The massively biased media support for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump illustrate deeply problematic trends in the mainstream Western media. Journalists and editors now function to a terrifying degree as propaganda megaphones for the non-democratic American elites. We have seen this before in European history and we know what it led to. The unashamedly biased “Trump bashing” and “Hillary praise” show a blatant media manipulation pushing for public opinion to sway in the desired direction. 90 % of US media is currently owned by only six companies, according to Business Insider. All of them support Clinton. Whether you read The New York Times, The Economist or others, you get exactly the same conspicuously coordinated, ideological perspective; in stark contrast to what once was the Western ideal of objective and analytical journalism. And It is well known by now that the United States no longer is a democracy. Reports from top universities such as Princeton, as well as the USA’s prominent intellectuals, calls it an oligarchy - power is concentrated in the hands of the very few.
Judicial Watch - a non-partisan organisation in the USA which for years have worked legally for the release of Clinton emails has together with WikiLeaks revelations and other sources that are fed-up of the de-democratization of the US, have actively helped to disclose the rotten pack of lies surrounding Clinton. Yet, still the mainstream media supports her. She lied under oath to Congress about the emails, she lied under oath about her role in Benghazi, she was actively involved in organising the shipment of NATO weapons from al-Qaeda hands in Libya over to “free Syrian democratic” rebels with ties to the same terrorist groups via Turkey, and still, she receives no criticism from the American media—which is owned by her supporters.
This is a presidential candidate who is under investigation by FBI’s on mishandling classified information. The FBI chose to reopen the case on the same day that Judicial Watch announced a lawsuit for FBI records of that particular investigation, by the way. The latest WikiLeaks releases also show that Obama and Clinton have helped fund ISIS/Daesh, which has also received remarkably little attention from the same leading American media outlets.
The ongoing investigations against the Clinton family’s private Foundation, where foreign states pay millions and arguably receives political favours in return, are also very serious. One of the issues discussed by Judicial Watch is the “pay for play” tendencies within the Foundation, and the dangers of having foreign nations donate into a leading politician’s private legacy. Top foreign state contributors to the Clinton Foundation are Norway – Europe’s Qatar - and Saudi Arabia, who have paid tens of millions of dollars. It is, by the way, remarkable to note how Norwegian politicians have received noticeably more leadership positions in international organisations controlled by the USA in the past few years. Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg; UN Special Advisor on Cyprus, Espen Barth Eide; Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Torbjørn Jagland; leader of the IAAE task force, Rune Andersen and the list goes on; now even including current Prime Minister Erna Solberg who heads a “celebrity group working on environmental issues” for the UN. The filthy rich oil nation of Norway thus willingly enters the international segment where monetary donations to top international politicians more or less guarantee the donors leading positions. Or so it seems. At any rate, if the same type of ”pay for play” happened in Africa, everyone would immediately call it economic and political corruption.
Hillary Clinton, whom mainstream media praises as the only “worthy presidential candidate”, has shown us a notable willingness to fight and support the destruction of Middle Eastern states, most recently expressed in her constant call for a “no-fly zone” over Syria. One thing is that Clinton steadily violates international law and shows no respect for the UN and its statutes which demand respect for national sovereignty. It is even worse that mainstream US outlets simply overlook the seriousness of such “Emperor Nero” tendencies – and still support her candidature.
Anyone who saw how radical Islamists and brutal jihadists who —with Western backing— took power in country after country during the “Arab Spring” and deposed these countries’ secular authorities, knows what a “no-fly zone” really means. We saw it in Libya: myriads of NATO war planes bomb a country and takes part in a civil war by supporting only one of the fractions. In the case of Libya, helping to power Saudi-supported Islamist groups. We clearly remember Hillary Clinton’s ruthless laughter when she heard about Libyan leader Gaddafi’s brutal murder. It looked like she found the manner of his death hysterically funny. Now Clinton wants to escalate the war in Syria, secure a “no-fly zone” and send in ground troops. Russia’s response to the significant threat to world peace that a Clinton victory would entail, has been to reallocate parts of its northern naval fleet into Mediterranean waters off Cyprus and Syria.
The questions are many. Does no one remember how Daesh/ISIS “suddenly” appeared in Western media, reaching every newspaper in the Western world almost on the same day? These well-paid jihadist mercenaries and soldiers clearly had some very good friends in the USA, considering the headlines they instantaneously made around the world. Their every move was detailed and captured in brilliantly photographed photos, that found their way to Western media outlets in a matter of minutes. By the way, the methods of punishment that ISIS uses are no different than what is standard practice in Saudi Arabia, a country where the development of Daesh/ISIS has been applauded in the media from day one. Saudi Arabia being, of course, US’ closest ally in the region.
The fact that the Americans are good friends with terrorist groups and regularly “use” them as supporters in the Middle East cannot possibly any longer come as a shock to anyone. One example of this close cooperation that illustrates how NATO helped al-Qaeda-affiliated groups into power in Libya is this: The man who was one of the top supporters of the NATO invasion, Abdulhakim Belhadj, became the military leader in Tripoli right after the city fell. He was then lauded by the Americans as a “Libyan freedom fighter and national hero”. There are even some nice photos of John McCain posing with Belhadj and congratulating him for his brilliancy. Before the Libyan war, the very same man led one of the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in the country (LIFG). In 2015 the same man became the leader of ISIS in Libya, after being brought to power with the active help of both NATO and the US.
The way the US establishment handles conflicts in the Middle East, given that they support terrorist groups in one place while they fight against the same groups in another, gives way to sinister assumptions that US wishes for a world war. It becomes increasingly hard to explain the degree of American irrationality by other means. One example: The US is fighting against Daesh/ISIS in Mosul, and fighting for the same groups - al-Qaeda’s branch, al-Nusra Front (al-Sham) in Syria. American bombers in Syria are directly helping al-Nusra, Daesh and others by bombing bridges, for one, making it easier for the jihadists to entrench themselves. The many examples suggest that the USA wants to create major conflicts in the region; conflicts that can easily escalate into a third world war. Even Chinese battleships have been in the Mediterranean Sea for the past year. We know that if Clinton wins the election, there will be a push from her side to escalate the war in Syria and provide more support to the al-Qaeda affiliated and Saudi supported mercenaries there.
The cynical hawk, Clinton is more than capable of igniting a world war which might be just what the US needs. Just like in the 1930’s, when the American economy lay in ruins, World War II fixed all the US’ economic problems and put them back on track. The miserable American economy is at the centre of attention today too. In The Origin of Financial Crises, George Cooper effectively explains how choosing to start major wars in history has been a much used method of getting rid of a heavy burden of debt. It would, one may assume, be glorious for the US to get rid of its burden towards China, for example. And the American central bank is, as we all know, privately owned by just a few families. One may assume that these families are now fighting to keep their money; the US having significant amounts of national debt, now around 20 trillion dollars. This could easily send the country into serious bankruptcy in the event of a simple rise in interest rates. The 2008 financial crisis was never solved, as we know, but rather prolonged by “curing debt with more debt”. One outcome of bankruptcy and collapse of the dollar will be that the USA goes from what is known as a “developed country” to a “developing country”. The calamity of its population in such an event would be horrifying.
It is reasonable to assume that today’s undemocratic American elites, facing such brutal realities, would be willing to use equally brutal means in an attempt to remedy their situation and save the dollar. Many, including the IMF, openly say that it will require drastic international measures to save the American economy. It is rational to expect that Hillary Clinton’s willingness to help wage a total war could be the solution the American elites are looking for. To conclude, the filthy waters surrounding the notorious liar Hillary Clinton have been stirred up far too much for her to be a good presidential candidate. She could easily catalyse a very serious escalation of international conflicts.
The author is a writer and historian of religions ( www.hannenabintuherland.com).