1. The Empire Strikes Back
Thanks to Loopholes, Donald Trump May
Have Avoided Paying Taxes for
3. Clinton Shows a Dovish Side on Nukes
4. Fake News & False Flags:
This is a Nederlog of Monday, October 3, 2016.
is a crisis log with 4 items and 4 dotted links: Item 1
is on an article by Chris Hedges on imperialism in South-America: I
liked it and have little to say about it; item 2 is
about an interesting discovery: Trump lost a billion dollars in 1995,
and because the rich have deregulated
the rules in such a way that they get what they lost returned from
the taxes without paying any taxes, he seems to have paid no
taxes whatsoever for 18 years, while restoring his billions; item 3 is about a reported "dovish side" by Hillary
Clinton, but I am skeptical (having learned how Obama the
progressive before elections turned into Obama the conservative
after elections), and it seems the author of the article agrees with me
(but still it is a lot better to choose for Clinton as president); and item 4 is about fake news with fake flags that
introduce real spying on false pretenses in Iraq (which is quite new
in the real spying).
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need
to click/reload twice or more
to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for
possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my
In any case, I am now (again) updating
the opening of my site with the last day it was updated.
(And I am very sorry if you have to click/reload several times
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
C. In case you visit my Danish site: It now
works again (!), but I do not know how long it will. ("xs4all" did OK
for one - 1 - day, and then reverted to showing very
old openings, also at a wrong place, while I had to click several
times to see any new file I had added.)
I am very sorry, and none of it is due to me. I
am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that
also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
I will keep this introduction until I get three successive days (!!!)
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen that
for many months now.
1. The Empire Strikes Back
item today is by Chris
Hedges on Truthdig:
This starts as follows:
A decade ago left-wing governments,
defying Washington and global corporations, took power in Brazil,
Argentina, Paraguay, Venezuela, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador. It seemed
as if the tide in Latin America was turning. The interference by
Washington and exploitation by international corporations might finally
be defeated. Latin American governments, headed by charismatic leaders
such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil,
Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, won huge electoral
victories. They instituted socialist reforms that benefited the poor
and the working class. They refused to be puppets of the United States.
They took control of their nations’ own resources and destinies. They
mounted the first successful revolt against neoliberalism
and corporate domination. It was a revolt many in the United States
hoped to emulate here.
But the movements and governments in
Latin America have fallen prey to the dark forces of U.S. imperialism
and the wrath of corporate power. The tricks long practiced by
Washington and its corporate allies have returned—the black propaganda;
the manipulation of the media; the bribery and corruption of
politicians, generals, police, labor leaders and journalists; the
legislative coups d’état; the economic strangulation; the discrediting
of democratically elected leaders; the criminalization of the left; and
the use of death squads to silence and disappear those fighting on
behalf of the poor. It is an old, dirty game.
This seems all correct to me. I have to be
a little careful, simply because I know most about Europe and the USA,
but yes: this is as I see it.
Here is more on what seems to be developing now, which mirrors the past:
President Correa, who earned enmity from
Washington for granting political asylum to Julian
Assange four years ago and for closing the United States’ Manta
military air base in 2009, warned recently that a new version of
Operation Condor is underway in Latin America. Operation Condor, which
operated in the 1970s and ’80s, saw thousands of labor union
organizers, community leaders, students, activists, politicians,
diplomats, religious leaders, journalists and artists tortured,
assassinated and disappeared. The intelligence chiefs from right-wing
regimes in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and, later,
Brazil had overseen the campaigns of terror. They received funds from
the United States and logistical support and training from the Central
Intelligence Agency. Press freedom, union organizing, all forms of
artistic dissent and political opposition were abolished. In a
coordinated effort these regimes brutally dismembered radical and
leftist movements across Latin America. In Argentina alone 30,000
So that was a view of the past, that may
repeat itself now.
Chris Hedges interviewed Guillaume Long,
who is Ecuador’s minister of foreign affairs and human
mobility. Here is Long on "neoliberalism":
Long said the neoliberal economic
policies of the 1980s and ’90s were profoundly destructive in Latin
America. Already weak economic controls were abandoned in the name of
free trade and deregulation. International corporations and banks were
given a license to exploit. “This deregulation in an already
deregulated environment” resulted in anarchy, Long said. “The powerful
people had even less checks and balances on their powers,” he said.
“Neoliberalism is bad in most contexts,”
Long said when we spoke in New York. “It’s been bad in Europe. It’s
been bad in other parts of the world. It has dismantled the welfare
state. In the context where we already have a weak state, where
institutions are not consolidated, where there are strong feudal
remnants, such as in Latin America, where you don’t really have a
strong social contract with institutions, with modernity, neoliberalism
just shatters any kind of social pact. It meant more poverty, more
inequality, huge waves of instability.”
I agree with all of that, except that I am
more negative about "neoliberalism" (itself a
propaganda name rather than a real and proper name): I think it means
either neoconservatism (of the most radical kind also) or else
simply plain neofascism.
And I do not know any evidence
that there is any context in which "neoliberalism" worked well
for the poor or for the middle class.
Apart from that, I agree. Here is the last
bit that I'll quote from this article:
Yes, indeed. And this is a recommended
Corporate leviathans and the imperialist
agencies that work on their behalf are once again reshaping Latin
America into havens for corporate exploitation. It is the eternal story
of the struggle by the weak against the strong, the poor against the
rich, the powerless against the powerful, and those who would be free
against the forces of imperialism.
2. ‘Bombshell’: Thanks to Loopholes, Donald Trump May Have
Avoided Paying Taxes for 18 Years
The second item is by Lauren McCauley on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Amid the ongoing political uproar over
Donald Trump's undisclosed tax records, the New York Times
dropped a bombshell late Saturday when it reported
that, due to a staggering loss of $916 million in 1995, it is possible
that the Republican presidential nominee has not payed taxes in nearly
Times reporter Susanne Craig
pages from Trump's 1995 tax returns—one page of a New Jersey
nonresident return, one page of a Connecticut nonresident return, and a
New York State resident income tax return—by way of an anonymous
mailing, with a return address listed as Trump Tower.
The documents, verified by Trump's
then-accountant Jack Mitnick, report a loss of $915,729,293 for that
year. Tax experts hired by the Times confirmed that "tax
rules that are especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have
allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an
equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period."
I say! This means that if you are rich
enough to loose nearly a billion dollars,
as Trump did in 1995, then you can, under the "neoliberal" (really:
neoconservative or neofascist) rules for the rich that the rich have
instituted for themselves since Reagan became president in 1980, get totally
rid of that gigantic loss, by not having to pay
nearly a billion in taxes afterwards.
In other words: If I - who is very poor -
loose a 100 or a 1000 dollars (or euros), I have lost them; if an
American billionaire (?!) looses a billion dollars, he gets the billion
dollars back in terms of taxes he totally does not have to pay, even
though he still is a billionaire.
That is "neoliberalism". That is the fruit
of all deregulations that started under Reagan. And that is how the
very rich steal their riches from the many poor: Either they invest and
make a profit, and they own the profit; or they invest and make a loss,
and the total loss, also if it is a billion, gets totally restored by not having to pay any taxes until the total loss has been totally
Here is the New York Times quoted on "the
In brief, this is how Trump may have avoided
paying any taxes whatsoever during 18 years:
The provision, known as "net operating
loss," or "N.O.L.," allows a dizzying array of deductions, business
expenses, real estate depreciation, losses from the sale of business
assets and even operating losses to flow from the balance sheets of
those partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations onto
the personal tax returns of men like Mr. Trump. In turn, those losses
can then be used to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income
from, say, book royalties or branding deals.
Better still, if the losses are big
enough, they can cancel out taxable income earned in other years. Under
I.R.S. rules in 1995, net operating losses could be used to wipe out
taxable income earned in the three years before and the 15 years after
While he still was supposed to be a mega-billionaire, the only
thing that counts is his income, and if he looses a
billion on some operation then, in spite of his other billions,
he gets the billion back from not having to pay any
taxes on anything for 18 years.
That is how the rules have been rigged in the USA. To conclude this,
Clinton's campaign manager:
"There it is," Clinton campaign
manager Robby Mook said
in response to Saturday's report, "This bombshell report reveals the
colossal nature of Donald Trump's past business failures and just how
long he may have avoided paying any federal income taxes whatsoever. In
one year, Donald Trump lost nearly a billion dollars. A billion. He
stiffed small businesses, laid off workers, and walked away from
hardworking communities. And how did it work out for him? He apparently
got to avoid paying taxes formerly two decades—while tens of millions
of working families paid theirs. He calls that 'smart.' Now that the
gig is up, why doesn't he go ahead and release his returns to show us
all how 'smart' he really is?"
Actually, Donald Trump is not smart:
First, he looses nearly a billion. Second, using the rules for
the rich and the deregulations others have introduced to
save the rich, he gets the billion back by not
having to pay any taxes (on his supposed other billions) until
the billion he lost has been returned in taxes he totally
avoids paying over his other billions.
From the rich, for the rich, by the rich: The present USA. (And no:
Trump will not save the non-rich: he will only save
himself, and perhaps some other rich.)
And this is a recommended article.
3. Clinton Shows a Dovish Side on Nukes
The third item is by Jonathan Marshall on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
Whoever is hacking Hillary Clinton’s
emails just did her a big favor, at least with anti-war critics: One
newly released message reveals her skepticism about wasteful and
dangerous spending on new nuclear weapons in the name of
“modernization.” It’s a refreshing change from her usual hawkish stand
on national security.
An email leaked
to the conservative Washington Free Beacon includes an audio
file of Clinton’s remarks at a private fundraiser in McLean, Virginia,
last February. Asked by a former senior Pentagon official about her
willingness to cancel plans for a next-generation nuclear cruise
missile program, she replied, “I certainly would be inclined to do
“The last thing we need are
sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear armed,” Clinton added.
I say. Then again, I am very
doubtful, since anything you hear on the news these days may
have been planted there (in fact, though this is never admitted) by
some secret service, and the same applies to this.
Indeed, the reasons for my skepticism are
especially that Obama, until he was elected, also was very much
for peace and against weapons, and as soon as he was elected
totally changed course, and now has introduced his plan "to spend more than $1 trillion over the next three
decades on new land, sea, and air-launched nuclear weapons".
So the peace-president turned out to be a very
handy very major liar who turned out to be a war-president giving a
trillion dollars to the Pentagon.
And since Obama is a Democrat as is Clinton, and Clinton certainly
cannot be trusted, I do not know whether Hillary Clinton's emails were
really hacked, or
were only "hacked" to give her some more popularity, until she has been
Here is some more on the trillion
dollars Obama intends to give to the Pentagon (and take
from the people, who have to pay this in taxes, that is, unless they are rich):
The LRSO program, in turn, is part of
the Obama administration’s grandiose plan
to spend more than $1 trillion over the next three decades on
new land, sea, and air-launched nuclear weapons. That plan calls for
building 12 new nuclear-armed submarines, 100 long-range strategic
bombers armed with a new class of bombs, and at least 400 silo-based
ballistic missiles, in addition to the new cruise missiles.
Here is the reply of the Pentagon to
Which seems to entail that the Pentagon
either knows or very seriously reckons with a nuclear war, although
Reagan was quite right in saying that "a nuclear
war cannot be won and must never be fought".
To such criticisms, the Pentagon has argued
chillingly that the new cruise missiles will give the United
States greater “flexibility” in fighting a nuclear war — contrary to
President Reagan’s common-sense dictum
that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
And in fact Jonathan Marshall ends his article as I started my review:
Yes, indeed: Obama before being elected
seemed to be a wholly different man from Obama after he was elected,
and probably the same applies to Hillary Clinton.
To be sure, history gives little reason
for optimism that Clinton would follow through as president on her
President Obama’s transformation from an
eloquent advocate of a nuclear-free world to a supporter of
unprecedented nuclear spending suggests that the military-industrial
complex remains a powerful force.
So why vote Clinton? Because she is not mad and is not a neofascist or
This is a recommended article.
News & False Flags:
The fourth and last item today is by Crofton
Black and Abigail Fielding-Smith from the Bureau of Investigative
This starts as follows (and I shortened
What I am especially concerned with are
(boldings added) the "fake insurgent
videos which could be used to track the people who watched them": That is a style of conducting a war that seems quite
new, not so much in producing fake reports that are totally
different from what they purport to be, as in the ability of tracking
anyone who watched them.
The Pentagon gave a controversial UK PR
firm over half a billion dollars to run a top secret propaganda
programme in Iraq, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.
Bell Pottinger’s output included short
TV segments made in the style of Arabic news networks and fake
insurgent videos which could be used to track the people who watched
them, according to a former employee.
The agency’s staff worked alongside
high-ranking US military officers in their Baghdad Camp Victory
headquarters as the insurgency raged outside.
Bell Pottinger's former chairman Lord
Tim Bell confirmed to the Sunday Times, which worked with the Bureau on
this story, that his firm had worked on a “covert” military operation
“covered by various secrecy agreements.”
As to "Lord Tim Bell" and his firm, they are characterized as follows
in the article:
Bell Pottinger reported to the Pentagon,
the CIA and the National Security Council on its work in Iraq, he said.
Bell, one of Britain’s most successful
public relations executives, is credited with honing Margaret
Thatcher’s steely image and helping the Conservative party win three
elections. The agency he co-founded has had a roster of clients
including repressive regimes and Asma al-Assad, the wife of the Syrian
There is this on who Bell etc. cooperated
And there is this on the process of producing
The firm’s output was signed off by
former General David Petraeus – then commander of the coalition forces
in Iraq – and on occasion by the White House, Wells said.
Bell Pottinger produced reams of
material for the Pentagon, some of it going far beyond standard
There is quite a lot more in the article,
which is recommended.
There were three types of media
operations commonly used in Iraq at the time, said a military
contractor familiar with Bell Pottinger’s work there.
“White is attributed, it says who
produced it on the label,” the contractor said. “Grey is unattributed
and black is falsely attributed. These types of black ops, used for
tracking who is watching a certain thing, were a pretty standard part
of the industry toolkit.”
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months now. I
do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of
(really: the KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from
2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control
myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because
"you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which
is the perfect excuse never to do anything