Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’

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 loves plutocrats and sees them as the foundation of logic, it claims that: Plutocrats Are “Common Sense”!

Plutocracy is much more than simply the rule of wealth. More generally, 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…

Admiring Pluto, or the psychology it stands for doesn’t entail a positive attitude for commoners, the latter should be able to guess. And yet… How come the spirit of Pluto, and little Plutos rule all over? Well, Plutos’ popularity is the fruit of massive Big Lie campaigns (steady campaigns of little lies piling up, also help). For example, the cult of Warren Buffet in the USA is striking: arguably Buffet ought to be in jail, for profiteering from massive inequality he helps procreate, but, instead, Buffet, a grandfather figure, is in most Americans’ hearts… And Buffet actually can afford the luxury of railing against the plutocratic class he belongs to. Confusing all. Confusion is central to disinformation. So expect Nancy Pelosi and Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates, to preach against what they practice… It’s the oldest trick: watch good old emperor Constantine and his mother (both “saints”) practice the exact opposite of Jesus’ main message… which they preached.

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 (officially, but secretly, as early as 1979, on the order of another grandfather figure, Jimmy Carter), 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.]

Times Praises Mind Control

April 13, 2013

RULE THE MINDS, & YOU SHALL RULE THE WORLD.

Abstract: The New York Times deliberately avoids to call a duck a duck if it quacks inside the government. This strategy is revealed, explicitly, by the New York Times itself. The New York Times, by its own admission,  deliberately misinforms the public, as it judges what semantics to use, in the service of what it perceives as being the White House’s best legal strategy.

***

How can large modern societies veer towards mass murder? Why did 80 million Germans goose-step behind the Kaiser, and then Hitler, to fight the world and achieve barbarian domination? I have the simplest explanation: mind control of the masses by cruel masters through carefully contrived emotional, semantic, logical and data input.

Germany 1938. Seeing What You See: Bad For Worship

Germany 1938. Seeing What You See: Bad For Worship

[“Bird Hell” detail; by German Max Beckman, 1938. Obviously A Parody Of Hitlerland.]

Hannah Arendt, a suspect thinker, came instead with a convoluted theory (in the second edition of her “Totalitarianism”  book, in 1958). She suggested that “individual isolation and loneliness” are preconditions for totalitarian domination. Speak about pop psychology.

Was Hannah saying that the several hundred million people who embraced totalitarianism, in Europe alone, were isolated and lonely? Is that why they gathered in vast herds? When 50,000 Brownshirts paraded together, were they isolated and lonely? Were the comrades of the Politburo standing with Stalin isolated and lonely? An obviously stupid theory. It’s the exact opposite that is true.

Arendt’s fancy was actually contradicted by an explicit study of Columbia University’s Theodore Abel, published in 1938. The study “Why Hitler Came In Power” showed that the characteristic 1931-1932 Nazi supporter was employed, but not educated. The supporter’s mentality, far from being isolated and lonely, was shared by the Nazi herd. Nazi supporters were enraged by the World War One defeat, the Versailles Treaty, and all and any revolutionary movements contesting the old plutocracy.

In other words, Nazi supporters had their minds programmed expertly by the very class that caused World War One, and their own suffering.

Arendt’s weird considerations sound like excuses (for herself, for her lover Heidegger?).

To find the truth, it’s better to read Nietzsche’s broadsides against the German herd, or Hitler’s detailed explanation on how to make the multitudes goosestep, spiritually speaking. Hitler explains that the way to lead the folk (“Volk”) where it does not want to go is by using “big lies“. Nietzsche explains that Germans were in love with the instincts of the herd, and cultivated them by choice first, a will to baseness, and then because they did not know any better, that’s what they became. That’s why Nietzsche broke with his (ex) friend and fellow musician, Richard Wagner.

Now fast forward to Twentieth First Century USA. The New York Times, the ‘newspaper of record’ practices, of its own gloating admission, semantic mind control.

***

LET’S CALL EVERYTHING EMBARASSING DIFFERENTLY:

Wonders Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times “Public Editor“, about her own paper: “If it’s torture, why call it a “harsh interrogation technique”? If it’s premeditated assassination, why call it a “targeted killing”? And if a suspected terrorist has been locked up at Guantánamo Bay for more than a decade, why call him a “detainee”?”

Funny she has to ask that. Recent leaks from inside the CIA showed that CIA officials therein were afraid of International Warrants of Arrest against them in the future. So they did what bandits have always done, when they don’t fear summary execution. They switched from torture to assassination (assassinated people don’t tell tales to the International Criminal Court).

Ms. Sullivan went to ask Mr. Shane, a national security reporter in the Washington NYT bureau, and Philip B. Corbett, the associate managing editor for standards of the New York Times, to respond to some of these issues.

Mr. Shane addressed the question on “targeted killings,” noting that editors and reporters have discussed it repeatedly. He wrote:

“Assassination” is banned by executive order, but for decades that has been interpreted by successive administrations as prohibiting the killing of political figures, not suspected terrorists. Certainly most of those killed are not political figures, though arguably some might be. Were we to use “assassination” routinely about drone shots, it would suggest that the administration is deliberately violating the executive order, which is not the case. This administration, like others, just doesn’t think the executive order applies…“Murder,” of course, is a specific crime described in United States law with a bunch of elements, including illegality, so it would certainly not be straight news reporting to say President Obama was “murdering” people.

So, basically “assassination” is banned by decree, so “is not the case” and murder is illegal, so it’s not “straight news“. Thus Mr. Shane opines that: 

“This leaves “targeted killing,” which I think is far from a euphemism. It denotes exactly what’s happening: American drone operators aim at people on the ground and fire missiles at them. I think it’s a pretty good term for what’s happening, if a bit clinical.”

Clinical? The CIA is a hospital, and drones, presumably, scalpels? By that token whenever somebody shoots at children, it’s “targeted killing”, not murder! Indeed, an “operator” aims at children on the ground, and fires. Mr. Shane added that he had only one serious qualm about the term: it’s not “what’s happening”.  

Indeed, that, he said, was expressed by an administration official: “It’s not the targeted killings I object to — it’s the untargeted killings.” The official “was talking about so-called ‘signature strikes’ that target suspected militants based on their appearance, location, weapons and so on, not their identities, which are unknown; and also about mistaken strikes that kill civilians.”

“Mistaken strikes”? What’s mistaken about exploding a home one knows harbor women and children, in the alleged hope to get some potential terrorist, potentially inside?

In any case, Mr. Shane calls, from his own admission, “untargeted killings” and “signature strikes” by their opposites, “targeted killings”. In other words, black will be white, as long as it would be illegal, were it black.

Such are the standards at the New York Times. One can be barbarian because one is cruel. One can also be a barbarian, because one does not know how to use words. This is where the word barbarian comes from. The Greeks viewed those who could not talk well as saying: ba ba ba ba… (Notice I avoids any mention of the babama who wants to exponentiate Social Security out of existence, in an effort of remarkable restraint.)

Finally one can be a barbarian, because one views as valid a proposition and its negation. Mr. Shane seems affected by these three versions of barbarity: cruelty, at a loss for words, and self contradiction.

***

TORTURE HAS LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS, WE CAN’T TALK ABOUT IT:

On the matter of “detainee,” Mr. Corbett called it “a legitimate concern” and agreed that the term might not be ideal. He said that it, not prisoner, was used because those being held “are in such an unusual situation – they are not serving a prison term, they are in an unusual status of limbo.”

They are not serving a prison term, but they are in prison. This is the New York Times, thinking.

The debate over the word “torture,” he said, has similar implications to the one Mr. Shane described with assassination. “The word torture, aside from its common sense meaning, has specific legal meaning and ramifications,” Mr. Corbett said. “Part of the debate is on that very point.

Which point? What Mr. Corbett is saying is that the debate is about not torture per se, but about the “legal meaning and ramifications” of torture. Does that mean that the New York Times cannot talk about “torture“, because it has “legal ramifications” for its client?

The New York Times wants to “avoid making a legal judgment in the middle of a debate,” he added. The New York Times shall not judge before its time. We are not talking about “news” anymore, here. We are talking about judgment, once the debate, thus the news, are over.

***

NEW YORK TIMES AS A PROPAGANDA OUTFIT:

The most notorious failure of the media of the USA was when Nazi’s barbarity was not revealed to the public to the extent it deserved, in a timely manner. That’s how Hitler got on a joy ride for as long as he did.

The New York Times re-tweeted all the talking points of the Bush administration in the march to the Iraq war in 2002-2003. For years, if I sent a comment mentioning Mr. Bin Laden had been recruited and trained by the CIA and the SIA, my comment was immediately censored (I did this deliberately, just to experiment with the lemmings at the Times).  

What the authorities in Washington wanted, and it was amplified by the Main Stream media, is to make the folks believe that the Involvement of the USA in the Middle East started with a treacherous, mass murdering attack on 9/11. (My spouse worked for a firm that had offices in one of the collapsed towers, by the way, but moved just weeks before, so I’m not belittling 9/11, even on the personal level!)

In truth, 9/11 was a consequence of Washington’s policies more than that of some god crazed maniacs. And the consequences were highly predictable: after all the same trick of crashing a jumbo jet had been tried on Paris a few years earlier. Does that mean Washington never heard of Paris?

The first way to fight criminals, is to reveal, and then denounce their apparent, or suspected crimes. If there is a murder in the street, one does not call it a “targeted killing” especially if one knows that it is actually “untargeted” or a “signature strike”.

Also torture is the deliberate infliction of pain. It’s simple. Torture was stopped by European powers in the Middle Ages, because police techniques of interrogation had become more effective (and could be used legally, whereas torture could not… by law).

To stop barbarians in the modern world, the first thing to do is to uncover and denounce them. This is the job of journalism. The New York Times refuses to do this job. Instead it imagines it has another job, that of a legal authority. It also has the jobs of judge, and White House advocate. Not only it does all these things, which contradicts journalism, but it does it consciously, and deliberately.

Nazism was made possible because enough journalists and editors in the Anglo-Saxon world refused to report what the Nazis were doing. If they had, public opinion in the Anglo-Saxon world would have turned, and the collaboration with Hitler would have been declared unlawful, and then German general would have made an anti-Nazi coup.

So this is serious stuff.

And it’s still serious today. Obama basically proposed to do away with Social Security, by exponentiating out of it (more on that in another essay). What does the New York Times really know, and think about this? How come the reactions in the media have been so mild? How come not seeing what’s plain to see?

***

CIVILIZATION WITHOUT BRAINS CAN’T BE CONCEIVED, LET ALONE DEFENDED:

And so it goes. People are programmed by their (mental) environment. A devious mental environment makes for devious people. A base mental environment makes for base people. A false mental environment makes for small people. A mental environment where people learn to be only excited by trivialities makes for trivial minds.

Nietzsche condemned Christianity as a slave religion, while pointing out that the European aristocracy, while outwardly breathing Christianism, actually practiced the opposite. Nietzsche also noted that the strength of Greece came from keeping a balance between two completely opposed mentalities, the Dionysian and the Apollonian.  

Vast minds with vast personalities are more powerful than those who know only a few. When man domesticated an animal, the animals’ behavior registry got sharply reduced. A wolf is capable of much more behaviors than a dog. Domesticated animals are tools.

Tyrants rule over people because they have turned those people into low dimension minds with fewer emotions, and fewer thoughts, and less ability to form them, just like dogs relative to wolves. Ruling over weak minds is not just easier, it’s the only way. It’s also why democracy, which is more clever, keeps on defeating fascism.

Indeed a mental universe where people demand that ducks be called ducks is more powerful than one where they are not named. Intelligence is about discernment. Thus, the proper labels.

Mental freedom without mental power is only illusion.

The New York Times grandly proclaims the slogan “All News That Are fit To Print” on its front page. As pointed out above, the New York Times does not like to talk about it “while a debate is going on“.

New York Times, tell me: if “torture”, “murder”, “assassination” are not fit to print, what is fit to print?

***

Patrice Ayme

Elite Censorship

March 1, 2013

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

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

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

Austerity Exploding Up

Austerity Exploding Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK Flat Line GDP: Greater Depression Today


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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Rumsfeld used to shake Saddam Hussein’s hand, when the former used to manipulate the latter, in the 1970s. The USA decided a secret war in Afghanistan in 1979, on July 3. See what president Carter’s National Security adviser, Brzezinski, declared:
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/usa-attack-against-afghanistan/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In truth, the TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU SMART.

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

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

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

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

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


SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism