as safe havens for
undocumented immigrants, primarily through limiting the enforcement of
Federal Government laws at the local level (often through
non-cooperation). The protection can also include proactive policies,
such as providing some form of documentation through municipal ID
programs, which have been instituted in New York City, San Francisco
and New Haven, among others.
opposition to sanctuary cities has put such municipalities at the
forefront of the resistance. The mayors of Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, Los Angeles and Philadelphia have
all pledged that their cities will remain sanctuaries, even under
threat from Donald Trump.
I am sorry, but
I don't trust politicians. More specifically, even if each of
these mayors is sincere, strong, and principalled, what matters
is how they will have
money if "all federal funding" is blocked by Trump.
And since I do not know how much money they get from the
federal government I have absolutely no idea about how realistic
The second argument is that "policy innovation is already taking place at the
municipal level". But that also is pretty
non-specific, and avoids mentioning that as yet Trump is not president.
Here is the third argument:
Third, the current
crisis in the Democratic Party may not threaten its existence for the
time being, but its failure to nominate a presidential candidate
who was not a neoliberal technocrat has strengthened the call for
a party that advances a more robust alternative to the status quo — and of course to fascism as well. Under a Trump
presidency, those who are committed to resisting fascism and advancing
an alternative will have an opportunity to advance the latter in
municipal contexts. Individuals and groups are open to both different
ideas and different organizations.
No, I am sorry: Koloktronis thinks and says that "[u]nder a Trump presidency" there will be "an
opportunity to advance" alternatives to
Trump, but I do not know this. (And besides, I think Trump is
not a fascist, although he is a neofascist, which should have some importance
Here is the fourth and last principal
Fourth, the Bernie
Sanders campaign has allowed for a normalization of the word
“socialism” at the municipal level. The somewhat vague footing of the
term “democratic socialism” leaves the door open to interpretations
that are not simply social democratic, but can veer off into a
libertarian socialism that seeks to create post-state and
Again I don't think so: I think
"socialism" is still a dirty word for most Americans. To be
sure, I like libertarian
socialism (<-Wikipedia) but I think both socialism and
libertarian socialism are ideals of small groups of Americans.
So basically my argument is that this
seems to be too idealistic
that comes with little evidence. And nobody knows what Trump's
government will be like, except that it will very probably be
horrible from any leftist point of view.
3. Clinton’s ‘Russia Did It’ Cop-out
The third item is by Robert Parry on
This starts as follows:
The Clinton machine – running on fumes
after Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential bid – is pulling out all
remaining stops to block Donald Trump’s inauguration, even sinking into
a new McCarthyism.
In joining a recount effort with slim
hopes of reversing the election results, Clinton campaign counsel Marc
Elias cited a scurrilous Washington Post article that relied on a
shadowy anonymous group, called PropOrNot, that issued a “black list”
against 200 or so Internet sites, including some of the most respected
sources of independent journalism, claiming they are part of some
Russian propaganda network.
In classic McCarthyistic fashion, no
evidence was supplied, simply an anonymous smear. But The Washington
Post, which itself has devolved into a neoconservative propaganda
conveyor belt, published the attack apparently without contacting any
of the targeted groups.
Despite the obvious journalistic
problems with this article,
the desperate Clinton campaign treated it like a lifeline to its
drowning hopes for reversing the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
I say. It seems one has to distinguish at
least three things: First, Hillary Clinton's attempts to keep
the power in the Democratic Party; second, the
use of the PropOrNot lies that also got support from Clintonites; and
recounting effort of Jill Stein, which also was supported by
Here are my comments on these three things.
First. Hillary and Bill Clinton are in serious
trouble because she is - very probably - not the next president of the
USA. So far, they and their team did
have the power in the Democratic Party, and they are seeking to
continue this. I have no idea who will win the fight, though I do think
that the Clintons are on the way out, simply because there only is a very
slight chance that they will win any other powerful job (outside the
Democratic Party). I hope they will disappear fast, but that is
merely my hope, with little or no evidence for or
Second. The use of the - untested,
unverified, anonymous - lies of PropOrNot is a
Hillary Clinton, just like Donald Trump, relies on untested,
unverified, anonymous bullshit to further her - slim - chances and to
keep as much power in the Democratic Party as she can. 
Third, as I have said several times: Jill Stein (whom I personally do
not like much) simply has the right to demand a recount of the
vote. I do not think she will succeed in deposing Donald Trump
as president, but that again is my personal opinion.
Next, there is this on Trump as "part of some grand Russian conspiracy":
The argument is that Trump must be part
of some grand Russian conspiracy along with those 200 Web sites.
As bizarre as this conspiracy mongering
has become, it is quickly emerging as a new Washington “group think.”
All the “smart people” at the major networks and newspapers – as well
as many Democratic insiders – are just sure that it’s all true.
I think Parry is right in calling this
"bizarre", but wrong in laying the blame on "conspiracy mongering":
There are conspiracies, and what matters is not that
they are conspiracies (if they are), but what evidence one
has. And Parry is right that neither PropOrNot nor The Washington Post
offered any evidence, and seems also right in saying this is
the new groupthink
(a term I prefer - and check out the reference if you didn't alraeady)
- which again is evidence that Clinton and the Clintonites are much
more like Trump than they should be.
Here is the last bit that I'll quote from
The complaint about alleged Russian
hacking of emails also represents an attempt to divert attention away
from the fact that the information published by WikiLeaks appears to be
entirely true. By all accounts, the leaks revealed genuine
communications between Democratic Party leaders and people in the
WikiLeaks also revealed the contents of
Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other special
interests, words that she delivered to these groups of insiders but
wanted to keep from the American voters.
However, somehow this truthful
information has morphed into “fake news” without anyone explaining how
that transformation occurred. Through the black magic of simply
saying “Russians” a few times, truthful information becomes “fake” and everyone’s judgment becomes hopelessly clouded.
Yes indeed: That seems mostly correct,
although Parry does give an explanation ("the
black magic of simply saying “Russians” a few times") and overstates
the truth: It is not true that "everyone’s
judgment becomes hopelessly clouded" after
having seen a few times "that the Russians did it".
4. The Real Trump
The fourth item is by Mark Danner on The New York Review of Books:
This is a quotation from a speech of
Donald Trump that is near the beginning of this article:
If you believe that, you must about
as most Trump supporters seem to be : There is no
way to bring back the 40% (!!) of the jobs that have been destroyed
since Reagan took power, and since Bill Clinton mostly continued
Reagan's policies, namely by allowing the very rich to transport their
factories to the very much cheaper countries of India
“In two days,” he began, addressing the
working class of Moon Township, in the shadows of Pittsburgh’s old dead
To this proud vision of a future as past
restored the crowd brought huge cheers.
we are going to win the great state of
Pennsylvania and we are going to win back the White House. [Huge
cheers]… When we win, we are bringing steel back, we are going to
bring steel back to Pennsylvania, like it used to be. We are
putting our steel workers and our miners back to work. We are. We will
be bringing back our once-great steel companies.
It was a lie, a
piece of fantasy,
an intentional bit of major bullshit by
Trump, like 71% of his public sayings. But lying, fantasizing and
bullshitting are the ways in which Trump won the elections (in
the Electoral College) - which is again why I say most voters for Trump
were ignorant or stupid, and usually both.
Then there is this on Hillary Clinton:
The truth is that after decades
of attacks and her own prominent missteps—the e-mails that comprised
the perfect symbolic scandal since, with its veritable lack of content,
there was no way she could ever be vindicated; the speaking fees that
recalled to voters a political couple who had left the White House
“dead broke” and had since somehow managed to enrich themselves to the
tune of hundreds of millions of dollars—Hillary Clinton was mistrusted
by most of the country and hated and despised by those at Trump rallies
rather more intensely and savagely than her supporters hated and
Yes indeed, although I should say
that I have heard rather wildly divergent estimates of the
money that both of the Clintons made "to enrich
Here is my - somewhat hesitant - view: Hillary Clinton collected
billions of dollars for her presidential election, which seem to have
mostly gone into loosing the elections, and both Clintons seem to have
gathered around $ 120 million by extremely well-paid
speeches to Wall Street bankers and others, that were clearly
meant to reward them for what Bill Clinton did for the bankers, and for
what Hillary promised to do.
I do not know whether I am correct, but I have seen the
estimate several times, and the Clintons clearly have many tens of
millions of dollars, for they bought a house for their daughter that
cost $ 10 million.
And in any case, the Clintons are quite rich and got
quite rich by politics,
as indeed did that
other denier that socialism is even possible, Tony Blair, who seems
to owe at least 50 million pounds. (Money and power are two very
imporant motives, and the Clintons and the Blairs did personally extremely
Then there is this on Donald Trump:
Donald Trump offers such
consummate political theater—his gargantuan narcissism makes him so
mesmerizing to watch —that it is to wake abruptly from an
all-enveloping dream to realize that much of what he says has no…content
behind it. His assertions, framed in
simple, concrete, direct language, are not policy statements so much as
attitudes, the tireless ranting of the man on the barstool beside you,
some of them, for example, on how America is being “ripped off” on
trade, going back decades, some of them, on “the disaster” of
Obamacare, notably, acquired only upon his incarnation as presidential
I am sorry, but I do not think Trump
is "mesmerizing" at all, and I know for a long time that
Trump's sayings are fantasies,
lies and bullshit. Also,
my guess is that most readers of the New York Review of
Books know this, for indeed knowing this does not require much
intelligence or much knowledge.
Here is something about Obama, who indeed should be blamed a
lot, especially if his 2008 speeches are considered (in terms of
which he is a total fraud ):
What will change will be his
power. He inherits a presidency that has been vastly inflated by the
war on terror policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It is not
the least of ironies that Trump will have vast powers because his
predecessor has chosen not to restrict but to normalize the powers
cultivated by the “wartime president” who preceded him. Donald Trump
will inherit a government on a permanent wartime footing, actively
fighting in six countries (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and
Afghanistan), using means both public and secret—including drone
strikes and attacks by covert special forces—and doing so with the
benefit of never-ending war powers granted by Congress. He will have
all the powers conferred by permanent war, by a greatly expanded CIA
and NSA, and by a national security establishment that
since 2001 has nearly doubled in size and has long since escaped the
gaze of democratic scrutiny.
Yes, indeed. This article ends as follows:
It seems predictable, though,
that as Trump encounters opposition, as he proves unable to fulfill the
grandeur of his promises, he will strike back—it is his nature—and we
will see American institutions tested. If they prove strong, there are
ways for Trump to circumvent them. The enormous rallies offer one way.
The cries of “Traitor!” give sign of another way. Trump is an
improviser, a performer, a creator of new worlds. The narcissistically
damaged actor, the high-flying song and dance man: even he can scarcely
know what is to come.
I agree, although I wish journalists were a
bit more honest: Trump is not merely a "narcissistically
damaged actor": He is a grandiose narcissist aka megalomaniac;
he is so very clearly; and being a megalomaniac is
a psychopathology. (And I am a psychologist.)
And given that this man now will have four years the chance to
blow up everyone, it would have been more honest to say he is -
alas, alas, alas -
not only ignorant,
but he is also mad,
as indeed few people, even few politicians, are.
5. Trump Will Be a 'Severe Disappointment To Millions'
The fifth and last item today is by Holger Stark on Spiegel
This starts as follows,
and is an interview with David Remnick
I say, for I am a bit amazed and will
explain myself. First, Remnick was clearly right in saying that
Trump's succeeding in his presidential bid is (and I add bolding) "surely the way fascism can begin".
SPIEGEL: On the night of the
election, you published a stunning warning
that the election's outcome was "surely the way fascism can begin."
It's been three weeks now. Has fascism begun?
Remnick: No it has not and I want to
be clear about what I wrote. The whole sentence, the complete thought
is this: I don't think there will be fascism in America, but we have to
do everything we can to fight against it. As the Germans know better
than we do, disaster can take a nation by surprise, slowly, and then
all at once. My deep sense of alarm has to do with his seeming lack of
fealty to constitutionalism. He seems to think it is within his rights
to trample the First Amendment, to disdain the press, to punish
protesters or flag-burners, to ban ethnic categories of immigrants, and
so on. He has myriad conflicts of interest. He appoints people of low
quality, to say the least. He lies with astonishing frequency and in
stunning volume. His temperament and character is precisely what you
would hate to see in your children, much less your president.
In fact, what Remnick said was this (in his stunning warning):
There is no reason to believe
that Trump and his band of associates - Chris Christie, Rudolph
Giuliani, Mike Pence, and, yes, Paul Ryan - are in any mood to govern
as Republicans within the traditional boundaries of decency. Trump was
not elected on a platform of decency, fairness, moderation, compromise,
and the rule of law; he was elected, in the main, on a platform of
resentment. Fascism is not our future - it cannot be; we cannot allow
it to be so - but this is surely the way fascism can begin.
And I agree with him, although I should
immediately add that I am less confident that fascism or
neofascism "cannot be; we cannot allow it to be"
in the USA.
Indeed, as I have said several times before: Sheldon Wolin,
who was a political philosopher with a good reputation, published an
article in 2003 in which he said fascism threatened the USA.
And while one may disagree with Wolin, he did know a lot about politics,
and he did have (in my view at least) many sensible ideas about
politics in general, and in the USA. (See here, in case you are interested
in knowing more about Wolin: There are considerably more links there.)
And I must add that the reason Remnick gives against the possibility of
fascism or neofascism in the USA - "it cannot
be; we cannot allow it to be" - seems very
weak to me.
Next, there is this on the American economy:
SPIEGEL: Trump put the economy
at the center of his campaign and promised to bring jobs back to the
United States. What's wrong with that?
Remnick: There's nothing wrong
with creating jobs. What's wrong is to seed the illusion that you will
magically bring back the economy of 1970, that you will reopen coal
mines. The notion that somehow through a trade war or protectionism or
magical thinking that we're going to return to a romanticized economic
past is, in the end, going to be an illusion. And a severe
disappointment to millions of decent, hard-working people.
I completely agree. Then there is
this, on Trump, Putin and the American law:
I agree Trump is probably "a useful idiot" in
Putin's view (although this doesn't make Trump or Putin less
dangerous). As to the "millions and millions of
people" who "voted for Trump": I do not
know the motives of these "millions and millions", and neither
does Remnick. And while I agree that the law is the law, I don't trust
the law (for it tends to side with the rich, and not just in the USA),
and besides, it is not a strong argument that yes, the law is
bad or "absurd", but is the law.
SPIEGEL: Who knows how they
will handle each other. Maybe Putin will find his match in Donald Trump.
Remnick: I don't know that Donald
Trump is anything more to Putin than what Lenin called a poleznye
durak, a useful idiot. I want to make something clear. By the laws
of the United States, Trump won the election. And unless some
sensational story is discovered about manipulation or vote counts,
we're going to have to live with that. And I know, too, that millions
and millions of people voted for Trump not because they are cartoon
racists, but because they did not like Hillary Clinton for a variety of
reasons, because they had real economic and social grievances. I think
the hacking of the DNC, the FBI's behavior, and, above all, the idea of
Russian interference, are outrageous, but there is the law. And I think
the Electoral College is an absurd 18th-century construct. But that is
Then there is this about the Clintons:
Remnick: (..) The one
thing I'm quite critical of her for, and it obviously hurt her, is that
at some level, the Clintons had to know that she was going to run for
president. Why did they feel it necessary to make tens of millions of
dollars with speaking engagements? They must have known that it would
look grotesque. The word for it is "buckraking." It's beyond me. I
don't understand it.
I am sorry, but I don't understand
Remnick's not understanding the Clintons.
First, money and power are two of the
strongest motives there are. This itself
provides an understanding of the Clintons, and if one adds to this
that, second, they clearly hoped to win the electorate with
their own kind of centrist bullshit, which
also, third, succeeded twice in Bill Clinton's case, I think it
is not very strange that both enriched themselves massively,
indeed in a legal
way as well, for it is legal to let yourself be rewarded by extreme
amounts of money "for speeches", that were in fact thanks for what Bill
Clinton did for the bankers, and for what his wife would do again for
the bankers if she became president.
And since I think all of that is fairly
obvious, I really fail to understand Remnick's failure to
understand the Clintons.
Then there is this on journalism - and here you should keep in mind
that both the interviewer and the interviewee are prominent journalists:
SPIEGEL: This election
presented an unprecedented challenge to journalists. Trump himself
concocted hundreds of lies without consequences and false news spread
like a virus, almost always in Trump's favor.
Remnick: Trump didn't have to
come up with them. They were provided for him by all kinds of fake news
outlets that sometimes had their origins in places like Macedonia or
Georgia or anywhere.
I think both are disingenuous.
First, while it is true that "Trump himself concocted hundreds of lies without consequences" by far the main reason that all these lies were
without consequences is that very
few journalists in the mainstream media criticized them (before
September 2016). Nearly all journalists and - it seems - all editors of
the mainstream media were for making a lot of money from Trump's
candidacy, and the best way to make great amounts of money
that way was by not criticizing Trump's extremely many lies,
and this is what the mainstream media did. (And they did make a great
amount of money as well.)
Second, Remnick may be correct with saying
that Trump did not originate many of his lies, but that is also extremely
misleading: None of the lies that Trump made would have been
known if Trump had not subscribed to them and if the mainstream media
had not systematically failed to criticize any of his very many
lies (until it was too late, indeed).
Finally, here is the last bit that I'll
quote from this article:
Remnick: I live in a country
where, at least by my sense of arithmetic and justice, Al Gore should
have been president, not George W. Bush. To this day, John Kerry
probably thinks he won Ohio in 2004 because he had suspicions about the
vote in Ohio. And, by the way, Richard Nixon had suspicions in 1960
about the vote in Chicago when he lost to JFK. Democratic institutions,
even in the oldest operating democracy in the world, are anything but
SPIEGEL: So even if there are
irregularities, the outcome won't change?
Remnick: I just don't know.
Prediction is a low form of journalism.
I say. In fact, I don't feel any
better about Trump's winning the elections (in the Electoral College)
by knowing that most of the presidents since 1960 seem to have been -
in Remnick's opinion, at least - the wrong presidents if "arithmetic
and justice" would have been better than they were.
And I think Remnick is mistaken about
predictions, at least of the journalism is honest: Precisely as scientists make predictions to
check their theories,
journalists should be abled to do the same. I agree that it is
necessary for the journalism to be honest, fact based, and not
propaganda, but I don't see what
could be against predictions in those circumstances, also because
nearly all journalism is based on views about the future that
hasn't arrived yet.
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.)
 Yes, and keep in mind that the attacks
of PropOrNot were mostly against the non-mainstream media, that do
the only reasonable journalism in the USA: Clinton should never
have supported anonymous liars like that.
 I am sorry if you disagree. I am
neither stupid nor ignorant, and I think many people are, and
intelligent and knowledgeable people may be quite justified in
making these judgements.
 Yes, indeed. I think Obama was not a
good president, but I am willing to agree that his opponent of 2008 -
Hillary Clinton - was about equally bad and dishonest, and indeed much
like Obama (and much more than Obama let on in his pre-presidential