The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash:
Floyd's Roger Waters Launches "Campaign to
Close Guantánamo" for Obama's
Last Year in Office
3. Citizens United Anniversary: How Anthony
American Democracy Into an ‘Open Sewer'
U.S. to Put 'Boots on the Ground' in Iraq to
5. Bernie v.
This is a Nederlog of Saturday, January 23, 2016.
This is a
crisis blog. There are 5 items with 5 dotted links: Item
1 is about an interesting article by Glenn Greenwald on the lying
main media; item 2 is about Roger Waters' attempt
to get Obama to keep his promise that he would lock Guantánamo;
is about SCOTUS judge Kennedy, who designed Citizens United, that gave
virtually all political power in the US to the very rich; item 4 is about - again - "boots on the ground" in
Iraq + the utterly crazy ideas of Panetta; and item 5
is another article about the very unfair treatment Bernie
Sanders gets in the main media.
The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
Also - just to remind myself - I still have to update the crisis
index, which will be more
difficult than otherwise, because it must be restarted (for the html is
just too confused).
by Glenn Greenwald on The Intercept:
This starts as
The British political and media
establishment incrementally lost its collective mind over the
election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the country’s Labour Party, and
its unraveling and implosion show no signs of receding
yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere
near as radical as Corbyn; they
are not even
in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues,
Sanders is a more fundamental, systemic critic than the
oligarchical power centers are willing to tolerate, and his rejection
of corporate dominance over politics, and corporate support for his
campaigns, is particularly menacing. He is thus regarded as America’s
version of a far-left extremist, threatening establishment power.
And in fact Bernie Sanders is neither
"far-left" nor an "extremist", while many of those saying he is
are in fact rightist extremists who either believe their own stupid,
greedy, shallow and crazy political ideology or are
paid by the rich to lie.
Incidentally: I really have had it with the sick spying
Guardian with most of its obviously lying Blairite
"journalists", but I reserve this for later. (But yes, I did
learn a lot from The Guardian's journalists' many recent lies
about - especially - Jeremy Corbyn. And no, I am not a
socialist. More later.)
Here is Glenn Greenwald's opinion on Sanders' chances to win the
candidacy and the nomination:
I personally think Clinton’s
extremely likely, but evidence of a growing Sanders
movement is unmistakable.
Because of the broader trends driving
it, this is clearly unsettling to establishment Democrats —
as it should be.
This is fine with me. I don't quite agree
with Glenn Greenwald, but everybody is allowed to guess. 
Here is Glenn Greenwald on the parallel treatments Jeremy Corbyn and
Bernie Sanders, who in fact both are long-standing and genuine
left candidates, who are as such very rare these days: Most
"leftish" candidates currently are "leftish" at best, and also have hardly
ever defended real leftist positions. 
Next, there is this:
Just as was true for Corbyn,
there is a
direct correlation between the strength of Sanders and the intensity of
the bitter and ugly attacks unleashed at him by the D.C. and
Democratic political and media establishment. There were, roughly
speaking, seven stages to this establishment revolt in the U.K.
against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to Sanders is closely following
the same script:
I think the script is very interesting and
quite subtle. If you want to read it (which I recommend you do) click
the last dotted link (and save the article for later reference).
Here is the end of Glenn Greenwald's article:
But the nature of
“establishments” is that they cling desperately to
power, and will attack anyone who defies or challenges that power with
unrestrained fervor. That’s what we saw in the U.K. with the emergence
of Corbyn, and what we’re seeing now with the threat posed by Sanders.
It’s not surprising that the attacks in both cases are similar — the
dynamic of establishment prerogative is the same — but it’s nonetheless
striking how identical is the script used in both cases.
Yes, and three reasons Glenn Greenwald did
not mention are that (1) most of the main media are vastly corrupt and
are owned by the very rich, while (2) they also have many corrupt
journalists working for them who pose as "leftists" but are in fact
Blairites (in England) or Clintonites (in the US), both of which are
highly corrupt "brands" (in their own terms) (3) whose careers are
based on lies, lies and more lies, whose frontmen are multimillionaires
with more than $100 milion dollars each, and who cannot be
distinguished from conservatives except by their lies and styles of
2. Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Launches "Campaign to Close
Guantánamo" for Obama's Last Year in Office
is by Amy Goodman and Juan González on Democracy Now!:
Today marks seven years
Obama signed an executive order calling for the closure of Guantánamo
Bay within one year. But Guantánamo remains open, and now Obama only
has one year left to fulfill his pledge. We are joined by the world
famous musician Roger Waters, who has helped launch the "Countdown to
Close Guantánamo" campaign, which asks people to take photos of
themselves with signs calling for Guantánamo’s closure before Obama
leaves office in 2017.
As I have
pointed out several times, I am the son of a father who survived more
than 3 years and 9 months of Nazi
concentration camps as a communist (and who in the end was one of
the - in total! - two Dutch communists who ever got knighted
in Holland, although the whole
Communist Party resisted in the 2nd WW, and many were tortured and
murdered) and I also am the grandson of a grandfather who got murdered
as a communist in a German concentration-camp.
And I also was deceived by Obama in 2009.
I was for the most part undeceived within half a year was
precisely that Obama broke his word about the US concentration
camp - so yes: I do have a personal interest in this (although
it is indirect).
This is a
fairly long interview from which I will quote just two parts, both by
is about how he got involved, after he got a letter (originally not
directed to him) from on of those imprisoned in Guantánamo, who wrote
that he was much inspired by singing songs, one of which was Roger
You" (<- the text of the song):
ROGER WATERS: Well, Hey you, out—"Hey you, out
there in the cold, getting lonely, getting old, can you feel me?" is
the first line. And in his letter, he says that those words and the
couplets that come after it—he said, if you want to know how it feels
to be in here, to be incarcerated, you should listen to this song,
because it describes my feelings—which was very moving for me, for him
to say that.
I mean, it’s impossible for any
of those of us who have not been incarcerated, as entirely innocent men
with no recourse to the law—I mean, this is the fundamental problem
with Guantánamo and the law involved, is that habeas corpus
has been thrown out of the window, and so we no longer have our
fingertips on the grasp of the law that we’ve been used to for the last
800 years since Magna Carta in the fields of Runnymede in London. And
it’s gone now. We don’t—we don’t have it. It’s been removed from us.
Yes, indeed: That is the fundamental
problem - there is no more habeas corpus in the USA since 2001. And
yes, that right did exist for 800 years.
He also has some excuses for Obama:
And, I mean, Obama has had a
pretty hard row to hoe during his incumbency as the president, and
clearly the machinery of government that he’s trying to work alongside
is broken. It has broken. It’s far too susceptible to financial
considerations and so, after Citizens United, as we all know.
So, yes, let’s try and encourage him. You know, he’s got 365 days from
today until he leaves office, so Andy’s plan is, let’s get Guantánamo
closed before the end of that time.
agree with Roger Waters that "the
machinery of government" in the United States "has broken", but I do not
think this excuses Obama's many lies.
while I agree with Waters, I think it is unlikely he will succeed. But
indeed that is no excuse for not trying.
is considerably more in the original, which is recommended.
3. Citizens United Anniversary: How Anthony Kennedy Turned
American Democracy Into an ‘Open Sewer’
This starts as follows:
third item is by Joe Conason on Truthdig:
This week marked the anniversary of the Citizens United decision, which
exposed American democracy to increasing domination by the country’s
very richest and most reactionary figures—modern heirs to those
“malefactors of great wealth” condemned by the great Republican
Theodore Roosevelt—so it is worth recalling the false promise made by
the justice who wrote the majority opinion in that case.
Justice Anthony Kennedy
Supreme Court’s Jan. 21, 2010 decision to undo a century of
public-interest regulation of campaign expenditures in the name of
“free speech.” He had every reason to know how damaging to democratic
values and public integrity that decision would prove to be.
Once billed as a
conservative,” Kennedy is a libertarian former corporate attorney from
Sacramento, who toiled in his father’s scandal-ridden lobbying law
firm, “influencing” California legislators, before he ascended to the
bench with the help of his friend Ronald Reagan.
In fact - from my quite
informed but European perspective - what are called "libertarians" in
the USA are in fact mostly extreme neo-conservatives. I do not know how
extreme or moderate a neo-conservative Kennedy is, but he
clearly is a neo-conservative, who also clearly got what he wanted
with the Citizens United decision - and what he wanted was to give the
rich all the powers they desired in order to subvert real
Here is a sum-up:
I simply say he lied,
and did so on purpose, indeed for the reason Joe Conason gives:
Of course he knew what he did.
super-rich right-wing donors have overwhelmed the opponents of their
chosen candidates, promoting a durable Republican takeover of
Congress—often through the deployment of false advertising and
Late last year, Kennedy
his vaunted “transparency” is “not working the way it should,” a feeble
excuse since he had every reason to know from the beginning that his
professed expectation of “prompt disclosure” of all political donations
was absurdly unrealistic.
4. U.S. to Put 'Boots on the Ground' in Iraq to Combat ISIL
fourth item is by Adam Johnson on AlterNet:
In an op-ed
in Politico and in an appearance at
Davos World Economic Forum Friday morning, Secretary of Defense Ash
Carter announced the U.S. will deploy "boots on the ground" in Iraq to
help local forces fight the so-called Islamic State. The policy shift
is a turnaround from the Obama's White House's previous stance of not
deploying combat troops in Iraq and one sure to shape the foreign
policy debate in the 2016 election.
Iraq was first attacked by the USA 25 years ago: See the
Wikipedia's Gulf War
- which seems wrongly named to me, but which did run in January
and February of 1991, indeed also with several European allies with the
the Iraqis now have some 25 years of experience with the US
army, although indeed Saddam Hussein was deposed and arrested only in
2003, and was hanged in 2006.
also this piece of "information":
It remains unclear if the Obama
administration plans on deploying any more troops. Sec. Carter's
predecessor, Panetta, claimed that the fight against ISIL would
be a "thirty-year war".
I wrote"informatiom" is not that the Obama administration is the
most obscure administration ever (which it is), but because
of Panetta's claims:
be intentionally insane, in view of the facts that (1) Isis has some
25,000 troops, no atomic weapons, and only illegally sold oil as
regular income; (2) the armies of the Islamic states
surrounding them count about 5,000,000 - five million - troops (200
times as many); and (3) the US has (by far, also) the strongest army,
the most troops, and the most money dedicated to warring in the world. 
who says that in these circumstances there will be "a thirty
years war" is simply lying - or rather: engaging in pure totally blind wishful
Bernie v. Media
fifth item is by David Swanson on Washington's Blog and originally on
the American Herald Tribune:
I say. The reason that I am somewhat amazed follows:
Major corporate media outlets in the
United States are reporting
on a new viability for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, based
on his rise in the polls nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire — and
possibly, though this goes largely unmentioned, based on his big new
advertising purchases from major corporate media outlets. In
independent progressive media as well, there’s a small flood
of maybe-he-can-really-win articles.
As of last fall, Bernie Sanders
had received a total of 8 minutes of coverage from broadcast evening
news, less than Mitt
Romney or Joe
Biden got for deciding not to enter the race.
This seems all true to me (that is: I think
they are valid guesses), but one also must keep in mind the state of
the main media, and its virtually infinite capacities to lie and deceive, for
which also see item 1.
And yet, Bernie polls
better against Donald Trump (now that a pollster finally asked that
question and released the results) than does Hillary Clinton. And
Bernie is gradually catching
up to Clinton in polls of Democrats. If he
wins New Hampshire (very likely) and Iowa (pretty likely), all sorts of
bandwagon jumpers could switch their support to him, and uninspired
voters become inspired to vote in the next several primary states,
snowballing the magical force of “momentum” into an upset victory with
great media ratings, even if horrifying political implications from the
point of view of major media outlets’ corporate owners.
There is also this, which I quote in part because you can compare in
with item 1
and in part because of a comment I'll make under it:
Look at this Time
magazine video and text. The video at the top of the page is remarkably
fair. The text below it, including an error-plagued transcript
apparently produced by a robot, is less fair. Time says of
Bernie: “[H]e’s so far been unable to convince most Democrats he’d make
a better candidate against a Republican than Clinton.” By no stretch of
the English language is the 48% or 52% backing Clinton in polls “most
Democrats.” The polling story should be that Sanders has climbed from
3% to 37%
or 41% without any help.
Here’s Time‘s summary of
Sanders’ platform: “He talked taxes (he’d raise them), turning points
(he thinks he’s at one) and tuxedos (he’s never owned one).” Notice
that two of the three items are sheer fluff and the only serious one is
that he’ll raise your taxes. Time follows that by linking to
an article making the case that Sanders cannot win. Time of
course has no “balancing” argument that he can win.
Clearly, Time's treatment of
Sanders was intentionally fraudulent. 
But this was not the comment I wanted to make, which needs a little
A good part of the technique of lying the main media
use these days is to treat very many things as if the
media are neutral (which is a lie: they are owned by billionaires, and
generally serve the very rich), and as if the topic they treat
has two equal sides (which is in fact rarely the case), such as
climate change (which
in fact is extremely unequal: virtually all climate scientists
claim it exists; vritually all US GOP-politicians say either it doesn't
or they don't know).
Now to the remark I do want to make: Time,
like nearly all other main media in the USA, has given up that
technique of falsifying all issues as if there were a pro and a con,
with the media neutral between the two, in the
case of Bernie Sanders, it seems because this
would involve the media's often mentioning Bernie Sanders. And
even this they do not want to do.
So now they lie
about him, also in a very dishonest and gross way, as mentioned
above and in item 1.
As for me: First, I am an European, not an American. I don't know
whether this sharpens or hinders my seeing the facts: I know a lot
and a reasonable amount about US politicians, but I never visited the
USA and very probably never will, and I also do not have any
loyalties to "the USA" or USA politicians.
Second, I hope Bernie Sanders wins. Third, if I have to guess
about who wins, I'd rank the candidates thus: Clinton > Sanders -
but not by much (not "extremely", in Glenn Greenwald's words), and
indeed the only two reasons I think Clinton is still the somewhat
more likely winner is that she has much more money and a much
more widely known last name. And most of the US electorate is neither
very intelligent nor very informed - to formulate it very
Then again, all this is merely early guessing.
 In fact, most "leftish" politicians
- who on this issue have to be distinguished sharply from the
electorates they deceive
- are simply not leftist.
Most of them are relativists,
who only care for their own invariably very
well-paid and very easy careers.
This again has been brought about mostly by the very rich
multimillionaires (over $100 million dollars each) Clinton and Blair
and their "Third Wave" lies.
I will write soon about the difference between - these days - very
rare leftist politicians, and the these days very common "leftist"
politicians, because I am getting very sick of these fundamental frauds
who lie, and lie, and lie, and lie
simply to get better themselves.
 I note that the three facts - or
"facts" - I quoted are very widely known, and have been heard
or read many times by me. One of the many things I do not
understand - without making pretty outlandish sounding
assumptions - is how 25,000 troops can stand up and remain
standing up against the American army.
 Of course it was! Check the
Fraud is "deliberate deception
to secure unfair or unlawful gain". They got paid for their lies by those who buy
these gross lying sheets, and they evidently lied as explained
in the text. So yes: They clearly are frauds.