Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

 Dec 8, 2016

Crisis: NSA Revelations, Chomsky & Belafonte, Trump's fascism, Trump's megalomania
Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1.
Drowning in Information: NSA Revelations From 262
     Spy Documents

2. 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 Fascist Leaders

4. What a Top FBI Profiler Taught Me About Extreme
     Narcissists Like Donald Trump
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Thursday, December 8, 2016.

A.
This 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 of the USA:

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.

-- 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. Since then it mostly wasn't.

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.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 careful review.

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

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 titled “The 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.
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 Amendment)

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.

2. 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 introduction:

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 yesterday.

And both make excellent sense. Here is Harry Belafonte:

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 talking about.

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 science, I believed in truth (which few 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 and lazy.

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 perspective:

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 and others.

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:

HARRY BELAFONTE:
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 title.

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.)

3. Trump Is an Eerily Perfect Match With a Famous 14-Point Guide to Identify Fascist Leaders

The third item is b
y 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 various 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 than
the ones I read, and can be found in some more detail in [2]) 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, congratulations poured 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 Wikipedia's Definitions 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):

3. The cult of action for action’s sake.
4. Opposition to analytical criticism; disagreement is treason.
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.”

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 erroneous—coverage.
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
who criticizes him.
5. Exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference.
“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 class.
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."
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.
7. Obsession with a plot, possibly an international one.
“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 international one.”
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.
Fellow 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.
The last point is another great danger of Trump, which in his case is strongly tied up with his being a megalomaniac.
10. Popular elitism.
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.
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 his megalomania.
11. Everybody is educated to become a hero.
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."
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
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 Ur-Fascism:

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.

4. What a Top FBI Profiler Taught Me About Extreme Narcissists Like Donald Trump

The fourth item is by Joe Romm on AlterNet:

This starts as follows:

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 People.

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 themselves.)

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:

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
    brilliance.
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.

This is again pretty descriptive of Donald Trump. There is this by Navarro on Trump:
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:

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 Weigh In!”:

“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.”

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.

Besides:

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 destructive agenda.
I have not read the book but you can do so yourself, and according to Romm all 130 criteria are in Navarro's book.

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 over.
Actually, I know all empirical judgements are probable 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.

--------------------------
Notes
[1] Alas, 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 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.)

       home - index - summaries - mail