Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

 Dec 4, 2016

Crisis: Kiriakou, Municipalities, Parry, Danner, Remnick
Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1.
Donald Trump’s National Security Choices Are Not the
     ‘A’ Team in Intelligence Circles

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'
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Sunday, December 4, 2016.

A.
This 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 of the USA:

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.

-- Constant part, for the moment --
B. In case you visit my Dutch site: It keeps being horrible most days and was so on most days in November 2016. But on 2.xii and 3.xii it was correct. I say!

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 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.

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. Donald Trump’s National Security Choices Are Not the ‘A’ Team in Intelligence Circles

The first item today is by John Kiriakou (<-Wikipedia) on Truthdig:

This starts as follows:

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 would bring 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:

The problem now is that it may be terrorists who are going to run the U.S. intelligence community.

It seems a bit disingenuous to me because of my definition of terrorism:
Terrorism: Attempt to get one's way in politics or religion by violence and murder, directed especially at civilians.

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 name, 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).

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 effective law.

2. Are Americans Ready for a Municipalist Movement?

The second item is by Alexander Koloktronis on Truthdig and originally on ROAR:

This starts as follows, and Alexander Koloktronis is a Ph.D. student at Yale, while I will only give some of his principal arguments:

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 settings.

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.
(..)
The 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?
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.

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 and knowledge of Americans and American voters.

Here are three out of four main arguments of Koloktronis. The first is this:

First, Trump’s 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.

Trump’s stated 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 this is.

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 to Koloktronis.)

Here is the fourth and last principal argument:

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 post-capitalist institutions.

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 leftist politics,
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 b
y Robert Parry on Consortiumnews:

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 third the
recounting effort of Jill Stein, which also was supported by Clintonites.

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 against.

Second. The use of the - untested, unverified, anonymous - lies of PropOrNot is a serious mistake: 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. [3]

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 this article:

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 Clinton campaign.

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:

“In two days,” he began, addressing the working class of Moon Township, in the shadows of Pittsburgh’s old dead steelworks,

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.

To this proud vision of a future as past restored the crowd brought huge cheers.
If you believe that, you must about as ignorant and stupid as most Trump supporters seem to be [4]: 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 and China.

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 despised Trump.
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 themselves".
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 well.)

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 candidate.
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 [5]):
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, irresponsible, lying and deceiving, 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 International:

This starts as follows, and is an interview with David Remnick (<-Wikipedia):

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.
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".

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:

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 the 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.

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 perfect.

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.

--------------------------
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] 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.

[4] 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.

[5] 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 speeches).

       home - index - summaries - mail