February 22, 2019

Crisis: On Trump's Madness, A Climate Denier, Go Fuck Yourself, On E-Mails in the USA, Republicans

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous, than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
  -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.



1. Summary
Crisis Files
     A. Selections from February 22, 2019

This is a Nederlog of Friday, February 22, 2019.

1. Summary

This is a crisis log but it is a bit different from how it was until 2013:

I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch, but since 2010 in English) and about the enormous dangers of surveillance (by secret services and by many rich commercial entities) since June 10, 2013, and I will continue with it.

On the moment and since more than three years (!!!!) I have problems with the company that is supposed to take care that my site is visible [1] and with my health, but I am still writing a Nederlog every day and I shall continue.

2. Crisis Files

These are five crisis files that are mostly well worth reading:

. Selections from February 22, 2019:
1. Crazy in Gov: Why Won’t the Media Discuss Trump’s Mental Instability?
2. Climate Denier to Head New Trump Panel

3. ‘Go fuck yourself, you tiny brain’

4. The Government Cannot Force E-mail Companies to Copy and Save Your

5. How Republicans trained their base to ignore Trump's criminality
The items 1 - 5 are today's selections from the 35 sites that I look at every morning. The indented text under each link is quoted from the link that starts the item. Unindented text is by me:

1. Crazy in Gov: Why Won’t the Media Discuss Trump’s Mental Instability?

This article is by Mehdi Hasan on The Intercept.

In fact, this article poses a question that I am quite interested in, because I am a psychologist who agrees with many other psychologists and psychiatrists that Trump is insane. I agree with the assumption of the question, and I also insist that I know more from psychology than anyone who has not studied that for six years (which I do because totally anonymous persons, but certainly without any university education, denied that).

Also, I am treating this article in more detail than I usually do, because it treats important questions that I am qualified to treat, that as Hasan said in his title, are rarely properly treated. And I like to say that I quite agree with Hasan's takes, although he is not a psychologist.

Anyway. The article starts as follows:

Donald Trump’s Rose Garden speech last week announcing his emergency declaration over the “crisis” at the southern border was rambling, incoherent, and unhinged: in short, everything we’ve come to expect from the 45th president of the United States. There has never been a president quite like Trump: the all-caps tweets; his obsession with election results and crowd sizes; his bragging, his boasting, his childish point-scoring. And yet journalists treat him like any other politician instead of stating the obvious: Donald Trump’s mental unfitness for office makes him a dangerous president. Almost half of the country agrees, and plenty of Republicans, including Sens. Bob Corker and Jeb Bush, have expressed concern about his mental stability. To discuss the situation and where we go from here, Mehdi Hasan is joined by Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a psychiatrist at the Yale School of Medicine, and by Trump’s biographer, David Cay Johnston.

David Cay Johnston: Donald has always been deeply mentally ill. He literally believes that he should be running not just the U.S. but the whole world, that the rest of us are all fools and idiots, and that he is genetically superior.

Yes, I completely agree with the first paragraph.

The reason is mostly that I first got a clear and rational statement on Trump's sayings and doings from a psychological and psychiatric point of view in March of 2016 - see here - and since I am a psychologist and since the basis for a psychiatric diagnosis is in observational terms, I could easily and quickly verify that diagnosis, which was that Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder (better known to non-psychiatrists as megalomania) - and the last link is to a diagnosis by psychiatrists from November 2016.

I think I also agree with David Cay Johnston, but I have not had the patience to try to verify Johnston statements (but he does know a great amount about Trump).

Here is some more:

Mehdi Hasan:  (..) With Donald Trump having declared a fake national emergency in order to seize more and more presidential power for himself, now might be a time to revisit a rather important question: Is this man mentally fit to hold such high office? To exercise so much power?

Bandy Lee: If you have someone saying they are a very stable genius, you would especially wonder about their mental health.

Clearly, my own inference - back in March of 2016 - was that a man who is as mad as Trump is not mentally fit to hold such a high office. I also agree with Bandy Lee, but that is mostly a symptom.

Here is more:

DCJ: From the beginning, I have said that Donald is a clear and present danger to the safety not just of the U.S. but of the world.

MH: That was David Cay Johnston, Trump biographer and author of the recent book “It’s Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration is Doing to America.” So, on this week’s Deconstructed, Donald Trump isn’t a well man. Why aren’t we talking about this?
Because, in my mind, no coverage of Donald Trump can be complete or accurate without a clear acknowledgment, every time, of three things: that he’s a racist, that’s he’s a liar, and, above all else, that he’s mentally unstable. At best, he’s not a well man, at worst, he’s unhinged. He’s bonkers. I mean, how can you miss what’s staring you in the face? How can you fail to mention that the president you’re reporting on is off his rocker in so many different ways?

I do completely agree with what Johnston says, and I also agree with Mehdi Hasan, but with a slight qualification, which is that in fact few people but psychologists and psychiatrists have a (somewhat) clear idea what madness is, how it manifests itself, what kinds of madness there are, and how they can be diagnosed.

And besides, it is also true that there are many theories in psychology and psychiatry; that in the time I was becoming a psychologist in Holland, the dominant opinion of most psychologists was that psychiatry is not a real science, with which I completely agree; and besides that sanity and madness tend to be judged by non-specialists mostly by status (apart from complete collapses), which means that the rich or the famous are much less likely to be said to be crazy (or mad, or insane) than the non-rich and the non-famous.

Also, few non-psychologists and non-psychiatrists ever have been faced by somebody who clearly was not sane while they got fairly precise explanations why he or she was not sane, what ailed him or her, and how this could be recognized.

Here is more:

MH: To not mention the batshit craziness with which Trump approaches issues of huge importance like a national emergency, to turn a blind eye to the way he behaves in front of all of us, is journalistic dereliction of duty. It’s media malpractice. In the words of Esquire magazine: “Over and over again, reporters sit through an incomprehensible deluge of various phrase-like objects and unfinished sentences and then stand up, one by one, to ask this guy about his China policy or whatever.

I agree almost completely with Hasan, with one fairly smally qualification: I am rather certain that few journalists know a lot of psychology or psychiatry.

Here is more Hasan:

And you know what: when I hear top Democrats in Congress talking about doing deals with this president on infrastructure or immigration reform, I think: what on earth are you saying? The guy can’t be trusted or negotiated with because the guy isn’t all there and your priority, as Democrats, should be to try and contain the damage he’s already doing while working out how to get rid of him from office before he does something really crazy with all those powers that he absurdly possesses.

I again agree almost completely, with the same qualification as above.

There has never been a president like Trump, in fact there are few human beings like Trump — the all caps tweets; the obsession with the election result and his crowd size; the constant comparisons with Obama; his complete lack of human empathy; his inability to show any kind of sensitivity or humanity in times of tragedy; his constant references to himself in the third person; his bragging, his boasting, his childish point-scoring; his child-like attention span; his slurring of speech, his rambling incoherent answers to the simplest of questions; his inability to retain new information, basic facts and figures; his unwillingness to read anything; the narcissism, the egomania; his delusions about the world, about how he’s seen by the rest of the world. The deep-seated paranoia and insecurity, the angry rants, the ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Yes, I agree again with Hasan, except - perhaps - on slurred speech, which may have many causes (though I agree it also may indicate he is getting worse).

Here is more:

Bob Corker: The president has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability, nor some of the competence, that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful.

MH: Corker went on to describe the White House as an “adult day care center” and accused an erratic and reckless Trump of leading the United States “on the path to World War III.” Republican Senator Susan Collins was caught on a hot mic saying she was worried about Trump’s mental health. And a number of serving Trump administration officials from the infamously anonymous author of that op-ed in the New York Times, to the folks who spoke to Michael Wolfe for his book “Fire and Fury” and to Bob Woodward for his book “Fear” have confirmed that Trump’s mental state is regularly discussed inside the White House. In fact, Woodward quotes then White House chief of staff General John Kelly as telling colleagues: “He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown.” Yeah, Crazytown.

Yes, again I agree with both Corker and Hasan. Here is more:

MH: Look, there’s clearly something wrong with him. And that we can’t say for sure whether the president of the United States is mentally impaired or not should scare the shit out of all of us. That there is no mechanism for determining, once and for all, officially, medically, whether or not he is mentally impaired should scare the shit out of all of us. And that the only constitutional mechanism designed for dealing with a mentally impaired or incapable president is the 25th amendment, which ludicrously requires the vice-president, a majority of Trump’s cabinet and two-thirds of Congress to get onboard with removing him, should the scare the shit out of all of us. Because an unhinged president is a clear and present danger to us all.

Yes, I agree again with Hasan, but I do have one psychological note: I am a psychologist, and I verified in the beginning of 2016 that Trump indeed does satisfy 9 out of 9 behavorial criterions that are used to diagnose a narcissistic personality disorder.

Also, I think that is the best that psychiatrists or psychologists have to offer these days which, although it does not amount to certainty it does explain many of the very evident oddities in Trump's judgements.

MH: My next guest is David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and author of two books on Donald Trump: “The Making of Donald Trump” and “It’s Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration is Doing to America.” He’s been covering this president and has known this president for more than three decades. If anyone knows what’s going on inside Trump’s head. It’s David Cay Johnston.

I like David Cay Johnston, who has been studying Trump for decades. Here is some more by him:

DCJ: Well, Donald has always been deeply mentally ill. He literally believes that he should be running not just the U.S. but the whole world, that the rest of us are all fools and idiots, and that he is genetically superior. In fact, he and members of his family have talked about the Trump horse race breeding theory of genetics. And they’re just smarter and more informed than the rest of us. And you know, he claims to be the world’s greatest expert on about, I think, it’s 22 subjects now.

MH: Yeah, nobody knows more than me about nuclear. Nobody knows more than me about etcetera, etcetera.

DCJ: That’s right, and then he proceeds to demonstrate that he’s a complete know-nothing on these things.

Well, I simply do not know enough about Trump to say that he "has always been deeply mentally ill" (though he may be).

As to Trump being a genius who claims "to be the world’s greatest expert on about, I think, it’s 22 subjects now": If that were true, he would be at least 7 times smarter, more knowledgable etc. than Leonardo da Vinci, who is the only person known to me who very probably was a genius in three subjects.

And clearly (for intelligent men) Trump is not a genius at all, but he is a megalomaniac, all of whom vastly overestimate and exaggerate their abilities.

Here is more:

MH: (..) You can take Mueller. You can take all the stuff that’s going — the racism, the prolific dishonesty, but ultimately, it comes down to we all know that this man shouldn’t have his finger on the nuclear button. And every night, we go to bed and we wake up in the morning and we think you know, he could destroy the world any moment. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that.

DCJ: No, it is not at all. This is a man who’s threatened to kill all 25 million people in North Korea and that anyone would even imagine doing that is as crazy as his belief that Kim Jong-Un would ever give up his nuclear weapons —

MH: And then he went to the other extreme and said “I love him. He’s sending me love letters.” It’s that erratic behavior that’s so bizarre.

DCJ: And it goes to the fact that Donald has a completely unstructured mind. He never studied. He never learns anything. In my book “The Making of Donald Trump,” I give people just killer examples of where he should have said “Oh, I’ve got a better answer for that,” but he didn’t learn. Donald creates his own reality. Whatever he says to him, that’s the truth at the moment. It has nothing to do with actual objective facts.

MH: That is deeply depressing. David Cay Johnston, we’ll have to leave it there.

Yes, I agree with Hasan that "we wake up in the morning and we think you know, he could destroy the world any moment. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that." - and no, I do not think that is "an exaggeration".

And I think Johnston is correct about Trump in the above quotation. Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:

MH: We’ve got to stop tip-toeing around this issue. It matters. He’s in need of help. It’s obvious to anyone who pays any attention to him, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or is just as deluded as Trump himself. He is a danger to this country and to the wider world. It’s just that undeniable. I’ll leave you with the words of journalist Andrew Sullivan, writing in 2017 about the madness of King Donald: “When the linchpin of an entire country is literally delusional, clinically deceptive, and responds to any attempt to correct the record with rage and vengeance, everyone is always on edge,” Sullivan wrote in New York Magazine. “There is no anchor any more. At the core of the administration of the most powerful country on earth, there is, instead, madness.”

I mostly agree with both Hasan and Sullivan, and this is a very strongly recommended article, in which there is considerably more than I quoted.

2. Climate Denier to Head New Trump Panel

This article is by Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh on Democracy Now! It starts with the following introduction:

The White House is reportedly organizing a new committee to examine whether climate change poses a threat to national security, to be led by notorious climate change denier, Princeton University professor emeritus William Happer. Observers say his involvement in the “Presidential Committee on Climate Security” indicates the Trump administration wants to undermine findings within the national security community that climate change poses a severe threat to human safety. William Happer is a National Security Council senior director who has long claimed increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will actually benefit humans. He has compared the fight against climate change to the Holocaust, saying, “The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.” We speak with journalist David Wallace-Wells, deputy editor and climate columnist for New York magazine. His new book is titled “The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming.”

I agree with Amy Goodman that nominating William Happer to a top position on "the “Presidential Committee on Climate Security” indicates the Trump administration wants to undermine findings within the national security community that climate change poses a severe threat to human safety".

Also, the difference between carbon dioxide and Jews is that six million Jews were often very cruelly murdered by the Nazis, whereas carbon dioxide is just a gas, for which reason it is my guess that Happer also is an anti-semite.

Here is some more on the last issue:

NERMEEN SHAIKH: (...) William Happer is a National Security Council senior director who has long claimed increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will actually benefit humans. In a 2017 interview published in The Guardian, Happer said, quote, “There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant.” Happer also has served on the board of the CO2 Coalition, which cites as its mission educating policy leaders and the public about, quote, “the important contribution made by carbon dioxide and fossil fuels.” He has also compared the fight against climate change to the Holocaust. This is Happer speaking on CNBC with Andrew Ross Sorkin in 2014.

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: You made a comment back in 2009 comparing climate change to the Holocaust. And my question is: Are you suggesting, when you made that comment, that climatologists and climate scientists are the equivalent of Hitler and Nazis? I mean, that’s what it seems like you were trying to say.

WILLIAM HAPPER: Yeah, you know, I get called a denier, and anyone who objects to all of the hype gets called a denier. That’s supposed to make me a Holocaust denier. You know, I’m getting tired of that. And the comment I made was, the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler. Carbon dioxide is actually a benefit to the world, and so were the Jews.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s William Happer, defending his statement that, quote, “The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.” Dr. Happer also supports prohibiting federally funded scientists from communicating their findings to the public.

In spite of Happer's phrase "poor Jews", Sorkin is quite correct in saying that Happer's words do imply that "climatologists and climate scientists are the equivalent of Hitler and Nazis" (and besides they are "glassy-eyed and they chant", and Happer's answer avoids answering that logical implication.

Here is some more:

AMY GOODMAN: (...) So, why this committee?

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, I think you put your finger right on it, which is that they want to discredit those findings. And it seems like they’re looking for people not just who hold their same ideology, that they’re disinterested in climate, but that they are going to irritate the liberals who are watching this very closely. I don’t see why else you’d pick someone like this to be a part of this committee.

I completely agree. Here is the last bit from this article that I quote:

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: (..) Climate change is an all-encompassing threat. It touches every aspect of life on the planet. And many of those impacts are going to be damaging, so there’s a cost to economic growth. Economists believe that if we don’t change course on climate change, we’ll have a global GDP that’s at least 20 percent smaller, and maybe 30 percent smaller, than we would without climate change. There’s the cost of public health. There’s the impact of drought and agricultural yields. Again, if we get to 4 degrees by the end of the century, we might have grain yields that are half as bountiful as we would without them, which means we’d have to feed 50 percent more people and have half as much grain to give them.
Yes, I agree and this is a recommended article.

3. ‘Go fuck yourself, you tiny brain’

This article is by Alex Henderson on AlterNet. I abbreviated the title, and wrote "fuck" for "f..." because I think that abbreviation is quite crazy (and I am an adult). This is from near its beginning:

Bregman, speaking from Amsterdam, told Carlson that “the vast majority of Americans, for years and years now, according to the polls—including Fox News viewers and Republicans—are in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Higher inheritance taxes, higher top marginal tax rates, higher wealth taxes. It’s all really mainstream.”
At that point, Carlson was relatively friendly—even making Bregman’s point by saying, “I don’t think Netflix, for example, paid any taxes last year at all.” And Bregman noted that during the 1950s—which he described as “the golden age of capitalism”—the ultra-rich paid a top marginal tax rate of “about 70, 80, 90%, actually, under Eisenhower, the Republican president.”

But things grew unpleasant after Bregman began to criticize the Trump Administration, Rupert Murdoch and Republicans who would rather “scapegoat immigrants instead of talking about tax avoidance.” Describing Carlson as a “millionaire funded by billionaires,” the historian told him, “You’re not part of the solution, Mr. Carlson. You’re part of the problem, actually.”

Yes, quite so (and I admit that I review this article in part because Bregman is Dutch).

Here is Carlson's answer:

Carlson threw a temper tantrum, telling Bregman, “I want to say to you, ‘Why don’t you go fuck yourself, you tiny brain?’ And I hope this gets picked up because you’re a moron. I tried to give you a hearing, but you were too fucking annoying.”

Sounding amused, Bregman responded, “You can’t handle the criticism, can you?”

Bregman is clearly quite right and this is a recommended article.

4. The Government Cannot Force E-mail Companies to Copy and Save Your Account

This article is by Melodi Dincer and Kristin M. Mulvey on Common Dreams and originally on SpeakFreely/ACLU. I abbreviated the title. It starts as follows:
Paper letters have a final resting stop — whomever they are addressed to. From a practical standpoint, and a legal one, that feature of regular mail made understanding and applying privacy protections relatively straightforward. But as our communication technologies have changed, courts have struggled to grant a similar degree of privacy protection to communications in the modern era.

Digital communications present new problems. For example, your email does not live in your letterbox but in an online repository operated by a private company. And as digital communications like email and social media become more ubiquitous in society, investigators increasingly rely on them as important sources of evidence.

Making sure that email gets proper Fourth Amendment protection is one of the ACLU’s priorities. So on Tuesday, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that calls attention to a little-known statute that appears to be giving law enforcement an unconstitutional loophole to exploit in its pursuit of digital evidence. The case involves the warrantless use of law enforcement preservation demands to force email providers to copy and keep an individual’s private communications for up to half a year — without ever asking a judge or meeting a standard of suspicion.

Yes, I think all of the above is correct, although I want to make some points about the differences between e-mail and (paper) posts.

The Fourth Amendment (to the American Constitution) is about posts (for there was no e-mail in the 18th Century) and reads thus:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think that was (and is) quite fair - which means for me that e-mails, as they have been treated from the beginning, which is as pure non-codified text that moves on electric lines, had the strong possibility of being stolen and read by others.

That is precisely what has happened, and to the best of my knowledge at present there are over a 100 secret services and over a 100 rich corporations which steal - it seems - all e-mails from anyone to anyone, and analyze them for various purposes, that is, for checking terrorism (is the claim by national securities - anonymous spies with lots of power and money - from anywhere) in the case of the secret services, to which may be added the possibility of controlling absolutely everybody, which seems the real purpose, to advertising persons with things they want, and besides knowing everything or most things from nearly everybody.

Again, it seems to me very probable that this stealing of all e-mails (and everything else that is on line, and most things that are on internet computers) was the real point why the DARPA - America's Defense - did develop the World Wide Web: To get the complete control over anybody.

In fact, this may be checked by reading Brzezinski in 1968/1969 (before there were any personal computers) who predicted and/or wanted precisely that: Full control over everyone, as you can read here. And he also got it, from the beginning of the WWW.

Next, while I agree with the ACLU, I myself go considerably further: I think it is a very major scandal that the internet has been explicitly designed to spy on everyone, and I also think that the whole internet must be fundamentally changed to prevent that.

Here is some more on what the ACLU wants

Unlike the postal service, which merely transmits mail from one address to another, email and social media providers create instant, exact copies of all transmitted messages. Section 2703(f) takes advantage of the stored nature of digital communications by requiring providers to actively copy and store communications and other account data, interfering with the owner’s privacy and property rights and creating a database of private information kept just in case law enforcement decides to come back with a warrant later.

Yes indeed, for this is in fundamental disagreement with the Fourth Amendment - which still is the law in the USA, although this law gets broken probably a billion times a day merely in the USA.

Here is some more:

Section 2703(f) permits warrantless seizure of private account data as it allows investigators to force providers to freeze copies of entire accounts wholesale, without describing what specific information is relevant to their investigation. Providers regularly receive tens to hundreds of thousands of 2703(f) demands without ever seeing a warrant.

And therefore section 2703(f) is grossly (and very probably intentionally) inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:

The Fourth Amendment balances our rights in our communications online and the goals of efficient law enforcement. When it comes to section 2703(f) of the SCA, however, the government undermines that balance by avoiding the requirements of the Fourth Amendment altogether. To seize and search our digital accounts outside an exigent circumstance, whether it takes nine hours or 90 days, the government must get a warrant first.

I agree - but as I said, the Fourth Amendment gets systematically raped at least a billion time every day in the USA, and has been systematically raped from the very start of the WWW. And this is a strongly recommended article.

5. How Republicans trained their base to ignore Trump's criminality

This article is by Amanda Marcotte on Salon. I abbreviated the title. It starts as follows:

With great fanfare, the New York Times published a major feature on Tuesday headlined "Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump’s Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him." This investigative report chronicled  a truly breathtaking pattern of Donald Trump acting about as guilty and corrupt as a human being can: Firing anyone he fears might expose him, hiring loyalists and pressuring them to cover up for him, encouraging associates to commit perjury on his behalf, intimidating witnesses, lobbing false accusations, bullying congressmen into covering for him -- the list goes on.

Anyone who dropped into American politics after having been out of it for the past five years would be floored, wondering how on earth Trump and his associates aren't in jail already.

Yes, I quite agree, and also mention that Edward Snowden's revelations reached me on June 10, 2013, which is a little more than 5 years ago, whereas my own Crisis: Christmas sermon: Hypotheses about CF+SS is from December 2012 (and is very strongly recommended).

Here is some more:

Anyone who wasn't already convinced that Trump is a corrupt criminal will be unmoved. We still have to wait to find out whether Trump has lost even the tiny fraction of voters necessary to kick him out of office in 2020. We've got two more years of this: Stories about Trump's corruption and criminality that should shock everyone but won't, Trump voters blithely dismissing the overwhelming evidence against him as "fake news" and people who see the truth standing by, helpless to change things.

Possibly so, but then I also should add that (i) Trump was elected as president and that (ii) this was mainly because so many Americans are stupid or ignorant.

Here is more:

The key to Trump's defense with his base, I would argue, is not that he tries to convince them he's innocent, at least not in the traditional sense of "someone who didn't do the crimes he's suspected of." Instead, the strategy is to suggest that all politicians are corrupt, everyone is complicit and therefore all investigations are just bad-faith power grabs conducted for purely partisan reasons.

That strategy is working with Trump's base because that's exactly the message Republicans have been instilling in their voters for decades.

Perhaps. Here is some more:

Remember, the structural advantages Republicans enjoy under our electoral system means they don't really have to win voters outside their base to hold power. And their base simply doesn't care if the party's leaders are criminals. That's a deadly combination, one that suggests that the age of Trump won't really be over even when he's finally out of office.

Again perhaps. And this is a recommended article.

[1] I have now been saying since the end of 2015 that is systematically ruining my site by NOT updating it within a few seconds, as it did between 1996 and 2015, but by updating it between two to seven days later, that is, if I am lucky.

They have claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie. They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.

And they just don't care for my site, my interests, my values or my ideas. They have behaved now for 2 years as if they are the eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I will from now on suppose they are (for truth is dead in Holland).

The only two reasons I remain with xs4all is that my site has been there since 1996, and I have no reasons whatsoever to suppose that any other Dutch provider is any better (!!).
       home - index - summaries - mail