2. The Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump
"Ed, I'm On Your Side": Snowden Allies Beam Calls for
Pardon On DC Museum
4. Cops Aren’t Under Siege. Civilians and
5. The Coolest Thing on the Internet Is Moving to Canada
is a Nederlog of Monday, December 12, 2016.
is a crisis
log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is a
review of Chris
Hedges' latest article, that is far from optimistic, but that seems
correct about the coming Trumpian government; item 2
is about Donald Trump's Superhuman Genius c.q. his madness; item 3 is about Snowden (but I don't think Obama will
pardon him, though he should); item 4 is about
human rights (which by now have mostly disappeared, both
in the USA and in Europe); and item 5 is about the
Internet Archive (which I like and am a member of) that is moving to
Canada because of Trump (and right they are).
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 first item
today is by Chris Hedges on Truthdig:
This starts as follows:
For Donald Trump, the presidency will be
a vast stage for accommodating his megalomania and insatiable appetite
for money. Those who mock, defy or anger him will feel the wrath of the
state. Those who are not obsequious will be cast aside. He will invest
most of his energy in his brand. Self-promotion is the only real talent
he possesses. Corruption, already rife within the political system,
will explode into a full-blown kleptocracy. Manufactured stories about
Trump’s prowess, brilliance, sexual allure and goodness, as well as how
America is becoming “great again,” will be pumped out by the White
House smoke machine. He will demand encomiums that will become ever
more outrageous. All love, devotion and allegiance will be to Trump.
I do not know what will happen if
and when Trump is president, but I expect something much like
Chris Hedges sketches in the above quotation. Then again
I also have some special reasons, and these relate to the fact
that I really
think Trump is insane, which I think
mostly because I am a psychologist: I do know some more about
crazy people than most do. (The link is to March
14, 2016, when I first said so, indeed after thinking it for a
while longer. )
This is a somewhat more factual estimate
Trump is the sick expression of a
dysfunctional political system and
mass culture that celebrate the most depraved aspects of human
nature—greed, a lust for power, a thirst for adulation and celebrity, a
penchant for the manipulation of others, dishonesty, a lack of remorse
and a frightening pathology in which reality is ignored. He is the
product of our escapist world of constant entertainment. He embodies
the mutation of values in American society that has culminated in an
enormous cult of the self and the abandonment of the common good.
Yes, I think that is mostly correct also -
it seems to me - in laying the blame for a good part not on
Trump or the Republican Party (though both are guilty of
abusing it) as on the stupidity, the ignorance, and
the negligence  of the many Americans who voted
for him, welcomed
him and support him.
And I think that is correct: The price of
liberty is eternal vigilance, and if the vigilance ceases to be
intelligent and fact-based, it ceases to be vigilance, and liberty
ceases. This is what has happened in the USA.
In fact, I did guess Chris Hedges was leading up to Neil Postman
(<- Wikipedia) and his book "Amusing
Ourselves to Death" (<-Wikipedia) and indeed he does quote him:
“When a population becomes distracted by
trivia,” wrote Neil Postman,
“when cultural life
is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious
public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a
people becomes an audience and their public business a vaudeville, then
a nation finds itself at risk: cultural-death is a clear possibility.”
Ourselves to Death" (<- Wikipedia) was
published originally in 1985. I bought and read it in 1990, and may
return to it later, for Postman was a sensible man.
Then there is this about demagogues and
Demagogues—insecure and crippled by an
unbridled narcissism and seldom
of high intelligence—play to the inverted values of a decayed society.
They attack all who do not kneel before the idol of “the great leader.”
“Saturday Night Live” can continue
to go after Trump, but Trump, as president, will use every tool in
his arsenal, no matter how devious, to banish such public ridicule. He
will seek to domesticate the press and critics first through the
awarding of special privileges, flattery, gifts and access. Those who
cannot be bought off will be destroyed. His petulant, childish taunts,
given authority by the machinery of the security and surveillance
state, will be dangerous.
Yes and no, though mostly yes if this is
applied to Trump.
But first about demagogues in general. I
agree most demagogues are not intelligent, and indeed also that
if they are intelligent, a successful demagogue usually
adjusts to the level of intelligence of his (or her)
audience and is successful in considerable part because he
(or she) pretended successfully to be as stupid as they are.
Then again, there are many kinds
of demagogues (left, right, center, religious, non-religious...) and
quite a few kinds of demagogery, and not all are "insecure
and crippled by an unbridled narcissism". In
fact, most are not so much crippled
by narcissism (as Trump is) as by wishful
thinking, exaggerations of many kinds, and a dishonest reliance on
assessments of real facts, without
really investigating whether the facts really are as their
values assure the demagogues they should be. (And this is wishful
thinking: Your desires become
your standard for the truth,
instead of your real knowledge of real facts.)
When speaking about Trump, who is insane in my
psychologically trained eyes,
I must say that my expectations agree with those of Hedges, indeed in
part because his madness
will be "given authority by the machinery of the
security and surveillance
state", and the security and surveillance state
that has been surrected in the USA is that of a total dictatorship far
more than of any democracy or republic.
There is also this on one of the weapons
that might defeat Trump, if Trump was not given the full dictatorial
powers of the security and surveillance state:
Ridicule especially antagonizes the
demagogue. It deflates the
pretentious and the powerful. It reduces to human size those puffed up
by their self-importance. It exposes them for who they are. It affirms
the self-respect and dignity of the oppressed. Demagogues, lacking the
capacity for self-transcendence, cannot see the ludicrousness and
absurdity of their pretensions. They cannot distinguish between their
inner fantasies and reality. They can belittle and ridicule others, as
Trump does, with great cruelty, but they see nothing humorous about
similar treatment directed at the self-created edifice of their own
Yes indeed, though there are considerably
more kinds of demagogues than Trump, and most demagogues also are not
mad, even if they are blinded by
their wishful thinking and/or evidently lying and deceiving.
The same remark applies to the following
bit, that seems quite correct if it is about Trump, but less correct if
it is about demagogues in general:
Demagogues expend great energy
marginalizing, censoring and silencing
all critics, something the corporate state has already done to
dissidents such as Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader. They use the media,
especially the airwaves, as a vast public relations department to
amplify their lies and promote their personality cults. They destroy
cultural and education institutions, replacing them with rote
vocational training, nationalist kitsch and tawdry entertainment. They
elevate members of their family, sect, tribe or clan to the inner
circles of power.
Chris Hedges is quite right about Noam
Chomsky (<-Wikipedia) and Ralph Nader (<-Wikipedia), who in fact both have been marginalized,
censored and mostly silenced for a long time now, in the mainstream media (and long before Trump
gained political eminence).
The article ends as follows:
The story of demagogues is as
civilization. They have risen and fallen like the tides, always leaving
in their wake misery, destruction and death. They exploit the
frustrations and anger generated by a decayed society. They make
fantastic promises they never keep. They demonize the vulnerable as
scapegoats. They preach hatred and violence. They demand godlike
worship. They consume those they rule.
I agree if this is about the insane demagogue
Donald Trump (but less if it is about any kind of demagogue,
though I think it is mostly directed against Trump).
And this is a strongly recommended article, that I much fear is correct in
its anticipations of the Trumpian presidency (which may kill very many
2. The Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump
The second item is by Jim Hightower on AlterNet:
This starts as follows:
All hail Augustus Trumpus! All hail the
American Putin, whom none can criticize! All hail the Great All Knowing
One, who reveals “realities” that are not there and finds “facts” that
mere mortals cannot detect.
Yes, indeed: This is the sort of reception
(the first two statements, at least) that Trump deeply craves, for he
is a megalomaniac. This is about the "facts" the megalomaniac "saw":
Clearly - in so far as the real facts are
known today - the real facts are that (1) Trump won the presidency
because of and inside the Electoral College, but (2) Trump lost the
popular vote by over 2 million votes (it seems).
“I won the popular vote,” decreed
our incoming tweeter-in-chief!
Wow, how did he turn a
2 million-vote loss into a glorious victory? “I won,” he tweeted,
“if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
Wow again! Millions? You’d think such a
massive conspiracy — with millions of illegal voters in line at
thousands of precincts — would have been noticed by election
officials, GOP poll watchers and the media.
But Trump is a grandiose narcissist
who just cannot stomach he is less
than anyone in anything he desires, so he fantasized millions
of illegal votes, and asserted publicly his fantasies are fact.
Somebody who can do a thing like that is extremely
Then there is this, which I don't quite agree to, mostly because I am a
Get used to it: Fakery is
America’s next president. Unfortunately for us it is not just fakery
that we will have to get used to, because President Trumpus happens to
have a real knack for irony as well.
Clearly, those who believe Trump's fantasies are real
may fake their belief, but I think Trump believes his own
fantasies when he utters them, which I think because I believe
- as a psychologist - that Trump is mad.
So Trump himself is not
really faking: he is saying what he - totally falsely - genuinely
believes to be true
if and when he utters it. 
Also, I do not think Trump has a knack "for irony", and mostly
for the same reason: Trump believes his
fantasies when he utters them, because Trump is mad.
This article ends as follows and does so quite correctly:
Overall, according to watchdog
Citizen, three-fourths of Trump’s transition team members — who
are organizing, staffing and shaping his new government— come from the
corporate world. Not a single working-class populist has been allowed a
seat at his power table.
This is a recommended article.
As America’s working stiffs know, if
you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. And now we know what
Augustus Trumpus will be serving. Trump’s no populist, he’s a full-time
"Ed, I'm On Your Side": Snowden Allies Beam Calls for Pardon On DC
The third item is by Nadia Prupis on Common
This starts as follows:
Supporters of U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden
on Saturday projected thousands of messages calling for his pardon onto
the Washington, D.C. museum dedicated to freedom of expression and
In a display the Guardian
described as "audacious,"
nearly 4,000 messages
and images urging President Barack Obama to pardon Snowden were beamed
onto the outside wall of the Newseum, an institution that promotes free
expression and tracks the evolution of the press—just two miles away
from the White House.
I like this (though "audacious" =
"extremely bold or daring, recklessly brave" seems a typical Guardian
exaggeration: Snowden was and is audacious, but not those who
use the - still - existing freedom of expression and information).
Here are three of the messages that got projected (quoted in part):
"Edward Snowden acted with courage and a
heartfelt desire to improve
the country and the world. (..)" read one message from a
supporter named Devin.
Tess: "Ed, I'm on your side. You're a
hero and an example of what it means to be an American. Thank you for
making such an incredible sacrifice in order that we might move a bit
more toward the truth."
Casey: "I'm a 69-year-old vet and
applaud your guts, we owe you lots and let's hope you can come home to
your family and friends."
Yes indeed (and I do like to point out
that the first time I reported on Edward Snowden, on June 10, 2013, I
did call him "an extra-ordinary man", which I still think).
There is also this:
Saturday night's action was organized by
the group Pardon
Snowden, which has increased the urgency of its message in the wake
of President-elect Donald Trump's startling victory. Trump's pick for
CIA director, Mike
Pompeo, has called for Snowden to receive the death penalty.
The action was also scheduled to
correspond with International Human Rights Day on December 10.
I should say I will be very surprised if
Barack Obama pardons Snowden. I think he should and hope he will, but I
also think he is a corporate fraud like Bill Clinton: Obama is probably
much more concerned with getting his millions for
doing what the bankers wanted.
This is the last bit I'll quote from this
"These expressions of support for
Snowden celebrate his decision to
shed light on a surveillance apparatus so invasive and bloated with
secrets that it became a risk to democratic accountability," the group
wrote in a press release. "Thanks to his act of conscience, we’ve seen
historic reforms and Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting that is a model
for the kind of adversarial journalism that we should expect from our
Yes, I agree. And this is a recommended
4. Cops Aren’t Under Siege. Civilians and Liberties Are.
The fourth item is by Pierre Tristam on Common Dreams:
This is from near the beginning:
For three decades, Congress, state
legislatures, courts and public attitudes have overwhelmingly beefed up
police powers, toughened crime laws and harshed up prison terms at the
expense of defendants and the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court under
Earl Warren in the 1950s and 60s was an exception.
I think that is correct, though I know
little of the Supreme Court in the 1950s. But it is correct since 1980,
and there is more that is also correct, or indeed too weak:
Under the guise of the war on drugs, the
war on terror, the war on
immigrants and now the revived craving of Nixon-era “law-and-order,”
policing has evolved into the shrewdest expression of authoritarian
power in everyday life.
Even a cursory look at the sort of policing that’s been normalized over
the past decades shows its one-way command to submission. “Stop
resisting” isn’t a suggestion. It’s a citizen’s only warning shot of
what follows—a cop’s blank-check equivalent to tap an arsenal of
powers, naked force that scrapes at the edge of human rights included.
I agree with everything said in the above
quotation, except that the police at present "scrapes
at the edge of human rights": I think they are far
over the edge of human rights, for the original declaration
of human rights included this clause :
At present everyone is "subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence" for everyone's
email correspondence and everyone's internet phone conversations are
secretly downloaded by the NSA (and many other secret services), which
itself is an attack on the "honour and reputation" of nearly
everyone, for nearly everyone is accused of being a possible terrorist
or a possible criminal and on that ground gets denied all the
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon
his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of
the law against such interference or attacks.
rights he does have under the Fourth Amendment.
by now all Americans and else lacks "the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks": Instead "the
law" systematically denies most of the rights that were in
the the original declaration of
human rights .
Here are the facts:
Camera surveillance, face-recognition
readers, not to mention the sweeping powers of the USA Patriot Act,
still very much in force, have made a mockery of privacy in most
places, your home computer and hand-held devices included. Police
powers under civil asset forfeiture laws give cops authority to seize
cash and assets on mere probable cause, not conviction—and never give
Yes, and privacy is a human right
- which now is denied in the grossest possible ways,
reason at all that I can see, except the totalitarian
desires of the American government. 
Here is the last bit that I'll quote from this article:
The surge in police powers has
paralleled an explosion in private
security forces, private prisons, and legalized vigilantism such as
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, all the while legitimizing the
language of totalitarian states: “If you have nothing to hide, you have
nothing to worry about.” That’s the language of submission, not
liberty, of flipping means and ends: police aren’t here to protect us,
but to command us.
Yes indeed - and those who "have nothing
to hide" all belong to the vast army of the stupid, the ignorant and
the negligent with IQs that are maximally 100 (which is half of
the population): Everybody else knows that he or she has much to hide,
and not because it may be illegal, but because the degenerates who work
for the government simply have no right (or should have no right) to secretly know everything
And this is a recommended article.
The Coolest Thing on the Internet Is Moving to Canada
The fifth and last item today is by A.J. Vicens on Mother Jones:
This starts as follows:
A year ago, Donald Trump said he would
consider closing off parts of the internet.
"We're losing a lot of people because of
the internet, and we have to do something," he told a crowd while
campaigning at the U.S.S. Yorktown in South Carolina. "We have to go
see Bill Gates and a lot of different people…about, maybe in certain
areas, closing the internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh,
freedom of speech! Freedom of speech! These are foolish people…We've
got to do something with the internet."
These are the words of a neofascist
madman. But because 60 million stupid, ignorant and negligent people
believed his bullshit, this sick degenerate is now scheduled to be the
next American president. And indeed Trump may very well
try to do what he threatened a year ago, as he may also try to break
whole machinery of legal government.
Here is one consequence, to which I happen
to be partial, because I am a member of the Internet
Archive (indeed one of the very few things I am a member of):
So now, as Trump prepares to take
office, a number of internet-freedom
activists are worried he may make good on these campaign promises. They
include Brewster Kahle, the founder of the San
Archive, one of the biggest online libraries in the world that
curates 279 billion web pages, 2.9 million films and videos, 3.1
million recordings, and much more. Part of the Internet Archive is the
Wayback Machine, a search engine for past incarnations of web pages,
some of which are no longer accessible.
Yes indeed (and in fact the saying that
"what's on line never disappears" was a major falsehood: Everything disappears from the internet as soon as
it is not paid for anymore, by someone, and this is how it always was).
Here is what Kahle and his team plan to do:
(..) Kahle and his team are now moving
forward with a full duplication
of their work based in Canada. The group already has partial backups in
Alexandria, Egypt, and Amsterdam, but Kahle says the $5 million
Canadian project is designed to be not just a backup, but "another node
in an international library system."
I think they are quite right, for with a
president like Donald Trump absolutely everything will be possible,
including shutting down everything Kahle built, on the mere ground that
it comprises material that is not flattering Trump. 
Giving the government the ability to
access all communications is part
of the general discussion of restricting what can and can't be done
online, and what is preserved for posterity.
For me, a government which has "the ability to access all communications" is a tyrannical or dictatorial government, and I very much
fear this is what the American government will be under Trump (and much more so than under Obama or Bush Jr.)
So I think Kahle did very well. And this
is a recommended article.
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
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 also admit that originally I did not
take Trump seriously, indeed in part because he evidently lied
extremely much, and because I thought, quite a few months before March
2016, that one must be commonsensically mad if one utters
that amounts of lies.
But I also admit that originally I did not think about
narcissism or megalomania as diagnoses of Trump, although as soon as my
attention was drawn to that I concluded it was correct when I had seen
the definition: It fits Trump on all points.
 In fact, the best
short summary of my ethics
is contained in the following clause, that I
first formulated in 1982 (more than half of my life ago):
Here "MAD" abbreviates Meanness, Anger
Dishonesty, while "SIN" abbreviates Stupidity, Ignorance and
- Do not be MAD; do not SIN
The best living example of a mad sinner is Donald Trump: He is
mean, angry, extremely dishonest, quite stupid, very ignorant and most
negligent of everything that does not contribute to His
And it is for this reason I am quite afraid of Donald Trump: He
well destroy the USA in four years, and he may also destroy all of
Incidentally, here is a link to one
of my explanations of "SIN" and here is also a link to my
explanation of the more normal sins.
 In fact, I must guess that Trump does
not have any other theory about truth than that Trump believes
something is true
if and only if The Great Super- Genius Whose Name Is Trump believes it.
And I think so in part because this is quite consistent with his being a megalo- maniac, and in part
because this is the best explanation for the fact that 71%
of Trump's sayings that were tested for truth were falsehoods.
Note this also explains why Trump is quite unpredictable: What is true,
according to Trump, is what Trump desires to be
true (which is wishful
thinking), and he may change his desire any time, and for no other
reason than that he got a new desire. (And facts do not
matter at all: All that matters is whether The Great
Super-Genius Whose Name Is Trump believes it.)
 I am speaking of the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights,
which the interested reader can find under the link. What replaced
that in Europe, the so-called "European Convention on Human
Rights" is not a convention on real human rights, but is an
utter blasphemy of human rights, for it encodes all the rights
of the secret services to secretly surveil everyone. That is not
a human right: It is an inhuman governmental force that excludes
all real rights.
Here is - for just one example - Article 8 of the so-called "European Convention on Human Rights" that supposedly
corresponds to the original Article 12:
The first clause of this neofascistic
sick bit of total bullshit
denies you any legal right and replaces
this by the totally void "right to respect"; the second clause carefully
specifies which rights the police and the secret services may trample,
destroy and deny:
Article 8 – Right to respect for
private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for
his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a
public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others.
Anything which might conflict with:
is NOT a human right anymore, as it IS
under Article 12, but all belongs
to the freedoms of the police and the governments
- the interests of national security
- the interests of public safety
- the economic well-being of the country
- the prevention of disorder
- the prevention of crime
- the protection of health
- the protection of morals
- the protection of the rights of others,
- the protection of the rights of others
This "European Convention on Human Rights" was
and is a sadofascistic neofascistic sick bit of utter
who believes these are "human rights" either is a sick liar or
mad. (Or indeed: a well-paid lying lawyer or politician.)
 See the previous note
for one example.
 Yes indeed. In fact, my personal
probability that 9/11 was arranged by Dick Cheney to
destroy democratic government and replace this by the absolute rule of
the rich is still around 50/50, but indeed I have no
 Can Trump do this as soon
as he is president? No, for the laws are not yet in place. Will Trump
try to put new laws in place that will permit him to prosecute those
who criticize him? Yes, at least he said so, and repeatedly.