Noam Chomsky

With its spate of right-wing rulings this week, the Supreme Court has paved the way for Donald Trump and the Republican-dominated Congress to intensify their attacks on human rights, workers and the country’s democratic institutions, dragging the US deeper into the abyss.

US political culture has long been dominated by oligarchical corporate and financial interests, militarism and jingoism, but the current Trumpocracy represents a new level of neoliberal cruelty. Indeed, the United States is turning into a pariah nation, a unique position among Western states in the second decade of the 21st century.

What factors and the forces produced this radical and dangerous shift? How did Trump manage to bring the Republican Party under his total control? Is Trumpocracy a temporary phenomenon, or the future of American politics? Is the Bernie Sanders phenomenon over? In the exclusive Truthout interview below, world-renowned scholar and public intellectual Noam Chomsky, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at MIT and currently Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, tackles these questions and offers his unique insights.

C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, while many in the country and the world at large watch aghast as Donald Trump’s nightmare of white supremacy continues to unravel the United States, it still remains something of a puzzle as to what propelled Trumpism to political prominence. For starters, why did voters turn to Trump? Who are the people that make up his hard-core base, and how do we explain the fact that he has essentially taken over the Republican Party without any serious opposition?

Noam Chomsky: Part of the solution to the puzzle is Obama’s performance in office. Many were seduced by the rhetoric of “hope” and “change,” and deeply disillusioned by the very early discovery that the words had little substance. I don’t usually agree with Sarah Palin, but she had a point when she ridiculed this hopey-changey stuff. A fair number of Obama voters, mostly working people, switched to Trump. These developments were already clear by the time of the 2010 special election in Massachusetts to fill the seat of Senator Kennedy – the liberal lion. Virtually unknown Scott Brown won the election, the first Republican elected to the Senate in [more than] 40 years in this liberal state. Analysis of the vote showed that even union members hardly supported his liberal opponent because of anger at Obama: the way he handled the housing-financial crisis (bailing out the rich, including the perpetrators, while letting their victims hang out to dry) and much else, including provisions of his health care proposal that working people saw, with justice, as an attack on health programs that they had won in contract negotiations.

Quite apart from Obama’s disappointing policies, he and the [Democratic] Party were victims of the intense racism that is deeply rooted in large parts of American society. The visceral hatred of Obama cannot be explained in other terms.

But there is far more than that. For some time, candidates for Republican primaries who emerged from the base have been far off the traditional spectrum. The establishment was able to suppress them and gain their own candidate, but that didn’t change the basis for their support. For years, both parties have drifted to the right — the Republicans off the spectrum of normal parliamentary politics. Their dedication to wealth and corporate power is so extreme that they cannot get votes on their actual policies — which are now being revealed to us daily — and so have had to mobilize a voting base on issues unrelated to their service to their actual constituency. These include religious fundamentalism — a major phenomenon in the US unlike other developed societies — white supremacy, xenophobia and other latent anti-social attitudes that tend to break through to the surface during periods of disillusionment and distress. This is partly a matter of “search for scapegoats,” the actual sources concealed in the usual manner of propaganda; thus, the public vastly exaggerates the number of immigrants, even more than in Europe. In the current period, these malignant tendencies are natural consequences of the harsh neoliberal policies that we have discussed before. We see much the same in Europe, for similar reasons.

Trump has had overwhelming support among whites and less educated sectors, but for the most part, his mass voting base is relatively affluent and privileged. A recent Pew poll of Trump approvers found two-thirds are either college graduates, women or nonwhite, the last group apparently not many.

Trump’s roughly 90 percent support among Republicans is actually not unusual for an incumbent party at this stage in office — about the same as Obama among Democrats, though the fervor and passion are different, presumably reflecting the general atmosphere of anger, hatred and fear. And frightening. Recognizing the great differences, I still can’t repress childhood memories of hearing Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies on the radio, not understanding the words, though the mood was unmistakable.

For the actual Republican constituency of wealth and corporate power, these are glory days, so why object, even if his antics sometimes cause some grimaces? The core constituency of Evangelicals is solidly in Trump’s pocket, thanks to the crumbs thrown their way. Many working people maintain the illusion that Trump cares about them and will bring back lost days of steady jobs in mining and manufacturing. Even those realistic enough to dismiss this act at least see someone who is standing up to the “foreign devils” who have been “robbing us,” and in particular, the cultural elites that regard them and their values with contempt, just “deplorables.” Mostly farce, but [also] much successful propaganda, with enough elements of truth to be persuasive — for a while at least.

It’s revealing to take a closer look at attitudes of the huge Evangelical community. According to a study by the Public Religion Research Institute, “In 2011, only 30 percent believed that personal immorality was consistent with an ethical performance of official duties. Today, 72 percent of white evangelicals — up an astounding 42 points — believe that the two can go together.”

No comment needed, but instructive.

Trump himself seems to be having the time of his life. He’s constantly in the limelight, his loyal base worships his every move, he’s free to defy convention, to insult anyone he chooses, to disrupt the international economic and political order at will — whatever comes to mind next, knowing that he’s the biggest thug on the block and can probably get away with it — again, for a while, at least.

I don’t think it’s quite fair, however, to call him a liar. Lying presupposes having a concept of truth, and being in a situation where telling the truth matters. We don’t say that three-year-olds are lying if they say they saw a dragon outside, or an actor in a play. It’s also not clear that it’s tactically useful to tot up the random falsehoods that pepper his tweets and orations. That just fires up his worshipful base, providing more evidence that the hated liberal elites are trying to destroy the one guy in the political arena who is dedicated to defending the common folk — who he is shafting, with delight, at every opportunity.

It’s an intriguing spectacle, and not a little worrisome.

Trump loves to present himself as an “art-of-the-deal” president. Exactly what kind of deals has he made so far that can justify his claim to being a master negotiator?

There are no deals with others of any note, but there are real accomplishments. The most heralded one is the tax bill, a very welcome gift to the actual [corporate] constituency, with the side benefit of expanding the deficit and thus offering the opportunity to dismantle the limited social programs, which are [deemed] a nuisance, dispensable, since they raise the taxes of the actual constituency and do not benefit them. Steps are already underway to weaken these programs further. That includes the steady dismantling of protections provided by the hated “Obamacare.” I’ve often wondered whether the term itself might have caught on because of implicit racism; we didn’t call Medicare “Johnsoncare.”

A scathing report of the [UN] “Special Rapporteur [Philip Alston] on extreme poverty and human rights” on his mission to the United States of America, recently released, was well-timed — and may have been the immediate reason for the US withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, which discredited itself by revealing improper truths about ourselves, just as the World Court discredited itself — and was roundly condemned by elite opinion — for daring to condemn the US for international terrorism (“unlawful use of force”) in the murderous Reaganite attack on Nicaragua.

Other gifts to the actual constituency are being offered regularly. Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is being rendered toothless. Betsy DeVos is making it easier for the for-profit colleges she cherishes to cheat students, part of the concerted corporate-led campaign to dismantle public education, one of the real contributions of the US to contemporary civilization. The Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, designed to ensure that financial advisers act in the best interest of clients, has been sent to the ashcan, along with Dodd-Frank restrictions on the actions of banks, which are already enjoying record profits with more to come as the effects of the tax scam are felt. Bulging profits were heralded as a spur to investment, of which there is scarcely a trace as they are used to enrich the rich still further.

In general, things are proceeding quite well for “those who matter,” though they have some concerns that Trump’s erratic trade policies might infringe on the interests of the investor class.

I’ve skipped foreign policy, and have omitted so far, the most important accomplishments — astonishingly, commonly ignored by the opposition party and media commentary. Pride of place goes to the quite successful efforts to escalate the very severe and not remote threat of global warming. Expansion and modernization of the huge military system and provocative actions at the Russian border are not far behind.

In brief, there are no meaningful deals, though there surely are impressive accomplishments.

How do we explain the fact that Trump continues to cause chaos on all fronts, both domestically and internationally, and yet his popularity remains at quite high levels?

As I mentioned, Trump’s popularity among Republicans is unusually fervent and high, though not uniquely so. The affluent are doing fine. The economy is continuing the slow growth under Obama, though wages are barely rising and job security is low. Apart from the business world, concerned that the wrench thrown into the global trading system might harm profits, the elements of his constituency that I ran through above for the most part apparently don’t care much about the chaos, or even seem to enjoy seeing their leader offending elites and the damned foreigners.

Midterm elections are rapidly approaching. Do you see a “blue wave” coming? And if it happens, will it be sufficient to move Trumpism to the dustbin of history?

If the Democrats could get their act together, overcoming the schism between the donor-oriented New Democrat Party management and the increasingly activist and social democratic base, they would have a decent chance to take over Congress. That seems questionable, at the moment, though they should make some gains. But whatever gains there might be would not rid us of Trumpism, or its European counterparts. These have grown out of a mixture of authentic grievances and social pathologies — the latter surfacing in part because of the grievances. These are rooted in socioeconomic policies and bitter and so far, quite successful one-sided class struggle. None of this can easily be cast to the dustbin of history.

In some ways, as you have previously pointed out yourself, the most impressive aspect about recent developments on the US political landscape was the Bernie Sanders phenomenon, which represented a clear indication that the base of the Democratic Party had moved unmistakably to the left. Is the Sanders phenomenon — or at least the elements that gave rise to it — over? And how difficult is it for a new political party to emerge that advocates a progressive economic, social and foreign policy agenda?

The Sanders phenomenon was striking in two ways. One, as you mention, is the sign that the popular base of the party has moved to the left and gave impressive support to a candidate with social democratic, New Deal-style commitments — a breath of fresh air in the current state of affairs. The second was the sharp break from a long political history of pretty much bought elections. The phenomenon is by no means over. Sanders emerged as the most popular political figure in the country. In a functioning democracy, his voice — which continues to be loud and clear — would reach a wide public through mainstream media. Not here, where it is scarcely heard. Nevertheless, the offshoots of his campaign, Our Revolution, are doing important work, joining others in creating what might become stable and effective popular movements.

The barriers are not insuperable, but to overcome them will require large-scale and effective organization based on popular mass movements. A lot has to be done to overcome the demolition of unions and atomization of society during the neoliberal years under the Thatcherite slogan “you know, there’s no such thing as society” — unwittingly echoing Marx’s bitter condemnation of authoritarian rulers who want to turn society into “a sack of potatoes,” isolated individuals incapable of confronting concentrated economic and political power.The US political system has serious flaws, among them very high structural barriers for forming a new party. The last political party to have reached the mainstream is the Republican Party, but those were very different days. Where there is proportional representation, new parties can find a place in the political system, and have a chance to become major players — the British Labour Party, for example. In the US, even formal balloting procedures, run by state legislatures, virtually restrict participation to the two parties. Furthermore, the political parties are not membership organizations; rather, they are candidate-producing machines.

There are serious tasks ahead for those who aspire to a livable world.

Simon(e) van Saarloos Tekening: Joseph Sassoon Semah

“Wie mij wil stoppen, moet mij vermoorden”, zei Geert Wilders toen hij in november 2016 voor de rechtbank stond vanwege zijn ‘minder-minder’ uitspraak op de verkiezingsavond in het Haags café De Tijd. De-islamisering is niet zijn doel, concludeert filosoof en schrijver Simon(e) van Saarloos: doorgaan is zijn doel.
Ze stelt de vraag of Wilders iets verlangt. “Hij wil bepaalde dingen niet (islamisering), maar verlangt hij iets? Ervaart hij het verlangen naar een harmonieuze samenleving, een utopie, een Nobelprijs, de aandacht van één specifiek iemand? Of is hij eigenlijk een blij ei – zou de mogelijkheid om elk maatschappelijk probleem voor het karretje van je eigen agenda te spannen, plus de voortdurende vraag om een respons via twitter of te voor de camera, een bevredigend prikkelparadijs zijn voor Wilders?”

ENZ. uit de titel refereert aan het veelvuldig gebruik van dit woord in het verkiezingsprogramma van de PVV: “Geen geld meer naar ontwikkelingshulp, windmolens, kunst, innovatie, omroep, enz.” Wilders herhaalt zijn standpunten, waardoor de herhaling de waarde van de zinnen bestendigt. “Niet de inhoud van Wilders’ uitspraken veroorzaakt dat hij zichzelf blijft herhalen, maar het feit dat ze niet mogen worden uitgesproken zet hem aan tot herhaling.”
Van Saarloos wil Wilders begrijpen en volgt alle procesdagen vanuit de rechtszaal. Een proces over discriminatie maar dat vooral over vrijheid van meningsuiting gaat.
Simon(e) van Saarloos is geïnspireerd door de filosoof Hannah Arendt en haar boek Eichmann in Jerusalem – A Report on the Banilty of Evil over het proces tegen voormalig SS’er Adolf Eichmann in 1961.

Van de eerste procesdag op 4 maart tot de formele afsluiting op 9 december 2016 geeft Van Saarloos in haar boek ‘ENZ. Het Wildersproces’ een minutieus verslag van dat wat ze ziet en hoort. Op het door Wilders uitgesproken weerwoord (23 november) dat in het geheel is opgenomen, levert ze per alinea stevig commentaar. Tussendoor reist ze op zoek naar Wilders naar de mosjav in Israël waar hij begin jaren tachtig een tijdje heeft gewoond, gaat het toneelstuk Holy F. in première, horen we over haar liefdes en etentjes met de ‘Rechtse Eetclub’, en over de lezingen die ze bezoekt. In het laatste hoofdstuk kruipt ze zelfs in Wilders, als ze verkleed als Wilders naar het carnaval in Limburg gaat.
Alles beschreven vanuit een ‘belichaamde, associatieve manier van kijken’, om te begrijpen wat er gebeurt. “Ik heb mezelf een anti-hype blik aangeleerd, met ogen die door mijn lijf worden bestuurd, niet door wat bedacht van belang is.” Vanaf de eerste dag van het proces is zijzelf prioriteit, omdat ze aanwezig is, omdat ze een lichaam heeft waarop ze reageert. Zij kan zichzelf niet achterlaten. Ze is geïnteresseerd in een ander subjectiever perspectief met zichzelf in de hoofdrol.

Foto: Linda Bouws

Van Saarloos beschrijft haar rol in het proces en in het toneelstuk Holy F.: “Vandaag ben ik erkend ‘maker’. We maken theater. De journalist ‘volgt’ de rechtszaak. Zo gesteld ben ik liever maker dan volger. Maar natuurlijk maak je als ‘volger’ ook. De journalist schrijft een artikel waarin zo goed mogelijk wordt doorgegeven. Die weergave is een interpretatie en vormt de werkelijkheid die op de weergegeven werkelijkheid volgt. Als een journalist ergens nadruk op legt, of nieuwe feiten toevoegt, kan dit een rol gaan spelen. De aanwezigheid van een volger, een journalist (maar ook van publiek, ‘de mensen thuis’, online), schept een bewustzijn en beïnvloedt het gedrag van de mensen rondom de volger. Zo bezien is de volger ook een maker.”

De meeste aandacht gaat naar het proces met al zijn spelers: het OM, de rechters, de journalisten, fotografen, bodes, Wilders en zijn advocatenteam o.l.v. advocaat Geert-Jan Knoops en zijn vrouw Carry Knoops (door Van Saarloos nadrukkelijk Carry Hamburger genoemd), het koffieapparaat en koffie, en Simon(e) van Saarloos zelf, worden in het ruim 300 pagina tellende boek vanuit een niet-juridisch perspectief tot in detail geanalyseerd.
Woorden, handelingen, bewegingen, pauzes, drankjes, ongesteld zijn worden uitvoerig beschreven.
Het laatste woord in het proces ‘tegen de vrijheid van meningsuiting’ wordt door Wilders gevoerd. Nu gaat Simon(e) Van Saarloos verder dan het ‘lichamelijke beschrijven’: per alinea levert ze commentaar op de woorden van Wilders (zie vet en cursief).
(…) ‘Wij zullen winnen, het Nederlandse volk zal winnen en zich goed herinneren wie aan de goede kant van de geschiedenis stond. Het gezond verstand zal het winnen van de politiek correcte arrogantie. Hoe ziet winnen eruit? Winnen is geen proces, winnen gaat uit van een eindstaat, een eindresultaat. Want overal in het Westen maken we hetzelfde mee. Het vrije woord laat zich niet opsluiten; het schreeuwt het uit. Overal zeggen steeds meer mensen wat ze denken. Ze willen hun land niet verliezen, ze willen hun vrijheid niet verliezen.
Ze willen politici die hen serieus nemen, die naar hen luisteren die namens hen durven te spreken. Het is een heuse democratische revolte. Overal waait de wind van verandering en vernieuwing. Men wil ’hun land’ en ‘hun vrijheid’ behouden. Veranderingen, zoals het uiterlijk van Zwarte Piet of het verrijken van de Nederlandse taal om het word ‘allochtoon’ en ‘blank’ niet meer te hoeven gebruiken, moeten worden tegengehouden. En toch spreekt Wilders van ‘verandering en vernieuwing’. Ook hier in Nederland. Zoals ik al zei: ik sta hier namens miljoenen Nederlanders. Ik spreek niet alleen namens mijzelf. Mijn stem is de stem van velen. En dus vraag ik u nu. Niet alleen namens mijzelf, maar in naam van al die Nederlanders: spreek mij vrij! Spreek óns vrij! Ik ben iedereen. Wie zich niet in mij vertegenwoordigt ziet, bestaat niet echt.’

Het is Simon(e) Van Saarloos zeker gelukt op een andere manier naar het Wilders-proces te kijken, maar het goed en onderhoudend geschreven ‘ENZ. Het Wildersproces’ is te persoonlijk detaillistisch om in te zetten tegen Wilders’ populisme, zoals Van Saarloos ook zou willen. Nog afgezien van de vraag of populisten haar boek zouden lezen.

Simon(e) van Saarloos – ENZ. Het Wildersproces – Atlas Contact 2018 – ISBN 978904503338 9

Zie Wild, Wilder, Wilders –The Geert Wilders live in de Zuilenzaal van Felix Meritis

Linda Bouws -St.Metropool Internationale Kunstprojecten

Wie op zoek is naar meer informatie over zijn Surinaamse voorouders, lessen over slavernij voorbereidt, of onderzoek doet naar het Surinaamse slavernijverleden, kan voortaan een belangrijke online bron raadplegen. Met de gedigitaliseerde en ontsloten slavenregisters is het mogelijk mensen die in slavernij leefden over een periode van bijna 35 jaar te volgen.

De database wordt op 26 juni 2018 feestelijk gelanceerd door Noraly Beyer, ambassadeur van het project  ‘Maak de Surinaamse slavenregisters openbaar’. Iedereen die in Suriname in slavernij leefde werd in het register opgenomen. De slavenregisters zijn uniek: nergens anders in de wereld is zulke gedetailleerde informatie over een complete bevolking van mensen in slavernij bewaard gebleven.

De database is als index gepubliceerd op de collectiewebsite van het Nationaal Archief.

Surinaamse slavenregisters
In de Surinaamse slavenregisters staan naar schatting tachtigduizend mensen geregistreerd die tussen 1830 en de afschaffing van de slavernij in 1863, in Suriname in slavernij leefden. Slaveneigenaren moesten de mensen die in hun bezit waren laten registreren, met vermelding van naam, geboortedatum en de naam van de moeder en informatie over geboorte, overlijden, vrijlating, verkoop en andere informatie die belangrijk was voor de status en waarde van mensen in slavernij. De registers behoren tot de collectie van het Nationaal Archief Suriname maar waren zeer beperkt toegankelijk voor het publiek, omdat ze niet gedigitaliseerd waren en een namenindex ontbrak.

Ga naar: https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/surinaamse-slavenregisters

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock”, “The Work of Nations,” and”Beyond Outrage,” and, his most recent, “The Common Good,” which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, “Inequality For All.” He’s co-creator of the Netflix original documentary “Saving Capitalism,” which is streaming now.

Follow: http://robertreich.org/

The word “fascism” has recently reemerged as a key piece of political terminology. The headlines immediately after Donald Trump’s election as president of the US read like a disturbing question and answer session.

“Is Donald Trump a Fascist?” asked Newsweek. The Washington Post had the answer, declaring “Donald Trump is actually a Fascist”, but later sought to quantify things in a bit more detail with “How Fascist is Donald Trump?”. Meanwhile, Salon agreed that “Donald Trump is an actual Fascist”.

That all raises the question: what actually counts as fascism? It’s a question that has its own history, just as Nazism and fascism themselves do. And it’s similarly not without controversy.

Defining what counted as Nazism and fascism in the immediate aftermath of World War II was an urgent task faced by allied administrators and jurists in Germany and Italy. Examining these projects and their effects may help shed some light on how we talk, or perhaps on how we ought to think before talking, about fascism today.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-talk-about-how-we-talk-about-fascism

States of Mind (SoM) (Beyond Appearances) is a forum for looking behind the world of appearances. Only by understanding hidden drivers, motives and desires – and seeing through the commonly accepted narratives – can we explain what is really happening in our world.

States of Mind takes a generally pessimistic view of the human condition. Modernity, social-media, celebrity-culture and dumbing-down are making shallow fools of the many and putting democracy itself in danger. At the same time, nation states are increasingly polarising and fragmenting into confrontational groups driven by the grievances of identity politics. We are living through a post-ideological age where conspiracy theories, hashtags, celebrity culture and fake news are replacing thought, conversation and analysis. The democratisation of unfiltered information is leading to the fracturing of social cohesion.

Good things often take time, thought, experience and care to create. Too often today, time-tried-and-tested institutions, humane values and policies are being attacked and destroyed by greedy, ignorant and aggressive individuals, groups and organizations. Most are bent on increasing inequality, exclusion and division. These people are at war with core democratic values and have found a way to use the processes of democracy to attack and diminish social cohesion and the democratic mindset. We have a paradoxical situation where the citizen’s vote has become the single greatest threat to democratic values. States of Mind aims to become a force to help cure democracy of this auto-immune disease. In this sense, democracy is at war with itself and warfare must be re-defined as the ability to know, understand and influence how people think and feel. Our values and analysis of the situation are valid. What we lack in today’s “reality is information” world, is influence.

States of Mind recognizes that we need to become players in this war if we are to defend what is right, what is good and protect the everyday values of fratérnité – pluralism, respect for the other, tolerance and compromise.  States of Mind intends to gather opinions and insights into ways to influence key decision-makers and put some backbone into politicians and policy-makers. In this regard we do not trust governments, elected leaders or politicians to get it right. We recognise that we ourselves must take the fight directly to those who would destroy democratic values. Think about it.

States of Mind will pick-up issues across the spectrum – and spare no individuals, groups, organizations or country practices from deeper scrutiny. But we also aim to entertain and have a good deal of fun. We may be pessimistic but we are bold and cheerful and always enjoy a good laugh.

Our content will be taken from open sources across the media and supported by bespoke think-pieces, weighty references and analysis from insightful contributors. There is a lot out there we need to expose and shame. And in the process, we take a sceptical position towards the prevailing so-called values of the so-called “superpowers” who are inflicting so much material damage and misery on the world. We don’t trust them, period. We aim to expose and share best practice in taking the fight to the darker forces dismantling the human values that make life worth living.

Perhaps it is already too late and the battle is lost, for now. Perhaps not.

Go to: https://www.statesofmind.eu/