Dec 26, 2016

Crisis: Trumpian Times, Noam Chomsky, Truthdig & Hedges, Polychroniou
Sections                                                                     crisis index

In the Time of Trump, All We Have Is Each Other
2. Noam Chomsky’s Bold Request Before President Obama
     Leaves Office (Video)

3. Best of Truthdig’s Reports 2016: Chris Hedges
     Prophesies Throughout the Election

4. A World in Shambles: An Interview With C.J.

This is a Nederlog of Monday, December 26, 2016.

This is a crisis log with 4 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is a very fine article by Chris Hedges (who will run physical danger when Trump is president); item 2 is about a request by Noam Chomsky: Obama should legalize the 11 million who risk deportation by Trump; item 3 is about the fact that Chris Hedges got 8 out of 10 of the best reports on Truthdig (and I like this: He really can write (unlike most journalists, I add, especially these days) and I also like most of his stances; and item 4 is about a good interview with C.J. Polychroniou (whom I know as a good interviewer of Noam Chomsky).

-- 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 25.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]

In case you visit my Danish site: This was so-so till 18.xi
and was correct since then (most or all days), but not on 25.xii: Then it moved back to 2015 (!!).

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. In the Time of Trump, All We Have Is Each Other

The first item today is by Chris Hedges on Truthdig:

This starts as follows:

This Christmas I mourn the long, slow death of our democracy that led to the political ascendancy of Donald Trump. I fear the euphoria of those who have embraced the atavistic lust for violence and bigotry stoked by him. These nativist forces, part of the continuum of white vigilante violence directed against people of color and radical dissidents throughout American history, are once again being groomed as instruments of mass intimidation and perhaps terror. I know that our civil and political institutions, poisoned by neoliberalism and captured by the corporate state, have neither the will nor the ability to protect us. We are on our own. It won’t be pleasant.

Yes I agree, but I have two additions.

First, I have studied "neoliberalism" fairly closely, and with considerable knowledge of economy and politics, and I think the term itself is a propaganda term for a neoconservatism that only serves the interests of the rich, in real politico-legal practice, while the neoconservatism is often so strong that either "neoliberalism" can be safely replaced by neofascism or at least should have a prefix as in "the neofascistic neoliberalist ideology". (Incidentally, if you disagree, you may not know what I understand by "neofascism", which was explained yesterday with reference to Donald Trump).

And second, while Chris Hedges does not say so, I think it is fair to consider him as someone who will risk a great lot under Trump's rule. There are many more - especially but not only in the non-mainstream magazines, like Truthdig, Common Dreams, Mother Jones etc. - who also risk a lot, and I think one should try to keep an eye on them with Trump as president (and I will do so from Holland, that for the time being is a lot safer than the USA).

There is this on the policies Hedges expects from Trump:

Trump and his Christian fascist minions, sooner than most of us expect, will seek to shut down the small spaces left for free expression. Dissent will become difficult and sometimes dangerous. There will be an overt campaign of discrimination and hate crimes directed against a host of internal enemies, including undocumented workers, Muslims, African-Americans and dissidents.

I do not know about "Christian fascist minions" (it sounds like a contradiction, but it may very well be correct) but then I do not live in the USA. Apart from that, I think Hedges' expectations will probably be correct, in part because, as I argued yesterday, Donald Trump is both a megalomaniac and a neofascist.

Here is more that Hedges expects:

Repressive measures, I expect, will be implemented swiftly. Speed blinds a captive population to what is happening. Already anemic democratic traditions and institutions, including the legal system, the two major political parties and the press, will crumble under the assault. Trump will use the familiar tools that make possible the authoritarian state: mass incarceration, militarized police, crippling of the judicial system, demonization of opponents real and imagined, and obliteration of privacy and civil liberties, all foolishly promoted by the political elites on behalf of corporate power.

I believe he is right. And in any case we will soon find out, and no: I am not at all optimistic. Then there is this on Lewis F. Powell Jr. (<-Wikipedia), who seems to be the main man responsible for the rise of neofascism in the USA:

The late Lewis Powell, a general counsel to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and later a Supreme Court justice, in 1971 wrote an eight-page memo outlining a campaign to counter what the document’s title described as an “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.” The memo established the Business Roundtable, which generated huge monetary resources and political clout to direct government policy and mold public opinion. The Powell report listed methods that corporations could use to silence those in “the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals” who were hostile to corporate interests.

Powell called for the establishment of lavishly funded think tanks and conservative institutes. He proposed that ideological assaults against government regulation and environmental protection be directed at a mass audience. He advocated placing corporate- friendly academics and neoliberal economists in universities and banishing from the public sphere those who challenged unfettered corporate power—especially Ralph Nader, whom Powell cited by name.
I completely agree - and please note that Powell's program, that was unfolded in the last two paragraphs, was explicitly neofascistic, explicitly served the rich and only the rich, and explicitly was completely anti-democratic.

Here is what Lewis Powell Jr. helped create in the USA (though there were soon quite a few other forces and persons who attempted to do the same - and it seems many were moved mostly by personal greed for millions for themselves):
The ideological attack was accompanied by corporate campaigns to defund public schools and universities, along with public broadcasting and the arts. The humanities were eviscerated. Vocational training, including the expansion of the study of finance and economics in universities, replaced disciplines that provided students with cultural and historical literacy, that allowed them to step outside of themselves to feel and express empathy for the other. Students were no longer taught how to think, but what to think. Civic education died. A grotesque kind of illiteracy—one exemplified by Trump—was celebrated. Success became solely about amassing wealth. The cult of the self, the essence of corporatism, became paramount.
Yes indeed. And while I know considerably less about the American universities than I know about the Duch universities, I know the Dutch universities were almost completely destroyed between the 1970ies and the 2000s: All courses were halved; anybody with an IQ of 100 and rich parents could enter, but people with an IQ of 140 or higher and poor parents were much discriminated; truth was declared - officially, sanctioned by the Board of Directors - NOT to exist since 1978, literally in these (applauded, and here translated) words, which were intentional lies:
"Everybody knows that truth does not exist"
Also, when I protested - I had remigrated from Norway to study in a scientific university, and not in a politicized quasi-"university" run by Stalinist communists (the students, most of whose leaders were communists until 1984, after which they turned into postmodernists, and who had the university given to them in 1971 - as the only place in the world where this happened) and by the narko-nazis from the "social democrats" [2], all of whom were neofascists who were only moved by money (and who seem to have stolen between 45 million and 60 million guilders in the 1980ies, with help from the communist students) - I was called "a dirty fascist" and "a terorist, a terrorist, a dirty terrorist", for 11 years by many of the Stalino-fascistic sadistic "communist" students. [3]

In brief: Yes, Chris Hedges spoke the truth about the neofascistic University of Amsterdam, whose neofascistic Board of Directors hated me so much that they kept me being terrorized by a completely insane neighbour from the beginning of 1981 till the end of 1983 (three full years), and when it turned out I had not been murdered they allowed the neofascistic sadists in the faculty of philosophy to deny me the legal right of taking my M.A. in philosophy in 1988, utterly destroying 11 ill years of work, and many tens of thousands of guilders, simply because I had dared to criticize these sick neofascists, these degenerate sadists, and these thieves of millions of guilders from the university. [4]

Here is Chris Hedges' ending:
We must not become preoccupied with the short-term effects of resistance. Failure is inevitable for many of us. Tyrants have silenced voices of conscience in the past. They will do so again. We will endure by holding fast to our integrity, by building community and by spawning new institutions in the midst of the wreckage. We will sustain each other. Perhaps enough of us will endure to begin again.

I fear this is also correct. And I am afraid that I do not much trust the initiatives of "the left" in the USA, indeed in good part because many may be "leftish" but few are Real Leftists, and also because I think the powers of surveillance have grown so strong that doing this by computers or cellphones seems to invite failure from the start, for everything you do or say will be recorded by the secret services (and by at least 5 dataminers, and probably quite a few more).

What I hope for is a major economical crisis or a collapse due to global warming, before a nuclear war. These will also be very bad, but such a crisis or collapse will also give the many (who have not meanwhile been murdered or disappeared) new chances to construct a more humane world.

2. Noam Chomsky’s Bold Request Before President Obama Leaves Office (Video)

The second item is by Alexandra Rosenmann on AlterNet:

This starts as follows:

Retired MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky issued a video message on Friday, December 23 regarding the critical problem faced by undocumented immigrants on the verge of a Trump presidency.

“President Obama, to his credit, has issued personal pardons in deserving cases, but he should go far beyond,” Chomsky stated.

On December 19, just weeks before leaving office, President Obama pardoned 78 people and shortened the sentences of 153 other prisoners. The recipients were all non-violent, low level drug offenders deserving of a second chance. In total, President Obama has pardoned 1,000 individuals since taking office; more than 50 times that of George W. Bush.

Chomsky then dared the president to set a new record.

“He should proceed to what is, in fact, an urgent necessity, to grant a general pardon to 11 million people who are living and working [in America], productive citizens… threatened with deportation by the incoming administration,” Chomsky insisted.

I say - and I think Chomsky is right:

He has the right of asking for such a pardon and Obama has the right of making such a pardon, and while granting such a pardon to 11 million people "
who are living and working [in America], productive citizens… threatened with deportation by the incoming administration" would be very uncommon, "the incoming administration" is best described as neofascist (see yesterday for my reasons), while Obama can save these 11 millions from being arrested and deported.

Will Obama do it? Very probably not [5] - but then he can be blamed (and I hope he will, together with Trump) for intentionally destroying the lives of no less than 11 million persons.

For those who care, here is the video with Noam Chomsky. It takes just 1 min and 6 secs:

It is well worth seeing.

3. Best of Truthdig’s Reports 2016: Chris Hedges Prophesies Throughout the Election

The third item is by X (I don't know who wrote this article) on Truthdig:

This starts as follows:

It should come as no surprise to regular readers of Truthdig that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author and columnist Chris Hedges dominated our Report section in an election year that offered voters what many saw as a narcissistic authoritarian or an impenetrable servant of the rich.

The continuation of an aggressive shredding of social contracts throughout the English-speaking West since Hedges joined our pages in 2006 has made his plain-spoken message of radical resistance against injustice painfully relevant to a large—and growing—number of people. 

In eight out of the 10 columns here, Hedges trains his pen on Democratic Party elites and their progressive challenger Bernie Sanders, and sketches the shadow that looms like an executioner over the United States. Of the remaining two columns, one is by economist C.J. Polychroniou and one by former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

I like it, for Chris Hedges is one of the few who can write - and I am sorry, but few journalist can really write [6]) and also one of the few I mostly agree with.

4. A World in Shambles: An Interview With C.J. Polychroniou

The fourth and last item today is by Marcus Rolle and Alexandra Boutri on Truthout:

This starts as follows:

"We live in ominously dangerous times" stated the opening line of an article by C.J. Polychroniou (with Lily Sage) titled "A New Economic System for a World in Rapid Disintegration," which was recently published in Truthout. And while the aforeme- ntioned piece was mainly a scathing critique of global neoliberal capitalism and a call for a new system of economic and social organization, its underlying thesis was that the world system is breaking down and that contemporary societies are in disarray.

First of all, I should say I like C.J. Polychroniou and do so on the basis of having read and reviewed a number of quite good interviews he made with Noam Chomsky - and my stress is indeed on "good", because some of the fairly rare (Chomsky is and has been systematically discriminated on the mainstream media for decades) interviews by others that I saw with Chomsky, were far less well informed about Chomsky's ideas and values than Polychroniou.

And second, while I missed the above article, I agree that it strongly seems as if "the world system is breaking down and that contemporary societies are in disarray" and indeed one of the main causes is "neoliberalism", which is in fact
a rightwing ideology that has a fake name and is in many ways not distinguish- able from what I call neofascism, which you find clearly defined below. [7]

Here is C.J. Polychroniou's general thesis (and the other bits I select are also all by Polychroniou):

C.J. Polychroniou: We live in a period of great global complexity, confusion and uncertainty. It should be beyond dispute that we are in the midst of a whirlpool of events and developments that are eroding our capability to manage human affairs in a way that is conducive to the attainment of a political and economic order based on stability, justice and sustainability. Indeed, the contemporary world is fraught with perils and challenges that will test severely humanity's ability to maintain a steady course towards anything resembling a civilized life.

For starters, we have been witnessing the gradual erosion of socio-economic gains in much of the advanced industrialized world since at least the early 1980s, along with the rollback of the social state, while a tiny percentage of the population is amazingly wealthy beyond imagination that compromises democracy, subverts the "common good" and promotes a culture of dog-eat-dog world.

The pitfalls of massive economic inequality were identified even by ancient scholars, such as Aristotle, and yet we are still allowing the rich and powerful not only to dictate the nature of society we live in but also to impose conditions that make it seem as if there is no alternative to the dominance of a system in which the interests of big business have primacy over social needs.

Yes, I agree. Specifically, I agree with these two theses (and I do so mostly on the strength of having written more than 1400 (!) articles on the crisis since September 1, 2008, in which I have found the same):

One. What we are now witnessing, and in fact have been witnissing since 1980 is "the gradual erosion of socio-economic gains in much of the advanced industrialized world since at least the early 1980s, along with the rollback of the social state", and its replacement by the rule of the rich, who only govern for their own interests, and who meanwhile succeeded in (i) transporting most of the industries and the jobs to the third world because labor is very much cheaper there, and profits are therefore very much higher, which was done in considerable part by (ii) systematically deregulating all the protections that the law provided for the non-rich.

Two. In fact, we have been witnessing the rule of the rich few for over 2500 years. And because this is the case, I have proposed - in 2015: see On Socialism - an alternative system that is based politically and legally mostly on the present system we have or had in the West since 1946 (at least till 1980) but that is economically different in at least one respect: No one is allowed to
earn more than twenty times as much as the poorest in society
- which means in the present terms that all incomes and all wealth should be legally limited to earnings between 15,000 euros and 300,000 euros a year - because without such a legal limitation the few rich can get or buy all the power they want, and indeed have had the last 2500 years. [8]

Next, there is this on democracy (which means: rule by the people, also in the sense that all people have a real vote in directing the law and the economy, and not just the few rich):

Democracy no longer exists. The main function of the citizenry in so-called "democratic" societies is to elect periodically the officials who are going to manage a system designed to serve the interests of a plutocracy and of global capitalism. The "common good" is dead, and in its place we have atomized, segmented societies in which the weak, the poor and powerless are left at the mercy of the gods.

I agree more than not, though I think that (i) the right to vote even if it is only on very broad outlines still remains important (and might be switched off under Trump and replaced by a system in which only those who earn - say - $200,000 a year can vote, on the ground that the rest "are worthless loosers"), while I also hold that (ii) the populations of voters owe it in a good part to themselves (and their own egoistic greed, lack of knowledge, and lack of intelligence) that "the weak, the poor and powerless" are shifted outside the system, and also soon may not get any or hardly any financial help anymore. [9]

Next, there is this on global warming:

Then, there is the global warming phenomenon, which threatens to lead to the collapse of much of civilized life if it continues unabated. The extent to which the contemporary world is capable of addressing the effects of global climate change -- frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought, rising sea levels, waves of mass migration -- is indeed very much in doubt.

Yes indeed: I think there are three important reasons why the present Western economical and political system probably will radically collapse:

(1) a nuclear war - which is much more likely under Trump, and will destroy civilization, and possibly all life; (2) a complete economical collapse (immediately followed by a political one) due to global warming (which at present and since the early 1970ies costs far too much to be effectively restrained, dammed in or prevented by the present Western socio-economical system; and (3) another major economical collapse like in 2008, only considerably stronger.

And I note that at least the possibilities (1) and (3) may happen within the next four years.

Next, there is this on socialism:

Since the collapse of Soviet communism, the European Left has been in a state of complete disarray, although the crisis of Europe's Left dates back to the 1970s -- i.e., long before the collapse of "actually existing socialism."  But let's be clear. What do we mean today by the term European Left? The European Socialist and Social Democratic parties abandoned long ago any pretext to being "socialistic" and, in fact, have become advocates of austerity and staunch supporters of free-market capitalism.

I agree more or less, but with several restrictions and differences.

First, about the Soviet Union. I don't think it was communistic in any realistic sense, and I also don't think it was socialistic in any realistic sense: I think it was, indeed ever since Lenin, a dictatorial kind of state-capitalism that was ruled by very few almost exclusively in their own interests. [10]

Second, about "the European Left" and the Soviet system: In view of my first remark, the only reason why "[s]ince the collapse of Soviet communism, the European Left has been in a state of complete disarray" is that "the European Left" believed the falsehoods and propaganda they were told about the Soviet Union. I find that pretty incredible on the basis of my own knowledge, at least, but it does seem to be at least an important fact.

Third, about "the European Left": I agree that the great majority of what is called "the European Left" here in fact was not Left at all, but was at most "leftish", and that only in propaganda, which moreover was nearly all in favor
political correctness, postmodernism, genetic feminism, and "the LGBTQ"- community and "identity politics" most of which was not really Leftist at all (and I am sorry, but with two communist parents, two anarchist grandparents and a communist grandparent, I know what the Real Left was, and I have not seen it since ca. 1970).

And fourth, Polychroniou is right in his suggestion that the Real Left can be quite clearly recognized by a single criterion (which leaves a lot of space for arguments how this is to be realized): The Real Left is for socialism (anarchism, communism ...) that is, for a social system that is NOT run on capitalist lines for the rich and for profit. Also, those who say this is "impossible" - like the multi-millionaire quasi-leftist Bill Clinton and the multi-millionaire quasi-leftist Tony Blair [11] - are simply lying: It is an ethical change and a legal change, and both changes will be radical, but there is absolutely nothing that says or implies that these changes are "impossible".

Here is the last bit I'll quote (and I skipped a lot, i.a. everything about Greece and its problems):

Millions of Americans have seen their livelihoods either entirely collapse or be threatened by economic forces which they neither understand or control. For example, they (and Donald Trump) blame Mexico and China for the loss of American jobs, but no one is taking the trouble to point out to them that the bulk of the products that China, for example, exports to the United States are being produced by US or multinational corporations who opted to move their operations outside the US in order to take advantage of cheap labor opportunities. In the meantime, wages in the US have remained stagnant over the course of the last 25 years for the great majority of the population, while the economy has grown considerably. But the economic gains end up almost exclusively in the hands of a tiny corporate and financial elite, which also controls the political agenda.

Yes indeed - and THE reason why "US or multinational corporations" could opt "to move their operations outside the US in order to take advantage of cheap labor opportunities" is the deregulations that started under Reagan, were continued under Bush Sr., were strenghtened under Bill Clinton (who also lied that socialism is absolutely impossible, while preparing to become a multi- millionaire), were continued under Bush Jr. and again were continued under
Obama (who will very probably be a multi-millionaire soon, thanks to some speeches for some extremely rich bankers, like the Clintons).

And this is a fine interview that is strongly recommended.

[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).

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] Holland is special in three things (also in more, but these three are both quite important and are and have been massively neglected):

First, it is a fact that the Dutch universities were all given to the students in 1971 (and taken back in 1995), and "the students" made an enormous and highly corrupt mess of it, quite intentionally, and narrowly collaborated with the Boards of Directors, that usually came from the Dutch "social democrats".

Second, it is a fact that the Dutch "social democrats" never were social, and never were democrats, and were well named as social fascists (namely by the Dutch communists), for the top of the party often were billionaires from the "Jewish" families of Asscher and Cohen, whose leaders collaborated proudly with Nazis to help them murder over 100,000 Dutch Jews, and who were not even punished nor did they need to appear in court after liberation, and who also were allowed by the Nazis to keep their billions.

Third, the Dutch "social democrats" introduced the rules and regulations in the second half of the 1980ies that (completely illegally) protected the dealers in soft drugs, and guaranteed that in Holland, since the late 1980ies, every year something like between 10 and 50 billion euros worth of soft and hard drugs are being dealt, illegally, but protected by mayors and police, in such a way that hardly any dealer is ever caught. (And the numbers I use are from the one and only parliamentary report that was published about the dealings in illegal drugs in Holland.)

Since this means that since 1990 the 26-fold of this has been turned over - that is, in all: between 260 billion and 550 billion euros - all with massive (but illegal) help from Dutch politicians (drugsdealing has been illegal since 1965, and still is, and always has been), I take it some Dutch politician have earned
an enormous amount of money by helping the drugsdealers (but I have no proof beyond my personal history, that includes five murder threats by the illegal drugsdealers Van Thijn permitted to deal from the bottom floor of the house where I lived; complete refusals from the City police and every bureaucrat to do anything against these illegal dealers, including a refusal to accept my complaints against them when they were arrested with 2 kilos of heroine and 1 of cocaine in 1990; and more, including the fact that none of ME in Amsterdam has ever been denied by anyone working for the City or the University of Amsterdam).

I am sorry, but it is a fact that I was many times called "a fascist", " a dirty fascist", and "something like a fascist" by many Dutch students. I forgot how many times (from quite a few tens to several hundreds of times) and the reason this was especially offensive to me were that (i) my parents were both for 45 years members of the Dutch Communist Party (and Real Leftists); my mother's parents were anarchists; and my father's father was a communist, and (ii) my father was knighted for being an anti-fascist (and to my knowledge he was the only communist who was knighted before the end of the Dutch communist party in 1991); I was a member of the communist party from 1968-1970; and I agreed and still agree with the Real Leftism and the ethics of my parents - but absolutely none of this was relevant in any way to the Stalinist fascist quasi-communist stupid loonies from the ASVA who had identified me as "their enemy" because I opposed their lying and corrupt leaders.

And everything I know from the ASVA since 1971 (when they got the power in the University of Amsterdam thrown in their laps) suggested and suggests to me that the members either were stupid followers or else neofascistic sadists, who helped to destroy the scientific University of Amsterdam, and who almost totally succeeded in doing that.

I am here especially referring to three dead men who cannot be offended anymore, and whom I therefore can describe in true terms:

The sadofastic neofascistic degenerate beast and thief of tens of millions from the accounts of the UvA mr.dr. George Cammelbeeck; the sadofascistic sick sadist dr. Roel Poppe; and the sadofascistic neofascist degenerate drs. Jan-Karel Gevers. Together, they disappeared between 45 and 60 million guilders from the accounts of the UvA; tried to hide this by not making the legally obliged yearly financial reports (which they did in collaboration with the leaders of the ASVA); and these three also took care to destroy my life, my health, and my legal right to take an M.A. in philosophy.

I do not know anyone who was more of a (neo)fascist that I have met than these three utterly sick late sadistic terrorists.

[5] I think myself Obama will not even reply to Chomsky. My reasons are his latest 8 years, in which he revealed himself as another servant of the rich, who is a servant of the rich - like Bill and Hillary Clinton, like Tony Blair - mostly because he has probable hopes of soon being made a multi- millionaire by the Wall Street bankers whom he helped so very much.

I may be mistaken, but I will be very amazed if I am (and will tell you so if I am). But yes, Obama can save the lives of 11 million persons.

Yes, indeed. I am sorry if you think otherwise, but if you want to read really good writers, consult my Some Favourite Books & Authors: This contains at least a 100 persons - Sophocles, Thucydides, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Chamfort, Hazlitt, Schopenhauer, Multatuli, Nietzsche, James, Russell, Orwell, to name a few - who could really write.

[7] In fact, this is a reference to [1]. All I say about that here and now is that it is really based on extensive knowledge of politics and economics; on my being a real intellectual (which is due to my age and my intelligence: it is probable that people who studied since the late 1980ies have gotten a whole lot less in education, even if they are as intelligent as I am); and on a considerable amount of directly relevant knowledge, e.g. on over 1400 articles in the
crisis index, that I wrote since 2008 (and to which I know no parallel whatsoever - and I don't mean that there may not be others who wrote as much as I did on the crisis, but not on reviewing the writings of others).

[8] And in fact this proposal is my own, and is motivated by two facts: (1)
without such a legal limitation the few rich can get or buy all the power they want, and indeed have done so the last 2500 years, and (2) all it needs is a period of crisis and some legal changes that limit that anyone can get extremely rich: There is nothing impossible about this, and in fact the apparently radical rule I do propose would benefit at least 95% of those who are presently living.

[9] That the poor, the old and the ill in the USA may soon loose most of their incomes may be deduced with at least a fair amount of probability from Trump's tweets and sayings and from his nominated cabinet of billionaires and generals: Probably the poor, the old and the ill are too poor and have too few to defend them, and therefore most of what they get can be taken from them and given to the rich.

[10] Also, I have never felt differently about this since I was 14 or 15: my parents believed the Soviet Union was socialistic, but I never believed so (and indeed also lacked the strong emotional reasons that moved my parents, both of whom had been in  the resistance in WW II).

[11] I have been told very many times that "what people most care for is a lot of money for themselves". So I do not mind to apply this to politicians like the lying Clintons and the lying Blairs, all of whom got to be multi- millionaires because of their political choices (for the rich, against the poor). And I think that this
was their personal main end as well: Were it otherwise, they would - at least - have lied a lot less, and have had quite different policies.

       home - index - summaries - mail