1. Drowning in
Information: NSA Revelations From 262
Noam Chomsky & Harry Belafonte in Conversation on
Trump, Sanders, the KKK,
Rebellious Hearts & More
3. Trump Is an Eerily Perfect Match With a Famous
14-Point Guide to Identify
4. What a Top FBI Profiler Taught Me About
Narcissists Like Donald Trump
is a Nederlog of Thursday, December 8, 2016.
is a crisis
log with 4 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 in fact about the latest
collection of items from the Snowden Archive; item 2
is about a conversation between Noam Chomsky, Harry Belafonte, Amy
Goodman and Juan González on Trump and considerably more, and is quite
good; item 3 is about the fact that Trump is a more
or less perfect match on
Umberto Eco's 1995 criterions for Ur-Fascism, and is a quite good
article; and item 4 is about a former top FBI
profiler on Trump's grandiose narcissism
aka megalomania, and is also quite good.
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. Since then it mostly wasn't.
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.The Mafia State
1. Drowning in Information: NSA
Revelations From 262 Spy Documents
The first item
today is by Micah Lee and Margot Williams:
This is in fact about another download
from the Snowden Archive. This one is dedicated to documents from SIDToday,
that is the NSA's internal newsletter. You can find it here, including
the possibility of downloading the 9 MB zipfile:
This is the last update from December 7,
2016. (I did download the zipfile, but have had no time
to read it yet.)
The article starts as follows:
By the first half of 2004, the National
Security Agency was drowning in information. It had amassed 85 billion
phone and online records and cut the ribbon on a new hacking center in
Hawaii — but it was woefully short on linguists who could make sense of
captured communications and lacked enough network analysts to
effectively monitor all the systems it had hacked.
The signals intelligence collected by
the agency was being used for critically important decisions even as
NSA struggled to understand it. Some bombs in Iraq were being targeted
based entirely on signals intelligence, a senior NSA official told
staff at the time — with decisions being made in a matter of “minutes”
with “less and less review.”
Note that already in 2004 the NSA
had gathered 85 billion phone and online records. And it
suffered badly from information overload:
Information overload is just one of
several themes running through 262 articles from the NSA’s internal
news site, SIDtoday, which The Intercept is now releasing after
Here is the last bit that I quote from
Incidentally, 125 million records a day
means that in under three years it must have added 125 billion
records - which means that since 2004 it must have added
something like (at least, for computers have been getting faster and
faster) four times as much, that is 500 billion records. (I
think all of these were downloaded illegally, also,
given the Fourth
Among the ways the NSA identified
potential terrorists was through a practice known as “information
chaining,” which uses communications metadata to draw a social graph.
And there’s no question the agency had lots of metadata: As of 2004,
the NSA had amassed a database of more than 85 billion metadata records
related to phone calls, billing, and online calls — and was adding 125
million records a day, according to a January 2004 SIDtoday article
Rewards of Metadata.”
The database, known as FASCIA II, would at
some unspecified point in the future begin processing 205 million
records a day and storing 10 years of data, the article added.
In fact, there is a whole lot more in the article, that helps you to
analyze the the data in the SIDToday files.
This is a recommended article.
Noam Chomsky & Harry Belafonte in Conversation on Trump, Sanders,
the KKK, Rebellious Hearts & More
The second item is by Amy Goodman and Juan González on Democracy Now!:
This starts with the following
On Monday, over 2,000 people packed into
Riverside Church in Manhattan to celebrate the 20th anniversary of
Democracy Now! It was an historic occasion in part because it marked
the first time Noam Chomsky and Harry Belafonte appeared on stage
together in conversation. The two have been longtime champions of
social justice. Chomsky is a world-renowned political dissident,
linguist and author who gained fame in the 1960s for his critique of
the Vietnam War and U.S. imperialism. He is institute professor
emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught
for more than 50 years. Harry Belafonte is a longtime civil rights
activist who was an immensely popular singer and actor. He was one of
Martin Luther King’s closest confidants and helped organize the March
on Washington in 1963.
Note this is still from the celebration of
the 20th anniversary of Democracy
Now! on December 5. And incidentally, Harry Belafonte
(<-Wikipedia) is 89 now, and Noam Chomsky (<-Wikipedia) turned 88
And both make excellent sense. Here is
HARRY BELAFONTE: I must admit that I had far
more commitment to the belief that in the final analysis, no matter how
extreme things might be in America, that eventually our citizens would
rise up and righteously stop the enemy at the gate, if not in fact put
them in retreat. And each time certain events took place, we met the
horror and the terror of not only what I referenced before—to some, I
noticed when I mentioned the Fourth Reich, wasn’t quite sure what I was
I do not have Harry Belafonte's optimism,
but then I have been discriminated for 12 years as "a dirty fascist" in
the University of Amsterdam (that was in the hands of the students
between 1971 and 1995), namely because I was not a Marxist, I was pro
I believed in truth
did, in the UvA, between 1971 and 1995) and I said publicly what was
completely and evidently true: Those who taught me philosophy were incompetent
Well, they kicked me from the faculty of
philosophy as a student, denied my legal right to take
my M.A. briefly before my taking it, and since (this happened in 1988) have
refused to answer my letters and my mails.
That is the University of
Amsterdam, which is thoroughly sick, and no longer a real university in
most of the things it teaches (or "teaches").
Also, I knew that all of education
in Holland was very much simplified from 1965 onwards: Until
1970, to be abled to enter a university one had to take an examination
in 14 or 16 subjects, including three or five foreign
languages, but from the middle seventies one could do so in 6
subjects, with only one foreign language. Next, the
studies were all halved in time, and more than
halved in contents, while making them all very much more
expensive (so people with proletarian parents, like I am, will find it
difficult or impossible to study these days).
Finally, because most subjects were made
voluntary, of which history
is one, I must presume quite a few Dutchmen who are now in their
twenties to forties may also not know what "the Fourth Reich"
might refer to (if they haven't somehow picked it up from TV).
Here is Belafonte's explanation for those ignorant of history (which I think by now comprises more than half of all
Europeans and all Americans):
Just for clarity, as you know, the last
great global torment was the Nazi era. It was called the Third Reich.
And I thought that we had thoroughly cleansed ourself of that encounter
and that we would be much more resilient. But I think, to a degree, we
do reveal some resilience, but the real test has not yet come, until
the inaugural transference has taken place.
And what concerns me is that, beyond the
mischief of Trump and all those in his Cabinet and the people that he’s
appointed into roles of leadership, I had never quite understood that
we had another severe, unattended enemy in our midst. And that was our
species’ commitment or weakness in the face of absolute greed.
Yes indeed: The real test still
has to come, namely after Trump is the president. And the real
test may fail, because many are egoistic and
greedy, and besides many are stupid or ignorant. (I"m
sorry, but that seems the truth.)
And here is Chomsky, with some historical
NOAM CHOMSKY: And that goes back
in American history. No need to review it, but the earlier period is
one of total horror. I mean, after all, the country was founded on two
incredible crimes, unbelievable crimes: one, virtual extermination of
the indigenous population—it’s kind of a migrant crisis of the kind we
don’t think about today—and a form of slavery, which was the most
vicious in history and is in fact the basis for a large part of the
wealth and economic development of the United States, England, France
Chomsky is right (and also in the fact
that there has been some progress).
Here is Chomsky on Obama, who basically
was a Third Way
fraud like Bill Clinton (and who probably will be made a millionaire by
the bankers, who
again may pay him for speeches, although he - very probably - will get
less than the Clintons because he is black and because has no direct
links to future powers
after he ceases to be president):
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, take a look again at the
last few elections. Many of the Trump voters among the white working
class voted for Obama. They were deluded by the slogans of the
campaign. You may recall that the 2008 campaign was based on the slogan
"hope and change." Well, many people voted, rightly, for hope and
change. The working class has suffered, not disastrously, but severely,
from the neoliberal policies of the past generation, pretty much from
1979. So if you look, say—just take the 2007, the peak of what
economists were calling the economic miracle, right before the crash.
2007, American workers had real wages, lower, considerably lower, than
in 1979, before these policies were instituted. They lost.
Well, all of this has happened, and the working class has suffered from
it. They had a real need for hope and change. Well, they didn’t get
hope, and they didn’t get change. I don’t usually agree with Sarah
Palin, but I think she nailed it when she asked at one point, "Where’s
all this hopey-changey business?" Well, you know, there wasn’t any. So,
no hope, no change.
Yes, I think Chomsky is right. Finally,
here is Belafonte again:
A group of young black students in Harlem, just a few days ago, asked
me what, at this point in my life, was I looking for. And I said, "What
I’ve always been looking for: Where resides the rebel heart?" Without
the rebellious heart, without people who understand that there’s no
sacrifice we can make that is too great to retrieve that which we’ve
lost, we will forever be distracted with possessions and trinkets and
Again I think Belanfonte is right,
but I am not optimistic:
Both of my parents and three out for four of my grandparents (all
communists or anarchists) did
have "a rebellious heart", and indeed my father and my grandfather also
paid dearly for it, because both were locked up by the Nazis as
"political terrorists" and my grandfather was murdered by the Nazis.
I think one is born with a
rebellious heart and if I look at my parents and grandparents it seems
to me that the chances (in Holland, where there were very many
collaborators in WW II) are somewhere between 1 in a 100 and 1 in a
1000 (and more likely towards the lower end).
Indeed, if this had not been the
case and if there had been more with a rebellious heart, there
would not have been over 1% of the Dutch population that
got murdered under Nazism (for being Jewish), and I would not
have been called so consistently and so falsely "a dirty fascist" by
the many Stalinists who triumphed in the University of Amsterdam, and
who helped destroy it for the most part. (And indeed all
these degenerate Stalinists now are neoconservatives or "neoliberals"
to the best of my knowledge.)
Trump Is an Eerily Perfect
Match With a Famous 14-Point Guide to Identify Fascist Leaders
The third item is by Kali Holloway on AlterNet:
This starts as follows:
In 1995, Umberto Eco, the late
Italian intellectual giant and novelist most famous for The
Name of the Rose, wrote a guide describing the primary features of
fascism. As a child, Eco was a loyalist of Mussolini, an experience
that made him quick to detect the markers of fascism later in life,
when he became a revered public intellectual and political voice.
I say. And in fact, Umberto Eco's ideas on
fascism are summarized, as one of 22 attempted definitions, in
my On Fascism
and Neofascism: Definitions. And here is my judgment on Eco's list from the last link:
This is a decent list of
interests, concerns and characteristics of fascists. It is not
a definition, and it also is a bit "too psychological" for my tastes,
but the reason for this is that Eco did not study the classical
fascisms of Spain, Italy and Germany, and was concerned with "the
modern form" of fascism.
So I think this article is a
worthwile attempt to understand both fascism or neofascism
(these are links to my definitions, which I think are better
the ones I read, and can be found in some more detail in )
and Donald Trump, who is an evident neofascist in my sense.
Here is some more by Kali Holloway:
Eco's famous 14-point
list outlines what the author dubbed “Ur-Fascism, or Eternal
Fascism”—and it fits hand in glove the political persona created by
Donald Trump. Hours after 60 million Americans voted to give the
presidency to a dangerously incompetent narcissist whose campaign was
based on nativist fear-mongering and racist appeals, British historian
Simon Schama lamented that Trump’s newly sealed win
would “hearten fascists all over the world.” Sure enough,
in from far-right admirers around the world, who recognized
Trump as one of their ilk.
Throughout the campaign, comparisons of
Trump to fascist leaders have been treated as unserious and even
irresponsible. Now, as we watch him assemble a cabinet of frightening
far-right nationalists, white supremacists, militarists, and
free-marketeers, Eco’s list emerges as a must-read.
Umberto Eco's article is well
worth reading (I did not read this before today) and does
indeed contain 14 points, which is three more than were quoted in the
of fascism, that I used for my essay on fascism and neofascism.
(The last link is a later version of the same as I used, and does
contain all 14 points.)
Also, I have been saying Trump is a
neofascist for quite a while now, but indeed I was one of the very
few, until very recently, that is.
Here are the 14 points. I will quote all
of them, but in Kali Holloway's article (that is recommended) there is considerably
more text than I'll quote, and indeed also for each point:
1. The cult of tradition.
2. Rejection of modernism.
Eco points out that this is not a rejection of modern technology, as
much as modern ideas and thinking. “The Enlightenment, the Age of
Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity,” Eco
writes. “In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
Yes indeed. As to Ur-Fascism
(which is also the title of Eco's
1995 essay) Eco wrote as follows in 1995:
But in spite of this fuzziness, I
think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of
what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These
features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict
each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or
fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow
fascism to coagulate around it.
I quoted this mostly to point out that
"Ur-Fascism" is not old fascism or original fascism and also to
point out that Eco's list of criterions is not meant to be
descriptive of an underlying consistent system of thought.
Here is more (and I did not quote rather a lot of text):
Yes, and this is very dangerous,
simply because Trump may well have the position and the power to open
up libel laws and then legally attack anyone
3. The cult of action for
When the media finally began taking a
critical tone after giving him billions in criticism-free
press, Trump declared his
real opponent was the “crooked press.” He pettily
stripped reporters of press credentials when they wrote
something he didn’t like, referred to individual reporters “as ‘scum,’
‘slime,’ ‘dishonest’ and ‘disgusting,’” and claimed he would “open up”
libel laws so he could sue over unfavorable—though not
4. Opposition to analytical criticism; disagreement
Trump attempts to quell the slightest criticism or dissent with vitriol
and calls for violence. On the campaign trail, Trump encouraged his
base’s mob mentality, promising to
“pay for the legal fees” if they would “knock the crap” out of
protesters. He gushed about “the
old days” when protesters would be “carried out on a stretcher.”
who criticizes him.
5. Exploiting and
exacerbating the natural fear of difference.
I think Johnson saw this correctly, for the
most part. Some poor white men are too intelligent or too
civilized to be deceived
in this way, but many are not.
“The first appeal of a
fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the
intruders,” Eco notes. “Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
6. Appeal to a frustrated middle
Trump, who immediately
began hiring entrenched members of the Wall Street and Washington
establishments he ran against and whose policies will largely
benefit the very wealthy, took a page out of a Democrat’s book
with this approach: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's
better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his
pocket,” President Lyndon B. Johnson famously
stated. “Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty
his pockets for you."
7. Obsession with a plot,
possibly an international one.
The last point is another great
danger of Trump, which in his case is strongly tied up with his being a megalomaniac.
“To people who feel
deprived of a clear social identity,” Eco writes, “their only privilege
is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the
origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an
identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the
Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an
8. Followers must feel humiliated
by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
9. Pacifism is
trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare.
billionaire Richard Branson recounts a story in which Trump said
he would “spend the rest of his life destroying the lives” of
people he felt had betrayed him. In The Art of the Deal,
Trump bragged, “I love getting even.” A perpetual victim, Trump spends
time he could dedicate to learning the ropes of his new job on social
media, sniping at perceived enemies. He is vicious and vengeful, a man
you can famously “bait with a tweet,” who views himself as perpetually
under attack, engaged in battle with advancing forces.
10. Popular elitism.
Indeed: Trump is in his own opinion "the best of all the best of the best things" - which in fact is again very much tied up with
Trump repeatedly hails himself as the best.
He has the best
words, the best ideas, the best campaign, the best gold-plated
penthouse, the best of all the best of the best things. Trump and his
nationalist followers believe that America is the greatest country that
has ever existed. That somehow makes Americans the best people on
Earth, by dint of birth.
11. Everybody is educated
to become a hero.
The last point is another very
dangerous characteristic of Trump, which in his case again is strongly
connect to his megalomania i.e. his conviction that He and
12. Transfer of
will to power to sexual matters.
“This is the origin
of machismo (which implies both disdain for women
and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from
chastity to homosexuality),” Eco writes.
13. Selective populism.
“Since no large quantity
of human beings can have a common will,” Eco writes, “the Leader
pretends to be their interpreter...There is in our future a TV or
internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group
of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People."
He alone is "the best of
all the best of the best things" (and no, Trump will very
probably keep thinking so whatever his popularity - and see item 4).
Here is the last of the 14 criterions Umberto Eco listed about
14. The use of Newspeak.
“All the Nazi or Fascist
schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary
syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical
reasoning,” Eco writes. “But we must be ready to identify other kinds
of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a
popular talk show.”
This is also true of Trump, who does tend to
speak in words of one syllable, and who extremely
often repeats his points two to four times. I don't think this is quite
Newspeak in Orwell's sense, and while the repetitions are probably
intent- ional, it is my guess that Trump really cannot speak much
better than he does in his rallies.
Anyway... this is a fine article and it is strongly recommended, and
especially if you believe that Trump is not a fascist or a
neofascist in some reasonable sense, like Eco's: He is, and the
above set of criterions is one way of helping to show this.
What a Top FBI Profiler Taught Me About Extreme Narcissists Like Donald
This starts as
The fourth item is by Joe Romm on AlterNet:
I recently spoke with former FBI agent
Joe Navarro about Donald Trump. Navarro was one of the FBI’s top
profilers, a founding member of their elite Behavioral Analysis Unit,
and author of several books on human behavior, including Dangerous Personalities: An FBI
Profiler Shows You How to Identify and Protect Yourself from Harmful
To be clear, at no time did Navarro
diagnose Trump as having a narcissistic or predator personality. He
says we should leave formal diagnoses to professionals — but that each
of us still needs to be able to identify and protect ourselves from
harmful people in our lives. And so he created behavior checklists and
published them in his book to let you do just that.
In a way, this is the complementary
article to the last article that I reviewed, for
this concentrates on Trump's personal characteristics, and less
on his kind of ideology.
Also, Joe Navarro
(<- Wikipedia) seems an interesting man, although he is too kind
about the "formal diagnoses [of] professionals". (I have an excellent M.A.
in psychology, and do not think most professional psychologists
I have met - rather a lot - are on average that
competent or that intelligent, while I met many who were far
more interested in keeping their fine salaries than in
listening to inconvenient truths or in (God forbid!) speaking these
Navarro’s book warns that if a “person
has a preponderance of the major features of a narcissistic
personality,” then he “is an emotional, psychological, financial, or
physical danger to you or others.” As the book The Narcissism Epidemic explained,
“A recent psychiatric study found that the biggest consequences of
narcissism—especially when other psychiatric symptoms were held
constant—was suffering by people close to them.”
And Navarro is quite right in that
and also in the following:
He criticizes the New York Times
for believing what Trump sent when they interviewed him (which is
the same point I’ve made). Finally, he warns:
“… anyone who’s dealt with a
narcissist knows you never, ever believe what they say—because they
will say whatever the person they are talking to wants to hear. DT is a
master at phrasing things vaguely enough that multiple listeners will
be able to hear exactly what they want. It isn’t word salad; it’s overt
deception, which is much more pernicious.”
Here is another set of criterions, this
time one intended to help identify pathological cult leaders:
This is again pretty descriptive of Donald
Trump. There is this by Navarro on Trump:
I came across a 2012 article for Psychology Today Navarro
wrote listing “the typical traits of the pathological cult leader… you
should watch for and which shout caution, get away, run, or avoid
if possible.” Here are just the first 9 of the 50 traits he lists:
1. Has a grandiose idea of who he is and
what he can achieve.
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power or
3. Demands blind unquestioned obedience.
4. Requires excessive admiration from followers and outsiders.
5. Has a sense of entitlement — expecting to be treated special
at all times
6. Is exploitative of others by asking for
their money or that of
relatives, putting others at financial risk.
7. Is arrogant and haughty in his behavior or attitude.
8. Has an exaggerated sense of power (entitlement) that allows
him to bend rules and break laws.
9. Takes sexual advantage of members of his sect or cult.
Navarro told me that in the past
year, many people have contacted him to comment on Trump’s personality
after they came across the behavior checklists he published on
narcissistic personality. Understandably, he declined to make a
judgment about Trump. He would like to “personally observe” Trump
before making any such pronouncement.
First of all, Navarro did not study
psychology or psychiatry (but law and international relations). Second,
I think myself that the main reason professional psychologists
and psychiatrists are against diagnosing people they have not
personally met is to exalt their own expertise and to defend their
own incomes and specialisms. Third, very few people - let
alone trained psychologists and psychiatrists - will be abled
to meet Trump personally and observe him. And fourth, there are
plenty of videos of Trump.
Here is some of the background on psychiatry and their "professional
opinions" (which tend to cost a lot of money, for one thing):
A bunch of psychiatrists
responding to a survey offered harsh diagnoses of Barry Goldwater,
which ultimately led the American Psychiatric Association to issue a rule that “it is unethical for a
psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has
conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for
such a statement.”
But that is nonsense when
speaking about the president of the USA, and besides: Who asks for "a
professional opinion" if an informed opinion of someone who knows
psychology or psychiatry is all that is asked for?
There is also this:
I'd say (as a psychologist, and indeed one
with considerable experience with mad people): Quite
so. And were these "professional opinions"? Probably not, but
they were informed ones.
Yet some psychiatrists became so
concerned about a Trump presidency last November that they broke the
rule and were quoted in a Vanity Fair piece, “Is Donald Trump Actually a Narcissist? Therapists
“Textbook narcissistic personality
disorder,” echoed clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis. “He’s so classic
that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because
there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical
psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on
manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and
write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”
Ultimately, Fallows himself
writes, you don’t need a “medical diagnosis” to realize “there are
commonsense meanings for terms to describe behavior,” and “in
commonsense terms, anyone can see that Trump’s behavior is
narcissistic, regardless of underlying cause.”
Precisely. And indeed I am also not
interested in understanding the causes of Trump's megalomania. All I want is a reasonable judgement, based on evidence and
some knowledge of psychology and/or psychiatry, whether Trump is
mad, and if so, what ails him.
There is quite a lot of text in Romm's article about a list of no less
than 130 criteria that are "warning signs of the narcissistic
personality". Romm tried this
out himself, and awards Trump at least 90 of them (while
according to Navarro someone who has more than 65 is "an
emotional, psychological, financial, or physical danger to you or others").
Here is Romm's end:
What I am trying to do is to
persuade you to download Navarro’s book and do the assessment
yourself. That way you can assess for yourself whether or not his
behavior is so pathologically narcissistic, so devoid of empathy , that
the only viable response to his election is to actively oppose him and his divisive and
I have not read the book but you can
do so yourself, and according to Romm all 130 criteria are in Navarro's
This is the end of the article:
If you have any remaining belief
that somehow Trump is not a threat to our very way of life — if you
have the tiniest belief that his pattern of behaviors suggests he could
grow into the presidency, as some others have in our history—you should
do the checklist. As Navarro told me, “the purpose is to warn people
that these traits are fixed and rigid” and that those who possess them
in the extreme are a danger to everyone they have power or influence
Actually, I know all empirical judgements
only, but in case you have serious doubts about the reasonable
diagnosis that Trump is a megalomaniac
aka grandiose narcissist, you know what to do (provided you
have some intelligence).
And this is again a fine article that is strongly recommended you read all of.
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months verynow. 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.)