1. Is Trump’s
Billionaire Cabinet Actually A Closet Full of Fascists?
2. One Month of
Trump (Common Dreams)
3. One-Month Report Card
4. Trump Vilifies
Media—Except Outlets That Follow His Narrative
5. We Must #ResistTrump
6. Republicans, Where’s
This is a Nederlog of Saturday, February 18, 2017.
a crisis log with 6 files and 6 dotted links: Item 1
is an interesting article about Trump's cabinet; item 2
and item 3 are two different appraisals of the
first month of Trump's presidency (and they agree quite a bit more than
I expected); item 4 is about the reason why Trump vilifies
"the media", as an authoritarian: because they don't
say what he wants them to say; item 5 is
about a good article by Bianca Jagger on Trump; and item
6 is a good article by Moyers and Winship on the lacking backbone
of most Republicans.
As for today
(February 18, 2017): I have changed my site on February 1, 2017 to make
that it might be read,
because it now happened for most
of last year that both of my sites are not uploaded
Is Trump’s Billionaire Cabinet Actually A Closet Full of Fascists?
On xs4all.nl it may be days, weeks or months
behind to show the proper
last date and the proper last files (in the last 4 years always
date it was that day), and it was this morning again incorrect
again (but yesterday it was not);
one.com it may be shown
December 31, 2015
often was!!!) and was also again incorrect this morning; and
indeed I am sick of being systematically made
unreadable and therefore changed
the site to allow most readers to find it more easily.
For more explanations, see here - and no:
with two different sites in two different countries
with two different providers,
where this has been
happening for a year (and not
for over 20 and over 12 years
before) now I'm absolutely certain that
this happens and that it's not due to me.
Incidentally, if you reached February 1, 2017
on one of
my sites you are in the new set-up and from there you can
find the latest Nederlog, and all others from there.
The first item today is by Laura Bonham and Garrett Jennings on Commom
This starts as follows:
Yes indeed. Then again, this
time the problem seems more serious than in a very long
time. And here is one reason:
Yes, Donald Trump’s
cabinet will end up being the richest in modern history—worth
around $4.5 billion at conservative estimates but many
multi-billions more if you include the family wealth of his
appointments and of course Trump himself. Any way you count it, the
wealth, corporate influence, and potential conflicts of interest
concentrated in this cabinet transcends that of any administration in
Wealth in and of itself is
only part of a larger problem. It is the connection of wealth to power
that can transform a democracy into a totalitarian state. The rich and
well-connected corporate elites have long played a dominant role in the
executive branch and virtually every other political institution since
faux-populist campaign message to "drain the swamp" failed to mention
his plan to replace it with a cesspool of corporatists facilitating the
corporate takeover of governmental institutions. His cabinet is among
the most corporate in U.S. history with one-third of appointments
going to executives with no government or military experience. Only
President McKinley, who took office during the Gilded Age in 1897,
appointed proportionally more corporatists.
And although - to the best of
my knowledge - considerable corporate powers were broken by Theodore
Roosevelt, the twenties were again of and for the very rich until
Street crash, Franklin
Roosevelt, and the New
But then - and this unravelling of the New Deal started, in my opinion,
Over the years,
policy changes and laws to unravel the New Deal, and everything flowing
from it, were sought and eventually won, in bits and pieces, by and
until the descendants and disciples of the Robber Barons and so-called
"heirs apparent" to our nation’s wealth won Ayn
Rand’s vision of a neo-fascist society. And, then Donald Trump was
Journalist Naomi Klein’s assertion
that Trump’s election is a "corporate coup d’état" is frightening,
mostly because history suggests she's right.
Yes - and I agree Trump is
(in my quite precise sense), and I insist
that the "corporate coup d’état"
went through several stages that started officially
with Reagan's presidency and was prepared by Lewis
Powell Jr. Trump is the latest
stage, and as I said, I think he is a neofascist, and he is in that sense - while
there have been very bad presidents and presidencies - the
first (and possibly last) elected president of the USA. 
This ends as follows:
In the words of
Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Move to Amend's National Director:
I can't answer the last two
questions, but I
can add some clarity (for rational intelligent people), namely by my
definitions of fascism
And the reason I insist
Fascism is corporate
economic power merged with the political power of the State. The United
States has been creeping in this direction for decades, but now it
would appear that our government is unabashedly there, and in the
shadows about it no longer. It is critical we figure out how to adjust
our movement strategies to address the current situation and push full
force to make real the promise of genuine democracy and rule by The
People that we have yet to attain as a country.
Will the end result of
the experiment in American democracy turn out to be a totalitarian,
authoritarian state—modern fascism? Or will We the People act on the
sacred words in the Declaration of Independence and perfect an
authentic, participatory form of American democracy, where the human
rights of all human beings—and only human beings—are protected in a
government of, by, and for the people?
these do add considerable clarity is that I know a lot
about fascism, but also know this is rarely clearly defined, and if
defined then defined in at least 22 different ways (some quite
reasonable, others fairly to very ridiculous, and see here for my survey of 22
definitions), while I have never even seen a reasonable
other definition of neofascism than mine.
And this is a recommended article.
Month of Trump (Common Dreams)
This starts as follows, and
consists of 10 points all with clarifying texts. Here are some extracts:
The second item is by Bob Burnett on Common Dreams:
Yes, I agree. Also,
although he has a BS degree in economics, he is no intellectual
29 days into the Trump
regime it's worse than expected. Here's what we've learned.
1. Trump's not an
(probably) a billionaire so it would seem that "he knows how to get
things done" but, if he does, he hasn't applied this skill to his job
as America's CEO. Everything about his first 28 days suggests
that Trump is in over his head in his new job. For example, after
an (initial) week full of executive orders, Trump now appears to have
no overall plan for domestic or foreign policy. As another
example, Trump's White House is understaffed and Trump doesn't seem to
be good recruiter.
His thought pattern is chaotic. It's hard to view Trump
dispassionately but his impromptu speeches and press conferences are
cringe-worthy. On Tuesday (February 14th) during a joint press
conference with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Trump was asked about
rising anti-semitism. He responded by boasting about his election
victory and then said the Trump administration is “going to do
everything within our power to stop long-simmering racism and every
other thing that’s going on.”
In fact, it was considerably worse - see here - and Trump also boasted (in a
(<-Wikipedia) fashion) that "He Is The Biggest Anti-Semite" that the
Jewish reporter who asked his quite reasonable question, that Trump
failed to answer, had ever met.
Here is more:
He doesn't appear to read briefing papers. (..)
Yes. And both - especially point 4 - supports
he is a pathological
Trump has very thin skin. As his lack of focus wasn't
bad enough, Trump seems to spend a disproportionate amount of time
watching cable news—time where he should be
reading briefing papers—and takes negative
reporting very seriously.
Then there is this (and the "(..)" indicate texts I removed for this
Trump detests the mainstream media. (..)
the best of my knowledge). And this - while at present it is not
important yet - may turn out to be rather important if Trump gets
impeached, as he very well may be
He doesn't understand the Federal bureaucracy.(..)
Trump doesn't have a legislative agenda.(..)
Trump doesn't care about other Republicans. Not
surprisingly, for someone whose instincts are not collaborative, Trump
doesn't work well with other Republicans. He doesn't consult Vice
President Pence. He doesn't consult his Cabinet members.
And he doesn't doesn't consult the Republican congressional
because of point 10 below.
And there is also this:
Trump is in the process of losing his base. The latest
Pew Research poll finds that only 39 percent of respondents approved of
the job Trump is doing. Those that do approve of Trump are
"White, non-college-educated" (57 percent). But how long will
they approve of Trump when he doesn't deliver jobs, takes away their
healthcare, and fails to build "the wall"?
I don't know. One reason is
folks seem to be rather unintelligent and not knowledgeable, while they
seem to get their information from Fox News, that tends - so far - to
lie and mislead for Trump. But the question is a good one, and we shall
Finally there is this point:
10. Trump has "phenomenal" conflicts of interest.(..)
I agree, and this are (and
should be) solid grounds for an impeachment, although I don't see this
This is a recommended article.
One-Month Report Card (NYT)
The third item is by Timothy
Egan on The New York Times:
This starts as
may be contrasted with the previous item, although it is my guess that
Burnett and Egan agree considerably more than they may disagree):
You just came out of a yearlong coma, and you’re trying to
catch up. The unimaginable is real. The Cubs won the World Series.
California has been drenched with so much rain that its biggest dam may
fail. And in the first month of a new presidency, the leader of the
free world has:
Told a stunning and easily disproved lie on his first full
day in power. He then sent his spokesman out to repeat that lie, and
said the press would “pay a big price” for refusing to do the same. The
pattern of taxpayer-financed mendacity continued nearly every day under
the new regime, with lies about everything from the murder rate to the
Yes indeed - and
indeed the president of the USA (bolding added) "lies about
everything from the murder rate to the weather".
Here is more
(from a considerably longer list):
Created chaos at airports around the world and leading
universities and companies at home with the stroke of a pen. His ban on
people from seven Muslim-majority countries broke apart families,
stranded doctors and scholars, and prompted an early constitutional
crisis. When his executive order was halted by a court, he attacked the
independent judiciary, calling the Republican-appointed judge who
challenged him “a so-called judge.” He said blood would be on the hands
of courts that had defied him.
This last fact
(attacking the independent judiciary) was very authoritarian
and completely improper. It also fits my definition of neofascism to
Here is more:
Insulted one of the nation’s most revered civil rights
heroes on the eve of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, calling
Representative John Lewis “all talk, talk, talk — no action or
results,” and defaming the congressman’s city of Atlanta as a
crime-ridden hellhole. He used the holiday itself to brag about his
Electoral College victory and bash the press.
Attacked a major American retailer, Nordstrom, for dropping
a failing clothing line of his daughter’s. His top counselor, Kellyanne
Conway, used her White House position to urge people to buy these same
products from her boss’s daughter.
Quite so. And
Responded to general criticism, as well as questions about
the rise of anti-Semitic acts, with a boast about his Electoral College
win. “I comprehend very well, O.K.? Better than, I think, almost
And this again strongly
supports that he is a pathological
narcisssist: He Is Smarter Than "almost anybody", indeed in his
opinion, so far as I can see, In Everything That
Matters. (Which is just not sane: No one is.)
I skipped a
fair amount of - quite good - points, and arrived at the ending of the
You slap yourself. You douse your head with water. The
incompetence, the leaking, the daily indignities. What country is this?
Is this behavior normalized? There’s more.
As the first month was coming to a close, he held a news
conference and bragged about his Electoral College win while lying
about the margin’s place in history. His administration, he said, is a
smooth-running machine. “There’s zero chaos.” He spent the majority of
his time ranting about the press, then predicted the response:
“Tomorrow, they’ll be saying, ‘Donald Trump rants and raves at the
press.’ I’m not ranting and raving.”
Who would say
that a man who insists on these and very many other plain lies, falsehoods, and bullshit, if he
were the CEO of a major corporation, is sane?
I wouldn't (but the psychiatric professor Allen
Frances would, it seems ).
And this is a
4. Trump Vilifies Media—Except Outlets
That Follow His Narrative
The fourth item is by Juan Cole on Truthdig:
This starts as follows:
Yes, I agree that what Trump
dislikes about the media, that he now accuses of massive lying, is in fact "their refusal to adopt a white supremacist
editorial line", or more simply,
that he dislikes and will attack the media that do not
support him (as a genuine authoritarian president).
So Trump did rant and
rave at the press on Thursday. But not at all the press. He has never
attacked Breitbart, the vehicle for white supremacist falsehoods
piloted by his Rasputin, Neofascist Steve Bannon (White House chief of
strategy and National Security Council éminence grise).
And that is the real
significance of his accusation that the major corporate media outlets
are “fake news.” What he means by that is their refusal to adopt a
white supremacist editorial line.
He doesn’t actually mind
fake news, or he would fire Bannon and dissociate himself from
Breitbart, which is mostly filled with far-right racist falsehoods.
Here is more:
He minds the
mainstream media reporting on the spike in threats to synagogues since
he was inaugurated, and on his White House refusal to mention Jews in
his Holocaust message (“other people suffered”). That is why he was so
rude to Jake Turx of Ami magazine. Bannon and Trump
think the liberal Jewish elite are behind Fed monetary policy and
pro-immigration policy (i.e. the Jews are to blame for the Muslims).
Apparently so. Is the reason
perhaps that Jews and Muslims are Semites
(which - incidentally - is a classification of languages, and not
I skipped some I don't agree with, but I agree with this:
Yes, it is very
dangerous, simply because Trump now is the most powerful man on earth.
And I also agree with the following:
This is not cute, folks,
and for all the giggles it produces on the late night opening
monologues, it is extremely sinister.
When someone like Trump
moves the signposts on allowable public discourse, things can get ugly
Trump hopes to
keep the pressure on, by portraying independent news and commentary as
inherently false and unfair, and to use his shock troops to intimidate
the media into taking his line, which is to say, the Neofascist line.
I agree that Trump is a neofascist - and
I clearly defined that term (check out the last link if you
didn't already), and indeed decided on that definition before
about Trump and long before he became president (namely around
We Must #ResistTrump
The fifth item is by Bianca Jagger
(<-Wikipedia) on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows -
and yes, Bianca Jagger is an ex of Mick Jagger, and I know almost
nothing about her except what is in the Wikipedia, which taught me
she is not stupid, because she won a scholarship (on a small
income) to study political science in France:
On Monday 20th February
2017, thousands of people all over the UK will come together as part of
a 'Stop Trump' national day of action, to demand that the government
withdraw the invitation for a Donald Trump state visit. I will be
addressing the rally in Parliament Square which starts at 6 pm. I hope
you will join me there - or find your nearest rally. We must
#ResistTrump. Our future depends on it.
I doubt that plan will
succeed, but I also think it is a good occasion to protest
Then there is this:
I am deeply concerned at
the recent ascent of fascism, racism and misogyny. Trump's divisive
policies are a threat to world peace. He is leading the United States
into a dark era of isolationism; of contempt for human rights, for the
rule of law and for civil liberties; where racism and prejudice are
condoned; where sexual assault is endemic and committed with impunity;
where climate change is dismissed as 'just weather'; where the divide
between the one per cent and the rest of the world is driven wider and
wider in the name of profit and greed… Donald Trump will take us all
down with him—unless we resist him.
Quite so (except
that I think Trump is a neofascist
rather than a fascist).
And here is some about Theresa May, about whom there is more in the
article (and Bianca Jagger
holds a dual nationality, namely British and Nicaraguan):
After her US visit,
Theresa May travelled directly to Turkey. She described President
Erdogan as her 'indispensable partner.' Erdogan has committed a
litany of human rights violations: he has imprisoned
more journalists than any other world leader since the Committee to
Protect Journalists began keeping records. Theresa May should have
denounced him, not referred to him as a 'partner.' She hangs onto
alliances with Saudi
with some of the worst human right records in the world.
Again quite so.
The article ends as follows:
The Prime Minister seems
to have forgotten the shameful example of Neville Chamberlain’s policy
of appeasement before the Second World War. Her endorsement of
totalitarian regimes is a betrayal of our moral principles and it puts
the United Kingdom on the wrong side of history. I urge the Prime
Minister to reconsider before it is too late. I urge her not to grant
Donald Trump the honour of a State visit, to show global leadership,
take a stand against fascism, and withdraw the UK government’s
invitation to Trump.
I agree, although I do not
that Theresa May has the moral strength or the right ideas to do so,
and May is the one who will very probably decide this question. But it
is one good reason, among many, for the British to protest Trump.
And this is a recommended
Republicans, Where’s the Backbone?
The sixth and last item today is by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
I didn't see the fawning, but
the rest is
quite correct. Here is more, on "the Republican Party" or indeed on the
Republican members of the Senate and the House:
Republicans, we watched you at the White House Thursday. Just before
Donald Trump’s rambling, manic, often snarky press conference —
delivered more in the manner of a churlish insult comic than leader of
the free world — the president met with a group of you, a self-titled
“Trump caucus” of early supporters.
fawned over him like autograph hunters gushing over their favorite
Oh, brother. Has it come
down to this? The party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight
Eisenhower in the thrall of a petulant, impulsive, preening and
shamelessly amoral president who thinks Vladimir Putin is the apex of
Republicans, is this
really the legacy you choose?
How can you not take a
solid stand against an unhinged con man who in less than a month has
undermined fundamental constitutional liberties, thrown governance into
disorganized hell and possibly made decisions based on his desire to
please the leader of another country? (What’s he afraid that Putin
I think the question is a good
one, and that the probable answer is that many Republicans have been corrupted
to work for the rich, and the rich only.
Here is some more from near
the end of the article:
Yes indeed. And this is a
recommended article (though I don't agree on Russia ).
And so it went: Hemming
and hawing, backing and filling, their comments reminded us of
Watergate, a scandalous sequence of events that the two of us witnessed
firsthand, and thought — or hoped, at least — would be the worst
political and constitutional crisis of our lifetimes. This has the
potential to be much, much worse.
Now, once again, we find ourselves desperately counting on the courts
and an independent press to help protect us. We can’t depend on but a
handful of Republican senators and House members who have come forward.
They’ve called for more thorough investigations by the House and Senate
intelligence committees, and that’s a start, but in this current
Congress, it’s more than likely that a truly, impartial, transparent,
honest inquiry will be stymied and quashed.
And Trump may be the last
president of the USA for at least three reasons:
(1) he may blow up the world with nuclear arms; (2) if not, he may take
over power by himself and nominate himself as dictator (though he will
say Saviour); and if not that either (3) he and Bannon may so much
destroy the government that it will be a mere appendage to approve the
decisions of the CEOs of big corporations.
 This is one of the
characteristics of a pathological
narcissist who - among other things (I quote) "8. Is often envious of others or believes
that others are envious of him or her". But this is not so
according to psychiatric professor Allen Frances, who is the subject of
my next note:
thought about what I will say about Allen Frances, but decided to
repeat what I wrote earlier about him - and one point on which I, and 17
million others with ME/CFS
disagree with him is that most psychiatrists say that all of
these people, including myself and my ex, are not sane,
and namely because we say that we are ill, whereas medical
people cannot find anything wrong with us: For psychiatrists
that is sufficient to say that everyone with M.E. is a
psychosomatizer, that is in effect frauds.
Well... I (indeed as my ex) am in the 38th year of my illness,
in which I also made a brilliant B.A. in philosophy,
after which I was illegaly denied the right of doing an M.A. in
it because I was not a Marxist (!!) and
because I had criticized the University of Amsterdam, and then
made a brilliant M.A. in psychology, all without ever
going to lectures, because I simply could not, and also I could not
earn any money with my degrees (which I wanted very much)
because I was too ill.
But I was not ill, according to Frances and his psychiatrists,
because I was not sane, and because they said so I
- like most of the 17 million patients with ME/CFS - also was denied
all help: I am now surviving for the 38th year
with much less energy than healthy persons and with constant muscle
aches, on a less than minimal pension...
Here is what I wrote about him on February 5,
Then Allen Frances.
First, apparently I
must feel insulted because I am supposed to have a real
mental illness according to him (since a mere 38 years), namely
because I believe I am physically ill while doctors find no evidence
(and therefore I am crazy, according to Frances and his
psychiatrists: Medical science knows everything
there is to know about illness and therefore
people who claim a disease for which there is no evidence are clearly
Second, he quotes bullshit: "Most people with mental illness are
well-meaning, well- mannered and well-behaved", which is bullshit because "mental illness" is totally
ill- defined (there are 10 times more forms of supposed
"mental illness" now as there were in 1952, which shows
either that the APA's psychiatrists are extremely
liberal in saying such-and-such is a mental illness, or else
that they are and have been talking nonsense that favored their own
Third he invokes an
utterly arbitrary moral norm he invented: "bad people are labelled mentally ill, it
stigmatizes mental illness" - I
assume because he assumes that "mentally ill" people are not
stigmatized (which is an utter lie) and are not
"bad" (which just is bullshit, for badness is a
personal value and a personal judgement, and not a
Here is more bullshit by Frances:
Can you explain
why Trump doesn't fit the criteria for narcissism?
In order to qualify for a
mental disorder you not only have to have the personality features, you
also have to have clinically significant distress or impairment caused
by them. Trump causes distress, but there is no evidence that he
experiences it. And instead of being impaired by his narcissistic
behavior, he is rewarded for it, to the extent of being elected
president of the United States.
This is utter bullshit because Frances cannot deny that the
criterions he himself formulated for a Narcissistic Personality
Disorder do apply to Donald Trump - as I myself and tenthousand
other psychologists and psychiatrists also inferred.
Now if you are a person without power and it
turns out that tenthousand or more psychologists and psychiatrists agree
that you have some form of insanity, then you - very probably -
will be supposed to have that form of insanity. 
But not if you are
a person with power. Then it becomes suddenly also
necessary that you not only have all "the personality features"
(which Trump has), but also a "clinically significant
distress (..) caused by them".
And "there is no evidence that he experiences it" (if only because he does not want
to be investigated by psychiatrists or psychologists).
Therefore - according to Allen Frances - Trump is not
mad (though Frances doesn't like Trump, and also does not
disagree he satisfies all the criterions that Frances himself
compiled as a diagnosis for having a Narcissistic Personality
Incidentally (and I am now back on Feb 18, 2017) not all medics
agree with Frances, and I received the day before
yesterday a long medical and biochemical paper by 17 Norwegian
doctors and biochemists:
In fact, this is biochemistry
and medicine, and probably too difficult for most, but it is also based
on some 200 patients compared with some 100 healthy persons,
and documents many biochemical differences
between people with ME/CFS and healthy people. I think myself this is
is very probably correct, although more work is also necessary. (By the
way: some of the same medical doctors cured two out of three people -
in a considerably larger group of seriously ill patients - with serious
M.E. with Rituximab,
which is both very expensive and somewhat risky.)
Why doesn't Frances say these medical and biochemical
people are not sane? (They all
work in Norwegian hospitals or universities.) For the same reason as he
denies that Trump is a pathological
narcissist (while agreeing he is a narcissist on his own
criterions, for Frances edited the DSM-IV
Because they are too powerful to
risk offending them.
And please note that it are especially
the opinions of hundreds of psychiatrists, ever since 1980,
when their stunning slander of people with M.E. started, who insisted
that medical research into ME/CFS is not necessary, simply
because they "know" (by circular argumentation) that they are not
ill but are psychomatizing.
Therefore extremely little scientific research was
done into ME/CFS the last 38 years.
It is my guess that the above paper will change that but I am meanwhile
66, so this
research will probably arrive too late at medicines which will help me.
Thank you very much for your active collaboration in ruining my
life, and that of some 17 million ill others, doctor Allen
 As to Russia's supposed interference
(by hacking) in the American elections: I have seen many articles that
claim so, but I also know that there is no real evidence for it,
as outlined by several former NSA or CIA members, namely by William
Binney and Ray
McGovern (<-both on Wkipedia), who very well know what
evidence is, and that it is lacking in this case.
This doesn't mean the Russians don't hack; it does mean that there is
no evidence (while the story they did takes away many of the failures
of Hillary Clinton).