Jan 12, 2017
Crisis: Lofgren, Greenwald, The Trump Brand, Press Conference, "Democracy"
Sections                                                                     crisis index

Maybe This Is How Democracy Ends
2. The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using
     Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer

Donald Trump Won’t Give Up His Brand to Be President
Trump's Press Conference Ridiculousness, Broken Down
5. 2016: A Bad Year for Democracy, but "Best Ever" for Big Media

This is a Nederlog of January 12, 2017.

This is a
crisis log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is about an article by Mike Lofgren I like; item 2 is about an article by Glenn Greenwald I like; item 3 is about the fact that Trump does not give up his brand while being president of the USA; item 4 is about Trump's - fairly ridiculous - press conference; and item 5 is about how the media profit a lot from the big money that the Supreme Court allowed to enter politics.

Incidentally: My providers are still awful. Today it was Jan 10 on the Dutch site (which has been reviewed every day now for a very long time ) while it was (again) December 31 2015 for the Danish site (likewise)... So: who is fucking up my sites systematically?!?! (Please note the Dutch site worked mostly correctly for 20 years, and the Danish for 12 years, but someone has been seriously fucking them up since the beginning of 2016.)

Incidentally: I can get rid of December 31 2015 in Denmark by clicking on the rightmost globe twice, and then on a central globe...

1. Maybe This Is How Democracy Ends

first item is by Mike Lofgren (<-Wikipedia) on Common Dreams:
First three introductory remarks about Mike Lofgren:

Two of the reasons I like Mike Lofgren (whom I don't know at all) are that (i) he had quite a few ideas like I have, and indeed some better than I had, i.a. because he is much closer to USA institutions than I am, and (ii) he has a strong Republican background, which I like because this means he is quite informed, while having to think through his background (which is mostly against his own conclusions).

Also, I think it should have been added below this article - which does mention Mike Lofgren's book from 2013 - that he also published a later book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
", in January of 2016.

Now to the article. This starts as follows:

The election of Donald Trump has triggered as much wonderment abroad as it has in the United States. David Runciman, a professor of politics at the University of Cambridge, has written in the London Review of Books a provocative reflection on the nature of democracy in the age of Trump: “Is this how democracy ends?” There is much to praise in his essay, including his heavy qualification that we really don’t know for sure if what we are seeing is the end phase of mature Western democracies since we do not have the appropriate historical precedents to be certain.

Runciman is correct; as an admirer of Karl Popper, I believe that there is no such thing as historical determinism, either in the form of the Marxist dialectical process, or in the guise of its mirror image, the invisible hand of laissez-faire. Accordingly there is no surefire way to tell in advance whether Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders would spell the end of democracy as we have known it. History, as Popper would tell us, is an open system, full of contingency. Waterloo, the Battle of Britain and Stalingrad were all close-run things.

As it happens I agree "that there is no such thing as historical determinism" (which is not to say everything is random [1]), although I am not an admirer of Karl Popper. Then again, I am a philosopher of science, and I have considerably more against Popper's technical philosophy of science than I have against his "The Open Society and Its Enemies", which seems to be Lofgren's main source.

Then there is this:

Just as Putin’s United Russia Party has moved to disqualify troublesome opposition parties from the ballot and centralize power around the president, and as Viktor Orbán’s Fedesz Party has weakened those Hungarian institutions that challenged his power, Trump’s Republican Party has been laying the institutional groundwork for illiberal democracy for several years. States whose legislatures and governorships are controlled by Republicans not only gerrymander federal congressional districts with scientific precision, they have restricted voter qualifications, polling hours and locations as a way of hobbling their opponents.

Yes indeed, although I believe about as much in "illiberal democracy" as I do in "square circles": A system of government that says it is a democracy while it is illiberal (in having no free press and in not admitting free discussions and free assemblies and legal protests against the government) simply is not a democracy. (Perhaps Lofgren refers to Sheldon Wolin's concept of inverted totalitarianism as a kind of a mocked up "democracy"? I don't know, but that at least seems a somewhat better term than "illiberal democracy".)

And there is this:

Even more questionable are some of Trump’s own actions as president-elect. When do American politicians hold rallies?

I have asked myself the same question, and so has Robert Reich (with whose answer I disagree). Here is my answer:

An American president-elect, and indeed also an American president, holds rallies amongst his followers because he desires to have an army of followers that listen to his suggestions and that will (try to) act upon them, also in such a way that the president(-elect) can deny responsibilities while welcoming their actions.

There is also this about Trump's security:

He also said he intends to maintain his private security squad even after assuming office. Quite apart from its redundancy, given the presence of the taxpayer-provided Secret Service, the specter of a national leader retaining a private security contingent, particularly one that distinguished itself by roughing up protesters at campaign rallies, is troubling indeed.

What I find worrying about this is that the president seems not able to trust the public services he is supposed to serve and manage, and that precisely the same was true of Julius Ceasar (who - I admit - did function in a quite different society).

Then we get back to Runciman (about whom there is more in the article):

It is at this point where Runciman’s thesis goes seriously wrong. He says that voters chose Trump to shake things up precisely because they knew he couldn’t do it; in other words, they counted on the political system they rail against as worthless to be worthy enough to protect them from the consequences of their foolish mistake. The author shows either a remarkable ability to infer the thought processes of an unemployed Kentucky laborer without health insurance, or he is guilty of constructing an attractive-sounding paradox that is a little too clever.

Yes. First, I dislike attributing motives to millions of people one doesn't know at all (which is very popular among journalists and "public individuals"): It is total bullshit without good statistical evidence (that hardly ever is given), and even with good statistical evidence it remains a mere guess with some evidence. And second, Runciman's idea indeed is "a little too clever".

Then there is this:

Despite his unprecedentedly large popular vote loss as a winning candidate, he and his operatives call his Electoral College victory a landslide and act as if they possess the most overwhelming mandate in history. If the past is any precedent, the signs are not good. George W. Bush won under similar electoral circumstances and proceeded to bulldoze through a policy of stunning fiscal irresponsibility while provoking a war that may have been America’s single greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam — or possibly ever.

Yes. I expect Trump will be even more for the rich than Bush Jr. was; I expect Trump to lie first about almost anything (simply because when fact-checked, 70% of his statements were false, and knowledge of "the past is" evidence); and I agree the wars that the USA started after 9/11/2001 meanwhile are the greatest "policy blunder" the USA has ever made. So far.

Then there is this about terrorism and its dangers:

It is well and good for optimists to say Americans should stop being so paranoid, and to point out that the opioid epidemic is a much greater problem because it kills vastly more Americans than terrorism. But perception is political reality. Fear of terrorism has upset the post-World War II consensus about the balance between freedom and security in the Atlantic democracies. Personal privacy and freedom of movement are essential aspects of the autonomy and dignity of the individual human being. They constitute a bedrock principle of a liberal social order; terrorism erodes these, and the all-but-interminable duration of the war on terrorism suggests time may be on the side of illiberalism.

First, a quotation that I have given quite a few times before, but repeat again because it is quite instructive:

In other words: Almost any leader of almost any government - however bad, however autoritarian  - can deceive the majority of his (or her) population by insisting that they are being terrorized. And this in turn means that the majority of any population (in which this is possible, but that seems to be all or nearly all) does not understand the real meanings of "the autonomy and dignity of the individual human being" nor of the basic principles of and reasons for "a liberal social order".

I think that is quite true and very frightening, because it means that the rich few and their governments can trick almost any population into doing what the rich few and their governments want, and indeed can do so simply by saying that they are defending the population - that they are really out to fleece, deceive, abuse and get rich from - in a "War On Terror".

It's a big lie but it works, and it works because the majorities that are thus deceived are stupid and ignorant - I am very sorry, but that is the consequence of Curran's maxim, that I quote correctly:

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
-- John Philpot Curran, 1790 (<-Wikipedia)

Then there is this about truth:

One of the paradoxical twists of history is that when leftist deconstructionists posited the notion of situational truth in the 1970s, the American right responded with fury against their “moral relativism,” a denunciation that became the leitmotif of staunch conservatives like Ronald Reagan’s education secretary, William Bennett. Now, among the Trump supporters, who have usurped the mantle of true conservative standard-bearers, the very idea of truth is relative to the beliefs of the observer.

In fact, I met this in 1978, when I found that the University of Amsterdam was officially and publicly opened by a professor who insisted on the extremely sick, pro fascistic lie [2] that

"Everybody knows that truth does not exist."

I protested, and some 5% of the students and the staff (!!!) protested. Everybody else - it is true, alas, and I would not have believed it myself if it hadn't happened to me - embraced these teachings (which meant i.a. that nobody could ever be refuted and no standards and no facts of any kind would ever have to be admitted by anyone, and it also meant that science was impossible - but who cares if he is being paid well?) and indeed embraced them from 1978 till 1995. [3]

And meanwhile, I was denied - very briefly before taking it - the legal right of taking my M.A. in philosophy in 1988, since when the University of Amsterdam has not decently answered any letter or any mail of mine (that is, for the 29th year in succession now).

Incidentally, the real case about truth is a bit more complicated and also even more dirty than Lofgren says:

The case for "situational "truth"" (mind the quote marks!) that might have been made (and to an extent were made) was that the same facts - say, the torturing of a Protestant or a Catholic by resp. Catholics or Protestants "to save him from eternal hell" - would be (rather naturally also) be seen in quite different lights by witnesses who were Protestants or Catholics.

But this was not the case against truth made out in the University of Amsterdam and by the postmodernists: They simply insisted - completely falsely - that "Everybody knows that truth does not exist."

And this is also not the case that the Trump supporters embrace, which is again that  "everybody knows that truth does not exist" and not that different people with different moral values look differently upon admitted facts: They insist there are no facts, no truths, and no standards - other than the words of The Leader (Who Never Is Mistaken And Is A Superhuman Genius).

Here is the end of the article:

So perhaps democracies die of old age and we cannot quite see which event will cause their final cardiac arrest. But more likely, their leaders make avoidable mistakes, and then persist in them because their ideological disposition causes them to resist the warning signs of danger ahead. If authoritarian populism is the wave of the future, its midwife is neoliberal economics turned punitive and illiberal.

My own take is that democracies die from the indolence, the stupidity and the ignorance of the majority that should support it, and from being misled, deceived and lied to by their leaders (who often are corrupted by the rich few).

And while I agree "neoliberalism" played an important role in deceiving the majorities, this is because
"neoliberalism", and especially one that "turned punitive and illiberal" is in fact a form of neofascism, and indeed works almost only for the rich and for their governors.

But indeed it is quite true that the majorities have been royally deceived once again and probably will be extensively and cruelly punished for it by the few rich and their governors.

And this is a recommended article.

2. The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer

The second item is by Glenn Greenwald on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:

In January, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”

Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials.
First, what is the Deep State? Here is most of Wikipedia's answer about - specifically - he United States. It is quoted without note numbers:
Writers, journalists, political scientists and political activists in the United States have for decades expressed concerns about the existence of a deep state or state within a state, which they suspect secretly controls public policy, regardless of which political party controls the country's democratic institutions.

According to Philip Giraldi, the nexus of power is centered on the military–industrial complex, intelligence community, and Wall Street,
while Bill Moyers points to plutocrats and oligarchs. Professor Peter Dale Scott also mentions "big oil" as a key player, while David Talbot focuses on national security officials, especially Allen Dulles. Mike Lofgren, an ex-Washington staffer who has written a book on the issue, includes Silicon Valley, along with "key elements of government" and Wall Street, but emphasizes the non-conspiratorial nature of the "state".
I agree there very probably is a deep state in the USA (and elsewhere, e.g. in Europe, but I'll concentrate here on the USA). The main problems are that it is indeed unelected, unofficial, and working in secret, but this does not mean that it doesn't exist. [4]

And I also agree (with Giraldi and Lofgren) that it very probably comprises persons who work for
the military–industrial complex, the "intelligence community", Wall Street, Silicon Valley and it also comprises people who work in or for the government. [5]

Finally, I agree that the U.S. mainstream media is a willing instrument of the government and of the deep state that is behind it, and indeed it knows officials who (very probably) work for the deep state since it knows hidden intelligence officials as sources for some of the things it publishes. [6]

Next, here is a point about the CIA (which is somehow part of the deep state):
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
Hm, yes and no, though mostly yes: I quite agree with Glenn Greenwald on the rottenness of the CIA, but then I also think Trump is both an enormous liar and - I am also a psychologist - that he is mad. Also, I would feel a bit safer (in Holland, but this holds for the whole world) as soon as Trump's control over the U.S.'s nuclear arms gets stopped.

So if the liars of the CIA succeed in removing the liar Trump from controlling the nuclear weapons, I think that would be some progress, although indeed this does not ennoble the CIA one bit, in my estimate. (I do think that Trump
is mad.)

Then the following happened:
All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct.
I agree, but with a qualification, to which I come after the next quotation: It was dirty, in several ways also, and the report (which I haven't read yet) is "completely unvetted and unverified" yet it was widely believed:
(...) the overwhelming reaction was the same as all the other instances where the CIA and its allies released unverified claims about Trump and Russia: instant embrace of the evidence-free assertions as Truth, combined with proclamations that it demonstrated Trump’s status as a traitor (with anyone expressing skepticism designated a Kremlin agent or stooge).
My promised qualification is this: I agree that the U.S. government is lying and deceiving; I agree that the CIA "and its allies" released totally unverified claims; and I agree that the mainstream media also often lie, especially for the government, but I also think that large parts of the public ("the overwhelming reaction") are stupid, ignorant, irresponsible and also lying (e.g. about their intelligence and knowledge).

So in these circumstances, my own stance is: Let's first try to remove the madman who has been elected as president of the USA, simply because as long as he rules the USA everyone risks being blown up by a temper tantrum of his (that unleashes a nuclear war).

This leaves us with three sets of seasoned liars, but then the one who commands the nuclear arms after Trump is very probably a lot saner (if not better).

Here is the last part that I'll quote from this article:
Beyond that, the threat posed by submitting ourselves to the CIA and empowering it to reign supreme outside of the democratic process is — as Eisenhower warned — an even more severe danger. The threat of being ruled by unaccountable and unelected entities is self-evident and grave. That’s especially true when the entity behind which so many are rallying is one with a long and deliberate history of lying, propaganda, war crimes, torture, and the worst atrocities imaginable.
Yes. But it seems the USA is ruled by three sets of liars (the government, the CIA and the deep state, and the mainstream media), and has been ruled by these liars for quite a while now, namely at least since 9/11/2001.

And this is a recommended article.

3. Donald Trump Won’t Give Up His Brand to Be President

third item is by Mattathias Schwarz on The Intercept:

This starts as follows:

At his Wednesday morning press conference — his first since winning the election more than two months ago — Donald Trump, the president-elect, stood beside a pile of paperwork and attempted to explain how he would separate himself from Donald Trump, the brand. Rather than putting his assets into a blind trust, as many have recommended for America’s first billionaire president, Trump said he would turn day-to-day control of his business over to two his children and a longtime Trump Organization executive. He also reneged on a promise that there would be “no new deals” done during his time in office.

In brief: Donald Trump feels that as president of the USA he can do and say whatever he pleases, and - among other things - he will not give up his Trump brand.

In fact here is the larger message of Trump:

The larger message was clear: Trump does not feel that he is required to do anything about his conflicts of interest. His own lawyers had told him so. Trump staked out turf that he will likely try to occupy for the duration of his presidency: The rules only apply to me insofar as I choose to follow them.

Indeed, and not only as regards his brand. As regards his brand, this is very probably quite corrupt (also if his sons receive no salary: they are his sons):

Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, took a hard line on the increasingly obvious overlap between Trump’s businesses, his administration, and his gene pool. “Firewalls work in businesses, not families,” she wrote in a statement following the press conference. “Retaining ownership and allowing his children to operate the family business is a page out of the Corruption 101 Handbook.”

Noah Bookbinder, the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, echoed Brian. “The only way for Donald Trump to avoid massive conflicts of interest is to sell his business outside the family and place the assets in a true blind trust,” he wrote.

I think that is correct, but Trump and his lawyers disagree:

Trump “should not be expected to destroy the company he built,” she said. The price, [Dillon, Trump’s tax lawyer] said, would be too low unless Trump sold the brand that is “key to the value of the Trump Organization’s assets.” The scenario where Trump would sell his brand, along with rights to future royalties, in return for the opportunity to serve as president of the United States, was never discussed.

Indeed. As is, it simply is corruption sold as "presidential".

4. Trump's Press Conference Ridiculousness, Broken Down

fourth item is by Kali Holloway on AlterNet:

This starts as follows:

After months of using Twitter as his bullhorn, and repeated delays of press conferences and promised announcements, Donald Trump gave his first media briefing since July on Wednesday morning. The press event came one day after Buzzfeed News published an explosive (and so far unverified) intelligence report filled with salacious and compromising financial and sexual information reportedly held by Russia against the president-elect. Considering that Trump has steadfastly refused to conform to presidential conventions of meeting with the press regularly (or releasing his tax returns) for a staggering six months, the event left little time for media to ask questions about anything but the most pressing issues. It seems safe to assume that’s precisely how Team Trump wanted it.

Yes indeed - and note how totally ridiculous this is in fact: A presidential candidate and now a president-elect, who has not talked to the press since July (about 6 months) because he much dislikes them (and who desires to punish them, and to change the laws so that he can); who refuses to release his tax returns; and who also refuses to give up his business.

here is a key overview - which I will give by only quoting the titles of eight points, while omitting the texts that belong to it (which is good):
1. Said he's too freaked out by germs for golden showers.
2. Evaded question of whether he spoke to Russia, and is still
    weird about nailing Russia on the hacks.
3. On the topic of Obamacare? Lots of self-congrats and nothing
4. Taxpayers will pay for the wall, but only until Mexico pays us
     back, which btw, will never happen.
5. The short on his business conflicts: he won’t divest; Don Jr.
Eric are taking over.
6. We will never see his tax returns.
7. On his contention that the murder of 6 million Jews is like the
    press scrutiny he's under.
8. He still hates the media.

In case you wonder about "golden showers" (I saw items in the media promising "gentle introductions" to it): These are naked women urinating. (Some seem to enjoy this.) And as to "the murder of 6 million Jews": Trump did tweet that his treatment by the press - of a supposed billionaire who is president-elect in the present USA - is "like Nazi Germany".

And in case you wonder about the lack of seriousness of the points: It mirrors the lack of seriousness with which Trump treats the press.

This article ends as follows:

Ladies and gentleman, your president-elect. Really.
In fact, I agree with Kali Holloway and her article is recommended. If it is not quite serious, this is quite deserved by Trump.

5. 2016: A Bad Year for Democracy, but "Best Ever" for Big Media

The fifth and last item of today is by Michael Corcoran on Truthout:

This starts as follows:

As we enter a new year with a frightening new president-elect, American pundits have been discussing, with some urgency, various flaws in American democracy. Leaks from hackers allegedly collaborating with state actors, an archaic Electoral College, Donald Trump's hostility toward the press and Facebook's electoral news judgment have all been the focus of a great deal of discussion in the dominant media.

But while pundits on cable news outlets argue about these issues, media executives who sign their paychecks are positively elated about the 2016 election, which thanks to $2.4 billion in political ad spending and record ratings, was great for Big Media's bottom line. "This is the best year in the history of cable news," said CNN President Jeff Tucker in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.

This jubilation is rooted in the two biggest threats to any semblance of democracy, both rarely examined by the media: (1) the pervasive role of corporate money in our elections, and (2) the fact that the media outlets that should be vigorously investigating this trend are owned by the same corporate interests that profit so much from it. This scenario is not merely a conflict of interest but a crisis of democracy.

I quite agree, especially with the last paragraph:

If the mainstream media are not "vigorously investigating" the pervasive role of "corporate money in our elections" which indeed they wholly don't, this is because "the same corporate interests (..) profit so much from it", and indeed rule the mainstream media.

And it seems to me this is not merely "
a crisis of democracy" but the effective end of it, for a real democracy rests on the fact that its population is properly informed about the relevant facts of their lives, and they are not at all: They are amused, lied to, deceived and propagandized, but they are not often honestly informed.

Here is how big money entered politics, and radically changed it, all thanks to the "Citizens United" (<-Wikipedia) decision of the Supreme Court that allowed big money to enter politics:

In 2010, the first election after the decision, media broadcasters benefited from record-breaking political ad spending surpassing $3 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which noted that spending was made "considerably easier" due to the Citizens decision. "We knew this election could make spending history, but the rate of growth is stunning," said Sheila Krumholz, CRP's executive director.

During 2012, amidst the first presidential election following the ruling, the exorbitant spending continued. "Super PACs may be bad for America, but they are very good for CBS," CBS President Les Moonves infamously said, while celebrating 180 million in new profits.

Moonves' statement is honest enough, and ensuring these profits is his job -- which is the crux of the problem. It is not, however, his job to make sure the public is properly informed, despite the fact that his organization's mission statement makes bold promises to provide "some of the most aggressive investigative reporters in the business" and give you the information "we believe you have the right to know." Corporations, whether they produce media content or paperclips, serve a sole purpose. These executives have a fiduciary responsibility to put shareholder profit above all else -- even the public good.

Yes indeed, although I like to add that the last "responsibility" is both quite unethical and what Milton Friedman (who loved the Chilean dictators) wrote, but it is not sound economics (unless one should approve that somebody who buys a medicine can and should increase its price a 100,000 fold or a million fold simply because he can and owns it or unless one should approve that dictators make major profits by destroying and torturing their enemies, as happened in Chili).

The article ends as follows (after a lot more):

When corporations have the power to spend limitless amounts on advertising, broadcasting and cable companies will benefit. When politicians' outrageous, offensive ruminations garner great ratings, the dominant media will happily provide them the platform to spread their lies and insults, so long as viewers tune in and advertising costs spike. And when corporate America is given more power and access, corporate media get more power and access too.

This dynamic makes it impossible for mainstream media to function as a press must function in a real democracy: as a vital civic tool to inform the public.

Yes indeed - as should have been quite obvious to the Supreme Court. And as may have been quite obvious to the majority of the Supreme Court who approved this utterly insane rule that did "happily provide" the mainstream media "the platform to spread their lies and insults, so long as viewers tune in and advertising costs spike".

[1] This is a redundant remark for intelligent readers: Clearly, there are many constants involved in history as well. What I agree with is that these do not together amount to a determined history.

[2] This was definitely pro fascistic because it denies that truth exists: If there is no truth, it is not true that 6 million Jews were gassed; not true that the Nazis had many concentration camps; not true that Hitler existed; not true that my father and grandfather were arrested for resisting the Nazis and committed to German concentration camps as "political terrorists" etc. etc. etc.

Also, when I tried to discuss this with fellow philosophy students, the vast majority concluded and said that I was "a dirty fascist" (anyway) for saying that I knew Marx but did not think him the greatest philosopher who ever lived...

All of the above are real facts, but real facts do not exist in the University of Amsterdam since 1978, even though it also is a real fact that none of my many letters and mails - see ME in Amsterdam, if you read Dutch - were ever answered, not by the University of Amsterdam nor by the City of Amsterdam, that absolutely refused to do anything for me while I was living above illegal drugsdealers who could (illegally!) deal drugs there "because they were permitted to do so by the mayor", and the mayor only thought of their profits and made no objection whatsoever that they threatened to murder me (from 1988 till 1992).

[3] I am sorry, but all of these are real facts, which have been on line since 2001 and have never been contradicted by anyone. (And then the staff of the UvA was paid really well.)

[4] In case you are stupid enough to say "that's a conspiracy theory!" my reply is twofold: First, there are conspiracies. And second, a conspiracy need not be involved:

All that needs to be involved are some unelected officials who have powers to decide some things that should have been controlled (somehow) by parliament (c.q. Congress).

I think such people do exist, but I do not want to clutter up this Nederlog with discussing the deep state: I think it exists (as did Eisenhower, for example, although he called it the "military-industrial complex" (<-Wikipedia)), though I admit it is difficult to say which persons are in it, simply because they are unelected and work in secret.

[5] These are five sources for persons who are - somehow - part of the deep state.
Again I say that I consider these sources likely, while I will not
clutter up this Nederlog with discussing the deep state.

[6] As under [4] and [5], but with this small difference that the media do get quite a lot of information from secret sources (which may but need not be given by people who are - also - part of the deep state).

       home - index - summaries - mail