Propaganda From Subject Control

Another day, another clueless editorial of Paul Krugman about the socio-economic crisis. Krugman, in his embarrassing naivety, opposes, as all too many do, austerity versus [the attitude that it’s] “no time to worry about budget deficits and cut spending, which would only deepen the depression”. Sorry, reality is otherwise subtle.

[Funny Krugman calls it a depression now. I called it a Greater Depression, all along, precisely because the causes are so deep, and so deliberately misunderstood, I expected the depression to last indefinitely.]

I sent a comment. It was delayed from publication for nine hours, by the censors at the New York Times, and that made sure few people saw it (3 readers approved it). “Preferred commenters” of the New York Time such as Karen Garcia, were published right away (and approved by a thousand people). It’s not that Karen Garcia is wrong (she parrots some of the consequences that I have evoked for years).

The problem with Karen Garcia and other commenters and editorialists the NYT advertises, is that they describe epiphenomena as if they were fundamental, while not even guessing what the fundamental problems are.

Because I understand the fundamental causes, the NYT tries to make sure I am not read. A good way to insure the deepest debates are avoided, is to drown us with thousands of comments always from the same commenters, always late on the critical curve.

Here is one of the perpetually “featured commenter” of  the NYT: “Karen Garcia is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY

It’s not that economics failed. It’s that the cult of Mammon succeeded. The rich control all of us via such legalized bribery scams as Citizens United. The rich ensure that the austerity dogma is broadcast by their six media conglomerates, and that only two sides of one big business party are allowed to exist. Wherever they detect an opportunity vacuum, wherever they smell another distressed pocket of humanity, they pounce. A study by some Northwestern University researchers reveals that while the wealthy (they like to call themselves “thought leaders”) intellectually accept Keynesian economics, they’re de facto Scrooges.

Some findings: –Only 16% of millionaires think climate change is “very important.”

— While two-thirds of Americans favor single payer health care, less than a third of the wealthy do.

— The rich favor more government spending in only three areas: science, infrastructure, and education. Investment opportunities abound for charter schools, privatized toll roads, university research programs — all funded on the public dime for private profit.

— Only 19% of the wealthy believe the government should create jobs for the unemployed (as opposed to 68% of the general public). Less than half favor raising the minimum wage. Less than half think it is the government’s job to see that nobody goes without food, clothing and shelter. It’s not that economics failed. It’s that we’re living in a nightmare reality show called “Plutocrats Gone Wild.”

Karen Garcia is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY:

Here’s the link to the Northwestern study cited above:

One of its authors, Benjamin Page, also collaborated with Martin Gilens of Princeton on the just-released preview of a forthcoming report which concludes the USA is well on its way to becoming an oligarchy. That paper is here:…

On one hand, I am proud to be a commenter NOT trusted by the plutocratic owners of the New York Times. On the other, that means that my deeper critiques go unnoticed.

The “Garcias” the NYT submits us to, look very “lefty”. And I approve Garcia’s message above. But, just as with Krugman, that talk does not have much teeth (being very late on my curves).

Indeed: how did the cult of Mammon arise? That “Garcia”, in her zillions of “featured comments” has never said, and never will, not any more than Krugman (except, of course, when, and only when, everybody knows about it: Garcia and Krugman use the concept of “plutocrats” now… but did not, for years).

The rise of Mammon has to do with the, leverage, government guaranteed, unsupervised Public-Private Fractional Reserve System, and the Public-Private Central Bank. Instituting a world wide hedging casino also helped. All together allowed financiers to get immensely rich, and, thus, powerful.

That Krugman will not tell you, and nor will “Garcia”. Quite the opposite. Too technical. Krugman insisted for years that the futures’ market had no effect on the real economy. Clueless max (I sent him plenty of comments to enlighten him, but I am still waiting for results!)

Krugman asked a number of rhetorical questions in “Why Did Economics Fail?”. He made clear that it is not “economics” that failed. I answered them:

Krugman: Why inadequate demand?

Because there was not enough money for the real economy (a good way to get there is by cutting the incomes a normal people). Why not enough money? Because banks create money, through credit.

Banks extended that money to financial co-conspirators, the hedge fund managers and other financial and future commodity traders, quite a few of them in house. One could not do this in the past as these activities, using all the money in the world to run a casino, did not exist in the past.

That basic problem has not been fixed. It requires re-instating a modernized version of the Banking Act of 1933. The casino-that-uses-all-the-money-in-the-world ought to be dismantled, too.

Krugman: “this was no time to worry about budget deficits and cut spending, which would only deepen the depression.”

Yes, I have called it the Greater Depression, and so it is in term of unemployment and GDP, as, in many countries, the numbers are worse than in the 1930s.

When budget deficits are caused by hedge fund managers paying less taxes than janitors, or because corrupt bankers funneled money to co-conspirators to build airports, or towns in the middle of nowhere, and the banks have to be rescued, we should worry about deficits.

When spending has to do with crony capitalism, we should worry about deficits.

Krugman: “why didn’t we use the economic knowledge we had?”

Because the plutocrats are not after repairing the economy. They are after their own profits first, destroying democracy second. To get to the latter, the more high unemployment and poverty, the better. Whether the plutocrats in command are aware of this desire of them, is irrelevant. They have it, deep inside.

Naturally, the hyper wealthy tend to reward economists that support their views, and since the wealthier the university, the higher the salaries and the more they are connected to plutocracy central, the desire of the Plutos became the teaching of the most respected economists, the mainstream economic thought.



In imperial Rome, and Constantinople, plutocrats feared revolution, and the return of the Republic.

(That fear extended all the way to 17C England and France; Anne of Austria, reigning queen of France, mother of Louis XIV, faced by the Parliament’s deputies told them it was “evil to prefer the government of a republic to that of a monarchy… We are not in a republic.”) .

To prevent the return of the Respublica, Roman plutocrats made sure that most people were unemployed in Italy in general, and especially in the world’s largest city, Rome. Unemployed people are powerless (idleness can’t strike), and unemployed people dependent upon the “philanthropy” of the richest (a phenomenon in plain evidence in the USA, where filthy plutocratic tax free plotting conspirators have to be called “philanthropists”, especially when they capture the educational, social, or health care systems).

We The People have been trained to behave like pigeons feeding in the hands of some of the basest individuals in the universe (that’s typically how they got to be so rich: look at the dynastic, government  leech Carlos Slim in Mexico, second richest man in the world, if you don’t want to look at the hyper well connected Gates, ever since he was in the womb).

There is every reason to believe that the same phenomenon as in Rome and Constantinople is at work now. Actually, in the ideal plutocrats’ world, this debasement of man by wealth is the only thing that should work.

To underestimate the Dark Side, and to exclude it from economic theory, is missing out half of the motivational universe of the genus Homo. But it goes well with underestimating the venality of economists. And then economists can turn around and pretend to predict what’s good and bad for entire nations.

All what this achieves is the rise of plutocrats determined to outdo themselves and their “partners” (a word the Mafiosi around the Kremlin love to use). Hence the rise of the Kochs and Putins. Hence the decay of the biosphere.

The decay of the biosphere is used as a decoy, a sacrificial pawn, that attract attention. It’s made into a debate where the population is invited to lose all sense of reason and evidence.

How does that work? Take an example: the snowpack in the high mountains of California is 18% of normal (April 2014); California’s reservoirs are half full (instead of 100%). It’s obviously a crisis. But then plutocrats roll out their well-paid deniers (Putin does the same, even inside the USA!), and they flood the media with their insults to reason and evidence.

That creates a secondary crisis, more general than the first one, as now people are invited to deny reason and evidence.

While We The People waste energy debating individuals of extreme bad faith, the real problems such as why is it that Putin has 40 billion in Switzerland alone, and why is it that all the media and political systems are controlled by so few? (See the references of “Garcia” above, or mine in earlier essays). How can that be compatible with democracy?

And how come the rich is not taxed enough to prevent the chain reaction of the plutocratic phenomenon? Well, because we have been obsessing about trivialities, or red-herrings.

In other words, false debates hide the real ones. And control is achieved that way. Thus Krugman’s droning propaganda at giving ever more money to precisely the banks and individuals who created the Greater Depression of 2008, and calling that the antidote to austerity. (Of course he does not put it that way.)

Censorship and media manipulation are more subtle in the USA, than in Erdogan’s and Putin’s Great Reichs. Thus, they are not seen by most… And are even more efficient.

Patrice Aymé

Tags: , , , , , ,

19 Responses to “Propaganda From Subject Control”

  1. Dominique Deux Says:

    Of course you are right about the lack of depth in mainstream “leftish” op/eds and comments.

    Yet I cannot help feeling that, in stressing this, you are falling into a subtle plutocrat-laid trap.

    When the battle is joined – and it is – differences within battling sides need to be set aside for the duration. The really relevant thing is that, by and large, articulate questioning of the Thatcher-Rand-Friedman mantra (so reminiscent of the Marx-Lenin-Engels one of yore) is gaining ground and momentum. Fueling this, rather than squabbling, is what is needed now.

    Like you I find Krugman lacking in many points – but without him, where would we be?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: This is exactly why I contribute to the Krugman blog, or let my good friend Obama read my site (hahaha). I even supported Obama heavily in 2007-2008. I was less happy when he took my rhetoric, and did the opposite.

      I do know that, both in the case of Obama and Krugman, they (dis)ingenuously believe bad things. They are genuinely confused, or misled about many things. In 2008, it was pretty much: do Obama believe me, the mysterious unknown from outer space, or everybody else?

      So indeed, as Lenin said, we need useful idiots…
      (Except as Lenin discovered later, all too much later, he was the idiot!)


  2. Benign Says:

    We are all herd animals. Krugman lives in the New York area, where the influence of the financial sector is powerful; it is like a “mind wave” that is hard to overcome. He teaches at Princeton, that sends a higher percentage of its graduates (about a third of them) to Wall Street than any other university. Plus, he actually believes that the neoclassical economic model works, that you can fiddle with the monetary and fiscal policy knobs and expect aggregate demand to respond. He is ultimately a shill for the status quo. I stopped reading him long ago.

    I have come to believe, after much research and inference, that there is a “cabal” centered around the international central banks that intends to exert world domination through debt slavery. Cf. the works of Carroll Quigley. The Ukraine battle is really about the petro dollar and the non-Western world’s waking up to this conspiracy. If only the Western public would wake up.


    • Lovell Says:

      How, exactly, will you be able to boost aggregate demand other than the combination of fiscal and monetary policy fiddling?


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Lowell: We need a plan. Too much central planning was bad, too little, equally bad.

        Interestingly, a task of some utility, only solvable by central planning, offers itself: saving the biosphere…


      • Lovell Says:

        Still, on the subject of aggregate demand, where is the unorthodox method by which policymakers could employ to influence its performance?


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I already answered this question of yours, Lovell, but it’s never answered enough, as Krugman does not even understand one could ask such a question.

          For Krugman and his ilk, as we know, it’s just a matter of allowing (PRIVATE) banks to have/create more money, then everything will be OK. That makes Krugman exactly like Barroso, and even more pro-Aynd Rand than Reagan himself (!!!). As Krugman knows well, Reagan did indulge in an enormous stimulus. Not so Oblabla.

          OK, here is two small examples: The German government, under Hitler, built Autobahnen. That was good for the economy (not just the military: at the end of the war, the proud German army used the Autobahnnen, to cross Germany, from one front to the other, dragged by… mules and donkeys, to save fuel they didn’t have anyway, having irritated their sponsors, the USA and USSR…)

          A more recent example: the German government, under Merkel, pushed for the Energiewende, sustainable energy, creating more than 300,000 jobs, with incentives in wind and solar.

          That’s a non conventional way to augment demand. The same can be effected by forcing that change all over, by making the CO2 creators pay for their “externalities”… In the USA, one talks about millions of jobs. For example, California has no plane industry, but building a Very High Speed rail would create jobs, and, like the Autobahns, make the economy much more efficient… And less polluting (VHS trains could be solar powered, by building lots og giant solar plants… And dams, or other storage devices (elevated lagoons).

          In any case the idea is to make a massive crafty government plan to create a new and better socio-economy. In 1933, in a far-sighted move, among other thing, Roosevelt (who had been the chief of the Navy in WWI), ordered the construction of no less than 24 fleet carriers, guaranteeing a win in a 2 ocean war (that’s why the USA did not run out of large, very fast carriers in WWII, although all the initial carriers were sunk, but for the Enterprise).


        • Lovell Says:


          All the examples that you’ve mentioned fall under the aegis of federal gov’t’s monetary and fiscal policy. I don’t see any unorthodoxy in it to support the the assertion of Mr. Benign above that the so-called “neoclassical” fiddling doesn’t work.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Dear Lovell: I indeed hold that the main economic actor, always, is the government.[See the essay I give the link for below in a separated comment.]
            There is nothing unorthodox about it. It’s the “free”-market as government that is unorthodox.


          • Lovell Says:

            Exactly. Because those are all standard textbook prescription for a depressed economy. And Krugman supports not only gov’t investments in clean renewable energy but also education and infrastructure.

            Your ideological alignment with PK might be closer than you think and as Dominique also noted above, I, too, have a hard time figuring out the logical rationale for why we should be wasting time in petty intramurals and squabbling when the real villains are out there gleeful of the fact that their strategy of divide and conquer works perfectly fine.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Dear Lovell: I agree about not wasting time in petty squabbling.

            It’s a long story. Krugman believed the tiny stimulus was enough (years later, he recognized it was not). Krugman was all for QE (without reforming banks first, it was throwing gasoline on the fire). Also Krugman pretended Obamacare was the only way. He was not a partisan of Medicare For All before that.

            I like Krugman. A lot. But he is innocuous, one feels like petting a cat with him. I like Obama, I wasted years working for him 100%. Now he did so little, one can wonder if, just on the progressive side even Mc Cain would not have done more ( ruined myself for Obama in 2007-2008). I am saying this relax, I have gone over my depression in this. Power makes people insane. I saw people next to me, total fascists, become Obama’s best friends, and denounced me and spouse as insane maniacs, as unpredictable as bears (sic!)

            So I like Krugman, and maybe he will understand, and his understanding progresses. Same for Obama. However it reminds me of the too little, too late of May 1940.

            The divide and conquer madness is not for pointing out QE and Obamacare would serve the plutocracy. That I did. QE and Obamacare, they did. Now we can see, that, indeed, the plutocrats are stronger than ever.

            I know very well persons of importance who, behind closed doors, say they agree with me, and add they can’t do a thing, and I don’t believe this. Krugman approves banking reform, but he suggests nothing. Obama did not dare even fight in public for Medicare For All.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      [Krugman] is ultimately a shill for the status quo. I stopped reading him long ago.
      Agreed (about the shill part.)

      I am mostly reading him, to contradict him. He has gone lighter on Europe, after finally understanding, and admitting, that he did not understand the subject at all.

      There is indeed a worldwide conspiracy, the global plutocracy, where the core is not the fossil fuel lobby, but anything having to do with finance (that extends much beyond the visible part of finance: half of the money is “dark pools”).


  3. Karen Garcia Says:

    I always look for and recommend your NYT comments, Patrice Ayme.

    The reason the talk does not have “much teeth” is that the plutocratic Times limits its lowly reader-commenters to 1500 characters. (It used to be 5,000). Shallowness is pre-ordained, and resentment is built into the system — which is why I don’t comment on Times articles as obsessively as I used to. I write more substantively on my own blog and elsewhere on the internet.

    Incidentally, I was randomly/accidentally picked as a “verified” due to some convoluted algorithm that the Times suits dreamed up so as to avoid taking any human responsibility for their own little “classist” commenting system. I have written to the lead moderator asking that more regular contributors be allowed to post without censorship, asking what could possibly be the downside to such radicalized democracy. He responded by threatening to do away with unmoderated comments altogether! And they very rarely choose me as a “featured” commenter as they did the other day. That was a real fluke. They have even removed some of my posts post-publication.

    I have indeed previously written about the role of the Fed and banksters in causing this whole mess. I’ve taken Krugman to task for his cheerleading of Obamacare, his wishy-washiness on the TPP, and general absolution of all things Democratic Party. I am very often attacked by other Times commenters for my criticism of Obama and for daring to question Q.E. and not worshipping the Great Ben, Gates & Buffett, and other plutocrats acceptable to the liberal veal pen.

    I just started reading “All the Presidents’ Bankers” — which outlines how the Fed was started, secretly, by a cabal of financiers on a private island paradise. This elevation of a private banking mafia to virtually its own country is certainly not something they go out of their way to teach in schools, or something Krugman would ever dream of touching in his columns. I’d be interested to know if anyone here has read the book and what you think of it.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Karen: Welcome to this site, and thanks for commenting! Now your comments here ought to be accepted immediately (except if full of links, something WordPress does not like sometimes). I will visit your blog.

      I always read your comments and recommend them, too. Your comments are often more interesting than the editorials they are attached to (the latest Krugman editorial being a case in point). The NYT ought to reward you financially for helping their business (it’s because of people like you that I did not cancel my subscription).

      It’s hyper irritating that the New York Times insists that I am not a “trusted commenter“: I never send a frivolous comment, and they know my street address, the same for the last three decades of my subscription (they claim it’s only from 2003). Maybe I should not complain, as they spent a few decades not publishing a single one of my comments (much of it was before the Internet, ;-)).

      Yes, I have been put off my the increasing enforced shallowness at the NYT. Even the Wall Street Journal or The Economist do not limit the length of the comments, nor censors decent writers (although a subscriber, I rarely comment there, as the comments are all too predictable, and all too often not smart enough).

      The Times does not realize that extremely long term subscribers such as me are getting fed up with their censorship (their editors don’t like the term, but it’s what it is; in particular, delaying my comments by up to 48 hours allows “trusted commenters” to even insult me without me having any possibility of replying, as happened on Krugman’s blog, more than once!…. Although Krugman is NOW very good at publishing my comments promptly, on his blog, the comments on his editorials are still delayed by up to 15 hours…)

      “I have indeed previously written about the role of the Fed and banksters in causing this whole mess. I’ve taken Krugman to task for his cheerleading of Obamacare, his wishy-washiness on the TPP, and general absolution of all things Democratic Party. I am very often attacked by other Times commenters for my criticism of Obama and for daring to question Q.E. and not worshipping the Great Ben, Gates & Buffett, and other plutocrats acceptable to the liberal veal pen.”

      That’s indeed correct. And a few more recently have followed you (or me), in that respect, but Krugman has barely altered his monomaniacal thinking (except for discovering Piketty, Saez and inequality recently). Maybe he would not be employed at the NYT, if he did?

      I did not read “All the Presidents’ Bankers”. I did not even know it existed. I wrote extensively about banking say 4, 5 years ago. There are several types of Central Banks. The oldest was the Bank Of England, more than 3 centuries old, initially set-up to finance the… Royal Navy (through lending). The idea (initially Dutch in 1688) was to make a big Navy to defeat France… It worked.

      The US Central bank and the ECB are differently constructed. The Fed is full of plutocrats, banksters, and financially interested officials. The ECB is a sort of central committee of Central Banks. In any case, the fact there is not even a semblance of democratic control to money making and DISTRIBUTION is the death of democracy. As observed.

      The right wing loves to talk about RE-distribution; I want to talk about DISTRIBUTION, to start with.

      I will try to track the book down, and report.

      I just discovered, today that, thanks to Obamacare (?), my family health care insurance bill will augment by at least 5,000 dollars next year, and each year thereafter (from much higher deductibles). My employer has just opted for the Blue Cross of Illinois (although I am in California, Obamacare allows insurance from other states now; Obama said it would improve the market, whatever that is; I won’t be surprised that Blue Cross of Illinois goes around some California regulations).

      Of course a good way to avoid paying hundreds of dollars for the first diabetes blood exam, is to delay it (that my spouse will not do, but many people out there will).

      Anyway, thanks for the comment again.


  4. Rowan Campbell Millar Says:

    I’m for horizontal collective planning


  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent To Krugman Editorial, which whined, once again, extensively and in excruciating detail about people saying bad stuff about Obamacare, for the umpteenth time.]

    All I know for sure, if that my family’s health insurance is going up 20% effective immediately. It has to do with the new capability to insure in California with Blue Cross of Illinois.

    Otherwise my employer informed me I could opt for Obamacare! Even if Obamacare is a victory, in some ways, and it is, it reminds me of one of those victories king Pyrrhus said would make him lose the war.

    For more on Propaganda From Subject Control:


  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    For the supremacy of the government in economics always:


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: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: