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).
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).