1. The Scheme to Take Down Trump
2. We Were Warned About Barack Obama—by Obama Himself
3. It Can Happen Here
4. If Anyone ‘Rigged’ the Presidential Election, It Was Goldman
5. Two fine videos with Chris Hedges
This is a Nederlog of January 15, 2017.
This is a crisis log with 5 items and 6 dotted links: Item 1 is about a schema that seems directed towards taking Trump down as president of the USA, and it is one that
seems to be played by the USA's (very secretive) intelligence services; item 2 is about the qualities of Obama, which are negative (in my estimate): He is an insincere liar (which he does very well, with lots of charm) who speaks as if he is a "leftie" and acts and signs and regulates as if he is pro rich; item 3 is about the fact that "it can happen here" (in the USA): nominating a right-wing nationalist regime; item 4 is about the real winners of the elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 (at least): Goldman Sachs; and item 5 is not about written text but about two fine videos with Chris Hedges.
My providers did - to my considerable amazement - both do OK the
day before yesterday (which is the first time in several
months: thence my
amazement), but yesterday
xs4all.nl went wrong once again, as
they or some secret service have been doing most of the last year,
while today xs4all is OK, whereas on one.com it is again December 31,
2015 (and it has been correctly uploaded every single day since December 31, 2015 by me) ...
And incidentally: I can
get rid of "December 31 2015" in Denmark (which the provider regularly
shows, much rather than the current date, although it meanwhile is 2017
and I published many megabytes since 2015, also on every day) by
clicking on the rightmost globe, do this again on the new screen, and then again on any central globe (...
and I am deeply sorry, but this is the level of utter idiocy
that I am reduced to, either by my providers or by supermen from some
secret service(s) from
1. The Scheme to Take Down Trump
The first item is by Daniel Lazare on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
Is a military coup in the works? Or are U.S. intelligence agencies
laying the political groundwork for forcing Donald Trump from the
presidency because they can’t abide his rejection of a new cold war with
Russia? Not long ago, even asking such questions would have marked one
as the sort of paranoid nut who believes that lizard people run the government. But no longer.
Yes indeed, although I should add immediately that the 35-page dossier on Trump in Moscow is completely without any evidence. And I don't side with Trump here: I side with Binney, McGovern, Snowden etc.
Thanks to the now-notorious 35-page dossier concerning Donald Trump’s
alleged sexual improprieties in a Moscow luxury hotel, it’s clear that
strange maneuverings are underway in Washington and that no one is quite
sure how they will end.
And another point of my own that I should add immediately is that I am
a psychologist who thinks Trump is mad (insane, crazy) which I do for
precisely the same reasons as the three American professors of
psychiatry who wrote Obama about it: Check the last link - the letter
of the professors of psychiatry - if you didn't do so already.
The third point I should add is that my position may be a bit different
from the ordinary leftist or "leftist"  point of view:
I think it very important that Trump gets removed before he blows up everyone with nuclear arms in a fit of insane rage. And so in this sense I am more on the - supposed - side of the U.S. intelligence agencies than on Trump's side or on the side of the leftists and the "leftists": You cannot have a temperamental ignorant and childish madman as president of the USA, and the sooner he is removed the better it is.
Having clarified my own position, here is more from this article:
As The New York Times noted, “putting the summary in a report that went to multiple people in Congress and the executive branch made it very likely that it would be leaked” (emphasis
in the original). So even if the “intelligence community” didn’t leak
the dossier itself, it distributed it knowing that someone else would.
I quote this because this summarizes the views of The New York Times and The Guardian, and both are - in my opinion - good examples of "leftish" (not: leftist ) mainstream media that often lie, deceive and propagandize.
Then there is the Guardian, second to none in its loathing
for Trump and Vladimir Putin and hence intent on giving the dossier the
best possible spin. It printed a quasi-defense not of the memo itself
but of the man who wrote it: Christopher Steele, an ex-MI6 officer who
now heads his own private intelligence firm. “A sober, cautious and
meticulous professional with a formidable record” is how the Guardian described him.
The Guardian got awarded that characteristic by me after its horrible
new chief editor, after it made copying impossible, after its extremely
blind Blairite (<-Wikiepda) attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, and after they started to ask
extra money for themselves for their doing proper investigative
reporting: They totally collapsed, indeed just as did the Dutch NRC-Handelsblad since 2010 (which I read, mostly with pleasure, from 1970 till 2008: it once was a decent paper, but these days are fully past).
There is this on Trump's reactions to the Buzzfeed dossier:
If so, the gambit failed when Trump, in his usual high-voltage manner, denounced
the dossier as “fake news” and sailed into the intelligence agencies
for behaving like something out of “Nazi Germany.” The intelligence
community’s hopes, if that’s what they were, were dashed.
All of which is thoroughly unprecedented by American political
standards. After all, this is a country that takes endless pride in the
peaceful transfer of power every four years or so. Yet here was the
intelligence community attempting to short-circuit the process by
engineering Trump’s removal before he even took office.
Perhaps. For one thing, I consider the reference to the American "endless pride in the
peaceful transfer of power every four years" utterly ridiculous in any somewhat decent democracy. And I don't know
that the intelligence folks  are trying to engineer Trump's removal
as president, though I agree this seems a fair hypothesis.
I skip several paragraphs on The Guardian's frauds (I like them, but reserve them for your possible interests) and turn to the ending of the article:
Yes, I basically agree with this. And indeed I have a somewhat sharper version of "the big question": Will the mostly secret intelligence services succeed in removing Trump (or taking him out, quite possibly as JFK was taken out) before Trump blows up the world?
This is very serious. U.S. foreign policy has been marked by a high
degree of continuity since World War II as Republican and Democratic
presidents alike pledged to uphold the imperial agenda. But Trump, as
radical in his way as William Jennings Bryan was in 1896 or Henry A.
Wallace in 1948, is bucking the consensus to an unprecedented degree.
Even though its policies have led to disaster after disaster, the
foreign-policy establishment is aghast. Consequently, it is frantically
searching for a way to prevent him from carrying his ideas out. The
intelligence agencies appear to be running out of time with the
inauguration only a few days away. But that doesn’t mean they’re giving
up. All it means, rather, is that they’ll go deeper underground. Trump
may enter the White House on Jan. 20. But the big question is how long
And since I think that is what it comes down to, in this matter I find myself sided with
the U.S. intelligence services: These are extremely bad in my opinion, but they have one great advantage Trump lacks: They are not mad.
This is a recommended article.
2. We Were Warned About Barack Obama—by Obama Himself
The second item is by Paul Street on Truthdig:
This is from near the beginning and is from a
man who saw how bad Obama very probably would be as president (and I
agree he was) for a long time before Obama got to be president:
Yes indeed, and should say at the beginning that I agree with Paul Street, and that
But how reasonable was it for “lefties” to have been disappointed by
Obama’s noxious service to the rich and powerful? Many smart writers and
activists—and not just supposedly wild-eyed left radicals like me—had
tried to tell the world about Obama’s allegiance to the nation’s
interrelated, unelected, deep-state dictatorships of money, race, class and empire.
“It’s not always clear what Obama’s financial backers want,” the
progressive journalist Ken Silverstein noted in a Harper’s Magazine
report titled “Obama, Inc.”
in the fall of 2006, “but it seems safe to conclude that his campaign
contributors are not interested merely in clean government and political
I also was taken in by Obama's first inaugural speech, indeed - I
believe - in considerable part because I had no fast internet until the
summer of 2009, but then I also rapidly woke up about Obama's real qualities as soon as I got fast
And Silverstein saw it correctly in 2006, and what he (and some others) saw then was this:
Obama’s allegiance to the American business elite was evident from the
get-go. This was well understood by the K Street insiders Silverstein
interviewed in the fall of 2006. It was grasped by the liberal
journalist and New Yorker writer Larissa MacFarquhar
in spring 2007. “In his view of history, in his respect for tradition,
in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very
slowly,” MacFarquhar wrote after extensive interviews with candidate
Obama in May of 2007, “Obama is deeply conservative. There are moments
when he sounds almost Burkean. … It’s not just that he thinks
revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their
own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good.”
And there is this on one of the worst men who is alive, Robert Rubin:
(..) one of the many clues on the coming neoliberal, Wall Street-vetted
nature of Obama’s presidency came when he affiliated himself from the
start with The Hamilton Project
(THP), a key neoliberal Washington, D.C., think tank. THP was founded
with Goldman Sachs funding inside the venerable centrist and
Democratic-leaning Brookings Institution in spring 2006. Its creator was
no less august a ruling class personage than Robert Rubin, the former
Goldman Sachs CEO who served as Bill Clinton’s top senior economic
policy adviser and treasury secretary. A legendary Democratic Party
“kingmaker” who is often half-jokingly called “the wizard behind the
curtain” of Democratic economic policy, Rubin was the veritable
godfather of late 20th century and early 21st century U.S.
neoliberalism. In accord with the “Rubinomics”
trilogy of balanced budgets, free trade and financial deregulation,
Clinton joined with corporate Democrats and Republicans to enact the
great job-killing and anti-labor North American Free Trade Agreement,
slash government spending, eliminate restrictions on interstate banking,
repeal the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act (which had separated commercial from
investment banking), and prevent the regulation of toxic
“over-the-counter” financial derivatives (with the so-called Commodity
Futures Modernization Act).
Precisely! Bill Clinton was a fake "leftist" precisely
as Obama was (which on their level of government amounts to: Their
speeches, words and media-appearances all look "leftish" and are designed to do so; their
laws, signatures and regulations nearly all served the rich, who also
made Bill Clinton a multi-millionaire after his presidency, which is the probable same reward Obama is waiting for ).
Here is more on Obama's duplicity:
U.S. Senator Barack Obama was the keynote speaker at THP’s opening event
in April 2006. Beginning with a special nod of thanks to “the wizard”
(Rubin, who sat two chairs to his right), Obama praised Rubin and other
Clinton administration veterans in the room. He lauded them for having
“taken on entrenched interests” to “put us on the pathway to a
prosperity we are still enjoying.”
There is more on Obama's duplicity that I reserve for your interests. The article ends as follows:
And now we have the dawning age of the thin-skinned megalomaniac and
quasi-fascist Trump, who tapped popular resentment fueled by Obama’s
predicted betrayals. In the meantime, Obama’s farewell address
last Tuesday was crafted to keep the fake-progressive deception alive
into his post-White House years. Obama is a master at using words to
blind supporters to his deeds.
Yes indeed. And this is a recommended article.
It Can Happen Here
The third item is by David Kotz on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
On November 8 the rise of a right-wing nationalist regime in the United
States became a realistic possibility, if not now then in the coming
years. Such regimes stress nationalist and patriotic themes, play upon
and intensify fear of minority ethnicities and/or religions and/or otherSeptember 1, 2008
long-oppressed groups, promise to resolve festering economic problems
of ordinary people, and direct the blame for such problems at a
convenient scapegoat such as foreigners or immigrants rather than the
real causes. Such regimes, if consolidated, invariably restrict
long-established individual rights and introduce, or intensify, the use
of extra-legal violent methods at home and abroad.
I agree, and this is a good summary, which
indeed holds for all the bits that I will quote from this fine summary
of some American history that led to the above state of affairs.
Here is more:
The sequence of economic developments in the United States that fostered
this political trajectory is some 25 years of oppressive neoliberal
capitalism, which gave rise to a severe economic crisis in 2008,
followed by an unresolved economic stagnation.
I agree, though I have two specific dates for
it: 1979/1980, which were the years when Thatcher and Reagan were
elected; or 1971 when Lewis Powell Jr. wrote his right wing "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System" that called on the rich to organize themselves and to protect their interests.
And it is also since the early 1980ies that the incomes of all but the
top 10% first stopped increasing and then started falling, which they
have done so ever since, while the salaries and wealth of the richest
10% started to grow steeper and steeper.
Here is some on the crisis that started in 2008, when I also - on
September 1, 2008, albeit in Dutch then - started my crisis series,
that now is in its ninth year and has currently over 1450 articles (all
in English except for the first 81 of these articles, which were in
The world has not seen an economic crisis similar to that of today since
the 1920s-30s, when economic stagnation or decline took hold throughout
much of the capitalist world. That period ultimately gave rise to three
different trajectories. right-wing nationalist regimes arose in
Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan. Progressive reformist regimes appeared
in Scandinavia, France, the U.K., and the United States. And various
forms of state socialism were consolidated, or newly emerged, in the
USSR, Eastern Europe, China, northern Korea, and northern Vietnam.
I agree, though with the not very important
remark that I (who had communist parents who supported the Soviet Union
in the 50ies and 60ies, till 1968) never accepted the Soviet system as socialist (after having seen it personally, in 1965: I wanted none of that).
Here is the summary of what Keynesianism (<-Wikipedia) (that was mostly accepted by 1946) brought between 1946 and 1980:
Shortly after World War II the New Deal political coalition evolved into
one that gave rise to the postwar system of regulated capitalism with
rising wages, low unemployment, and expanding social programs, along
with the Cold War and U.S. imperialist military interventions around the
I agree again and like to add one remark: What Keynes was for, was capitalism-with-
a-human-face, and that mostly succeeded in the 35 years between 1946 and 1980. David Kotz is right this was accompied by "the Cold War and U.S. imperialist military interventions", but went on in parallel, and indeed was often both fueled and led by the American (secret) intelligence services.
Reagan changed Keynes's capitalism-with-a-human-face into his version of capitalism-with-an-inhuman-face, and that has been the dominant form ever since
(which is at least in part the explanation for the fact that the 90%
stopped gaining incomes from 1981 onwards, and started loosing it - in
real terms - soon after, and what they lost, the few rich gained).
Here is the ending from this economist:
Another lesson is that the aim of preventing fascism may require the
building of a growing left-wing movement, given its still weak condition
in the United States. (..) Fully securing those values will ultimately require passing beyond the capitalist system.
And again I agree: To stop Trump and
neofascism in the USA a very much stronger and also a really leftist
(instead of the fake "leftist" ) movement must be created, and indeed
the only way to stop the powers of the few rich in designing a world
for their small caste, based on the poverty and the misery of billions,
is to choose another ethical system of values for society.
My own vote is for making it legally completely impossible for anyone
to earn more than 20 times as much as the poorest (who all should have
a decent income). I know more is required, but this is a very
fundamental ethical decision, that should be both
interesting and sympathetic to the 90% of those whose incomes have been
steadily declining into the few billionaire's pockets since 35 years
4. If Anyone ‘Rigged’ the Presidential Election, It Was Goldman Sachs
The fourth item's is by Carey Wedler on Raging Bull-Shit and originally on TheAnti-Media.org:
This starts as follows, and sketches the real winners of the elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016: Goldman Sachs:
Yes indeed. Here is more on Goldman Sachs, Donald Trump, and a few of Trump's extra-ordinary many lies to gain the presidency:
As the media continues to parrot American intelligence agencies’ as-of-yet unsubstantiated claims that Russia hacked the U.S. election, there is far more evidence to implicate an equally dangerous infiltrator: Goldman Sachs.
The infamous banking company, which was widely implicated in the 2008
economic crash, appears to have come out on top in the most recent U.S.
“I know the guys at Goldman Sachs,” Trump said last February. “They have total, total control over [Cruz]. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton,” he claimed, referencing the funding Clinton and Cruz received.
But as much as Trump’s rhetoric reflected the sentiments of millions
of Americans — and though he refused donations from bankers — his
actions since clinching the role of commander-in-chief have betrayed his
initial position. In fact, before he even won the presidency, Trump was
employing Steven Mnunchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, as his campaign finance chairman.
And Steve Mnunchin is not the only Goldman Sachs executive with a job in Trump's cabinet of billionaires and generals:
This week, the President-elect added
two more former Goldman Sachs employees to his administration. His top
donor, Anthony Scaramucci, is a former Goldman employee who will now
serve as a senior White House advisor. Dina Habib Powell, who heads
“charitable efforts” for the firm, will be a “senior counselor for economic initiatives.” She previously worked in the Bush administration.
And in fact this mirrors both the influence and the tactics of Goldman Sachs in the past:
Regardless of who won the 2016 election, apparently, Goldman Sachs has
retained its influence — just as it did throughout the Obama
administration, demonstrating the financial giant ‘hacked’ not just the
2016 election, but also the 2012 and 2008 elections, as well as others
I agree, though I do not think "'hacked'" (or "hacked") is the proper term: I think they did it by corruption, which indeed is also
true of Bill Clinton's governments (and yes: I think he did what he did
because he was promised he would be made a multi- millionaire, and
indeed he was ).
And here is what Obama did for the banks and for the rich:
Once elected in 2008, Obama lined his cabinet with former employees of major banking firms who cashed in on government bailouts and donated
to his campaign. For example, Rahm Emanuel, who served as his chief of
staff from 2008 to 2010 before successfully running for mayor in
Chicago, had previously been on Goldman Sachs payroll, both during his time in the Clinton administration and when he was an elected congressman.
Obama’s administration failed to produce any significant prosecutions for the 2008 crisis and, incidentally, between 2009 to 2012, 95% of income gains went to the top 1 percent of Americans.
Quite so. And I agree that Goldman Sachs is the big winner of the American presidential elections ever since (at least) 2000.
5. Two fine videos with Chris Hedges
The last item today are two fine videos with Chris Hedges. The first is this:
This is a fine interview by
Abby Martin with Chris Hedges. It is from some months ago, and before
Trump's gaining the presidency, but it is quite good. It takes around 25 m.
The second is this and in fact takes about 5 minutes on RT, but is
quite fundamental and outlines the position I have been sketching on
This is from Emma Niles on Truthdig:
Yes: Chris Hedges is saying the same thing as
I have been saying in Nederlog: At least the anonymous PropOrNot lies
had the explicit aim of priming Trump's government to forbid all the alternative media (the only ones that bring real news in
the USA) and provide only government support for the mainstream media
that support Trump (and Goldman Sachs).
Washington, D.C., and the mainstream media have spent much of the last week zeroing in on allegations that Russia interfered in the United States presidential election. Truthdig contributor Chris Hedges argues that such intense coverage is merely a way for establishment elites to criticize independent journalism.
In an interview with RT America’s Simone Del Rosario, Hedges cites the McCarthyist attacks on independent outlets—including Truthdig—last year and says that the recent wave of reporting on Russia continues the alarmist narrative.
If this is successful, as it may well be, given that most of the "news"
these days consists of lies and propaganda, it will mean that the USA
has transformed itself into
the NUSA - the New|Neofascist United States of America.
 I am a Real Leftist, but I am not at all a real "leftist". I am a Real Leftist because I believe in truth, in science, in ethics, and in the badness, the greed, and the nearly total lack of any ethics of the rich (other than profits for themselves); I am not at all a real "leftist" for precisely the same reasons plus that I am strongly against political correctness, identity politics, and the extremely many lies I have heard from "leftists".
Indeed, the "leftists" are not Leftists at all: Their political correctness
forbids them to say anything bad about extremely bad men and extremely
bad political ideals; their identity politics takes away any
individuality from the members of groups; and basically they are pro-capitalist anti-socialists, indeed very often with a somewhat rich background (at least in the university, where I met very many "leftists" since 1977, who usually told me that I am "a dirty fascist" because I am not a Marxist (in 1977), or that I am "a dirty fascist" (since 1982) because I believe in truth.
(And yes, for non-Dutchmen: That is really what happened, very many times as well. And I was also the only
one studying in the University of Amsterdam with two communist parents
(since the Thirties or early Forties), and with a communist father and
a communist grandfather who were both locked up in German concentration
camps in 1941 for resisting the Nazis, where my grandfather also was
What I do grant is that - now, at least - there are few
Real Lefts remaining, since most of the former Real Left (of various
kinds also) has been changed by their (corrupted) leaders to the
"left", as sketched.
 For the explanation of the difference between the Left and the "left", see .
For an explanation why The Guardian has turned "leftish" read on with
the text (and keep in mind the "leftist" Tony Blair, whose great riches
and postures are so extremely attractive to so many who write columns
in The Guardian).
 I am sorry, but I am not deigning these folks with a faintly praising term like "community". They are not a real community in any sense that I know, and I also very much dislike propaganda terms (like "social media" for the degenerate thieves that run Facebook: Sorry, these are the a-social media for the stupid, the lazy and the blind - in my opinion, which at least is intelligent and learned, also while it might be mistaken).
 I do not know the present riches of Bill Clinton, but I have
read several estimates and I pick the one that said that he is worth
$180 million now. If you disagree, then realize he must be worth at least many tens of millions of dollars now, and substitute your amount in the argument that follows:
How would you react to the following proposal: If you do as we
want, which mainly consists of supporting the laws we propose, would
you be happy if we reward you after your presidency with $180 million?
I do not know in what terms Bill Clinton was offered that
proposal, but it must have reached him in some form, and he decided to
take it up. All I say at this point is: In so far as I know men (and
women), at age 66, I believe that 999 in a 1000 men (or women) would
have accepted that same proposal. (My father, who was quite intelligent but not learned was the 1 in a 1000 (or more) who would not. And indeed he could never have been a president either, is also true. But as a matter of character what I am saying is quite true.)