Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

 Dec 25, 2016

Crisis: Donald Trump is a megalomaniac neofascist (I think)
Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1.
Donald Trump is a megalomaniac neofascist (I think)
2. Donald Trump is a neofascist (I think)
3. Donald Trump is a megalomaniac (I think)
4. Why I did qualify the above by "(I think)"
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Sunday, December 25, 2016.

A.
This is a crisis log that differs from normal crisis logs (of which I wrote now since September 2008 over 1400 files) in being written on Christmas day and in being only about the characteristics of Donald Trump, who has been elected as president of the USA starting January 20, 2017.

There is a previous Nederlog file of today, which I strongly recommend you to read, namely the letter three professors of psychiatry sent to president Obama.
It is here.

-- 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 (until and including 23.xii).

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. [0]

C.
In case you visit my Danish site: This was so-so till 18.xi
and was correct since then (most or all days).

I am very sorry, and none of it is due to me. I am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that also went well for 20 or for 12 years.

I will keep this introduction until I get three successive days (!!!) in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen that for many months now.
--- 

1. Donald Trump is a megalomaniac neofascist (I think)

It is Chistmas Day today. I did in fact check all the 36 sites I check daily to write my Nederlogs (these years) but I believe this is about the first time I really did not find anything I wish to review. (Most of the sites I checked were the same as yesterday.)

Then again this doesn't matter, for I do want to say, also before Donald Trump is nominated as president of the USA, that it is my seriously considered opinion that he is a megalomaniac neofascist, and indeed I will give you my - intellectually quite good - reasons for thinking so.

But before giving my reasons, I should add that there are three qualifications to the explanation that follows:

First, I use my own definition of "neofascism". You'll find it, together with a definition of "fascism" in note [1], and there will be more below. The reason for giving my own definitions comes in two parts:

(i) Part of the reason I am interested in fascism and nazism is that both my father and his father were arrested in June of 1941, when Holland was occupied by the Nazis, namely for resisting the Nazis.

Both were convicted by collaborating Dutch judges [2] as "political terrorists" to concentration camp imprisonment, which my father survived (after 3 years, 9 months and 15 days in four German concentration camps) while my grandfather was murdered.

(ii) I do not believe that Donald Trump is (quite) a fascist (in my sense, defined below) but I do believe he is a neofascist (in my sense) - but the problems I had were that there are at least 20 different definitions of "fascism" while I could find no satisfactory definition of "neofascism" (as I write it).

And therefore I compiled my own definitions of both "fascism" and "neofascism", which were also influenced by my knowing a lot about logic and about politics (which was also done before Trump got my attention).

Second, I am a psychologist who does have quite a lot of experience in dealing with various mad persons, and this is also the main reason that I decided back in March of this year that yes, I agree with the psychiatric estimate of Donald
Trump that he is in fact a megalomaniac (aka grandiose narcissist).

In case you are not a psychologist, which does make it more difficult to reach this decision in a rational way, you are adviced to read the letter by three professors of psychiatry: They judged him in the same way as I did, and came
to the same conclusion.

Third, I do have a reason to formulate it as I do, with "(I think)", which are related to my being not an American but a Dutchman. These are briefly explained in section 4.

But I do think Donald Trump is a megalomaniac neofascist, and here are my explanations why I think each of these two terms qualifies him correctly.

2. Donald Trump is a neofascist (I think)

What is a fascist? What is a neofascist?

I am asking, because I know there are quite a large number of definitions of "fascism" (the term), since Wikipedia - here - gives no less than 20 of them (as definitions, though in fact none is a real, logically proper, definition, although that is of secondary importance [3]).

Also, while I have now quite a few times read on the internet, by quite a few authors, that Donald Trump is a fascist, none of the authors I read defined what they mean by "fascism", and indeed it seems also none of them even read the definitions of fascism file that is on Wikipedia.

As to neo-fascism (as Wikipedia spells it), there is one item that gives - sort of - a partial definition, but it mostly consists of lists of parties called "neo-fascist" for various reasons in various countries.

Since I am a philosopher and a psychologist (by excellent academic degrees [4]) and since I know a lot of politics, I decided to frame my own definitions, and did so in 2016, in fact without thinking of Donald Trump at all (for most of the work was done in the beginning of 2016).

They are also logically proper definitions, and both are in note [1], where there also are some additional links. Since I think Donald Trump is a neofascist rather than a fascist, I leave the definition of fascism to this note, but here is my definition of neofascism:
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.
And what I am saying is that Donald Trump satisfies nearly all of the criterions listed in the definition: He has no presidential powers yet, but he has already announced his desire to change the laws and suppress the media that criticize him; he definitely is for profit as his main moral norm; he is rightwing; he is nationalistic, he is pro-capitalist, anti-liberal, anti-equality and anti-leftist, and since he is against the government as a strong organization he seems to be for multi-national corporations (that are both stronger and richer than many states).

I think Donald Trump is fairly classified as a neofascist on the basis of the above definition, while the above definition also is a fair definition of neofascism when compared to the Wikipedia's definition of "
neo-fascism" (that is at best partial).

3. Donald Trump is a megalomaniac (I think)

What is a megalomaniac? And what is a grandiose narcissist?

As I have said, I am a psychologist, so I have considerably more (background) knowledge to judge psychological characteristics than most have available, though I should add that the only reason why I got an M.A. in psychology was that I was denied the legal right of an M.A. in philosophy very briefly before taking it, and namely because I had publicly spoken the truth - as an invited speaker - about those who "taught" me philosophy: All but one (and that was an Englishman, who eventually also was fired) were utterly incompetent parasites who were mainly interested in getting the money and the status for their jobs, while doing almost nothing, and also refusing to publish anything (because - they said, lying again - "we are not vain"). [5]

One problem I have is that I originally followed, in March of this year, the psychiatric definition of a grandiose narcissist that I had read then, after having verified that Donald Trump checked on 9 of the 9 criterions by which psychiatrist diagnose grandiose narcissists.

I still think he does, but meanwhile decided that a megalomaniac is a much better known English term, which the psychiatrists claim means the same as their preferred term of "grandiose narcissism". I accept that claim but do not
- after some considerations - think that a typical and quite recent psychiatric term like
"grandiose narcissism", for which there exists the perfectly fine English term "megalomania", should replace megalomania. [6]

The reasons why many psychiatrists and many psychologists agree that Donald Trump is a megalomaniac (though perhaps they rather call him a grandiose narcissist) are in the end based on the DSM 5, that has this definition of a megalomaniac (that they prefer to call a grandiose narcissist):

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believe that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Is interpersonally exploitative
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes."

In fact, I verified myself (in March of this year) that in my opinion Donald Trump satisfies all 9 criterions. As explained in the previous letter, it seems
most psychologists and most psychiatrists that were spoken to by the psychiatrists who wrote Obama think the same ("in private").

And in case you disagree, I advise you to (re)read the psychiatrists' letter to Obama.

4. Why I did qualify the above by "(I think)"

This fourth and last item serves to explain why I added "(I think)" to all section headings. The reasons are mostly that I am Dutch, and can recall the Sixties very well (I was born in 1950 in Amsterdam and grew up there).

In the Sixties there were quite a few Dutchmen who felt more or less as many Americans of that time felt about Vietnam: The Americans should not be there,
and should withdraw as soon as possible, mostly because what they did was terrorizing a small nation and killing many of its inhabitants. Many Dutchmen thought this was quite unfair.

Also many Dutchmen demonstrated and during these demonstrations often called (with many voices) "Johnson murderer" (in Dutch: "Johnson moordenaar").

At that time, Johnson was the president of the USA, and quite a few leading Dutch politicians decided he would feel offended by some Dutchmen who called him a murderder in Dutch, for which reason they forbade demonstrators to call him that, and prosecuted those who did by an appeal to a Dutch law that forbade offending friends of the Dutch nation such as president Johnson.

Indeed, people were prosecuted and for that reason, and therefore the demonstrators stopped calling that Johnson was a murderer, but called instead that he was "a miller", which in Dutch is spelled "molenaar", which is rather close to "moordenaar".

I have no idea whether this legal article still exists, but it may very well.

Because I think that my estimates of Donald Trump are quite sane, quite rational and very probably quite true, I wanted to make clear what my judgments are before they are deemed "offensive to a foreign head of state
who is a friend to Holland".

And this is why I formulated them also explicitly with the true statement that I think them.

--------------------------
Notes
[0] Alas, this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for months now. I do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of "xs4all"(really: the KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from 2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because "you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which is the perfect excuse never to do anything whatsoever for anyone).

[1]
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.)

[2] Most Dutch judges collaborated with the Nazis. All Dutch judges in the Dutch Supreme Court (except for their Jewish president, who was soon dismissed for being a Jew) collaborated with the Nazis. And indeed most Dutchmen collaborated with the Nazis. This last fact is probably unavoidable during five years of war and being occupied, but then again, the Dutch also contributed more fascists to fight with the German army than there were Dutchmen in the armed resistance.

[3]
It so happens that I studied philosophy and was most interested in philosophy of science and logic, so for me logically correct definitions probably are more important than for most.

Then again, it does not matter much, since most attempted definitions in fact consisted of lists of criterions that could be changed without much difficulty in formally correct definitions (which is not the same as a factually correct definition).

[4]
At the time I studied, most who got their degree (whether a B.A. or an M.A.) had a 6 (out of 10 maximal). A 7 1/2 was considered very good, and indeed gave some formal advantages. I scored an 8+ on my B.A. in philosophy (which I did mostly in the three months of 1977 in which I was allowed to study), while my M.A. in psychology had an average of 9,3. Both were very rare; and both were taken without following any lectures (for I was ill nearly all the time I studied, as was my ex, who also studied), which in fact made it more difficult to score high marks. (Then again, both my ex and I had IQs over 140, which does make a difference.)

[5] In fact, I have recently changed my mind about being denied the legal right to take my M.A. in philosophy: I taught for a long time this was only because of my speech, but realized recently that I had delivered the text of my speech in April to officials in the philosophy department, while the person who
for two years had agreed to be my thesis advisor let me know on May 4 that he stopped doing anything for me without giving any reason.

Therefore I think now that it was all well-considered by the sick degenerates who "taught" philosophy then, which indeed was also the reason there were so many staff members present when I gave my invited talk for students: The sadists had something to enjoy, namely seeing how I was thrown out of "their" faculty and denied the legal right to take an M.A.

Incidentally, the Board of Directors of the University of Amsterdam - who did not like me at all, for I headed a student party that opposed them - agreed, quite illegally, with the philosophers. And thus all my chances of getting an M.A. in philosophy were quite illegally totally destroyed.

[6] I like Wikipedia, but it is not good in all things. When I looked in it in March of this year, the term "megalomania" still occurred in it (and its definition was used by me then)
but since then the whole term has disappeared, and has been replaced by "grandiose narcissism".

That is definitely a mistake in an encyclopedia: "Megalomania" is a proper English term that exists much longer than the psychiatric jargon term
"grandiose narcissism", and it should have been kept in the Wikipedia next to the psychiatric jargon term "grandiose narcissism" that is very much less well known than is "megalomania".

       home - index - summaries - mail