Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’

Plutocracy Rising Through Tax Avoidance

December 30, 2015

The New York Times discovers the obvious:

For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions: The very richest are able to quietly shape tax policy that will allow them to shield billions in income.”

Incoming tax policies will save the “very richest” billion more in taxes. But they have already saved hundreds of billions in taxes, if not trillions. In the USA alone. And we have to thank, in particular, the great so-called democratic leaders for that (some of the most prominent ones, like the adored Nancy Pelosi, hero of Obamacare, made hundreds of millions of dollars, while in politics: a successful political career is the safest way to make a fortune.

Bill: “Hey, Donald, We Gave You Everything, It’s Our Turn To Lead the Low Lives Again!” Donald: "You Mean the Idiots?" Hillary: "Oh Donald, Don't Speak Like That!" [Then She Hilariously Bleats Like A Goat.] Donald, Less Amused: "Can You Believe These People? They Are So Greeeedy!"

Bill: “Hey, Donald, We Gave You Everything, It’s Our Turn To Lead the Low Lives Again!” Donald: “You Mean the Idiots?” Hillary: “Oh Donald, Don’t Speak Like That!” [Then She Hilariously Bleats Like A Goat.] Donald, Less Amused: “Can You Believe These People? They Are So Greeeedy!”

So it is all over the so-called democratic West. The situation in France does not differ from that in the USA, it is actually in some ways, much worse. Two-thirds of France’s largest companies (CAC 40) by market capitalization are held by families (the equivalent consideration with the USA’s 500 largest market cap companies shows “only” 20% owned and controlled by families).

How is this all possible? Both the French and U.S. tax codes exclude the wealthiest from much, if not all, taxation. The French tax code does it glaringly (but the ). The tax code of the USA does it both glaringly, and obscurely.

In either case, the plutocratically owned Main Stream Media (MSM) never reports it . Or then they report it the way the New York Times did: by omitting a lot, if not most.

But let the New York Times’ Patricia Cohen and Noam Scheiber tell it their way:

“WASHINGTON — The hedge fund magnates Daniel S. Loeb, Louis Moore Bacon and Steven A. Cohen have much in common. They have managed billions of dollars in capital, earning vast fortunes. They have invested large sums in art — and millions more in political candidates.

Moreover, each has exploited an esoteric tax loophole that saved them millions in taxes. The trick? Route the money to Bermuda and back.

With inequality at its highest levels in nearly a century and public debate rising over whether the government should respond to it through higher taxes on the wealthy, the very richest Americans have financed a sophisticated and astonishingly effective apparatus for shielding their fortunes. Some call it the “income defense industry,” consisting of a high-priced phalanx of lawyers, estate planners, lobbyists and anti-tax activists who exploit and defend a dizzying array of tax maneuvers, virtually none of them available to taxpayers of more modest means

In recent years, this apparatus has become one of the most powerful avenues of influence for wealthy Americans of all political stripes, including Mr. Loeb and Mr. Cohen, who give heavily to Republicans, and the liberal billionaire George Soros, who has called for higher levies on the rich while at the same time using tax loopholes to bolster his own fortune.”

Something the New York Times does not mention at all: it is talking here only about the money wealth, and income that one can see. However, MOST OF THE WORLD’S WEALTH IS HIDDEN IN DARK POOLS.

And there is worse: money is power. Money gives power. The interest of money is that it enable the owner to have others do what she or he, wants.

But Bill and Melinda Gates don’t need to spend any money to have Obama giving them the power of molding the educational system as they see fit: they just show up, and make suggestions. Obama and his court immediately give Bill and Melinda the reins, because they want a job in 13 months, when they dismal tenure expires.

And so it is all over: when Bill and Melinda take the reins of tens of countries health care systems, and, still hiding behind their “love of man” decide that healthy policies will favor Monsanto (with which their “charities” and investments are entangled), and its wonderful Genetically Engineered wellness. But back to the New York Times’ more prosaic considerations:

“All are among a small group providing much of the early cash for the 2016 presidential campaign.

Operating largely out of public view — in tax court, through arcane legislative provisions and in private negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service — the wealthy have used their influence to steadily whittle away at the government’s ability to tax them. The effect has been to create a kind of private tax system, catering to only several thousand Americans.

The impact on their own fortunes has been stark. Two decades ago, when Bill Clinton was elected president, the 400 highest-earning taxpayers in America paid nearly 27 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to I.R.S. data. By 2012, when President Obama was re-elected, that figure had fallen to less than 17 percent, which is just slightly more than the typical family making $100,000 annually, when payroll taxes are included for both groups.

The Greatest Drop Of Tax Rate For the Wealthiest Was Under Bill Clinton

The Greatest Drop Of Tax Rate For the Wealthiest Was Under Bill Clinton

The ultra-wealthy “literally pay millions of dollars for these services,” said Jeffrey A. Winters, a political scientist at Northwestern University who studies economic elites, “and save in the tens or hundreds of millions in taxes.””

A year. For each concerned.

A characteristic of the truly wealthy is that they give to politicians of all stripes. Left unsaid, in their “negotiations” with the IRS, is that tax inspectors know that, be they good boys and girls, they may end up with way more cushy jobs. Actually, the negotiators they speak to often happened to have climbed that ladder. The new York Times still believe, though, that plutocrats have political inclinations aside from their true calling, hell itself:

“Some of the biggest current tax battles are being waged by some of the most generous supporters of 2016 candidates. They include the families of the hedge fund investors Robert Mercer, who gives to Republicans, and James Simons, who gives to Democrats; as well as the options trader Jeffrey Yass, a libertarian-leaning donor to Republicans.

Mr. Yass’s firm is litigating what the agency deemed to be tens of millions of dollars in underpaid taxes. Renaissance Technologies, the hedge fund Mr. Simons founded and which Mr. Mercer helps run, is currently under review by the I.R.S. over a loophole that saved their fund an estimated $6.8 billion in taxes over roughly a decade, according to a Senate investigation. Some of these same families have also contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to conservative groups that have attacked virtually any effort to raises taxes on the wealthy.”

The Wealthiest Have Captured Tax Legislation To Make Themselves Untaxable

The Wealthiest Have Captured Tax Legislation To Make Themselves Untaxable

The google guys, when outside of their personal jumbo jets once fueled by the government (at NASA’s Moffet Field, personal observation), like many other Silicon types, claim to be “progressives”, “liberal”, etc. But actually they finance the far right too. Just they do it secretively. PPP Notice Tax Rates Of the Wealthiest 400 Taxpayers Went Down Dramatically Under “Democrat” Clinton. Also Notice Dip Under Obama.

Of course the topmost wealthy don’t even pay tax, while they contemplate stolen, world famous art in their redoubts. Under Obama, there was a tiny crack-down on the expansion of the wealth of the wealthiest:

“In the heat of the presidential race, the influence of wealthy donors is being tested. At stake is the Obama administration’s 2013 tax increase on high earners — the first substantial increase in two decades — and an I.R.S. initiative to ensure that, in effect, the higher rates stick by cracking down on tax avoidance by the wealthy.

While Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have pledged to raise taxes on these voters, virtually every Republican has advanced policies that would vastly reduce their tax bills, sometimes to as little as 10 percent of their income… “There’s this notion that the wealthy use their money to buy politicians; more accurately, it’s that they can buy policy, and specifically, tax policy,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who served as chief economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “That’s why these egregious loopholes exist, and why it’s so hard to close them.”

Not really. The truth is that most people don’t care, because all they obsess about sport scores, same as the Romans of 19 centuries ago. So only a few “leaders” care, and those are easily bought, being few in numbers. A revolutionary mob can be misled, but it’s hard to buy. Meanwhile, tax avoidance of the hyper rich has become an industry:

The Family Office

Each of the top 400 earners took home, on average, about $336 million in 2012, the latest year for which data is available. If the bulk of that money had been paid out as salary or wages, as it is for the typical American, the tax obligations of those wealthy taxpayers could have more than doubled.

Instead, much of their income came from convoluted partnerships and high-end investment funds. Other earnings accrued in opaque family trusts and foreign shell corporations, beyond the reach of the tax authorities.

The well-paid technicians who devise these arrangements toil away at white-shoe law firms and elite investment banks, as well as a variety of obscure boutiques. But at the fulcrum of the strategizing over how to minimize taxes are so-called family offices, the customized wealth management departments of Americans with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in assets.

Family offices have existed since the late 19th century, when the Rockefellers pioneered the institution, and gained popularity in the 1980s. But they have proliferated rapidly over the last decade, as the ranks of the super-rich, and the size of their fortunes, swelled to record proportions.

“We have so much wealth being created, significant wealth, that it creates a need for the family office structure now,” said Sree Arimilli, an industry recruiting consultant.

Family offices, many of which are dedicated to managing and protecting the wealth of a single family, oversee everything from investment strategy to philanthropy.”

Real philanthropy would consist into paying taxes, of course. What plutocrats call “philanthropy” is just tax avoidance combined with influence multiplier.

…”tax planning is a core function. While the specific techniques these advisers employ to minimize taxes can be mind-numbingly complex, they generally follow a few simple principles, like converting one type of income into another type that’s taxed at a lower rate.

Mr. Loeb, for example, has invested in a Bermuda-based reinsurer — an insurer to insurance companies — that turns around and invests the money in his hedge fund. That maneuver transforms his profits from short-term bets in the market, which the government taxes at roughly 40 percent, into long-term profits, known as capital gains, which are taxed at roughly half that rate. It has had the added advantage of letting Mr. Loeb defer taxes on this income indefinitely, allowing his wealth to compound and grow more quickly.”

Partnerships obscure who owns what, and make it impossible to collect taxes:

“Organizing one’s business as a partnership can be lucrative in its own right. Some of the partnerships from which the wealthy derive their income are allowed to sell shares to the public, making it easy to cash out a chunk of the business while retaining control. But unlike publicly traded corporations, they pay no corporate income tax; the partners pay taxes as individuals. And the income taxes are often reduced by large deductions, such as for depreciation.

For large private partnerships, meanwhile, the I.R.S. often struggles “to determine whether a tax shelter exists, an abusive tax transaction is being used,” according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office. The agency is not allowed to collect underpaid taxes directly from these partnerships, even those with several hundred partners. Instead, it must collect from each individual partner, requiring the agency to commit significant time and manpower.”

Meanwhile, charities are most giving, most giving to the richest of the wealthiest (and then the rabble thank the great Lords of tax avoidance, for their generosity):

“The wealthy can also avail themselves of a range of esoteric and customized tax deductions that go far beyond writing off a home office or dinner with a client. One aggressive strategy is to place income in a type of charitable trust, generating a deduction that offsets the income tax. The trust then purchases what’s known as a private placement life insurance policy, which invests the money on a tax-free basis, frequently in a number of hedge funds.”

Taxes cannot be collected, because the IRS officially does not have the brain power (in truth, top employees of the IRS may be unwilling to think too hard; the NYT will not say that.)

“Many of these maneuvers are well established, and wealthy taxpayers say they are well within their rights to exploit them. Others exist in a legal gray area, its boundaries defined by the willingness of taxpayers to defend their strategies against the I.R.S. Almost all are outside the price range of the average taxpayer.

Among tax lawyers and accountants, “the best and brightest get a high from figuring out how to do tricky little deals,” said Karen L. Hawkins, who until recently headed the I.R.S. office that oversees tax practitioners. “Frankly, it is almost beyond the intellectual and resource capacity of the Internal Revenue Service to catch.”

The combination of cost and complexity has had a profound effect, tax experts said. Whatever tax rates Congress sets, the actual rates paid by the ultra-wealthy tend to fall over time as they exploit their numerous advantages.”

Where Even The New York Times Discovers That Obama Is A Plutophile:

Obama is a great democrat, revered for Obamacare, first of all a trick to direct more money to the health care plutocracy (although it did a few good things to sugar-coat it). However, under Obama, the richest of the rich got taxed less, and this is even the New York Times which now admits it. And the problem is not the famed 1%, but the really nasty ones, the .1%, the only ones Obama cares about:  

“From Mr. Obama’s inauguration through the end of 2012, federal income tax rates on individuals did not change (excluding payroll taxes). But the highest-earning one-thousandth of Americans went from paying an average of 20.9 percent to 17.6 percent. By contrast, the top 1 percent, excluding the very wealthy, went from paying just under 24 percent on average to just over that level.”

Actually, the .1% hide behind the 1%. As I have explain before, and will explain again in the future, the main interest of taxation is to prevent the richest to gather ever more riches, at an ever faster rate, just because they are the richest.

This is what is precisely failing in the West right now. Thus the most important function of taxation, progressive taxation, what differentiated the West from the rest, is failing:

“We do have two different tax systems, one for normal wage-earners and another for those who can afford sophisticated tax advice,” said Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of San Diego who studies the intersection of tax policy and inequality. “At the very top of the income distribution, the effective rate of tax goes down, contrary to the principles of a progressive income tax system.”

This, as have argued many times, is how the West, and not just the West, has fallen many times. New York Times:

…”the Managed Funds Association, an industry group that represents prominent hedge funds like D. E. Shaw, Renaissance Technologies, Tiger Management and Third Point, began meeting with members of Congress to discuss a wish list of adjustments. The founders of these funds have all donated at least $500,000 to 2016 presidential candidates. During the Obama presidency, the association itself has risen to become one of the most powerful trade groups in Washington, spending over $4 million a year on lobbying.

And while the lobbying clout of the wealthy is most often deployed through industry trade associations and lawyers, some rich families have locked arms to advance their interests more directly.”

“Some of the most profound victories are barely known outside the insular world of the wealthy and their financial managers.

In 2009, Congress set out to require that investment partnerships like hedge funds register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, partly so that regulators would have a better grasp on the risks they posed to the financial system.

The early legislative language would have required single-family offices to register as well, exposing the highly secretive institutions to scrutiny that their clients were eager to avoid. Some of the I.R.S.’s cases against the wealthy originate with tips from the S.E.C., which is often better positioned to spot tax evasion.

By the summer of 2009, several family office executives had formed a lobbying group called the Private Investor Coalition to push back against the proposal. The coalition won an exemption in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, then spent much of the next year persuading the S.E.C. to largely adopt its preferred definition of “family office.”

So expansive was the resulting loophole that Mr. Soros’s $24.5 billion hedge fund took advantage of it, converting to a family office after returning capital to its remaining outside investors. The hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller, a former business partner of Mr. Soros, took the same step.”

Then the New York Times explains that the part of the IRS after taxpayer earning more than ten million dollars of income a year has been decimated, gutted, with reduction of personnel in some cases going down to zero.

“Several former I.R.S. officials, including Marcus Owens, who once headed the agency’s Exempt Organizations division, said the controversy badly damaged the agency’s willingness to investigate other taxpayers, even outside the exempt division.

“I.R.S. enforcement is either absent or diminished” in certain areas, he said. Mr. Owens added that his former department — which provides some oversight of money used by charities and nonprofits — has been decimated.”

[The Wall Street Journal, owned by the global plutocratic family Murdoch, has a greater distribution than the New York Times. It immediately ran a lead article to counter any damage to the top 400 which the NYT may have visited on their aura: “Tax Rates For Top 400 US Taxpayers Climbed in 2013“.]

Sometimes, in history, a revolution is needed. In Europe, a revolution was needed as early as 1089 CE. But it took seven centuries to come.

However, England was more  lucky. Notice that, when the Duke of Normandy and his Frankish barons invaded England, in 1066 CE, he was able to consolidate power because he organized a Revolution, top down. The Duke, now King, outlawed slavery (standard Frankish law; 20% of the population was enslaved). The new King also made the relationship between King and People direct, and established Parliament.

In mainland France, the Revolution came in only in 1789 CE (although there was an important attempt in the middle of the 17 C, just when two Revolutions, and an invasion in quick succession, modernized England; Revolution is contagious: the English “Glorious Revolution was imported from the Netherlands, itself a rogue part freed from Spain, mostly by French military intervention).

After 1789 CE, French plutocracy regrew quickly. In the USA, plutocracy was present in miniature all along, thanks to the existence of slavery. It started to blossom only after Carnegie (who himself was a scathing, and sincere critique of it!). It went on haltingly, as plutocrat Teddy Roosevelt (another enlightened Pluto!) cut down, as president, the most outrageous monopolies.

American plutocracy then focused on Europe, from Franco to Stalin, without forgetting Mussolini and Hitler. The Second World War itself could be fought only with huge manpower, and those more than ten million soldiers, all them trained killers, had to be pleased after 1945, lest they revolt. A time of increased equality ensued, all over the West .

But now here we are: plutocracy is completely out of control. The New York Times article focused only on what can be seen, thus, potentially, taxed. However, most of the money escapes detection outright.

That the New York Times does not seem anxious to focus on. Nor does Hillary Clinton, or even Bernie Sanders. And in Europe, don’t worry, none of the political parties, not even France’s National Front, or the Communist Party, or the New Left, has called on changing the tax structures which exempt the .1%.

However, I claim they are draining the socio-economies. Not just through sheer tax avoidance, but also through the atrocious mental influence they exert. It’s not just the “austerity” insanity, but also the sport score insanities, and other mind numbing and civilization destroying strategies and love fests (complete with adoring Islamism, something which has recently backfired).

If you want humanity, you will have to deprive of power Pluto and its emulators, admirers and other imitators. If you don’t want humanity, you will lose the biosphere, to start with. Shortly before the return of cannibalism, and other discomforts.

Patrice Ayme’  

Media Manipulations

November 25, 2015

More than ten years ago, I pointed in comments that President Wilson was a racist, and that this had a dominant effect on policy, in the USA, and worldwide. To this day. The New York Times blocked all such comments. The New York Times thus gained more than years in the public revelation that president Wilson was an extreme racist, who implemented racist policies, from inside the USA, onto the world stage, on the grandest scale. Not just this, but racism was, arguably the most important effect of the Wilson presidency. When that policy was not anti-black, it was anti-French. It was also extremely crucial in supporting exterminationist racist oligarchy in Germany, which peaked with World War Two and exterminationist policies. The intimate conviction of exterminationist Germans, thanks to Wilson, was that the USA was on their side. And indeed it was, in many ways.

The New York Times is considered to be the USA’s “Newspaper of Record”, so one would think it is below its dignity to censor its subscribers (other “newspapers of record” in some other countries do not censor me).

Americans Think, and Feel, What They Are Told To Think, and Feel. NYT Led Attack On Iraq, Thus To Islamist State

Americans Think, and Feel, What They Are Told To Think, and Feel. NYT Led Attack On Iraq, Thus To Islamist State

[New York Times’ articles are reproduced by several hundreds of newspapers in the USA, including most of the major ones… With the exception of WSJ, to which I also subscribe, BTW. .]

Readers of the New York Times were not appraised of the fact that Wilson was a racist, because the New York Times blocked me. This has happened on many subjects, and still happens to this day: if I point out that Quantitative Easing favors Big Banks (“Too Big To Fail”), they block me. The New York Times, and similar pseudo “left” publications are mostly interested that I stay out of sight and out of mind of all and any readers. Even WordPress does this actively (removing my comments on other blogs).

Why so much aggressivity? Because the New York Times actively directs its readers towards brain-killing “blogs” from insipid, ill-informed writers out there. Those “blogs”, one should say “blobs” typically gloat that “Republicans are bad and stupid, Obamacare is the greatest thing ever, Democrats saved the economy, elect Clinton, it will get even better”.

A friend of mine who works in an executive position in the media in New York called my attention to the fact the New York Times ran a long article about its “top commenters”, and that they forgot to mention me (that was tongue in cheek, as he knows the NYT deliberately censors me). Actually the top commentator in the New York Times is probably your truly, if judged by the depth of the contributions, and that is why my comments on the war in Iraq were blocked in 2003, as I exposed the lies of Bush, and its parrot, Judith Miller, a New York Times (then) star journalist, about Iraq (although the NYT supported the destruction of Iraq, neither Obama nor Krugman did).

The NYT enabled comments on its (rather insipid) commentators, and I chimed in with (knowing it would be censored, as usual, I avoided any incendiary adjective):

The New York Times censors me systematically. It has admitted in emails to have blocked thousands of my comments for no reason whatsoever (except that the computer blocked unusual words, I was told).

None of my recent comments were published. Many, in the past, were delayed days. I found increasingly most comments published by the New York Times uninteresting: they support what the New York Times wants to be said.

As I have been systematically censored, I do not bother reading any (all too predictable) official comments anymore. I feel completely excluded, and a bit like a criminal: how do I dare to still send comments to the New York Times, after thousands of my comments were censored? Don’t I get the message?

Don’t I get the message that I do not deserve the little green marker: all what the New York Times wants from me is money (lots of it, over the decades), and not give me a green light.

I will probably end up, after decades of full subscription, cancelling my financial contribution to a paper whose censorship I despise ever more. Indeed, I spent my time searching for truth, and the New York Times declares that what I think is unworthy of publication, a danger, or bore, to society.

Thus, it is becoming ever more painful to read the Times. Let alone insulting, considering the platitudes most of the authorized commentators roll out. Full contributors to the NYT should have comments published right away, except if they exceed bounds defined by law. One day, manipulation of comments will unlawful.

Patrice Ayme

The preceding comment was, of course, censored. As were all my comments on the connection of the policies of the USA and the rise of the Islamist State, all my comments on Islam, or comments pointing out factual lies by the New York Times. Reading the New York Times is, increasingly, taking part into a fraudulent scheme, where correct ideas are diluted into ineffectiveness, or outright blocked (my comments on carbon taxation were also blocked, just as those on how to remedy inequality, and Delaware as the ultimate tax haven, etc.)

The New York Times is not the only Main Stream Media doing this: most do. It is the functional equivalent of search engines biasing searches for profit. It is a form of secret advertising, and should be unlawful for the same reasons as secret advertising is. It should be completely illegal, except if the MSM announces that it is biased, with an agenda, and actively misrepresenting public opinion. The “Daily Kos” has such a warning.

However, like the New York Times, the Daily Kos is lying, but at a higher level. Whereas the Times pretends to be the “Newspaper of Record”, the Daily Kos pretends to be on the “Left”. In truth, it’s not. Otherwise why do they have a skull and crossbones next to my name? In truth the Daily Kos was founded by a CIA employee of Greek origin (that’s where the “Kos” comes from). However all the American “Left” has fallen in the trap, and really feel the “Daily Kos” in on their side, when, in truth, it was just a mercenary for American for profit health insurers, and the like. As most “Left” people are addicted to the Daily Kos, my representation there as skull and crossbones has made me an object of repulsion for most would-be American “progressives”, as intended.

So who does not censor? The Wall Street Journal , and The Economist do not (it pains me to point this out).

That there would be more lying on the “Left” is no surprise, as the “Left” is where all the propaganda is, to persuade “progressives” to support regressive policies. Whereas more right-wing media don’t mind to be exposed to, or even adopt, “progressive” points of view: it shows, to themselves, how open-minded they are.

By supporting president Wilson with an intense cover-up of his racism and manipulations, the New York Times, while mellifluous, that is, sugar-coated, made itself an ally of the Ku Klux Klan. And such was its deepest effect.

As long as “progressives” do not realize they are being played, and how, there is little hope of real progress, it’s going to be Obama Care all over: lots of the correct talk, to hide ever more efficient plutocratic policies.

Patrice Ayme’

Summers Summits Summits of Hypocrisy

March 8, 2015

Some people all they want is power, and will do whatever it takes to get it. Larry Summers is the ultimate example of this. Summers version 2015 just found that the mood is changing, and condemns 100% Summers, version 1990s, when he was Secretary of the Treasury under that class act, Bill Clinton (from dirt poor to dirty rich).

Two immediate family members of Summers were Nobel Prizes in economy.

Summers was part of a clique of young PhDs in economics who studied how to get rich and influential at MIT and Harvard around 1979. Paul Krugman, one of them, lauds them all the time. I sent a scathing comment on the whole mood of economics as the golden calf. It did not get published.

FDR’s Powerful Family Crest: Who Plants, Preserves

FDR’s Powerful Family Crest: Who Plants, Preserves

FDR planted a mighty tree, the separation of money creation from financial conspiracy. Larry Summers uprooted it.

Here is my suggestion for Larry Summers’ Family Crest: Who Uproots, Destroys. Summers uprooted the financing of the real economy, and thus destroyed it. As corruption went up, innovation (true innovation, science based) went down.

Corruption is a barrier to innovation, warns Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, in Nature. Greater scrutiny of public spending is needed if science and technology are to fulfil their potential, she intones. However, there is more pernicious than that: when private spending and practice is deregulated by government.

After, deregulation of private practice is how, around 1620, slavery was made lawful in the future USA.

Another of the Harvard-MIT economist conspirators was Mario Draghi.

All these plotters literally knew each other, saw each other, talked to each other, learned form each other… How to please their masters. Mario Draghi got his PhD from MIT, in 1979. Later Draghi became vice chairman at the financial conspiracy outfit Goldman Sachs, and “trustee” at various USA plutocratic institutions of high repute (Brookings, Princeton, etc.).

Draghi is now in charge of giving money to giant private European banks. So they can become richer: then the money will trickle down to European pigeons, and they can thrive, eating the crumbs.

American plutocrats know and trust Draghi. Europeans don’t know anything about him, except they believe he is European (I know better: plutocrats belong to Hades, not the real world).

Larry Summers was put in charge of removing all regulations that this traitor to the plutocratic principle, or, more exactly, trickle down, Franklin Roosevelt, had instituted in 1933.

What had FDR done?

Basically banks create money. So they are agents of the government. Thus they ought not to intervene all over the economy, and, in particular, finance, without important limits to their powers.

Summers removed these limits.

The effect on High Finance was absolute power, thus absolute corruption.

The green light given to bankers to corrupt all of society had an effect on other mighty economic actors.

Those worthies felt a green light had also been given to them, implicitly: if the bankers could use their money creation capacity mandated by the government, to enrich themselves and their friends to infinity, why not the same for all?

Why could not fossil fuel plutocrats corrupt scientists and the media, and claim it was totally OK to augment CO2 in the atmosphere by

The democrats were in power in Congress starting in 2006: they did not stop Bush. The democrats were in absolute power just after Obama got elected: they pursued the program of rescue of the plutocracy, complete with tax cuts for the hyper rich.

Obama, to get elected, needed to mobilize those who do not usually vote, because they do not believe that whatever they do will change anything.

Nowadays so-called “democrats” in the USA are in a bind: to get their champion elected, they need the champion to mobilize those Obama mobilized, and who got very little in exchange.

Moreover, the plutocracy got entrenched in the meantime. To change this would require a revolution. Re-evolving.

Re-evolution is something the People may support, if it believed in it. To avoid it, it’s called “Populism” (sounds like Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Islamism, all pejorative notions).

Fast forward to the New York Times. A long ode to Summers called “Establishment Populism Rising.” by Thomas B. Edsall. Here is how it starts:

Larry Summers, who withdrew his candidacy for the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve under pressure from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in 2013, has emerged as the party’s dominant economic policy strategist. The former Treasury secretary’s evolving message has won over many of his former critics.

Summers’s ascendance is a reflection of the abandonment by much of the party establishment of neo-liberal thinking, premised on the belief that unregulated markets and global trade would produce growth beneficial to worker and C.E.O. alike.

Summers’s analysis of current economic conditions suggests that free market capitalism, as now structured, is producing major distortions. These distortions, in his view, have resulted in gains of $1 trillion annually to those at the top of the pyramid, and losses of $1 trillion every year to those in the bottom 80 percent.”

One has to pinch oneself. Summers has of course zero credibility. Trusting him on economics and social questions would be trusting an enemy. Summers put the entire planet on the wrong trajectory. He is part of a coterie mainly centralized on Harvard, which insisted on raping, pillaging, and letting Russia being devoured by plutocrats created ex-nihilo, because, for Harvard types, plutocracy is an absolute good, just as for Saint Louis Catholicism was an absolute good worth killing the world for.

The destruction of the Russian economy (more exactly a lowering of Price Purchase parity, within Russia, of at least 40%) was just one facet of their maelstrom of destruction these USA based public-private plutocrats visited on the world.

The result, in the case of Russia, is the rise of Putin, someone who advocates using nuclear weapons on Warsaw if his conventional attacks get in trouble. Why? Because, as the entire West propaganda and governments lauded, for more than twenty years (time flies), the Rubin-Goldman-Sachs-Summers-Clinton-Greenspan view of the world, Putin just got mad with rage. Rightly so.

But the damage is not confined to Putin. All over the world, from Xi to Assad, to all and any politicians in Brazil, Larry Summers and his ilk preached. They preached that corruption and plutocratization ought to have no limits, as long as the gullibility of We The People went along.

“Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.”

— President J.F. Kennedy.

The elite is fearing the hatred, which is growing. Even in the naturally rich USA. The rapacious elite wants to marshal the anger, to drive it to a safe place. Safe for itself to keep on enjoying Earth a little bit more, as its feudal domain. It is a race between knowledge and folly.

Patrice Ayme’

Censorship: Mental Amputation, Civilizational Threat

January 8, 2015

Idiots draw guns, for the worst reasons, geniuses draw the world, for the best reasons.

All too many in the Anglosphere condemns Freedom of Expression, though. The Financial Times’ Tony Barber judged that the massacre of famous French cartoonists, writers and thinkers was well deserved. He found « stupid» and « irresponsible » some of the covers of Charlie Hebdo.

(There were so many protests from readers, that the FT withdrew the passage later; notice that, from my point of view, the Financial Times has been a great apostle for the destruction of civilization, so it’s coherent that it would editorialize that assassinating thinkers is justified. For more on some of the despicable opinions of Mr. Barber, see below.)

Ahmed Mebaret, Heroic Police Officer, Muslim, Assassinated While Defending Freedom of Expression

Ahmed Mebaret, Heroic Police Officer, Muslim, Assassinated While Defending Freedom of Expression

The wounded police officer who was deliberately assassinated, ran to the rescue of Freedom of Expression. He was Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim of Tunisian descent.

Father of two, he had just qualified to become a detective. He rushed to Charlie Hebdo and pulled his weapon, but was shot before he could use it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901681/Hero-police-officer-executed-street-married-42-year-old-Muslim-assigned-patrol-Paris-neighbourhood-Charlie-Hebdo-offices-located.html

THING AFRESH HURTS ALWAYS:

The Delphi Oracle, followed by Socrates, enjoined to: “Know Thyself!” . An ebullient Socrates insisted that: “The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living.”

However, man is a social animal. Society is how Homo thinks. To know oneself is to know ourselves. Socrates is always presented by Plato in a social context, debating.

Examining oneself, is examining the society one belongs to. Criticizing oneself ferociously, is criticizing one’s society ferociously.

The central point of thinking anew is that it hurts. Islam is aware of that point: Jihadism is first an effort upon oneself, to improve oneself. (Jihadism such as attacking others, and chopping people’s heads off is only fourth on a list of five type of Jihadism!)

Why does it hurt? Because it requires lots of energy to change one’s neurological networks. PPP

As Homo is a social animal, thinking anew will hurt socially. The majority of French people has been hurt, at one point or another, has been hurt by French satirical newspapers. There are several, and the satirical mood extends throughout out French newspaper and French society. There was long a virulent streak of critique in French society. A law of 1881 strictly protects freedom of press and caricature.

Violent French caricature was centuries old, by the time that the Marquis de Sade depicted with relish the leaders of the West as sadistic torturers and killers.

Actually I have tracked ferocious satire and critique down to at least the Sixteenth Century. Not just Rabelais, but, when an attempt was made to kill Henri IV, one of many, a writer immediately published a book lauding the would-be assassin (who had been executed already) and calling for a repeat, ASAP. Nowadays this sort of Freedom of Expression would be viewed as going to far. Anywhere in the West. But the Enlightenment was made of it.

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal presented the terror attack in Paris as front page, with several articles. With main picture of the assassination of the police officer (a second or so before the picture I put).

However the San Francisco Chronicle (Silicon Valley) mentioned it only in a very small corner of its “Top of the News”. The main stories were about a judge allowing Foie Gras back (after a ten year ban), and the Golden Gate closed for the repairs during weekend.

The New York Times reproduced a few very mild Charlie Hebdo cartoons, adding that others, more famous, could not be reproduced as: “The New York Times has chosen not to reprint examples of the magazine’s most controversial work because of its intentionally offensive content.

How does the New York Times knows it’s “controversial”, and “offensive”? Is that the opinion of the Islamist State?

Simply put, this is censorship. This is the New York Times crowing about censorship. But not just that. It is much worse than that. It goes down two circles of horror, as Dante would say.

The New York Times pontificates that the victim, Freedom of Expression, is “controversial”, “intentionally offensive”.

If the victim was from rape, the New York Times, thanks to its saurian brain, would know it’s not “cool” (“cool” is the ultimate expression in Silicon Valley) to accuse the victim to be “controversial”, “intentionally offensive”. It would not be “Politically Correct”.

That’s what “Political Correctness” is all about: faking thinking. Actually attacking Freedom of Expression is worse than rape or simple murder, even mass murder, as it enables ALL forms of violence, lethal or not.

Attacking Freedom of Expression is a direct attack against civilization. Indeed, civilization is all about minds meeting and debating: there is both its attraction and its advantage.

Neither meeting, nor debating, can be without Free Expression.

Censorship is why the New York Times has put me officially on a watch list, for years and blocks so many of my comments, that I am reading the paper less and less. [Although a NYT subscriber for decades] I am officially ”not trusted”. If the New York Times officially does not trust me, why should I trust it?

A dictator dictates. This is exactly what the New York Times does. It dictates what it thinks its commenters should say. I said recently something technical about Stoic Philosophy, following an ignorant article in the New York Times. I was censored. Because it’s an outrage to roll out information showing the NYT does not know what it is talking about.

And there is a difference between my comments and the NYT propaganda: when I said, for example in 2003, that the New York Times was lying about Iraq, I had detailed arguments (later proven right, as the NYT invented facts about Iraq, repeating just what Bush wanted it to say). The New York Times has never told me ONCE why any of my comments was blocked. I actually believe that such a behavior violates one the foundations of democracy, equal speech, and ought to be illegal.

After all, the New York Times is officially recognized, as all newspapers are. This makes it, to some extent, as all employees of newspapers and magazines, officially recognized agents of the state.

As such, it, and all newspapers and magazines, as state sanctioned professional organizations, ought to enforce democracy. In particular, not violate it.

All the work of Charlie Hebdo, and other satirical media was, and is, meant to be controversial and offensive.

Socrates was controversial and offensive. He died from it. He died, for it.

Self-satisfied censorship is exactly why the USA is intellectually second rate, and always will be, as long as this attitude persists.

A FEW MORE REFLEXIONS:

The next day a French born policewoman was killed deliberately in a terrorist incident involving a similar, heavily armed terrorist (she was hit three times, in the back).

Bernard Maris, also assassinated at Charlie Hebdo, was long a member of the group “Attaque”, and was stridently anti-liberal. He wrote columns in the press, including CH. A prominent shareholder of Charlie Hebdo, Maris was also a member of the Banque de France board (since 2011). So progressive, anti-plutocratic forces lost a strong advocate.

Recent attacks in the West by Qur’an inspired terrorists were from individuals who had been actively prevented to go to join the war in Syria. One may therefore wonder if that is a good strategy. Instead Denmark helps to recondition those who have been there illegally.

Recently Daesh/Islamic State executed more than 100 of its own foreign fighters. They had committed the crime of wanting to return home. So obviously, they had come to disagree with the whole Islamist terror thing.

One can deduce from this that it may be better to not be so strident, and effective at preventing disgruntled youth to go fight there. Or just to go there.

Instead, why not let them examine the situation for themselves? Those who go help the like of the Islamist State ought to be seriously prosecuted, but only if they commit serious crimes. They should also be supported if they want to be re-instated in the West. (Some of the most experienced Secret Service types share this opinion.)

Here some more of the Financial Times prose on Charlie Hebdo: “Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.”

Editorial foolishness!

Financial Times’ Barber pursued: “This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.”

At least two of the people assassinated at Charlie Hebdo were “Muslim”: the police officer who rushed to the rescue of Freedom of Expression, and one of the authors and journalists of Charlie Hebdo. Apparently those two did not feel threatened by Charlie Hebdo, but, instead, collaborated with it so bravely that they risked their lives.

Claiming, as the Financial Times does, that provoking dangerous fanatics is provoking all Muslims, means that the Financial Times view all Muslims as dangerous fanatics. That’s sheer racism.

OBAMA IS NOT CHARLIE:

This is from a speech the president delivered to the United Nations General Assembly in 2012:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Notice the totally obscene confusion: the Holocaust was the deliberate assassination of more than a dozen million people for so-called “racial” reasons (it’s not just the so-called “Jews” who were killed). Destruction of property, or desecration and slander, especially of people dead for more than a millennium, do not compare.

By pontificating that saying something not kosher, in the eyes of some beholder, about the so-called “Prophet” is in the same category as the killing of millions, Obama has clearly gone to the Dark Side. Or maybe his speechwriters, and he had no idea, or comprehension about what he was reading like a parrot.

Obama is supposed to defend Freedom of Expression. Instead he defended fanaticism of the worst type. So Charlie slandered, in the eyes of some beholders, and in the eyes of Obama, a guy long dead. And the president of the USA insinuates that the slandering of one long dead, is like being an accomplice to the killing of millions. So now the bullets fly.

Who is culprit? These ignorant youth, who were orphans, seized by a giant propaganda machine, or the much respected Nobel Peace Prize, much adulated throughout the West, supposedly defending civilization while talking like a fanatic from the Middle Ages? Who caused what? Who is the most despicable?

Patrice Ayme’

MSM: Main Stream Manipulations

May 16, 2014

Main Stream Media (MSM) has been the instrument of control of the People ever since there oligarchies. It used to be about temples and priests, now it’s more about controlling papers, radio, TV, and the Internet.

In Russia, one has to register one’s Internet site, and some, as in China, are censored. In the USA, these things are more subtly and smoothly organized, and that’s why Obama goes to Silicon Valley all the time (officially to beg for money, but don’t trust the noble appearance).

Power of the .01% Is Exponentiating Thank To Their Manipulations

Power of the .01% Is Exponentiating Thank To Their Manipulations

This week the New York Times owner fired its editor, the first woman ever in this role, after just two years at the helm. A MSM campaign declared that it was all about inequalities of salaries: the editor would have been paid less than male subalterns, she rebelled, she got eliminated.

Even Obama weighted in, saying he expected his two daughters to be paid as much as male equivalents. It’s true that, in equivalent positions and experiences, women get paid only ¾ of men in the USA. Also female CEOs are much more likely to be fired, and much sooner than male CEOs. All this is bad, and ought to be corrected by law.

However, in the case of the New York Times, the scenario suggested in the New Yorker, and all over the MSM, sounded unlikely to me. Why? Because the plutocrat owner of the NYT had got to be a bit smarter than that. Sure enough, after letting the rumor run for several days, he let it be known that the fired editor did not earn appreciably less than male equivalents, and that the NYT had to reduce cost, as it’s losing advertising revenues to the Internet (places such as this modest site).

The family of the owner of the Times has controlled the paper since the Nineteenth Century.

This is the sort of plutocratic clout the Clintons and Obamas can only dream of (although the Bush family has long achieved it, ever since it helped Hitler get to power).

The plutocrat owning the Times let the rumor run, because it was hiding the truth of what really upset him. So what was really going on?

The editor in chief of the Times pushed last fall the entire paper to inquire, and publish, a series of studies about Chinese plutocracy. About the so called “Princelings”, who own countless billions of dollars in the West. The family of Xi, the president, owns hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate in Hong Kong alone.

Chinese plutocracy, like Russian plutocracy, are basically subsidiaries of global, USA led plutocracy.

That is what the plutocrat controlling the New York Times was irked about: too much sniffing around world plutocracy by his editor in chief.

The result were felt right away: all my comments were censored since the editor was fired (!). Never mind that I was only talking about the climate, and melting glaciers. The way I have glaciers melting promptly, is clearly biased against plutocracy.

Speaking of that, Paul Krugman wrote an editorial “Point of No Return”, about the disintegrating glaciers, which, substantially was not different from anything I have said for years, and in particular earlier this week.

Krugman wrote about the glaciers a bit:  “The [ice] sheet’s slide into the ocean, and the resulting sharp rise in sea levels, will probably happen slowly. But it’s irreversible. Even if we took drastic action to limit global warming right now, this particular process of environmental change has reached a point of no return.”

The result of that no return, from melting in this particular basin of West Antarctica will be a rise of the world ocean by around 4 meters. A large extent of West Antarctica will be replaced by dark seas. This, in turn is sure to warm up the rest of the ice continent some more. A look at the map shows that this certainly means a guaranteed rise of sea level of at least ten meters. (Hopefully Wall Street will turn into a submarine Venice.)

But back to Krugman serpent like caution. Notice his “probably happen slowly” part. What’s probable, as I have argued, is the exact opposite: the Antarctica melt is going to be a high speed cataclysm.

Here is part of the rest of Krugman’s editorial, where he, ever so cautiously, orients himself towards systems of thought, and what I call “anti-ideas” :

“I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the power of doctrines — how support for a false dogma can become politically mandatory, and how overwhelming contrary evidence only makes such dogmas stronger and more extreme. For the most part, I’ve been focusing on economic issues, but the same story applies with even greater force to climate.

To see how it works, consider a topic I know well: the recent history of inflation scares.

More than five years have passed since many conservatives started warning that the Federal Reserve, by taking action to contain the financial crisis and boost the economy, was setting the stage for runaway inflation… Over time, however, as the promised inflation kept failing to arrive, there should have come a point when the inflationistas conceded their error and moved on.

In fact, however, few did. Instead, they mostly doubled down on their predictions of doom, and some moved on to conspiracy theorizing, claiming that high inflation was already happening, but was being concealed by government officials.

Why the bad behavior? Nobody likes admitting to mistakes, and all of us — even those of us who try not to — sometimes engage in motivated reasoning, selectively citing facts to support our preconceptions.

… hard as it is to admit one’s own errors, it’s much harder to admit that your entire political movement got it badly wrong. Inflation phobia has always been closely bound up with right-wing politics; to admit that this phobia was misguided would have meant conceding that one whole side of the political divide was fundamentally off base about how the economy works. So most of the inflationistas have responded to the failure of their prediction by becoming more, not less, extreme in their dogma, which will make it even harder for them ever to admit that they, and the political movement they serve, have been wrong all along.

The same kind of thing is clearly happening on the issue of global warming. There are, obviously, some fundamental factors underlying G.O.P. climate skepticism: The influence of powerful vested interests (including, though by no means limited to, the Koch brothers), plus the party’s hostility to any argument for government intervention. But there is clearly also some kind of cumulative process at work. As the evidence for a changing climate keeps accumulating, the Republican Party’s commitment to denial just gets stronger.

Think of it this way: Once upon a time it was possible to take climate change seriously while remaining a Republican in good standing. Today, listening to climate scientists gets you excommunicated…

And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists… Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general.

It’s hard to see what could reverse this growing hostility to inconvenient science. As I said, the process of intellectual devolution seems to have reached a point of no return. And that scares me more than the news about that ice sheet.”

I sent two comments. They were both censored. They both completely approved Krugman’s editorial, while, I must admit, going a tiny bit further.

This crudeness, and vigilance of censorship by the owners, is why the Obamas, Clintons, Krugmans, and Stiglitzs have to be careful. After all, they are just employees enjoying the perks of the system. Yes, they don’t own it. Ownership is everything. If the servants want to keep on thriving, those “leaders” will have to please the owners. So they “lead” where the real owners are willing us all, the herd, to be led.

This is the quandary into nearly all progressive politicians find themselves in, worldwide. Only in tiny countries such as Denmark, are politicians allowed to do what they want, because it does not matter to the real masters of the universe.

Denmark has only 5.5 million people, and, except for its obscure relationship to 60,000 citizen strong Greenland, has no imperial aura. (It fought 6 hours, killing 200 Nazis in World War Two.)

The plutocracy focuses on direct control of the world imperial system, and that means controlling the giants (especially the three military leaders of the West). This is where the propaganda is the thickest.

The New York Times is considered to be the “newspaper of record” in the USA. However, the bottom like is that this is the third century during which it is owned and controlled by a particular family. How can these two elements be compatible? Why is that particular family “of record”?

Even in the Middle Ages, the most absolute kings there were, those of France, actually owned relatively little property. Francois I himself may have worn expensive clothes, but Italian bankers paid for his trips around France. Francois I did not own the media of the time.

What we have now is different. We have an ascending plutocracy that tries to grab the minds ever more. What Putin is doing in Russia is just a particular case, part of a whole.

Hopefully, people will see through this, and get their news from somewhere else than plutocratically owned media, thus bankrupting the MSM (the Internet can support journalists directly: see the successful Mediapart in France).

Patrice Aymé

Propaganda From Subject Control

May 2, 2014

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: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf

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: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%2…

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.

***

REFRESHING OURSELVES WITH THE ROMAN PERSPECTIVE:

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

Stealth Climate Deniers

April 1, 2014

The United Nations 300 top climate scientists from all over the world, came up with an alarming climate warming report: the warming is fully on, and its weird effects are showing all over, with changes in winds, the strongest hurricane ever, by a long shot, and even paradoxical situations, such as local cooling offshore, from twice stronger trade winds, causing a high pressure ridge, and a massive drought in the American West. (OK, it’s me observing the latter, not the UN, but it’s true nevertheless!)

There are two types of deniers: the grotesque ones, paid to say CO2 is good, climate has always changed, it’s not warming up, and getting more acid, and anyway, both are good. And then there are the stealth deniers.

50 Billion Tons Of CO2 Equivalent Gases Dumped In Earth’s Atmosphere, Per Year

50 Billion Tons Of CO2 Equivalent Gases Dumped In Earth’s Atmosphere, Per Year

[Observe the important role played by Methane. Although CH4 does not acidify the oceans as CO2 does.]

Stealth deniers are within, say, the media of the USA itself, under an unassuming form. The New York Times wrote several anti-deniers editorials. And yet, the Times itself is ambiguous, at best, about whether there is a CO2 problem.

Take the otherwise honorable Paul Krugman at the New York Times, the self glorified “Conscience of a Liberal”: Krugman talks to no end about providing “liquidity” to his friends the bankers and about the abysmal, pathetic pseudo-reform called Obamacare. That’s socio-economy for Krugman. (Obamacare is a dismally unimpressive tweak in the American greedy health care system that Obama himself, nowadays, tries his best to sabotage!)

However, Paul Krugman, blessed be his name, and all too many economic pundits in the USA, never, ever, talks about the most major economic issue of our times, the necessity to effect a massive transition towards sustainable energy.

By talking obsessively about minor economic issues (success! Obamacare now covers 2% of the population of the USA, 4 years after being passed into law! Sadness! Banks starving for free money so they can’t leverage, and play futures and dark pools as much as they want!), Krugman avoids the most serious of our times, and any times before those. Namely, the poisoning of the Earth, while most of the planet’s effective activities are starving for energy.

Yet, such a transition would provide with millions of jobs in the USA alone (a small and partial energy “change” in Germany provided officially with 400,000 jobs; it is a lame change, as it shot down futuristic nuclear energy solutions, though).

So what’s going on? Comments of mine making this observation were censored at the New York Times. Actually, the New York Times (supposedly left, liberal, with a conscience, blah blah blah, etc.) is shilling for fracking. “U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin… by sending our surplus natural gas to Europe and Ukraine in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the United States …stiffen resistance to Vladimir Putin’s aggressive behavior.

Forget that the United States currently lacks a capacity to export LNG to Europe… until the 2020s… Just focus on the article’s central reportorial flaw: it fails to identify a single reason why future American LNG exports (which could wind up anywhere) would have any influence whatsoever on the Russian president’s behavior.”

Instead, the economic main stream of the USA is going full steam ahead, fracking away. The fracking is causing huge leaks of methane. It’s also impossible to speak of the USA and omit its main factory, China. The tandem of the USA and the PRC are into ever more desperate fossil fuel production. USA coal production is now sent to Germany and China… Giving a biting irony to Obama’s notion of fracking gas playing the role of a “bridge fuel“. A bridge, across the oceans, to disaster, indeed.

Ever More Fossils Burned, Most Of Them, Now.

Ever More Fossils Burned, Most Of Them, Now.

(Meanwhile the short sighted Obama proposes to reduce thermonuclear fusion research by 17%, in 2015, while giving the rich a gift of $7,500, each time they buy a car from the 7 billion dollar boy, Elon Musk; thermonuclear fusion is the one and only long term hope for sustainable energy; all other energy sources, except geothermal, which does not work, are derived from thermonuclear fusion!)

Another point I have made for years: at some point, exactly, the methane tipping point, massive amounts of methane will be catastrophically released from the oceans. Methane is already massively released from USA fracking, and from the oceans. Catastrophic release will involve tsunamis, and greatly accelerated warming. (That has happened in the North Atlantic, 7,000 years ago.) It will start suddenly. It could start tomorrow.

The media of the USA is culprit of not emphasizing that the climate problem is, first of all, an economic catastrophe, and opportunity to smash out of an unsustainable past dominated by fossil fuel plutocrats. But then most of the Main Stream Media in the USA is owned by plutocrats, partial to the present order of things, including the energetic order.

Anyway, as usual, it was an irritating pleasure to be censored by the Times: this way I know what New York plutocrats really care about, where they fear truth the most. It’s a sort of radar to detect malfeasance.

Patrice Aymé

Propaganda: Cruel, But Efficient

January 18, 2014

I subscribe to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and The Economist (among others). Of the three, the New York Times is, by far, the most efficient propaganda tool of the hyper rich. It’s done in subtle ways. For example Krugman ran a blog post: “January 18, 2014, 12:11 pm. The Myth of the Deserving Rich.

You would think that Paul Krugman would show a graph of the growth of inequality that is recent. Problem: if he did, all fingers would point towards Barack Obama, the great Dark Trojan Horse. So Krugman shows an old graph that safely finishes with the Bush era. (Implicit message: Bush = Inequality.)

Here is a more recent graph about (after tax!) corporate profits.

Obama's Plutocratic Wealth Breakthrough!

Obama’s Plutocratic Wealth Breakthrough!

As you can see, corporate profits, even under plutophiles Clinton and Bush, just, in the end, tracked GDP.

However, under Obama, there has been a breakthrough in after tax inequality. True, Obama controls profits not, but he controls tax (and, looking at the fine print, one sees the jump occurred when the democrats had a super-majority in the Senate and Congress: no hiding behind the Bush!).

Why inequality has grown is not complicated: the hyper rich financiers stole the financial institutions that they were supposed to manage (2008 “Bush Crash”).

Instead of recovering the money from the thieves he was golfing with, Yes-We-Scam Obama found the money in the Public purse. The thieves got to keep what they stole (see Fuld and his two friends at Lehman Brothers, who stole a cool 5 billions between them, while taking out the world financial system).

The exact same trick was implemented in Europe, thanks to the ignorance of the flabbergasted public.

(That’s why the recently proclaimed banking Union in Europe piously asserts that it will not happen again: next time the hyper rich steals everything, they will pay for it, it’s a promise!)

Don’t expect Krugman to explain any of this to you, as long as pitchforks are not visible from his Princeton office. Speaking of Krugman, here he comes in that post I started to describe:

“Many influential people have a hard time thinking straight about inequality. Partly, of course, this is because of Upton Sinclair’s dictum: it’s hard for a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Part of it is because even acknowledging that inequality is a real problem implicitly opens the door to taking progressive policies seriously. But there’s also a factor that, while not entirely independent of the other two, is somewhat distinct; I think of it as the urge to sociologize.”

Sounds good? But what is this “sociologize”? And what with that old graph? Did Krugman saw nothing new ever since The One became president and had dinner with him?

Notice that the corporations’ “profits” in the graph I posted are what’s left after the CEO class has been paid pharaonic salaries. Marissa Maier, a blonde at Yahoo, just gave a severance package to a man she had recruited a year ago, for a fortune. It’s in excess, that severance, just that severance, not the signing bonus, of 42 million dollars.

Marissa has done well, and will receive her own colossal severance one of these days soon. Then, now that she is hyper rich, she can go to another hyper salaried CEO job, or do her duty and become a “philanthropist”, or a politician.

Did Barack Obama visit Marissa Meier’s Silicon Valley mansion? Of course. Slept there, ate there, beamed giant smile, etc. The whole gamut: people of wealth, and taste. That was when Marissa was at Google, an apparent subsidiary of the NSA. Hey, she was just at the White House, to talk about that with Barack. No blood, no foul.

By “socializing” Krugman means the theory that the poor  is poor, because it deserves to be poor, as it lives badly (dysfunctional families, drugs, unwillingness to learn, etc.). Krugman concludes disjointedly, by adopting some of what I said over the years:

“This is, by the way, why the Occupy slogan about the one percent is so brilliant. I would actually argue that the number should be even smaller. But one percent is an easy to remember number, and small enough to make it clear that we’re not talking about the upper middle class.

And that’s good. The myth of the deserving rich is, in its own way, as destructive as the myth of the undeserving poor.”

I sent the following comment, among the early ones.  Although more than 100 comments were published, mine was not. One has to know the New York Times is owned by the same plutocratic family since the Nineteenth Century.

Not publishing my comment allows the New York Times to claim I need to be watched, and carefully censored, as I am what it calls “unverified”. I am indeed, officially under a surveillance program at the New York Times! Here is my censored comment:

There are some people who earn their lives well, and then there is the plutocratic phenomenon.  The two concepts are distinct.

One would assume that most creatures contributing regularly to Krugman’s  blog live well enough to find the time to do so (I have contributed more than $10,000 to the New York Times’ coffers over the years).

The plutocratic phenomenon is something completely different. It has to do with the exponential growth of wealth and power. It can only be prevented by punishing taxes at the very top (the .1% and .01%). Eisenhower had a 93% tax bracket, at the very top.

As it is now all these myths Krugman talks about, and condemns, live on because plutocrats control the media, and are, unsurprisingly, plutophile.

For example, California Governor Brown organized, and won, a referendum to rise a tiny bit taxes on the 1%. Last week California papers had front page stories about the rich fleeing the state. In big black capital letters. Spending the time to read the article (it was basically the same article all over) showed nothing of the sort. But, to the common citizen in the street, what was impressed was the flight of the hyper rich due to a 1% augmentation of tax on the 1%…

That was, of course, a propaganda operation. The sob stories about the hyper rich selling their commercial centers to flee a 1% tax are just implausible.

Effective propaganda is subtle enough to not be seen by Common Wisdom. Thus we have to keep on digging in to find out how it is that the serfs willingly serve the great Lords.

This was my censored comment. At first sight, it does not look that terrible. The question is: what was so subterraneously, unconsciously terrible in my comment above that was worth censoring?

The fact that, having got a subscription for decades, at the same street address, the New York Times persists in calling me “unverified” is a lie? And that all can see this lie, as I allude to the extravagant cost of my decades of subscription to the NYT?

Or is it the terrible fact that had had to be censored, the sob stories about the hyper wealthy fleeing California. And claiming that they are obviously planted?

Or did I gravely sin when I proposed to follow republican president Eisenhower’s leadership?… And tax the hyper wealthy 93%?

Einstein famously said, a little bit fast, albeit in the context of Quantum Theory: ”Subtle is the Lord, but he is not cruel!”

Well. Einstein was not inclined to be so forgiving for the Germans who had killed the Jews. At least that’s the way Einstein put it to his dear friend Physics Nobel laureate Max Born, when the latter returned to Germany from England. Einstein was not happy that Born acted as if everything had been forgiven.

By refusing to forgive, Albert Einstein recognized something which is true: cruelty is a central part of the human character. Those who deny that are not just stupid, but dishonest and dangerous. Same as the righteous, pseudo-“liberal”, but truly plutophile, New York Times. (That has been splendidly embodied by frantic NYT propaganda for the plutophile health trick set in Massachusetts by Romney, now known as… Obamacare.)

Plutocracy is a phenomenon that rises mechanically when taxes at the top are not colossal enough (Apple pays 2% global tax, the local bookstore, if it has not been devoured by tax dodging Amazon yet, around 30%). Then plutocracy becomes an obvious injustice. Yet, primates are genetically engineered to hate injustice.

So how does the injustice persist? Through sophisticated tricks, as above, motivated by sheer cruelty, will to power, and viciousness. It’s cruel and vicious to censor my rather innocuous comment, but it’s of the essence of those who crave power.

Subtle are the plutocrats, and they are cruel. Cruelty is actually the essence of plutocracy. Welcome to reality.

Patrice Ayme

Obamascare

November 3, 2013

I am for universal health care. For me health care is about care, not profit. An immediate computation (see below) show that at least one third of the health care cost in the USA is plutocratic gouging.

Although covered by an expensive health plan in California, I went to a French public hospital to have my daughter (motivated strictly by the better health care there, something that became obvious on… the phone from half a world away; the pregnancy was difficult and I feel sure that my daughter is alive today thanks to that decision).I do not like Obamacare, mostly because it’s a red herring. The main problem of USA health care is that it’s health profit first, instead of health care.

Plutocrats Baucus & Liz Fowler Care To Profit, Stupid

Plutocrats Baucus & Liz Fowler Care To Profit, Stupid

Obama could have started to fix that with presidential executive orders (removing the chains that prevent Medicare to negotiate with health care providers; he did not do it, and he is still not doing it, as he has everybody hypnotized by “Obamacare”; an executive order there would have more effect than Obamacare).

Obamacare is also about class: you can pay more, you get more; if you are poorer, you get a substandard plan (hilariously, most of the colored ones get the substandard “bronze” plan! You colored you bronze).

Also Obamacare obviously will not solve the covering of the uncovered, as its Byzantine structure depends upon the Internal Revenue Service (something the true underclass in the USA has nothing to do with; I know several underclass people and families from several states, by the way; when was the last time Obama talked with somebody who owns just a few torn clothes and a dog? well, I am actually friends with a few of them. We talk.)

True the expansion of Medicaid may help. But Medicaid is state, and Obama controls Medicare, more than Medicaid, so why did not he want to help more?

I have had a full subscription to the New York Times for more than three decades, but this week I have been wondering if I should not cancel it.

An example: an editorial in the NYT on Friday claimed that none of the 150 million employer health insurance in the USA would be cancelled.

However, I had just I got a cancellation notice from my employer provided Aetna health plan, effective within weeks, because my plan is “substandard”. I sent a one sentence comment informing the  New York Times of that fact. It was not published. Since the Obamacare roll-out 50% of my comments were censored, the worst since 2003. After I complained, that was increased to 90% (and apparently 100% in the last days).

Instead  we are submitted to a deluge of anti-French and anti-German “facts”, revealed by the New York Times. Germany, not Obamacare, is causing a recession. Obviously France and Germany prevent the market and the “exchanges” to do their work.

Other facts from the New York Times’ parallel universe:

1) Germany is “hacking away at French social services“. The French Socialist Party, which controls the presidency, the national assembly, the senate, and the regions of France will be surprised to learn it is “hacking away” socialism under German orders. My comments on that were censored.

I guess it’s better for the New York Times to talk about imaginary hacking than about the French 75% tax on high incomes (above one million euros; precisely to prevent “hacking away” at social services). My comments on this were censored too.

2) The New York Times also informed us that France caused the Great Depression of the 1930s (never mind that the referenced Irwin paper was short on ideas and scholarship). The New York Times insisted that “Germany in 2013, is like France in 1930“. So Germany in 2013 is causing a Great Depression, same as France in the 1930s.

[Why don’t we talk about USA plutocrats sending emergency war supplies to Nazi Germany in 1939 to fight off France? (oops, that would be “anti-American”)]

3) Krugman pretends that he found a counter-example to the fact that loose monetary policy leads to higher interest rates, namely, you guessed it, France in the 1920s.

I presented a full page of why the effect was due to special circumstances, namely half the working age males in France were incapacitated, or dead. Showing Krugman’s scholarship missed the elephant in the bathroom: censored. Naturlich.

4) Observing that Southern Europeans are still richer than  the Germans is no news fit to print in the Times. Also censored.

4) Basically, insists Krugman, Germany is causing the American government shut-down (by making the Eurozone an export demon to China).

Let me suggest another bad thing Germany did to the USA: Obamacare. It’s obviously the fault of Bismarck, a German Chancellor who introduced universal health care around 1860. Bismarck was even anti-market, thus anti-American, as the insurance companies in Germany are not for profit. Repeat: NOT for profit.

[If the insurance companies were NOT for profit, I would be for Obamacare. Actually, even as it is, I am for Obamacare… but it will not work, anyway, as its own gouging will strangle it.]

USA health care cost in excess of 18% of GDP, and ranks last in objective markers of care (rank 46 behind all developed nations, and quite a few developing ones). Germany, France, and the Netherlands spend 12% of GDP and rank best in health care worldwide (although Italy does nearly as well, with 9% GDP). Thus one can fairly say, observing that 18% – 12% = 6%, around 30% of the cost of health care in the USA is pure plutocratic profit.

It is apparently dawning on the New York Times that Europeans are not just NON-American, they have built a NON-American world. An alternative world. NON plutocratic, increasingly. The danger is extreme. According to another NYT hysterical November editorial, the republic is threatened by “populists”.

“Plutocrats vs. Populists” opines that: “HERE’S the puzzle of America today: the plutocrats have never been richer, and their economic power continues to grow, but the populists, the wilder the better, are taking over.” Proof of that the “genteel” Summers was not appointed because of “populist” opposition. While American “philanthrocapitalists” [sic!] are fighting against malaria. (Actually the Gates are interfering nefariously with the world health CARE system, many scientists are increasingly complaining.)

All this anti-European hysteria of course has to do with Obama’s Secretary of Health & Human Services declaring this week that Obamacare was a “debacle“, or it has to do with Germany so anxious to hear more from Mr. Snowden about NSA industrial espionage that it sent a member of the national assembly to pose with Snowden.

What the New York Times proposes is to replace the Republic with philanthropic plutocrats.

The USA got tremendous mileage for nearly a century from the war between the (French) Republic and various German (USA supported) fascist racial plutocrats. But now, no more. The New York times has to fight the bicephalic Franco-German republic. Well, it will not win.

As the Athenians demonstrated 24 centuries ago even a tiny Republic of the People can defeat a giant plutocracy (Achaemenid Persia). France, Germany and their immediate satellites do not make a tiny Republic, but one roughly as large demographically and economically as the USA. The European Union exported in 2012 for 2.2 trillion dollars, more than China, and about 50% more than the USA (in spite of a very strong Euro).

The Washington based International Monetary Fund has joined the American chorus berating Germany (repeating like a deranged parrot the arguments in the NYT). Howl in vain. Only one opinion matters: that of the sister republic, France. And what France believes is that she has not been serious enough and she needs to Germanize herself. The process has started: unions are starting to sit on company boards, as in Germany.

France, like Germany, believes that the economy ought to be industrious first. The world first working steam engine and steam boat was built by a French university professor motoring down a German river in 1707. That was no accident: at the time the somewhat crazed plutocrat, the so called “Roi Soleil” (Sun King) was not creating the best condition for innovation. Crazed plutocracy is not the best for anyone, but crazed plutocrats.

Obamacare was written by a Vice President at the largest health insurance company, Well Point, Liz Fowler. Under plutocratic senator Baucus. Ms. Fowler is back in the for huge profit business, big time, racking up millions off the inchoating Obamacare.

But listen to Bill Moyers, a sedate, ancient, experienced commentator from PBS. Moyers talks about “treason“, and says the situation is unheard of since the nineteenth century (when senators were not elected). He says that one should call it for what it is; a “leveraged buy-out of democracy“. He recommends to get ‘busy”.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1355498-Liz-Fowler-Wall-Street-Crony-The-Truth-behind-Obamacare

I highly recommend that readers listen to Mr. Moyers five minutes’ description of the mind boggling corruption. First order of business ought to be to get informed.

The Obama administration is the most corrupt ever, in recent memory. Those who hated G. W. Bush can only thank Obama for feeding their outrage some more.

***

Patrice Ayme

Mediating Pluto

September 25, 2013

New York Times: Plutocrats Are “Common Sense”!

Plutocracy is the rule of the neuro-emotional complex symbolized by Pluto, the Indo-Euro-Arabian god of the underworld, known under many names  through the ages: Angra Mainyu, Mara, Hades, Diabolos, Satan…

Not a positive for commoners, one would guess. So how come Plutos rule all over? Well, Plutos’ popularity is the fruit of massive Big Lie campaigns. The cult of Warren Buffet in the USA is striking: Buffet ought to be in jail, but he is in most Americans’ hearts, instead.

As shown below, Maureen Dowd, star editorialist at the New York Times, claims that Pluto/Buffet, is the epitome of wisdom. This sort of wisdom, buy low, sell high, whatever it takes, is why the USA killed Allende (1973), attacked Afghanistan (1979), invaded Iraq, etc. And why, increasingly, most people are on their knees, adulating plutocrats, their ways, notions, solutions, and forsaken world.

Hitler: Enslaved To Pluto

Hitler: Enslaved To Pluto

According to Maureen Dowd the “inspiring, compassionate and patriotic common sense” of plutocrats fully opposes the “Republicans”. Yet, of course, all what “the Republicans” do is to serve their masters, the plutocrats, and especially Buffet!

Is Dowd mad, or is she a complete idiot, or is she paid vast amounts of money, and has no other values, whatsoever, or is she using Hitler’s Big Lie technique, or is it all of the preceding?

When Ketchum, W. Bush’s Public Relation firm, sent the New York Times an editorial full of Putin’s Big Lies and absurdities, the NYT published it. Without warning the readership that it was wacko. Putin is one of the world’s most prominent Plutos. It ought to be unlawful to publish demonstrably Big Lies (and the New York Att. General agreed today with this new notion).

The NYT is the “Newspaper of record”, it sounds informative, fair, balanced and critical. Yet, the New York Times never makes a serious critique of plutocratic power. Whereas it celebrates plutocrats every day. And how. OK, OK, plutocracy is New York’s business model…

An example? NYT’s Maureen Dowd’s America’s Billionaire, 22 September 2013. Maureen exults:

“The victory for common sense last week was not in Congress, but at Georgetown University. Speaking to an excited crowd of students and others Thursday night beneath soaring stained-glass windows, the 83-year-old Warren Buffett offered inspiring lessons in patriotism and compassion — traits sorely missing here as Republicans ran headlong toward a global economic cataclysm and gutted the food stamp program.

“I am sorry I’m late,” Nancy Pelosi murmured sardonically, as she arrived at the Buffett event. “We were busy taking food out of the mouths of babies.”

Questioned by Brian Moynihan, the C.E.O. of Bank of America, and later students, Buffett seemed happy to be back in one of his hometowns, where, as the son of an investor from Omaha who became a congressman, he had once worked…”

Milking politics for money is hereditary among the Buffets: Buffet’s dad went to Congress, Congress comes to his son. Buffet made a fortune (dozens of billions) from his political connections, starting way earlier than Nixon.

In the USA the biggest plutocrats preach at the ruinously expensive private, state sponsored, universities. For those who don’t know, Warren Buffet is a 50 billion dollar worth billionaire. Buffet is the object of a cult in the USA. Buffet is closely associated with more than a hundred equally soaring billionaires, including Bill Gates. In the USA, plutocrats form packs.

For those who admire education in the USA, let them me informed that the “cost of attendance” at Georgetown in 2013-2014 is $62,570 (that is at least 20% above the pre-tax median family income in the country). Buffet’s audience is onto the plot of mixing riches, politics, and gouging:

Buffet is the grizzled spider of plutocracy central, trillions of dollars of private wealth, steering the world as it wishes, with the USA’s top politicians “busy taking food out of the mouths of babies,” just to fit in.

Dowd writes:“five years ago, Buffett said at Georgetown, he and Gates began plotting about philanthropy and now they have enrolled 115 plutocrats pledging a majority of their net worth. “I’ve been dialing for dollars…

Plotting plutocrats: Maureen is in love.

People such as Gates and Buffet are celebrated “philanthropists”. Not only do they steal us, but we have to say that’s because they love man.

Christ said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle that for rich men to get to paradise. Gates and Buffet, and all plutocrats of the USA are thus all miracles come alive, we better kneel when those saints are on TV.

The hyper wealthy don’t pay tax, by trickery.

Worldwide, every year, tax evasion by the hyper rich is evaluated to be between 20 and 30 trillion dollars, about half of world GDP. In other words, all the debt problems and problems about paying for the welfare states don’t really exist: they are just the cost of tax evasion by the hyper wealthy.

But there is still a higher category than the mere wealthy: the plutocrats, also known as philanthropists.

Indeed: philanthropists do not pay taxes, legally. When Gates goes to Kenya, as a “philanthropist”, with private security, in a huge private jet (of a company he owns), and stays at the best hotel in Kenya with his hangers-on, and various prostitutes, it’s all… paid by taxpayers. All that luxury and power is viewed as “non profit”. Cute. Then Gates gets to steer the politics of Kenya in the matter of research and makes Kenya buys from private companies in which Gates and his friends are invested. Even cuter. Gates of hell?

Indeed, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have been pushing around onto the world the Genetically Modified Organisms of Monsanto (another name for the Gates Foundation, considering the exchanges of personnel and contracts between both).

The connection with politics, in the USA or worldwide, is how Gates and Buffet more than doubled their wealth in times when vulgar Americans’ worth slipped, big time.

“Philanthropy” has become another name for legalized plutocracy. Big plutocrats are “philanthropists”, by tax evading definition.

Dowd relates Buffet’s ‘enormous’ admiration for those who brought the 2007 crash. Says Buffet:

“I give enormous credit to Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner and frankly, even though I didn’t vote for him, President Bush.”

W.’s “great insight,” one worthy of Adam Smith, Buffet said, was expressed in 10 words in September 2008: “He went out there from the White House and he said, ‘If money doesn’t loosen up this sucker could go down.’ ”

What “sucker”? The Republic? The plutocracy? Is there a difference for Bush or Buffet, or Gates, or Pelosi, or Geithner (and his master Summers and their student, Obama)? Who is “sucking” what? Was the plutocracy “sucking” the Republic, in danger of coming down?

So money was “loosened up”? Which money? The money of the stingy Public. In exchange for what? Here is an explicit example of Buffet’s genius.

Buffet “bought” Goldman Sacks at the lowest price (for $5 billion), days after Lehman, a 158 year old bank failed, and was not rescued. How did Buffet know for sure that  the same treatment was not going to be extended to Goldman? How did Buffet know, for sure, that Goldman, like Lehman, was not going down to zero? Because Hank Paulson used to be CEO of Golman? Or was there more?

Had I been president instead of Bush, I would have waited until Goldman’s price was roughly zero (that would have been a matter of minutes, if the word had come out that no government money was coming), and then nationalized it (by having the government buy all the shares). Buffet would have been wiped out.

But Buffet had no such worries: he knew full well from his friends (the ones above) that they would loosen up $60 billion of PUBLIC money to make that Goldman Sacks sucker float.

USA 2013: Hate Starving Babies, Laud Plutocrats

USA 2013: Hate Starving Babies, Laud Plutocrats

That 60 billion dollar public flush, of course made Buffet very much richer: his shares became more valuable, several times over. Who paid for making Buffet richer? The Public, with its 60 billions, in exchange of which the Public got nothing, except listening to Buffet’s ‘common sense’, and seeing the Main Stream Media and the top politicians, sing the praises of this mafia boss, to high heavens.

So, instead of investing in new science and technology, health care or high speed rail, the Public invested in Buffet and his close associate billionaires (who also invested in Goldman, as they were on heist too).

Sad is a country where “money changers” are viewed as the guiding lights. Nancy Pelosi, head of the democratic party in Congress, laughs that we are “busy taking food out of the mouths of babies.”

And what if it were true? Pelosi, although worth only 1% of Buffet, is immensely rich herself, owning vineyards, ski resorts, etc. A typical top politician of the USA.

What proofs of corruption do we need? How did Pelosi make all this money? She did “fund raising” half of her life, from Marin County, and then ran for office (from said county, I run there often). Just as with Buffet, Pelosi’s father was a professional politician; her own daughter has been launched that way.

FOUNDATIONS are fundamental to the implementation of the politico-plutocratic complex. Foundations allow to implement philanthropy, that is, plutocracy.

How does it work? A Foundation Law was passed the same day as the Income Tax Law nearly a century ago. Foundations don’t have to pay tax, they just have to distribute an amount of capital vastly inferior to what would be taken from them in taxes if they were for profit. So they can grow.

They can pay their personnel heftily, so family members can live rich and happy, on the Foundation’s money, without being hindered by things as base as inheritance tax. Monsanto can also hide behind Gates’s Foundation and tweak research away from what bothers it, at will. Worldwide.

Buffet and Gates, together, control more than $100 billion dollars. With the Gates Foundation, they control nearly $200 billions. Moreover they perniciously leverage this enormous muscle by harnessing public money. Indeed they are the ones who decide how public money is spent. Watch Obama pose as the Gates’ pets in matter of education (the lad wants money when he gets out).

In the USA, the Gates Foundation focuses heavily on “reforming” education. The Gates pose with the (naïve) president as reformers. The net result is a huge discrediting our public schools, and a significant possibility of future “privatization” (another word for plutocratization).

“We’ve got something that works and we don’t want to mess that up… I buy at silly prices… acting foolishly has proven very profitable over the preceding few years … we must figure out how to “share the bounty” said Buffet to his Georgetown audience. Yes, “silliness”, foolishness worked for him, and for his political and plutocratic friends, and their hangers-on.

Yes, here we have 117 plutocrats united to make plutocracy into the tax free foundation for a new world order. They are too idiotic to know that the definition of the old aristocracy, in the Middle-Ages, was precisely that of philanthropists who paid no taxes. (And, very precisely, the French revolution was about making aristocrats, the 2%, pay tax!)

The buy and sell cockroaches, anti-intellectuals such as Gates and Buffet, lead the world into buying and selling itself into oblivion. Because you know what? Being led by cockroaches does not a civilization save. Instead it falls into the Black Hole of the lowest values.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

[Artwork: Thx JM Garland.]