February 3, 2016

Crisis: Sanders*2, Corporate Media, Economic Ruin, False Flag Attacks
Sections                                                                     crisis index    

After 'Astounding the World in Iowa,' Sanders'
     Revolution Marches On

2. Americans Are Running Away From Corporate Media
Comments on Sanders
4. The West Is Traveling The Road To Economic Ruin
5. 58 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks

This is a Nederlog of Wednesday, February 3, 2016.

This is a crisis blog. There are 5 items with 5 dotted links. The first two or three are mostly about Bernie Sanders, but then I have avoided mentioning nearly all posts about him that I read or saw by others (o, yes!): Item 1 is about the outcome in Iowa for Sanders, and is mostly factual; item 2 is about the American corporate media and the (mostly) American alternative media: I list quite a few more alternative media than are mentioned in the article, and while I agree with the outlines the article seems to me a bit too optimistic; item 3 is about a comment on Sanders that I did read (!) and mostly agree with; item 4 is about how the West is travelling towards economic ruin (I think that is the most likely outcome) and about what seems to be a sensible economist; and item 5 is about false flag attacks and shows there have been many
(and I think 9/11 was one).

1.  After 'Astounding the World in Iowa,' Sanders' Revolution Marches On 

The first article is by Lauren McCauley on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:

The "virtual tie" in Iowa between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Monday evening is being hailed as a symbolic victory for the Sanders campaign, bolstering the fight for "political revolution," which the candidate vows will continue all the way to the Democratic National Convention.

With 99.94 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday, the Des Moines Register showed Clinton leading with 49.86 percent versus Sanders' 49.57 percent.

I think that last result is the definite one, since both said Sanders lost by 0.29%.

As to the first paragraph: It is a bit of an overstatement, but I think it is justified by the fact that Sanders started on 5% and ended on 49%, also without most of the main media reporting on him, or reporting extremely briefly.

Here is some more about Iowa:

"Whether we lose by a fraction of a point or we win or whatever, we're very proud of the campaign that we [ran] and I think the significance is, for folks who did not think Bernie Sanders could win, that we could compete against Hillary Clinton, I hope that that thought is now gone," Sanders told CNN shortly after his plane touched down in New Hampshire Tuesday morning.

Speaking from the back of a pick-up truck before dawn on Tuesday during an impromptu rally, Sanders announced: "We just got in from Iowa where we astounded the world. And now in New Hampshire we're going to astound the world again."

There appears to be a widespread consensus—including among centrist and right-wing voices—that Sanders' near-win in Iowa signifies a major blow to establishment politics, and a sign of what's to come as the primary contest heats up in New Hampshire and elsewhere.

Again I'd say this is a bit of an overstatement, but it is justified by his near win.

2. Americans Are Running Away From Corporate Media

The second item is by The Daily Take Team on Truth-out:

This starts as follows:

Win or lose, last night was a great night for Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

Bernie pointed out in his speech last night that the people of Iowa sent a profound message to the rest of the country by turning out in droves to support Bernie's vision for a "political revolution."

OK - at least Sanders showed in Iowa that he can pull the same amount of votes as Hillary Clinton.

Now we get towards the theme of the title:

So how did Bernie Sanders go from polling at around 5 percent in Iowa when he announced his candidacy to only losing because of a series of coin tosses? It's because people are actually able to hear his message - whether the establishment wants them to or not. It's because he talks about the issues that impact the people who used to make up the middle class in this country. And because it resonates with people who have never participated in an election - people who look at our bought-off politicians and have been disgusted with politics in the US.

The truth is, Bernie Sanders wouldn't be neck and neck with Hillary Clinton right now if people were forced to depend on the major corporate news networks. They wouldn't even know who he is except for the fact that he's over 70 years old and a self-described "democratic socialist."

The last quoted paragraph is simply true - which incidentally also shows the enormous lies (which include saying almost nothing about an important candidate) of the main media. Indeed, here is part of the proof:

Bernie Sanders received less than 10 minutes of coverage between CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and ABC World News, combined up until December. And it hasn't been just a blackout on Bernie; it's a blackout on the issues that American voters care about.

The corporate media refuse to talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They refuse to talk about Citizens United or the corrupting influence of money in politics. They refuse to talk about the fact that the Koch brothers' network of political operatives is bigger than the entire Republican party - or that they'll spend millions this year on political ads for the corporate media to air and thus profit from. And they refuse to talk about net neutrality or any of the attempts by the major internet providers and media conglomerates to force legislation to give them monopolistic control over the internet.

Yes, indeed. And here is a big part of the reason that Bernie Sanders did nearly win in Iowa:

Thanks to outlets like Truthout, The Intercept, Vice Media, Salon, AlterNet, Free Speech TV and RTTV - among many others - people can seek out and learn about the candidates that the corporate media deems "fringe" - like Bernie Sanders.

I look daily on all of them except Vice Media and Free Speech TV, but I also would like to mention some others I daily check: Common Dreams, Mother Jones, Truthdig, Democracy Now!, Consortiumnews, Naked Capitalism and ProPublica. (Also, while I do daily check Salon, I should say I rarely find anything interesting there, but that may be my personal taste.)

The main reasons to name them - and I check a lot more, every day - are (1) that these really are important sources of real news to me, and (2) that they are for me much more important than any of the main media [1], while (3) also most of them do not have a strong financial position.

Here is the sum-up of the article:

It's not perfect. The internet is full of half-truths and outright lies. It's full of people who just want to provoke arguments and insult people who disagree with them. But it's also provided an outlet for new media and a platform for honest discussion, and its wrested control away from the major mainstream corporate networks and newspapers.

In fact, the situation is far from perfect, simply because "the real news" is not brought anymore by the real media, which have grown thoroughly corrupted and falsified in diverse ways (notably also by not mentioning or hardly mentioning what is important).

Also, so far the internet is mostly "a free place", but this may be over in a few years if a Republican president gets chosen this year.

And while I have this year twenty years of internet (I started late in 1996) I am probably someone who has read fewer comments than almost anybody else who has internet that long: I strongly dislike or simply dislike most comments that I've read (not: all), and I think that reading comments is usually an utter waste of my time, and indeed I think so since 1996. (And I never commented. [2])

But I disagree with the last bit: Of course "the major mainstream corporate networks and newspapers" still provide most of "the news" to most people.
It's mostly only the intelligent minorities - which may be considerable minorities - that read the alternative media, even though that is a real pity.

3. Comments on Sanders

The third item is in fact by a commenter (!!) on a philosophical site. I repeat it here because it is mostly my own position:

This is the comment on Bernie Sanders:

I have serious problems with his foreign policy, stance on Israel, and advocacy of Obama's drone policy. I would also really like to see what Sanders has to say about Obama's Kill List, and I wish he hadn't said that Edward Snowden deserves prosecution. And then of course on economic policy he's not as left as I am (I would like worker's ownership of the means of production), but the reason I'm still willing to vote for him is that this would be the one election where the overall American political spectrum could cease to move rightward. Bill Clinton was to the right of Carter, and continued Reagan's cutting of 'big government', Obama is basically Bob Dole or early Mitt Romney, and Hillary is just a continuation of that. Voting for the 'lesser of two evils' usually still means shifting the country to the right nonetheless. But an actual Bernie win seems like an actual shift leftward. Two steps rightward, one step left! Our new American motto!

I agree, apart from "I would like worker's ownership of the means of production" and I disagree with that mostly because it is too vague, and because I don't believe in socialism as it is ordinarily conceived - and see my "On Socialism".

But yes, while I have not voted in any Dutch election since 1971, simply because I strongly dislike and distrust all Dutch prominent politicians (based on a lot of evidence, also); because I don't think my vote would ever make any real difference, indeed in good part because I didn't see any Dutch politician with decent ideas and a chance of winning many votes; and because there is no one like Bernie Sanders in Holland, that is, someone with an honest and reasonable leftist position who has clung to that for 45 years, I would vote in the American elections, for there is, at long last also, a real choice (but then I am Dutch).

4. The West Is Traveling The Road To Economic Ruin

The fourth item is by Paul Craig Roberts on his site:
This starts as follows:

Michael Hudson is the best economist in the world. Indeed, I could almost say that he is the only economist in the world. Almost all of the rest are neoliberals, who are not economists but shills for financial interests.

If you have not heard of Michael Hudson it merely shows the power of the Matrix. Hudson should have won several Nobel prizes in economics, but he will never get one.

I am not a regular reader of Paul Craig Roberts, but I have quoted and discussed a litte of him in Nederlog. There is a lot more on Michael Hudson in the article, which is here mostly because of its title, since that does seem the best guess about Western economies, but I have to admit that I did not know who Michael Hudson (<- Wikipedia) is.

But he seems to be a good guy: Here is a bit from the Wikipedia on him:

Hudson's April 2006 Harper's cover story, “The $4.7 Trillion Pyramid: Why Social Security Won’t Be Enough to Save Wall Street,” helped defeat the Bush administration’s attempt to privatize Social Security by showing its aim of steering wage withholding into the stock market to reflate stock market prices for the benefit of insiders and speculators – and to sell to the pension funds. His May 2006 Harper's cover story, “The New Road to Serfdom: An illustrated guide to the coming real estate collapse,” was the first major national article forecasting - in precise chart form - the bursting of the real estate bubble and its consequences for homeowners and state and local government solvency

And here is some more, from the same source:

On the banking crisis

Hudson states that the mortgage crisis was caused by parasitic finance that used law and outright fraud, and that the government backing of toxic debt and quantitative easing are ways to keep real estate inflated while the banks shift the real losses to U.S. labor, taxpayers, and the international community. Hudson states "quantitative easing" and "restoring stability" are euphemisms for the U.S. finance sector using the Federal Reserve and dollar dominance to engage in financial aggression to a degree that previously required military conquest. He points out Joseph Stiglitz has similar views. He states banks should have been allowed to fail with the government stepping in to protect savings and continue with qualified loans towards real productive capacity rather than financial loans that merely inflate asset prices. He states the Federal Reserve needs to understand inflating asset prices with low interest rates does not increase the long term productive capacity of the economy.

I agree. So yes, he seems to be an interesting economist.

5. 58 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks

The fifth and last item for today is by Washington's Blog:

This starts as follows:

In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos:

And next come the 58 ADMITTED false flag attacks, which I will leave to my readers' interests. But I do want to say why the concept is interesting, and also
why it seems to me to apply to 9/11/2001:

The concept is interesting simply because many wars start with a false flag incident: Germany against Poland in 1939; Vietnam in 1964; and quite a few more.

As to 9/11: If you have seen the architects and physicists on 9/11 on Youtube, you probably know there is a whole lot of evidence why the official story about 9/11 is very probably false: The World Trade Center and the other building that collapsed would not have fallen down as they did simply because a plane flew into them (and no plane hit the third collapsed building) and they seem to have fallen down, in the manner they did, because of explosives, that must have been installed prior to 9/11.

That is what I think, and that is simply based on the evidence, by named and good architects and physicsts mostly, that seemed quite convincing to me (indeed unlike quite a bit that was mostly political). Also please note that I did not articulate any conspiracy theory [3] here: I merely mentioned a lot of convincing evidence that the official story is false.

Here is the last item, with a quote that I have given quite a few times, and two others, from similar specialists:

(58) Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the “benefits” of of false flags to justify their political agenda:

Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

I quoted the second of these several times in Nederlog.


[1] This also includes the Dutch papers. (I've read NRC Handelsblad from 1970-2010, that is for 40 years, also while I lived in Norway, but starting in 2010, under a new Belgian editor it rapidly started to get a whole lot worse, and I gave up on it. It may still be the least unreadable Dutch paper - if you skip most of "the columnists" - but I don't want to pay rather a lot of money for a paper that is 3/5th amusement, baloney or bullshit, and whose editor I detest.)

Except on two sites mostly written by persons with M.E. (but I did both only for a few months in 2010, and then totally stopped) and two sites written by programmers (and these I am also only reading since 2007).

One of the things I very much dislike is all the anonymity joined with a nearly total refusal
to give one's personal education and age and general values:
I am not going to differ in opinion with somebody I don't know anything about.

[3] Why not? For clearly there are many conspiracies, indeed especially in politics, for which reasons some conspiracy theories must be mostly true - that is, I reject the idea that conspiracy theories "are incredible" or "must be false" simply because they are conspiracy theories. That is just baloney.

The problem with conspiracy theories is mostly that if indeed there was a conspiracy, it tends to be very difficult to prove, precisely because it was a conspiracy (and if there wasn't there simply can't be any valid proof).

       home - index - summaries - mail