A. Selections from August 18, 2017
This is a Nederlog of
This is a
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last four years:
I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch) and about
the enormous dangers of surveillance (by secret services and
by many rich commercial entities) since June 10, 2013, and I probably will
continue with it, but on the moment
I have several problems with the company that is
supposed to take care that my site is visible 
and with my health.
explained, the crisis files will have a different
format from July 1, 2017: I will now list the items
I selected as I did before (title + link) but I add one
selection from the selected item to give my readers a bit
of a taste of the item linked.
So the new format is as follows:
Link to an item with its orginal title,
One selection (usually) from that item
Possibly followed by a brief comment by
me (not indented).
This is illustrated below, in selections A.
2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
A. Selections from
August 18, 2017
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:
This article is by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez on
Democracy Now! It starts with the following introduction:
is facing widespread criticism for his latest comments on the deadly
white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia. Speaking at
Trump Tower on Tuesday, Trump said the violence was in part caused by
what he called the "alt-left." President Trump’s comment were widely
decried. Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney wrote on
Twitter, "No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The
other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes." We look
at one of the groups who confronted the white supremacists in the
streets: the anti-fascists known as antifa. We speak to Mark Bray,
author of the new book, "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook."
My father was an
anti-fascist from 1935 till 1980 (when he died). Because he was both an
anti-fascist and a communist he went in to the resistance when the
German Nazis occupied Holland in 1940, as indeed did his father, who
also had become an anti-fascist and a communist in the later 1930ies.
arrested in June 1941, and condemned as "political terrorists" to
concentration camp imprisonment, where my grandfather was murdered. My father survived over 3 years and 9
months of four Geman concentration camps.
In the end, 3
months before his death in 1980 he was knighted, for making and
designing (with others) what was then the National Exhibition on
Fascism and Resistance (which may have been a mistake, because
- other - communists were never knighted in Holland at least
not till the Dutch Communist Party disappeared, in 1991).
Indeed, my mother
was also in the communist resistance against the Nazis  and brought around the communist paper "Truth" and
helped Jewish children in hiding. She never was arrested, but also was
a communist and anti-fascist for more than 45 years.
Of course, within
10 or 15 days of returning to Holland in 1977 I was called "a dirty
fascist" by the Stalinist terrorists from the ASVA, and have remained
so ever since:
I have been systematically
called "a fascist" or "a dirty fascist" or (at best) "somethng like a
fascist" from 1977 till 1989 by the Stalinist terrorists from the ASVA,
simply because I was not a Marxist and
because I was pro - real - science. 
The UvA -
University of Amsterdam - was first a Marxist and then
"university" from 1971 till 1995 (that is, for twentyfive years!), with
a completely unique structure in the whole world in
these days, where everyone - professors, lecturers, students,
secretaries, toilet-cleaners - got 1 vote to vote each year
for the university parliament, that guaranteed that -
formally - the students always had the absolute majority. And in
Amsterdam "the students" were nearly all members of the ASVA from
1971-1995, while the ASVA was communist from 1971-1983 and postmodernistic
from 1983 to well after 2005.
Please note that no
one in Holland (or elsewhere) ever mentions these - very
true - facts since they happened:
the UvA is more authoritarian than it was in the 1950ies; it is
still the "university" of the social democrats, which
it has been since 1950 (for these always produced the leaders,
always "democratically", if you can believe it); and the present
leaders of the UvA rather pretend nothing happened in the UvA
between 1971 and 1995 than admitting the truth, which was that it
was politically a "Marxist" or post- modernistic totalitarian
quasi-university (apart from a few studies like mathematics).
But I have
been discriminated as a fascist and as a terrorist
by the UvA from 1977 till 1989, without any excuses
whatsoever, and I have also been denied the right to
take the M.A. in philosophy, again because I was not a Marxist, because
I was pro real science,
and because I was an opponent of both the ASVA and the social
democratic leaders of the UvA. And the leaders of the UvA let me be
terrorized by a madman in a student flat for three years,
again because I had created a student party that opposed them. Next,
five years later, the narko-nazistic mayor of Amsterdam put his
illegal drugsdealers in the bottom floor of the house where I lived and
permitted his illegal drugsdealers to threaten me with murder and -
literally - gas me. (The illegal drugs-dealers thrived ever
since, as does the illegal drugstrade that the Dutch politicians
organized: It turned over around 300 billion dollars in illegal
money since 1988.)
ever protested against most of these facts, except myself. But that
is Holland, where between 1940 and 1945 over 1% of the population
was murdered for being Jewish, while around 98% of the
population stood by, watched, and did nothing. 
when a neofascist
has become president of the USA, there - somewhat suddenly also, at
least in my eyes - there is talk of fascism in the USA, while there
even are anti-fascists there, or so Mark Bray tells the readers of
BRAY: Yes, well, it’s
pronounced on’-tee-fah. The emphasis is on the first
syllable, and it’s pronounced more on than an, so
on’-tee-fah. It’s commonly mispronounced. But antifa, of course, is
short for anti-fascist.
And, you know, President
Trump’s comments that the alt—quote-unquote, "alt-left" and alt-right
are equivalent moral forces is really historically misinformed and
morally bankrupt. The anti-fascist movement has a global history that
stretches back over—about a century. You can trace them to Italian
opposition to Mussolini’s Blackshirts, German opposition to Hitler’s
Brownshirts, anti-fascists from around the world who had traveled to
Spain to fight in the Spanish Civil War. More recently, modern antifa
can largely trace its roots to the anti-fascist movement in Britain in
the ’70s, and the postwar period more generally, that was responding to
a xenophobic backlash against predominantly Caribbean and South Asian
migration, also to the German autonomous movement of the ’80s, which,
really, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, had to respond to a really
unprecedented neo-Nazi wave—unprecedented in the postwar period, of
I am sorry, but my father,
my mother and myself are not "on’-tee-fah"s
and not even "antifa"s: I think it is utterly ridiculous
to reduce those you are against from "fascists" to "fa"s, but indeed my
parents and myself were or are genuine anti-fascists - which
seems to be a quite rare breed, and certainly in
Holland (where nearly everyone is a relativist and
that pays the most).
And while I have
read this interview with Mark Bray and indeed also the next one
(also on Democracy Now!), and while what he says about (classical,
European) anti-fascists is mostly correct, one of my reasons to write
the above is that I have been hearing much talk about "fascism"
("Nazism", "neofascism", "neo-fascism", "neo-nazis") for over 40
years now (indeed because I was falsely accused of being a
fascist in 1977, which falsity was repeated and repeated until 1989) I
have NEVER read any definition of "fascism" or "neofascism"
(etc.) that made much sense or indeed was more or less adequate given
the - enormous - amounts of facts known about the fascists.
Do people want to
It seems like it - and see the next item:
2. Is There
a Nazi in the White House?
article is by Sonali Kolhatkar on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
The Nazi website The
Daily Stormer even declared this season the “Summer
of Hate.” (The website has recently been dropped
by its hosting company, GoDaddy). On Saturday, protesters gathered,
wearing swastikas and chanting the Nazi slogan “Blood and Soil,” and
marched KKK-style with lit torches. One attendee literally emulated
those who pledge allegiance to Islamic State by plowing down people in
the street with his car, killing a young woman named Heather Heyer.
Anyone claiming to be
non-Nazi who marched alongside the Nazis either agreed with their
fascist ideology or condoned it. Either way, Trump appears even more
deluded than usual in his attempt to defend the Nazis when the Nazis
themselves are proudly proclaiming their fascistic credentials.
I have been reading
that Trump is "a fascist" since the beginning of 2016, that is for
more than 1 1/2 year. (Check the index
for 2016, for example.) I have been reading he may be "a
neofascist" for at least half a year. NO journalist
(that I read, of which there were many) that used these terms ever
mounted anything like a decent definition of
I think these are
reasonable definitions of "fascism" and "neofascism",
but then I have the major setbacks that I am intelligent and
informed, which makes me something like less than 5% (or 1%) of
those currently "discussing" on the internet. Also, my parents and
grandparents were real - resisting - anti-fascists, which makes
them something like 1/10th of 1% of the Dutch (in WW II, where
over 1% of the total population was murdered while around 97% of the
Dutchmen stood watching by doing nothing).
And now another
term is used for those who were formerly called "fascists": "Nazis".
Again NO journalist who uses there terms takes the trouble to
define them (or if they do their "definitions" are ludicrous).
Also, when I read
that "the Nazis" (an
abbreviation of "national socialists") "themselves are proudly
proclaiming their fascistic credentials", I do not say "No!"
but I do wonder about the definitions Kolhatkar presupposes of
I got no
clarification whatsoever: Apparently "Nazi" and "fascist" are self-evident
terms (like "white" or "sweet") that do not require definition.
Then there is this:
A recent psychological
study of people professing to be alt-right confirms that they
actually look upon nonwhites as less human. So if you talk like a Nazi
and walk like a Nazi, you are a Nazi unless you can prove otherwise.
Another way to put it: You’re either with the fascists or against them.
Trump has repeatedly
sent the message that he is with the Nazis. Which makes him a Nazi
sympathizer at best, or simply a Nazi by default.
But what is a
Nazi? How do Nazis differ from fascists? How do fascist differ
from neofascists? How do neofascists differ from neonazis? No
one took the trouble to - even - define their terms. And see the
Things to Know About the Mindset of the Neo-Nazis
This article is by
Kali Holloway on AlterNet. It starts as follows:
neo-Nazis with whom Donald Trump openly sympathizes fit a psychological
profile for the most part, according to two psychologists who just
released a survey on the subject. Patrick Forscher and Nour Kteily,
researchers from the University of Arkansas and Northwestern University
respectively, compiled their findings into a working paper titled
“A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right.” To arrive at their
conclusions, they polled 447 neo-Nazis who self-identify as members of
the “alt-right,” and compared their answers with 382 non-group
affiliated survey subjects.
This time it is the "neo-Nazis" whose "psychological profiles" are
taken by "psychologists". I am sorry, but I am a psychologist,
who is an anti-fascist, but this is not the way to
study "neo-Nazis": This very probably is academic baloney. (Who
identified the neo-Nazis as neo-Nazis is one relevant question; why the
opinions of those selected are relevant is another.)
But I am
getting quite sick of this subject of totally undefined
important terms that are used as if everybody knows
their meanings, while in fact no one even can or does frame any
(Again, I think these are reasonable
definitions of "fascism"
but I thought them up, helped by quite a few historians and
philosophers. I have in nearly two years of reading about "fascism"
etc. not seen any definition like that.)
This article is by Robert Reich on his
site. This has the following bit in it:
It’s almost as if someone
had declared a new civil war. But who? And for what purpose?
One clue came earlier
last week in a memo from Rich Higgins, who had been director for
strategic planning in Trump’s National Security Council.
Entitled “POTUS &
Political Warfare,” Higgins wrote the seven-page document in May, which
was recently leaked to Foreign Policy Magazine.
In it Higgins charges
that a cabal of leftist “deep state” government workers, “globalists,”
bankers, adherents to Islamic fundamentalism and establishment
Republicans want to impose cultural Marxism in the United States.
“Recognizing in candidate Trump an existential threat to cultural
Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative, those
that benefit recognize the threat he poses and seek his destruction.”
There you have it.
Trump’s goal has never been to promote guns or white supremacy or to
fuel attacks on the press and the left. These may be means, but the
goal has been to build and fortify his power. And keep him in power
even if it’s found that he colluded with Russia to get power.
Trump and his consigliere
Steve Bannon have been quietly encouraging a civil war between Trump’s
base of support – mostly white and worried – and everyone who’s not.
It’s built on economic
stresses and racial resentments. It’s fueled by paranoia. And it’s
conveyed by Trump’s winks and nods haters, and his deafening silence in
the face of their violence.
I do not know whether Reich
is right in this (though I often agree with him), but I do want to say
something about Higgins' charge that "a cabal of leftist “deep state” government workers,
“globalists,” bankers, adherents to Islamic fundamentalism and
establishment Republicans want to impose cultural Marxism in the United
If you believe that utterly
you must be completely crazy. It is a purely propagandistic total lie, that takes the
criticisms of the left, "translates" them into rightist terms, and
serves the nonsensical product as if it makes sense.
on the Brink? Impeachment Support Grows Amid Speculation He'll Resign
article is by Jessica Corbett on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
The walls appear to be
closing in on President Donald Trump this week—following his outrageous
on white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia—as public support
for impeachment grows,
predictions of resignation surface, and his political isolation
A new poll from Public
Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that 40 percent of Americans
support impeaching Trump and removing him from office, a 10-point jump
in a mere six months, NBC News reported
That number now could be much higher, though, as the poll was conducted
before last weekend's deadly
demonstrations in Charlottesville,
and Trump's troubling responses, which have evoked intense criticism
from the public,
as well as Democratic
This suffers from - at
least - two difficulties: First, 40% of the American people is not
a majority, while also "the American people" these days have very
little real political influence: Most political decisions are taken by
politicians (of whom the majority is usually bought, these days).
Then there is this:
In light of all the
swirling anti-Trump sentiment—following months of historically
ratings—The Hill reported
on Thursday that Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) will introduce articles of
impeachment based on Trump's defense of the white supremacists. Rep.
Cohen said in a statement:
unequivocally condemning hateful actions by neo-Nazis, white
nationalists, and Klansmen following a national tragedy, the President
said 'there were very fine people on both sides.' There are no good
Nazis. There are no good Klansmen.... President Trump has failed the
presidential test of moral leadership.
Although the announcement
comes on the heels of impeachment articles filed last month—which accused
Trump of "obstructing justice during the federal investigation of
Russia's 2016 election interference"—it also comes amid reports
that the president is becoming increasingly isolated within the West
Wing and from his fellow Republicans.
I agree with Steve
Cohen that "Trump has failed the
presidential test of moral leadership" (unless it is a neofascist moral leadership, for I
think Trump is both a neofascist
and a madman), but I
must disagree a bit with his thesis that "There are
no good Nazis".
And I have two reasons:
First, Germany was very
rapidly made a totalitarian
after Hitler was - democratically! - elected. There were concentration
camps for his political opponents within three weeks of his
becoming chancellor. This means that is was quite risky to
publicly deviate from Nazism. And there were a few nominal Nazis who
were more or less decent.
Second, my father, who
survived over 3 years and 9 months as a "political terrorist" in German
concentration camps, really hated the SS, but he also said a few
(not: many) of the SS'ers (in concentration camps) were somewhat more
decent than their comrades.
And in fact, simply because
we are talking of very many persons, this is a fairly natural
conclusion: Even under dictatorial totalitarianism a few remain more or
The article ends as follows:
resistance to Trump among White House staff and Republican legislators,
impeachment efforts could be nullified if Trump decides to quit first.
Although predictions have been circulating for months that he "won't
make it four years," on Wednesday, his Art of the Deal
co-author Tony Schwartz posited on Twitter that the president will
resign "by fall, if not sooner."
Schwartz's recent tweets
the co-author made in May: "I surely believe that at some point over
the next period of time he's going to have to figure out a way to
resign," Schwartz said, adding that in quitting, Trump will try to
"figure out a way, as he has done all his career, to turn a loss into a
victory so he will declare victory when he leaves."
I think this is
fairly interesting, simply because Tony Schwartz knows Donald Trump
quite well, in considerable part because he wrote most of Trump's Art of the Deal.
But whether it is
true remains to be seen.
I have now been saying since the end of 2015 that xs4all.nl 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 1 1/2 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.
 In fact, the Dutch Communist Party was the only
- considerable - group of Dutchmen who went into the resistance (and
they did so, I should add, before the Soviet Union and Hitler's
Germany broke their pact).
It is not known how many communists there were in 1940, but probably
10,000 (in nearly 10 million Dutchmen then) is probably more or less
correct. What is known is how many of them did not survive WW
II: Around 2000.
Compared to the further Dutch resistance - there was some Christian and
some socialist resistance, for example - the communists were by far
the largest group resisting the Nazis.
Directly after WW II they were rewarded with 10% of the votes (some ten
times more than in 1940) but they were again soon discriminated: My
parents were quite often called "traitors" in the 1950ies, simply
because they were communists.
 Please note that I have not scolded for forty
years now, but I do insist now that the ASVA was a Stalinist
terrorist organization, that owe me 6 million euros, and the same holds
for any of these Stalinist terrorists.
And in fact I was terrorized first from 1981 till 1983
by the University of Amsterdam (and I won the courtcase about
it), and then I was
again terrorized from 1988 till 1992 by the City of Amsterdam, that
desired to deal illegal drugs from the bottom floor of the house where I
lived, and who allowed those exploiting it to gas me
(in August 1988) and to threaten me with murder (between 1988
 The numbers are as follows: Between
106,000 and 116,000 Dutch Jews were murdered in WW II. These were
rounded up with the assistance of the Dutch leaders of the Jewish
Council, David Cohen and Abraham Asscher, who also were very rich men,
who were promised that they could keep their riches if they
collaborated with the SS.
They collaborated and kept their riches - and they did not even have to
face a court after the defeat of the Nazis (and their - very rich -
(great-)grandchildren again dominate politics in Holland, while
pretending to be "social democrats").
Next, there were less than 10 million Dutchmen between 1940 and 1945,
of which some 130,000 were Jews, of whom between 106,000 and 116,000
were rounded up and murdered.
Also, while around 10,000 communists went into the Resistance on May
15, 1940, about as many Dutchmen, or a little more, also went into the
resistance, eventually. Even if it were more (the numbers are guesses
anyway, by anyone), at least 95% of the Dutch collaborated
with the Nazis (forced or not).