Elite Censorship

Abstract: In the guise of “moderation”, the New York Times decides what is fit to know. Some data threatening established lies crucial to the established order are systematically censored therein. And that’s worse than dumb.

Human beings are knowledge creatures. Manipulate what they know, turn them into pigeons, and they will come eat in your hand. Main Stream Media knows this all too well. Distortion of data is why the clear and present “Greater Depression” is turning into something worse than the “Great Depression” of the 1930s.

The refusal of looking at reality is what enabled the catastrophic, ongoing, austerity drive. In a self reinforcing loop, much of the austerity is now directed towards the cognitive part of the economy.

Austerity Exploding Up

Austerity Exploding Up

“Europe’s recovery in the real economy has taken hold and is becoming self-sustaining.” (European Commission, 2010.)
In truth, what do we see? What the graph above shows: unemployment in Europe is exploding up. Yet, in truth, providing jobs, is the primary object of economy. An economy does not exist only to make financial capital happy.

Progress has to start with truth, in full, thus reality. That’s why censorship is a bad idea, be it in Pyongyang, Beijing, Moscow, or New York. In states of law, the law ought to be enough. The rule of little chiefs has no place in republics, wherever practice has given institutions a fiduciary role.
***

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE MINDS OUT.
Paul Krugman, main New York Times editorial, Mars 1, 2013:
“We’re just a few weeks away from a milestone I suspect most of Washington would like to forget: the start of the Iraq war. What I remember from that time is the utter impenetrability of the elite prowar consensus. If you tried to point out that the Bush administration was obviously cooking up a bogus case for war, one that didn’t bear even casual scrutiny; if you pointed out that the risks and likely costs of war were huge; well, you were dismissed as ignorant and irresponsible.

It didn’t seem to matter what evidence critics of the rush to war presented: Anyone who opposed the war was, by definition, a foolish hippie. Remarkably, that judgment didn’t change even after everything the war’s critics predicted came true. Those who cheered on this disastrous venture continued to be regarded as “credible” on national security (why is John McCain still a fixture of the Sunday talk shows?), while those who opposed it remained suspect.

And, even more remarkably, a very similar story has played out over the past three years, this time about economic policy.”

In 2010, Olli Rehn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olli_Rehn declared that
“Europe’s recovery in the real economy has taken hold and is becoming self-sustaining.” For a reality check, see the unemployment rate above. It seems to be sort of exponentiating. But the bankers are safe, don’t worry.

The Rehn of economic terror is currently serving as European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro and vice president of the European Commission. Such people are intimately tied to the plutocratic system. Many of these worthies go back and forth with the likes of Goldman Sachs. They never had it so good.

Jack Lew, just named treasury secretary, inventor of the “Sequester” was a great chief at Citigroup where he proceeded to help lose about 50 billion dollars, and was compensated for his troubles by seven figures of taxpayers’ money.

Mario Monti, unelected Italian PM went, with most of his government, to report to his wealthy masters at Davos. It was obviously deliberate: elections were coming, the Italian people were encouraged to acknowledge their masters too, just like their PM. Instead, to general surprise, they voted massively for Beppe Grillo, an outsider critical of the powers that be, once condemned for manslaughter. When going to the slaughterhouse, better to chose an expert.

Back to Krugman’s editorial. The Iraq war has been an unqualified disaster in slow motion. The computation of the neofascists (aka “neoconservatives”) had been that the conquest of Iraq would pay for itself, as the conquest of the West and other parts had.

This did not happen, because the British and American armies were unable to win. Instead they had to give power to the Shiites and agree to leave.

The only positive, for the West, has been that any potential enemy now knows it should not assume that the West would always behave in a civilized, or even in a predictable, manner (that was one the miscomputations of Hitler: he had claimed, loud und klar, that the democracies could never decide anything tough, so he was stunned, literally speechless, after he received the war declarations of Britain and France).

Actually many of the American neofascists explained that such was their computation: make the USA look crazed and dangerous. Recognizing now that the Iraq war was a mistake would be rejecting that last “positive”.

In economic policy, Krugman is rightly indignant of the disaster in Europe (that friends of the wealthy are anxious to duplicate in the USA, see the “Sequester” that started today).

Major economic indicators in some countries, such as Spain or Great Britain, are already worse than in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and are pointing down further (except in tax havens such as Ireland).

UK Flat Line GDP: Greater Depression Today


Britain is doing worse than in 1930s. Cameron is blossoming into a total failure.

I commented on the Krugman editorial. As Krugman had dared to evoke the Iraq war, so did I. Here is what I said:

Wealth from monopoly and ridiculously low taxes for the plutocrats, austerity for everybody else, is bringing massive cuts in education and science. Having cut to the bone, plutocrats, their servants and sycophants are now sucking the brains out. Hey, if the rabble is stupid enough, it will salute its masters smartly!

Examples of this disaster abound: the European Union elected leaders, led by the right wing, the regressive Cameron and Merkel just cut the EU science budget by 13%! In the name of austerity. In the USA, the sequester promises cuts to science (NSF, NIH) of 5.1%. Over the next 6 months. In the name of austerity.

Cameron, before becoming PM of the UK promised that Britain would regain technological leadership. But Cameron, is, truly, fundamentally a very wealthy heir. Truly, he wants a richer elite, and a poorer plebs. So what did he do? Besides introducing astronomical tuition to British “public” universities, he reduced the science budget of the UK by 7.6%. In the first year.

Austerity is just the latest Trojan Horse of those who brought us run-away banking. It’s just the power of a small class of people who know each other, worldwide, and are preying on the rest of humanity.
No morality stand in their way, not even putting the entire biosphere in danger. The only way we are going to save the planet is through great advances in science and efficient technology. Otherwise mayhem is guaranteed. Among other nefarious consequences.

Donald Rumsfeld used to shake Saddam Hussein’s hand, when the former used to manipulate the latter, in the 1970s. The USA decided a secret war in Afghanistan in 1979, on July 3. See what president Carter’s National Security adviser, Brzezinski, declared:

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/usa-attack-against-afghanistan/

A consequence was 9/11. Three million Afghans dead, another. Bad actions can have terrible fall-out.”

These observations of mine were censored by the thinkers at the New York Times. Nothing really new here. I have been sending comments to the New York Times for more than a decade, more than 1,000 of my judicious observations were censored. I knew that, by evoking the early history of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I exposed myself to traditional New York Times censorship. In 2003, overall, the New York Times was for the Iraq war (with the exception of Krugman).

The official line about 9/11 is that the sky was blue over an unsuspecting USA, and suddenly planes jetted in, piloted by very bad men from Afghanistan.

Never mind that 15 out of 19 were Saudi Arabs, and none from Afghanistan! That qualifies as irrelevant details.
Any data contradicting that idyllic picture is indeed viewed as deeply anti-American. Apparently reality has an anti-American bias.

The day following that act of censorship, Krugman wrote a related post about European elites pontificating in 2010 that austerity worked, and the European crisis was over. By then I knew I had been censored, so I re-sent the exact same comment, omitting the last paragraph about Rumsfeld, and Carter’s attack on Afghanistan. It was immediately published.

So what happened to “the truth shall make you free”? Why is the New York Times so authoritarian? Why to censor me systematically when I mentioned that the debt of the USA, according to the government of the USA, the IMF, etc, was 111%?

The NYT’s official line is that the Federal debt is less than 80% because it has decided that the Social Security Fund is NOT a creditor of the government of the USA. In other words the New York Times is part of a vast conspiracy that deliberately masks the fact that more than 5 trillion dollars is owed to CREDITORS, the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare. Then the establishment turns around and say Social Security is going to get broke!

This is confusing, to say the least. Until one realizes that there is one, and only one elite, and that it is the effective arm of the plutocracy. This is why Obama was so ineffective in the first two years: he had to depend upon a Congress and Senate, let alone a Main Stream Media that was as much part of the same elite as the Koch brothers, the Rockefellers, Bilderberg and Davos conferences circles.

I often read pathetic wishes from small destitute people, for the return of Nancy Pelosi, the professional pseudo-progressive elitist, to head Congress. Drinking Pelosi’s Napa wine, skiing at Pelosi’s Sugar bowl resort (cost: $85!) Something to excite progressives, if elite enough!

In truth, the TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU SMART.

Smarts are what the pseudo left elite fears most. The truth, from smarts. To be found out as those who speak one way, and act just the opposite. And that is why the New York Times has censored me more than 1,000 times, but the Wall Street Journal (where I commented more than 1,000 times) has never censored me. Not once. Nor did “The Economist”, ever.

Official progressives are afraid, because avowed progressivism is their business, whereas in truth they just belong to the elite, and the elite, right now, means the worldwide plutocracy. That’s why massive austerity cuts are implemented when billionaire financiers are taxed less, relatively speaking, than janitors (this is an allusion to so called “carry interest” used by hedge fund managers and the like).

Can one be truly progressive when one is truly afraid of reality? Of course not. Progress comes from the manipulation of reality, and that requires to know what reality is. First. So one can make one’s mind about it, before bringing one’s mind to bear on the problem(s) .

Manipulating histories about hostilities in the Middle East informs energy policies and macro-ethics, looking forward. It also exculpates, as Krugman said, the bad actors of past policies, and, worse, exculpates some cognitive and logical methods used by past, present, and future mass criminality. it is certainly not the way to progress.

If the New York Times wants to keep on pretending it is about reality, its censorship bureau should be put out of business.
***
Patrice Ayme

About these ads

Tags: , , , , ,

13 Responses to “Elite Censorship”

  1. Alexi Helligar Says:

    It is a outright lie when conservatives claim that social security is going bankrupt, when in fact it is a major creditor esp. to the US government.

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/
    5 Huge Myths About Social Security – DailyFinance
    dailyfinance.com

    Social Security has been providing Americans with old age, disability, and widow and orphan insurance for as many as 77 years. But like so many of…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear Alexi: Yes, they are playing games, but, unfortunately many economists on the left have decided to ignore that SS is a creditor. It’s self defeating (except if they are from the other side!) And that is my point. Indeed.
      PA

  2. Dominique Deux Says:

    I have to admire your obstinacy in finding an outlet in the NYT.

    It is a good and even a mandatory read, like The Economist or Le Monde, or Pravda (I won’t go back too far in time). An independent-minded reader can gather lots from their columns, provided the pinch of salt is always at hand. But it is basically a vehicle for orthodox propaganda, swathed in the foam and glitter of self-serving kudos from the self-anointed cognoscenti. Its real purpose emerges when a Judith Miller is hounded out of her spider hole by Slate. The NYT is a Judith Miller launch outfit. In the same way that Le Monde, for all its sophisticated veneer, is really a vehicle for Mr Le Boucher’s neoliberal economics.

    The demise of the written press as a serious source of data and debate is not a looming risk, it”s a dead and settled issue, and the faster we close the lid on the coffin and move on, the better.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: I agree with you. It just never cease to astonish me. They literally have tripwires, for example the Federal debt (less than ten trillion dollars according to the New York Times. More than 16.5 trillion dollars according to everybody else, including the law). The NYT functions pretty much like Pravda! One could say it’s only them, but the NYT is pretty much the voice of the Demoncratic Party, and, in particular, most most esteemed economists on the pseudo-left, bringing us pillars of the world such as Rubin and Summers (under Clinton), architects of the world. The Rubin machine is what allowed Greek neofascists to lie to Eurostat modulo Goldman Sachs, for example… NYT’s articles are reproduced all over the USa, even the world (they make it to Le Figaro thinking room, and even articles.)

      The practical result is that the immense majority of the center left in the USA is in lock step with NYT thinking, and pseudo data, with the result one can observe in the last 25 years. Those outfit are still the mind masters. For instance, Obama is very proud to have swallowed the wisdom of the Financial Times, bait, hook,line, and sink.

      A funny example is that Krugman himself is paralyzed by New York Times data poisoning, as he uses the low ball number for USA debt, not thinking that’s anti-Social Security, AND, thus, just asking for more debt, instead of particpating cleverly to the debate…

      OK, let’s close the lid and move on… Now there is a hyperbolic comet heading towards Mars…
      PA

  3. Hazxan Says:

    Patrice, I’ve had an intuitive bad feeling about “official statistics” for a long time. Things like seeing with my own eyes food & energy prices twice what they were 3 years ago, yet “official” inflation is 3%. Reality as experienced is not matching the “official” reality reported by their media.

    A recent FT article confirms there is reason to doubt. The ONS is the UKs official statistics provider and the FT says “They Cannot Be Trusted”. My first concern would be accuracy of complex national statistics even when there is a will to make them honest. Small errors multiplying by the million, for example. But if there is not even the will to be portraying an accurate picture…well, where does that leave us? Here’s a link, hope it works:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8728845a-80d0-11e2-9c5b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2MU0S1bCQ

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hazxan: One thing known for two decades is that much government spending is tied to the CPI, Consumer Price Index. It’s the case in the USA, for example. So what did plutocracy do? Suggest to the central bank, the Fed in the USA, to make “hedonistic” modifications of the CPI. That’s added to outright modifications by substitutions of indexed products.

      “Hedonistic” brings the following. A few years back the average price of a car in the USA was 20K. Now it’s 30K. What would the Fed do? Apparently the price of the car augmented 50% in a few years. Bad CPI. So let’s “hedonize”. The Fed looks at the new average car, and declares: “This car is twice better!”. Thus, whereas it was worth 20K in the past, now it’s worth 20K x 2, that is, 40K (they are good at math!). But then the Fed observes the car costs “only” 30K.

      So the Fed observes, hedonistically, that the price of the average car has actually gone down, by 10K, in spite of what the average uncouth naive ignorant unsophisticated rabble may think. Thus, in five years, the price of cars has gone down 25%, not up 50%! QED!

      It reminds me of the New York Times and the rest of the liberal establishment insisting that the debt of the USA is only 70% GDP, instead of 112% (the official number), so that plutocrats may keep on paying at most 15% tax… Something that sounds obscure until one realizes that they live in the same epensive apartments in Manhattan, and mansions in the poshest areas of New England…
      PA

  4. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, could i send to you some readings privately?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: I don’t do this usually, because I already cannot satisfy the needs of my existing personal correspondance. I am completely overwhelmed by work and duties (I have dozens of 90% completed essays). And I have also decades old established personal relationships that I have to feed, so I prefer the Celine Dion method of public debate… This way I can be much more efficient.
      Funny thing is that my philosophy is pretty apocalyptic, so one would guess I would keep it to myself… But there are many levels of apocalypse. In economics, it’s difficult to pass Richter 6 (that would be the massive defaults I long advocated). Although the policies followed in economics by our owners have been “murderous” as Dominique says…
      PA

  5. Dominique Deux Says:

    Patrice, you opened your recent comment on “where did money go” with a graph which I think illustrates convincingly the main consequence of the neoliberal drift – confiscation of productivity gains by free foxes allowed to run amok in the free henhouse.

    This, along with the recent ruckus on multipliers within the IMF – less an indictment of the IMF per se than of the intellectual sloth of a pseudo-science which uses arbitrary multipliers, with gay abandon, to hide its general cluelessness – is enough to invalidate the current slew of murderous policies.

    Can you provide a link and references? barring that, a link to the underlying data?

    Many thanks in advance

    D2

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: I usually do what others do, namely get the graphs from the horse’s mouth, my enemy, the Fed. But the Fed’s website is a vast jungle, and I would not know where I got it from there, at this point. Sometimes I go to the jungle, like others go to Thailand or something they have to take a plane to reach. One thing I know is that, although the graph, being from the Fed, was about the USA, I have seen similar graphs in Europe. Such graphs also update, so sometimes there is a more updated version of something in the Internet, and I pick that too.
      The key word was “productivity”. I would be curious to see the equivalent graphs for the EU, EZ, UK, etc.

      I read many things a day, from many domains. As I come across interesting data that I know is trustworthy, I make notes of it, sometimes, or just keep a graph. It’s not the best way to keep all the sources OK, but I am philosopher, not a librarian. So for example, I can search my main computer for “productivity”, and that graph will appear, but disjointed from whatever web page I initially got it from.

      I am sure the graph would pop out if I made an Internet search: “USA productivity Fed”. Or “Saint Louis Fed”…
      PA

  6. Dominique Deux Says:

    Thank you! I’ll follow on your trail.

    I labor under the delusion that well referenced sources somehow may sway the occasional open-minded reader on the forums run by orthodoxy guardians. And if not, irk the mob. I have taken to bookmarking any such gems. TE, in its information and reporting pages, can yield wonderful tools for debunking its own ideology.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      That’s entirely true, Dominique. “The Economist” (TE) debunks itself, if read carefully. Same with Wall Street Journal. I am actually subscribed to BOTH (ahahaha). Although I called you know whom, “Murderoch”, for his rabid propaganda for killing vast numbers of Iraqis, around 2003, I must admit Rupert has improved, and he never censored me, not once, differently from that fortress of conscious pseudo-liberalism, the New York Times.

      I do not believe in “open mindedness” that much. Raw data, well referenced does not cut it.

      There, as usual, our old friends the Nazis are most handy. suppose we were in Nazi Germany: what would sway the average German, that is, the average Nazi? Well referenced stuff? They would not have the patience or interest to read it. Their minds were made, EMOTIONALLY.

      So the way to do it was to tell them the truth, namely that they were just engaging in mosntruously insane criminality, and they would just become thus monstruously insane criminals, the 80 millions of them. And also what they called “German culture” was just unworthy dementia, that Hitler was just a Jew (by his own standards!) rendered crazed by his Jewishness, whose secret aim was to destroy Germany, that obviously Goebbels and Himmler were genetically degenerated (and Goebbels, and his deformed leg, detested Jews because a Jewish girl he was obsessed with spurned him), etc… And so on.

      This mean position can be thoroughly justified. For example the Panzer Pope, Ratzinger, was a Nazi his entire life. He never explained his Nazi past. He could have done like Willy Brandt, or Hannah Arendt and join the anti-Nazi resistance, had he been really a good Christian. He could have done like Rommel, and switch from being a mass murdering Nazi criminal (Rommel June 1940, France) to an active anti-Nazi (Rommel, France, June and July 1944). Many Nazis went down that route: participating, and then turning around, to oppose. Not enough did this, fast enough.

      Irking the mob is good.

      The reason TE can afford its ideology is that they know the dominant message is emotional. Hitler, actually, explained that very clearly. The way to oppose that is to unearth obscure facts, and BRING THEM TO GREAT EMOTIONAL PROMINENCE. For example, that the USA was, de facto, allied with Hitler in 1939. Just when the USSR was de facto, and also formally, and officially allied to the Nazi dictator. That was not neglectable: without the American-Soviet alliance, the Nazis could not have moved their tanks and fly their planes (let alone build weapons without Swedish steel!)

      So the French Republic was not just defeated by a few maniacal Germans in 1940. France was defeated by a Nazi-Soviet-American coalition and conspiracy. An emotional fact the American plebs has been encouraged to keep on ignoring, so that they can keep on been exploited, and exploiting, looking forward, by the descendants of the same old plutocratic principle…

      All these ideas are of course laden with emotional content. Behind the Germans of the 1930s, it’s the Americans of the 1930s, who are the main culprits of Auschwitz. Strong emotion, fully justifiable. But the E-Motion has to come first. Statistics and hard data are in reserve. The main charge has to be led by e-motions first. PA

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      That’s entirely true, Dominique. “The Economist” (TE) debunks itself, if read carefully. Same with Wall Street Journal. I am actually subscribed to BOTH (ahahaha). Although I called you know whom, “Murderoch”, for his rabid propaganda for killing vast numbers of Iraqis, around 2003, I must admit Rupert has improved, and he never censored me, not once, differently from that fortress of conscious pseudo-liberalism, the New York Times.

      I do not believe in “open mindedness” that much. Raw data, well referenced does not cut it.

      There, as usual, our old friends the Nazis are most handy. suppose we were in Nazi Germany: what would sway the average German, that is, the average Nazi? Well referenced stuff? They would not have the patience or interest to read it. Their minds were made, EMOTIONALLY.

      So the way to do it was to tell them the truth, namely that they were just engaging in mosntruously insane criminality, and they would just become thus monstruously insane criminals, the 80 millions of them. And also what they called “German culture” was just unworthy dementia, that Hitler was just a Jew (by his own standards!) rendered crazed by his Jewishness, whose secret aim was to destroy Germany, that obviously Goebbels and Himmler were genetically degenerated (and Goebbels, and his deformed leg, detested Jews because a Jewish girl he was obsessed with spurned him), etc… And so on.

      This mean position can be thoroughly justified. For example the Panzer Pope, Ratzinger, was a Nazi his entire life. He never explained his Nazi past. He could have done like Willy Brandt, or Hannah Arendt and join the anti-Nazi resistance, had he been really a good Christian. He could have done like Rommel, and switch from being a mass murdering Nazi criminal (Rommel June 1940, France) to an active anti-Nazi (Rommel, France, June and July 1944). Many Nazis went down that route: participating, and then turning around, to oppose. Not enough did this, fast enough.

      Irking the mob is good.

      The reason TE can afford its ideology is that they know the dominant message is emotional. Hitler, actually, explained that very clearly. The way to oppose that is to unearth obscure facts, of high significance and great impact, and BRING THEM TO GREAT EMOTIONAL PROMINENCE. For example, that the USA was, de facto, allied with Hitler in 1939. Just when the USSR was de facto, and also formally, and officially allied to the Nazi dictator. That was not neglectable: without the American-Soviet alliance, the Nazis could not have moved their tanks and fly their planes (let alone build weapons without Swedish steel!)

      So the French Republic was not just defeated by a few maniacal Germans in 1940. France was defeated by a Nazi-Soviet-American coalition and conspiracy. An emotional fact the American plebs has been encouraged to keep on ignoring, so that they can keep on been exploited, and exploiting, looking forward, by the descendants of the same old plutocratic principle…

      All these ideas are of course laden with emotional content. Behind the Germans of the 1930s, it’s the Americans of the 1930s, who are the main culprits of Auschwitz. Strong emotion, fully justifiable. But the E-Motion has to come first. Statistics and hard data are in reserve. The main charge has to be led by e-motions first. PA

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 300 other followers

%d bloggers like this: