1. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Brawl Over His
“Insinuation” That She’s
2. An Idiot’s Guide to Prosecuting Corporate Fraud
3. Will Julian Assange of
WikiLeaks Go Free After U.N.
Finds He Is Being Arbitrarily
4. Trump’s Neofascism Isn’t Going Away, Even
5. US, Japan, Canada,
Australia and 8 Other Countries Sign
Trans Pacific Partnership
6. There Is No Freedom Without Truth
This is a Nederlog of Friday, February 5,
Clinton and Bernie Sanders Brawl Over His “Insinuation” That She’s
crisis blog. There are 6 items and 6 dotted links: Item
1 is about Hillary Clinton's evident corruption (which she denies);
item 2 is about corporate fraud and Bill
Black and others; item 3 is about Julian Assange; item 4 is about Donald Trump; item 5
is about the signing of the TPP; and item 6 is
about a fine article by Paul Craig Roberts.
And I will try to extend the crisis index today to 2016, but I need to
do this while mostly avoiding KompoZer, which is too bugged to do this
decently. More about this tomorrow.
by Dan Froomkin on The Intercept:
This starts as follows (and is
somewhat interesting if you care for truth):
This is Hillary Clinton: She shows all
the signs of major corruption
(see below, in case you don't know), as does her husband (who collected
a cool $125 million after his presidency that deregulated the banks and
redefined "socia- lism", "the left" and many other political terms to
what is in fact political
correctness) - but she attacks Sanders who
did not even say she is corrupt, and that basically because
a decent man who vowed he would do a decent campaign.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton had a
series of momentous exchanges Thursday night over what Clinton called
Sanders’s “artful smear” – the suggestion that taking massive amounts
of money from corporate special interests had corrupted her.
Clinton told Sanders during Thursday’s
Democratic presidential debate that he would not find a single
example of money changing her mind or her vote, and she attacked him
for his criticism “by innuendo, by insinuation” that “anybody who ever
took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be
There is a fine listing of quotes by both Bernie Sanders and Hillary
Clinton after this introduction, which I will leave to my readers'
interests, but here is a little of the evidence that Hillary Clinton is
But as the Washington
Post reported on Thursday, “donors at hedge funds,
banks, insurance companies and other financial services firms had given
at least $21.4 million to support Clinton’s 2016 presidential run —
more than 10 percent of the $157.8 million contributed to back her
bid.” In fact, the Post even noted that Hillary
Clinton has now “brought in more money from the financial sector
during her four federal campaigns than her husband did during his
quarter-century political career.”
Sanders hasn’t directly accused Clinton
of being corrupted, but his argument is essentially that no one is
incorruptible – that no one could take millions of dollars in
contributions and speaking fees from Wall Street and not be influenced
Yes, indeed. And please note that
corruption - the giving of money to attain
advances one does not have a right to - is extremely
widespread in politics
and in economics, also completely apart from anything the Clintons did.
Why the Clintons - of all people! - would not be corrupt with
widespread funding by banks and corporations, totally escapes my
There is - for example - this:
By giving just 12 speeches to Wall
Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations,
$2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015 – more than many people earn in a
In all, she and her husband have
collected over $125
million in speaking fees since 2001. They’ve also raised $2 billion
for the Clinton Foundation.
She made more by 12 speeches than I made
in the last 31 years. And how else to rationally explain
their receiving $125 million for giving a few speeches to very rich
people, if this was not in reward for the massive
services they did for the same rich people when in office?! How else
would one call evident corruption other than evident corruption?!
But no, she will not stop, and she
will never admit any corruption, and indeed she will be saying whatever
she thinks gives her the best chance of getting the candidacy, in spite
of the fact that most she says is false: It worked for Obama (about
whom a whole lot less was known in 2008) and it might work for her as
2. An Idiot’s Guide to
Prosecuting Corporate Fraud
This is a recommended article, and contains quite a lot more that is
is by David Dayen on The Intercept:
starts as follows, and is an article on the initiative of Bill Black
and four others to start a group of financial specialists to attack the
mega-corrupt American banks that I reported on January 31:
Say you’re the newly elected president
of the United States, and you want to make prosecuting corporate crime
a top priority.
Where do you start? Here
would be good.
A new group called Bank Whistleblowers
United have just pushed out a comprehensive plan they think would put
the executive branch back in the business of enthusiastically
identifying, indicting, and convicting financial fraudsters — restoring
accountability while protecting the public.
The cumulative credibility of the
group’s four founders is extremely strong. Richard Bowen is the
Citigroup whistleblower who unsuccessfully warned top management about
the rotten condition of loans inside mortgage-backed securities.
Michael Winston spoke out about similarly corrupt practices at non-bank
mortgage originator Countrywide. Gary Aguirre, a Securities and
Exchange Commission attorney, was fired for refusing to let a Wall
Street banker out of an insider trading investigation.
And their ringleader is William Black,
an outspoken fraud-fighter and longtime white-collar criminologist who
was a two-fisted bank regulator during the savings and loan crisis and
now teaches at the University of Missouri–Kansas City (UMKC).
There is considerably more under the last
dotted link. This is a recommended article.
Will Julian Assange of WikiLeaks Go Free After U.N. Finds He Is Being
third item is by Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh on Democracy Now!:
This starts as follows:
There is more under the last dotted link,
including an interview with Julian Assange's lawyer, but this is what
it comes down to.
reports the United Nations panel investigating the case of WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange has ruled he has been "arbitrarily detained.”
The U.N. says it will not confirm the report until Friday at 11 a.m.
Geneva time. Assange first complained to the U.N. in 2014 that he was
being arbitrarily detained since he could not leave the Ecuadorean
Embassy in London without being arrested. Assange took refuge in the
embassy in 2012. Assange wants to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex
assault claims, which he has repeatedly denied. He says he fears Sweden
will extradite him to the United States, where he could face trial for
publishing classified information. Police say a warrant for Assange’s
arrest remains in place. Assange has called for his arrest warrant to
be dropped if the panel ruled in his favor. The BBC
reports the panel’s ruling will not have any formal influence over the
British and Swedish authorities.
But there is one more point I should address, which is rendered as follows in the
article by Amy Goodman, who noted a recent tweet by Assange:
"I shall exit the embassy at noon
on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful
prospect of further appeal. However, should I prevail and the state
parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect immediate return of
my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me."
I say. I do not know about his conditions in
the Ecuadorian embassy, nor do I know about his relations with the
people working there, but this does seem to me to be a mistake.
He has been in the embassy for over 3 1/2 years now, and these must
have been very
heavy and difficult years for him. But neither of the two tweeted
alternatives seems realistic to me, and I should also say that if my
communist father could survive over 3 years and 9 months of German
- and he did, and was a revolutionary communist the next 35 years, till
he died - then Assange should be able to keep resisting the British and
But I know I do not know all the relevant evidence.
4. Trump’s Neofascism
Isn’t Going Away, Even if Trump Does
The fourth item is by a former resident of
Bloomberg's New York on Naked Capitalism:
This starts as follows:
I agree that Trump is not "crazy",
one of the reasons I do is that the Spiegel (German edition) recently
had an issue with a picture of Trump on the frontpage, together with
the title "Madness" (German: "Wahnsinn").  And I
also do not
think - to react to another term I have repeatedly heard about him -
that he is a "genius": He really is too stupid and too ignorant in his
talks for that.
This is a chaotic time for American
politics, as the old establishment system falls away globally and newer
structures emerge into that power vacuum. At such a moment, the culture
and political institutions intersect in unpredictable ways. Videos of
unprovoked police violence, for instance, allow for protests and civic
argument about authoritarian tactics, dissidence, and racism. But those
videos also allow authoritarians to make their case that such open
combination of expressed violence and state authority just isn’t a big
deal, or is even a good thing.
With this background, we come to Donald
Trump and his influence on the Republican primary, which is an
unusually vivid and important example of an unorthodox institutional
evolution. Trump lost in Iowa, dealing a blow to his credibility. But
he is still a scary politician, and not because he’s crazy. He’s not.
He’s a flashy racist real estate promoter who sells overpriced gaudy
But I agree he is very rich, very impertinent, and quite dishonest, and
that he may be very dangerous if he wins the Republican candidacy, and
especially if he were to win the presidency.
The essay quickly jumps to Michal Kalecki
(<- Wikipedia) who was a very
interesting economist, who had many of Keynes' economical ideas of the
1930ies before Keynes (and Keynes - unlike Trump, unlike Friedman,
unlike nearly all other economists - was a real genius ):
does not get defined, and while the reference to Kalecki's
thesis of the 1930ies is interesting (it is here),
it is at least
Kalecki’s insight in this essay is that
for big business, unemployment is first and foremost a mechanism for
disciplining workers. Under full employment “the ‘sack’ would cease to
play its role as a ‘disciplinary measure,'” and “the social position of
the boss would be undermined.” Discipline and political stability, he
argued, “are more appreciated than profits by business leaders.”
He notes, however, that there is one
full employment model of economic order that big business will accept:
fascism. Fascism replaces the discipline of unemployment with the
discipline of policing, concentration camps, and the threat of
violence. Therefore, he concluded, “one of the most important functions
of fascism… was to remove capitalist objections to full employment.” He
then points out that fascist full employment tends towards using people
to build weapons, and that carries its own seed for endless war.
Kalecki’s work is worth reading in full, but that’s the gist of it.
I'll explain myself. First, here is a definition of "fascism",
which I owe to the American
Dictionary (and have given before in Nederlog, quite a few times also):
is defined as "A system of government that exercises a
dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of
state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
And what we currently
have in the USA are (1) a more or less completed merger "of
state and business leadership",
indeed especially for the banks, for
military industries and in oil, the
representatives of which did and do get very high positions in
governments before returning to their extremely well-paying commercial
posts, while also (2) there is a strong "belligerent nationalism"
in the USA.
These simply are facts,
and these facts have been slowly but surely created since Reagan took
power, and included a lot of help and deregulations
Whether these facts are sufficient to speak of "fascism" or
the current USA is a moot question, indeed in considerable part because
pretense that the USA still is a democracy (with very little
for everybody who is not rich) and still is not a dictatorship
are also actively
maintained by the government.
I'll leave the question unanswered for the moment. Next, why Kalecki's
(from the 1930ies) is slightly misleading:
The situation was rather similar in the "socialist" countries, such as
the Soviet Union and (from 1948 onwards) China: There too one generally
had to work
or risk serious punishments.
Now we get back to Trump:
What is worrisome about
Trump is two things. First, what should be clear about politics is that
the public desperately wants a full employment economy. Trump is
promising that. And second, Trump is building institutional links with
at least one natural conservative force that hasn’t until recently been
considered particularly political: the police.
I see the dangers, especially
if Trump wins the presidential candidacy (after which he
could decide to risk a few billions in advertisements from his own
money to make him president, to the best of my knowledge), but I must
add that it still seems unlikely to me that Trump will win the
Then again, I may be refuted.
5. US, Japan, Canada, Australia and
8 Other Countries Sign Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement
The fifth item is by Washington's Blog on his site:
This starts as follows:
It is also all I will quote from this brief
note. But I have a question:
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) would
be horrible for Americans and the people of the world.
But most politicians are thoroughly
the Democratic or Republican parties represent the interests of the
American people. Both parties ignore
the desires of their own bases.
So today, 12 countries – Brunei, Chile,
New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico,
Peru, United States and Vietnam – signed
Where in the mainstream media did you see any
discussion of the TTP (or the TTIP or the TiSA or the CETA)?
I have seen very little, and everything I saw in the
mainstream media was much hindered by the fact - and this was a fact,
indeed - that the treaties were supposed to be secret and were
mostly kept secret.
But yesterday was a very black day, because of this signing.
6. There Is No Freedom Without Truth
The sixth and last item for today is by Paul Craig
Roberts (<- Wikipedia)  on his site:
The title indicates why I got so very
angry when the University of Amsterdam was officially opened in 1978
with the sick, degenerate, immoral, political, and politically
"Everybody knows that truth
does NOT exist"
And the beginning is a quote, that ought to
be far more famous than it is:
-- Professor Brandt, August 1978, opening
the academic year
“This conjunction of an immense
military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American
experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual —
is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal
government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet
we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of
our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by
the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise
of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the
weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods
and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Since that was written "the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense"
has taken over a considerable part of the
institutional powers in the United States, indeed especially by hugely
extending the investments in "defense" (which financed many wars).
— President Dwight D. Eisenhower
The article itself starts like this:
Conspiracies are real. There are
many more of them than people are aware. Many government conspiracies
are heavily documented by governments themselves with the official
records demonstrating the conspiracies openly available to the public.
Just google, for example, Operation Gladio or the Northwoods Project.
These conspiracies alone are sufficient to chastise those uninformed
Western peoples who go around saying, “our government would never kill
its own people.”
Yes - and see my False
Flag Attacks of two days ago. Indeed there is this about false flag
attacks in the present article:
False flag attacks are used by
governments in order to pursue secret agendas that they cannot publicly
acknowledge. If President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney
had said: “We are going to attack Iraq and a half dozen other countries
in order to exercise hegemony over the Middle East, steal their oil,
and clear the path for Israel to steal the entirety of the West Bank of
Palestine, diverting taxpayers’ resources from serving the American
people into the pockets of the armaments industries and spilling the
blood of your parents, spouses, children, and siblings, even the
American sheeple would have resisted.
Instead, following the famous advice of
Hitler’s chief propagandist, they said: “Our country has been attacked!”
Yes, indeed. I also stated my reasons in False Flag Attacks why I
believe it probably was
a false flag attack, and these reasons are in fact mostly the reasons
of architects and physicists who investigated 9/11. (As to conspiracy
theories, see note .)
Or alternatively: it was, by the 9/11 Commission
- except that they never met the arguments by the
physicists and architects that the three buildings that collapsed on
9/11 could not collapse in the ways they did, also not
if the buildings were hit by a plane (and the third building wasn't). I
have seen these
The neoconservatives, who conrolled the
George W. Bush regime, called for a “New Pearl Harbor” so that they
could begin their wars of conquest in the Middle East. A
“New Pearl Harbor”
is what 9/11 gave them. Was this a
coincidence or a Gulf of Tonkin or a Reichstag fire or a Tzarist secret
police or Operation Gladio bomb?
The charge, “conspiracy theory,” is used
to prevent investigation.
9/11 was not investigated.
arguments, and they convinced me.
It ends like this:
Dear Western Peoples, if you wish
to be able to walk down the streets of your cities without being
accosted by police, demanded to present identity papers, searched,
detained indefinitely or assassinated without due process of law, if
you wish to be able to express your opinion about “your” government and
its use of your tax payments, if you wish to be able to discuss current
affairs or your personal affairs without being recorded by the NSA or
the equivalent in your own country or by both, if you wish to be able
to act on your moral conscience and to protest the violence the West
applies to Muslims and others unfavored by powerful Western interests,
such as Palestinians, if you wish to live in the freedom that was
achieved in the West after centuries of struggle, wake up, find time
from less meaningful pursuits to become aware of what is being stolen
from you. It is late in the game. If you do not stand up for truth, you
will have no freedom as there is no freedom without truth.
I wholly agree, and indeed
especially with the last point, that "there is
no freedom without truth". Also, in fact I have
been saying much of the above
since October 29, 2005 (!).
So I am not optimistic, indeed in considerable part because I
a good part of all Americans is not intelligent and not informed.
And clearly this article is recommended.
Incidentally, I do get the point of the Spiegel, because I
agree Trump's "political speeches" to his fans are
pretty mad. Then again, I also think that Trump is mostly acting
in his speeches: He is not like that when doing regular business.
 According to Bertrand Russell Keynes
(and not Moore, Whitehead, James, Wittgenstein or any of the
many extremely intelligent men Russell did know personally)
"was the cleverest man" Russell had ever met in his life.
 And I note that the same lie was the
basis of very much that did happen in the University of
Amsterdam from 1978 till 1995 (at least), which also were the years
that I did study there (most of the years, not all of them, for
I was too sick part of the same time):
I did not study for four years (at least) between 1981 and 1993, and
not at all since 1993). Also, I was ill
all the time; my illness was not admitted
nearly all the time; I did not attend any lectures all
the time, and I completed an excellent B.A. in philosophy (with an 8+
i.e. an A) and an excellent M.A. in philosophy (with an 9,3, another
A); and I was kicked from the university's philosophy faculty briefly
before doing my M.A. there in philosophy, so yes:
I did not fail in my studies (like the
majority of healthy students) and I did get very high marks.
(But it was a total loss of time, and the only reason I did it
was that I was and am too ill to leave Holland. Also, I never made a
single cent from any of my degrees. And they took a lot of time,
and cost me a lot of money and health.)
 He is an interesting man,
indeed in part because he - like quite a few former CIA-men, like Ray McGovern
(<- Wikipedia) - started as a Republican, and worked for Reagan's
 There is a considerable difference
between the theses that (1) 9/11
was a false flag attack and (2) 9/11 was caused by a conspiracy.
First about the conspiracy theory: In fact, the 9/11 Commission
and the U.S. government also believed (or at least said they
believed) in a conspiracy theory, namely by Al Qaeda and Osama
Next about the difference between (1) and (2): For (1) there is a whole
lot of evidence, indeed considerably more than about other
false flag attacks (as e.g. the Gulf of
(<- Wikipedia) that effectively started the U.S. war in Vietnam). I
think the evidence for (1) is convincing: There was an attack; the
attack was different from what it was said to be; ergo the attack
was a false flag attack.
For (2) there are quite a few possible conspiracies,
varying from Al
Qaeda to parts of the American government and/or military. Also, this
is logically a further hypothesis than the statement that the
was different from what it was reported to be. And as I said two
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).
So my position is this: I think it is very probable 9/11 was a false
flag attack, simply because there was a lot of good evidence for that
thesis; I think it is uncertain who orchestrated the false flag attack,
because there is not much good evidence.