Sunday, January 10, 2016

(Trumped Self!)  White Men in Cargo Pants Were Shooters in San Bernardino  (Another Fabricated Jobs Report - New Jobs Pay Less & Are Part-Time No Benefits)  How America's Corrupt Press Are Destroying the Country

Start with a funny?

Trumpf really has been a godsend for the Clinton Machine. He's turned her most fearsome rival - the son and brother of two presidents into a national laughing stock, destroyed the Bush family brand and wasted at least $200 million that would have been deployed more destructively against Democrats. He's brought the GOP into a state of anarchy and discord so intense that it really is conceivable that when the establishment tries to broker the inevitable deadlocked convention for their boy Ryan, gun fights will break out and a substantial part of the Republican establishment will be reunited with Ronald Reagan forever. He's clarified for some people who are repulsed by the pay-for-play political system that sometimes the lesser of two evils is lesser enough.

But there's something else Trumpf's done that has worked to Hillary's advantage. He managed to suck up so much energy and attention that Bernie's critique of the toxic establishment of which she is a leading member is being lost on many casual news consumers. Even Bernie partisans like myself are spending too much time on Trumpf and his antics and glorying in the discomfiture the Republicans are going through because of them. When I could be doing more research on how Clinton's career-long flip-flopping on gun laws, and how she tried to use that as a club with which to attack Obama in 2008 the same way she's doing now with Bernie, I was instead reading the equivalent of pulp thrillers by third-rate pundits about the GOP civil war. "It reflects badly on the party," wrote Peggy Noonan, "that Donald Trump - whom one journalist this week characterized as a guy running around with his hair on fire - had to become the party’s 2016 thought leader. Bernie Sanders has, in a way, had the wit to see this, which is why he said he is reaching out to Trump supporters. Reaching out. What a concept." Yeah, what a concept; wasn't that what Jesus told mankind to do?

. . . Bernie is also reaching out to Hillary voters and trying - without calling her a liar (which she is) - to help voters see the difference between (the) thistle fist he's offering Wall Street and the bouquet of flowers she's waving at the banksters. Look at this little graphic "The Intercept" put together showing how much money the banksters funneled into her pockets between 2013 and 2015 - just under $3 million for 12 speeches.

They're counting on getting their money's worth if she makes it into the White House. As Huff Po's senior political economy reporter, Zach Carter, pointed out Friday, the Clinton Machine spent the week lying about Bernie's Wall Street proposals. Kind of heartbreaking to see how Barney Frank has sold out to all the worst elements of the Democratic Establishment in his retirement. But then again, the warning signals were always there; the head of the House Financial Services Committee did take in $4,451,123 from the Financial Sector while he was serving in Congress. He's still good on LGBT issues though.

Clinton's attack on Sanders is as simple as it is untrue:  Unlike Sanders, Clinton has argued, she is willing to take on "shadow banking" - a broad term for various financial activities that aren't regulated as strictly as conventional lending.

Sanders has in fact proposed attacking shadow banking in two principal ways: by breaking up big financial firms that engage in shadow banking, and by severing federal financial support for shadow banking activities by reinstating Glass-Steagall.

These would be substantive changes. A lot of shadow banking takes place at firms with traditional banking charters, like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. Some of it takes place at specialized hedge funds, or at major investment banks like Goldman Sachs. Breaking them up would not eliminate the risk shadow banking poses to the economy, but it would limit it. Risky shadow banking activities cannot bring down institutions that are too-big-to-fail if there are no too-big-to-fail institutions.

Yet the Clinton campaign has repeatedly said Sanders is wholly ignoring shadow banking, accusing Sanders of taking a "hands-off" approach to it that would not apply to firms like Lehman Brothers and AIG. This barrage has come from Clinton's press aides, campaign CFO Gary Gensler, and Clinton surrogate Barney Frank.

In a bizarre appearance on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show, Frank claimed that splitting up Morgan Stanley or Bank of America "is not going to do anything, literally not anything to restrain shadow banking." He even said that since Lehman Brothers was "very small" when it failed, Sanders' break-up-the-banks plan would be unworkably broad and apply to too many firms.

It's hard to see these comments as anything but dishonest. Lehman Brothers was not "very small" when it failed. At $639 billion in assets, it was the single-biggest bankruptcy filing in American history. Only six U.S. banks are now larger than Lehman was, and the next-largest institutions are almost half Lehman's size. AIG - then the world's largest insurer - was even bigger.

Breaking up major institutions and forcing banks that accept insured deposits out of the shadow banking system are not the only conceivable tactics for mitigating risks posed by shadow banking. Clinton's plan includes some vague but sensible proposals to take a harder look at the sector, require more transparency, and impose new leverage limits on some players. Her approach eschews a focus on the threat posed by large institutions in favor of monitoring risks across the financial system (she has repeatedly rejected calls to break up the biggest banks). The Clinton team could easily make a case for her approach without saying strange and false things about Sanders' plan.

And indeed, the Clinton camp's relentless references to Lehman and AIG undercut her own regulatory approach. If bank size were truly irrelevant to the shadow banking problem, then there would be no need to consistently highlight two too-big-to-fail institutions, one of which wreaked havoc on the economy by failing, and another of which was bailed out to avoid further havoc.

Jaret Seiberg, a regulatory specialist at Guggenheim Partners - and one of the most astute finance-friendly observers of American politics - issued a note to clients this week saying that key elements of Sanders' platform have bipartisan appeal and political viability that will put pressure on other candidates to present more aggressive anti-Wall Street messaging.

Read the whole schmear here.

Must Remember to Bring Snacks When Terrorizing?

Not really that amusing.

And you'll notice that The Don-Con Show gets little play at this blog as it's a sideshow directing attention away from the real sideshow (where the money is being directed now - and very few of us, who aren't getting it, can know exactly where).

I'm nominating David Talbot (founder of "Salon" magazine and author of The Devil's Chessboard:  Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government, The Brothers:  The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, and Devil Dog) for the Secret Information Published Under Great Adversity/Courage Nobel Prize, which should become a major award for journalists in the future based on the ground-breaking work of David Talbot.

Talbot has announced on CSPAN2 (I just viewed it today but it has been shown before) a movement to strip the names Reagan (due to his destruction of the US economy and widespread criminality and corruption) and Dulles (collaborator with Nazis during and after WWII as well as his involvement in assassinations both foreign and domestic) from airports.

As well as lots more that he is pleased to share with all who want to listen to the true history of the USA! USA! USA! since the end of World War II (and before).

Read a Talbot book and get truly informed about your government. He says it should have been called the Dulles Commission (not the Warren Commission) and he's got the research to prove it.

To me Talbot is in the forefront of true American journalists today (and he urges a new investigative commission be appointed along the lines of the Bertrand Russell Commission on the Vietnam War). Although who the people would be that would appoint it remains a mystery. Alan Grayson immediately comes to mind as well as a few other courageous souls whom we must await in that future better world of fond dreams.

(On a personal note on the above subject, I, when viewing the Kennedy cortège crowds on TV with my father, seeing the sad visage of Charles de Gaulle amongst them, listened as my father said that it looked like De Gaulle had some very sad knowledge about the assassination that it seemed others may not have. Talbot has documented that De Gaulle returned to France saying that the Dulles-guided CIA aided in the assassination of Kennedy as well as his own previously planned one.)

Mussolini Don speaks!

And the crowd goes wild.

From Lawyers, Guns and Money:

Refugees from Syria “could be ISIS … and by the way, it is turning out that they probably are ISIS,” said Trump in Rock Hill, South Carolina. “There’s so many men, they’re so young, they are very strong. Where are the women? Where are the children?”
Young bucks! Strong like bear! Taking our t-bone steaks! And replacing them with Sharia!
And they don’t have any women-folk! And you know what that means!
One of the things that is so delightful about Le Donald is how well he demonstrates the fact that without logical fallacies and outright fibs, the GOP would be rendered mute. And the logical fallacy of choice is appeal to emotion (fear/anger). I’ve long thought the Republican establishment will stop messing about with sentences and adopt a Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy! form of communication that involves yelling words that encapsulate whatever they want the following to be upset about at the moment.
Warren Terra says:
January 9, 2016 at 10:29 am
The story I think is incredible, and deserves more coverage, is Trump egging his security on to abuse a protester:
“I don’t think we can be beaten. There’s a momentum that we have, there’s a momentum that we have that is so unbelievable—I thought I heard a little voice over there. Alright, get him out. Take him out. Get him out of here. Ya, don’t give him his coat. Don’t give him his coat, keep his coat. Confiscate his coat. You know, it’s about ten degrees below zero outside. No, you can keep his coat. Tell him we’ll send it to him in a couple weeks
Nobdy says:
January 9, 2016 at 10:47 am
If you’re going to do the whole Mussolini thing you might as well go whole hog.
ThrottleJockey says:
January 9, 2016 at 1:39 pm
That and the Muslim-American removed from his speech for wearing a shirt that said, “I come in peace”. I admire her resolve.
It would have been nice, as a civil disobedience matter, to refuse to cooperate when asked to leave and force them to carry you out. I can see why she didn’t carry things that far, but the video would be even more stark.
Anna in PDX says:
January 9, 2016 at 12:46 pm
Once an articulate and thoughtful right wing guy convinced me to read an entire transcript of a Rush Limbaugh show, telling me that I’d see that what he was saying was not stupid after all. Well, he was right in that it was not really so much wrong as it was a stream of weird non sequiturs made up of buzzwords. I fisked it on my blog I had back then (this was in the mid 2000s) and basically came to the conclusion that there was nothing to fisk. Trump seems like a natural further stage of this content-free bumper-sticker-ese … It is like a strange form of Newspeak.

Yet Again, the Media Got the Facts Wrong About the San Bernardino Attacks

Derrick Broze
December 18, 2015

(ANTIMEDIA) On Wednesday, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations said the agency has no evidence the married couple accused of killing 14 people in San Bernardino, California earlier this month had any connection to an active terror cell. This admission from the FBI directly contradicts media reports that immediately claimed the San Bernardino shooters were linked to Daesh (ISIS) via social media.

Speaking at a counterterrorism conference in New York, Director James Comey said Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were inspired by Daesh, but were not directly involved with any specific terror group. Reuters reports that Comey believes Daesh has “revolutionized” terrorism by using social media to spread propaganda to inspire small-scale attacks.

Your parents’ al Qaeda was a very different model than the threat we face today,” Comey said.

Despite the admission the couple had no connection to Daesh, Comey said Farook and Malik had shown support for “jihad and martyrdom” in private communications as early as 2013, but never in public on social media. The director also stated the FBI has “hundreds” of ongoing investigations in every state in the nation that involve potential Daesh-inspired terror plots. 
Comey also repeated his calls for ending encrypted communication based on the premise that Daesh uses encryption to plan terror attacks. “We are not going to break the Internet,” he said while challenging technology companies to stop creating services that cannot be accessed by law enforcement. Comey’s calls for breaking encrypted communications echo the recent efforts of police chiefs and attorney generals across the United States.

Another piece of the puzzle that must be considered pertains to conflicting eyewitness accounts of the San Bernardino shooting. Although the oldstream media quickly accepted the narrative of a Muslim couple radicalized by anti-American sentiment and radical Islam, there was at least one conflicting account that should be investigated.

Shortly after the shooting, witness Sally Abdelmageed talked to CBS News about what she saw.  Abdelmageed works at the Inland Regional Center and saw the shooters enter the building. She told CBS’s Scott Pelley that she saw what appeared to be three white men dressed in military clothes.

We saw three men dressed in all black military attire, with vests on, holding assault rifles, and they opened up the doors to building 3 and one of them starts to spray and shoot all over the room,” Sally Abdelmageed told Pelley.

When asked to provide more detail about the shooters she said, “I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on, from my view all i could see was a black hat. A black long sleeve shirt, possibly gloves on, he had black cargo pants, the kinds with zippers and big puffy pockets. He had a huge assault rifle and extra ammo. I just saw three.”

You’re certain you saw three men?” Pelley asked.

Yes, it looked like their skin color was white. They looked like they were athletic and they appeared to be tall.”

Her account matches the original report from Southern California’s Fox 11, which tweeted that police were searching for “3 white males dressed in military gear.Another eyewitness expressed doubt that Farook was the culprit.

Whatever the truth is, it seems obvious the government will use this crisis to add more fuel to the fire that is the global War on Terror. This fire — and the insanity it breeds — threatens to consume the planet, leaving behind a scorched Earth devoid of common sense and critical thinking. Avoiding catastrophe and further division of the people is going to take each and every awakened soul.

Michael Graham

Funny how often there is an anti-terror law waiting to be passed right after these lone wolf terror (Muslims did it... it's a mental health issue when non Muslims are involved) events.
Has anyone ever seen a key crime scene open to the press like their apartment... wtf?Where are the security vids... a government disabilty center (high risk) would be swarming with them... this is the first media piece I've seen that even asked?
There were dozens of eyewitnesses that saw this close up and could confirm the "3 athletic men or man & small woman" conflict... where are they mainstreem media?
Now, back to your bowl games amerika...

Monica Aburto 
From the beginning of the events that took place in San Bernardino, It's something very wrong and twisted with the information we have been getting . . .
Dee Daniel 
Terror is terror matter what......don't care if you find it on internet or in another place..... So the fact is was a terror attack
Vic Santana
Except that it was THREE WHITE MEN, dressed in military issue camo. These poor Muslims are murdered patsies. This was done to divert attention from Russia presenting evidence of Turkey buying ISIS oil and that ISIS is a CIA creation.
There's something wrong here...
There is a very real question no one has asked - or answered: How could they leave their 6-month old child behind?Also, how do we know all the guns, ammunition and pipe bombs found in their home/garage were bought by them?
A final point: Yet again, gun control is not discussed properly. Access to guns = mass murders. 101 - is it not?

Another Fabricated Jobs Report

Paul Craig Roberts
January 8, 2016
According to Friday’s (January 8) payroll jobs numbers, almost 300,000 new jobs were created in December. Additionally, the previous two months were revised upward by 50,000 jobs. Apparently, the equity market did not believe the report, with the averages moving down today.
As I have pointed out almost monthly for what I think could be approaching two decades, the alleged job growth always takes place in nontradable domestic services, that is, in areas that do not produce exports and have no competition from imports. This is the job profile of a Third World country.
Twelve years ago I predicted at a major Washington, D.C., conference that was nationally televised that in 20 years the United States would have a Third World economy if jobs offshoring, which benefits only corporate executives and shareholders, continued.
Jobs offshoring has continued, and judging by the payroll jobs reports from the US government, the US is already a Third World economy.
The presstitute financial media — and what they are is a bunch of whores — always reports the alleged jobs increase as if it is a great thing, testimony to the continuing strength of the American economy, and so forth. Only a handful of us look at the data and reveal its meaning. Once again I will strip away the Matrix and show you the reality.
Allegedly, the US economy has been in recovery since, if memory serves, June 2009. If so, it is an unusual recovery. Normally, the rising job opportunities associated with economic recoveries bring entrants into the labor force, but the US labor force participation rate has been declining. In December, 2015, there are 1,185,000 fewer Americans in the labor force than in December 2014;yet, the working age population is higher today than a year ago.
The reported unemployment rate does not include “discouraged workers,” that is, workers who unable to find jobs have ceased looking for work. The reported unemployment rate of 5% only counts non-discouraged workers who are still expecting to find a job. The actual unemployment rate, that is, the rate that includes Americans who have given up hope of finding employment, is 23%. Currently, there are 94,691,000 Americans of working age who are not in the labor force. In other words, the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is deprived of a large percentage of its labor input.
Now, we will pay attention, unlike the financial presstitute media, to the age groups who benefited, according to the BLS, from the 292,000 December new jobs. About half of the alleged new jobs—142,000—went to the 55 years old and over age group. This age group consists primarily of retirees who have found it necessary to supplement their retirement income and of those near retirement who are working in order to compensate for the lack of interest on their savings due to the Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy. These are part-time, lowly paid jobs without benefits.
Americans of prime working age, 25 years old to 54 year old, only received 16,000 or 5% of the new jobs.
Those aged 46 to 54 lost 165,000 jobs. In other words, middle aged people are losing their jobs before they can provide for their retirement.
There are 527,000 more Americans working multiple jobs in December 2015 than in December 2014.
Now, as we have done so often for many years, let’s look at the make believe jobs that the BLS claims. Almost all of them are in lowly paid domestic services, such as waitresses, bartenders, couriers and messengers, employment services, social services and health care (primarily ambulatory health care services).
The conclusion is that if we believe the payroll jobs report, the United States is now an economy that only creates Third World jobs in lowly paid domestic services.
And yet this non-economy on the verge of collapse is said by the idiots in Washington to be a super-power.
What a total joke!

Update to BLS December Payroll Jobs Report:  It Is Even Worse Than I Reported

Paul Craig Roberts

In my column on Friday I reported the unreported facts in the payroll jobs report.

If we choose to believe the report, it is really very bad news. Good middle class jobs are continuing to decline. The new jobs are jobs that pay considerably less and often are part-time jobs devoid of benefits. Moreover, the new jobs are going to people outside the prime working age. The unavoidable conclusion is that for the majority of Americans, economic prospects are declining.
There is more bad news to be added to this dismal picture. The payroll jobs report provides both the actual numbers of jobs from the survey and the seasonally adjusted number. The news release is always the seasonally adjusted number, which is the number that my column examines. However, the seasonally adjusted number is concocted.

In past reports I have explained that the BLS has a birth-death model that assumes new unreported jobs from new business startups exceed unreported jobs losses from business failures. John Williams ( has shown that over-estimates from this model can add 750,000 non-existent jobs to the reported annual payroll jobs increase.

Seasonal adjustments can have the same effect. For example, the actual reported gain in new payroll jobs prior to seasonal adjustments was only 11,000. The seasonally adjusted gain was 292,000. In other words, seasonal adjustments accounted for 281,000 of the 292,000 reported jobs. There is a case for making seasonal adjustments, but not when seasonal adjustments account for 96% of the jobs gain.

Probably what we are observing is that the economic house of cards that the Federal Reserve has constructed together with financial deregulation depends heavily on reported jobs gains for its stability, and this stability is provided by the use of the birth-death model and seasonal adjustments to produce reassuring payroll jobs numbers.

As I have pointed out in numerous columns, if the reported jobs claims were real, the labor force participation rate would not be declining. If the reported jobs claims were real, people would be entering the work force attracted by employment opportunities. They would not be leaving the work force from discouragement and frustration in finding employment.

The Obama regime’s claim that the declining US labor force participation rate is the result of rising retirements is contradicted by the fact that the reported payroll jobs gains are primarily accounted for by the oldest age group, 55 and higher.

I am left with the conclusion that the 281,000 jobs produced by seasonal adjustments are the product of the misuse of seasonal adjustments in order to keep alive the appearance of economic recovery.

Keep in mind, also, that payroll jobs are the number of jobs, not the number of employed people. Many payroll jobs are part time with two or more being held by one person.

How America’s Corrupt Press Are Destroying the Country

January 8, 2016
Eric Zuesse
Even the best of America’s major mainstream and alternative-news media understate enormously the degree to which america’s government is corrupt; and, as a result, the public end up voting for corrupt politicians such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who lied through their teeth while they transferred trillions of dollars from the public to the aristocracy, who pour billions of dollars — chicken-feed for the aristocracy — into political campaigns, and into the ‘non-profit’ foundations of former Presidents. (And, for just one example of aristocratic follow-through from the political promotion of aristocracy:  the head of the Clinton Foundation just happens to be their own incompetent daughter, Chelsea Clinton, whose children will then become securely part of the aristocracy, just as is every Bush — regardless of how competent or incompetent an heir might actually happen to be.
Aristocracy is anything but ‘the equal-opportunity society.’ But it is  bi-partisan, in the sense that all Republican candidates, and all of the top-level nationally leading Democratic candidates, are supported by the aristocracy, so as to keep the public as cooperative wage-slaves instead of rebelling labor-unionists, regardless of which Party is writing and carrying-out the laws on behalf of the aristocrats.)
The documentation of America’s media-rot starts here, with one of the best mainstream journalists (just so as to highlight how pervasive  this censorship is), Shahien Nasiripour of "Huffington Post," who on January 6th headlined, “The Obama Administration Could Repeat Its Biggest Mistake Of The Financial Crisis,” and he opened:
In the years since it failed to prosecute a single Wall Street executive involved in the global financial crisis, the U.S. Department of Justice has repeatedly promised to hold corporate executives liable for wrongdoing. But on Monday, when it sued Volkswagen over the automaker’s scheme to disguise the illegally high amounts of poisonous gases its cars were spewing into the air, the DOJ brought no criminal charges against the company or its employees.
The German automaker, one of the largest in the world, admitted on Sept. 22 to installing software meant to cheat on emissions tests in 11 million of its diesel vehicles. Prosecutors allege the company attempted to scam the public and deliberately hid this fact from regulators, obstructed investigators, and lied to federal authorities.
By suing Volkswagen but not pursuing criminal cases against the company or its employees, the Justice Department is repeating the mistakes it made in the wake of the financial crisis.
To call the Obama Administration’s refusal to prosecute even a single top bank executive, for the now clearly criminal actions that brought billions to those top financial executives but sucked trillions out of the public, “mistakes,” is simply to lie.
A business-plan to deceive millions of home-buyers into signing 15+ page mortgage-documents that have phrases the signer won’t and doesn’t understand, and then to package thousands of these shaky mortgages as AAA safe investments when some of their own employees had tried to tell these CEOs the investments are anything but that, and then to sell these overrated packaged MBS investments to pension plans etc., with inflated fees tacked on, might make these executive criminal masterminds very rich, but the millions of boarded-up homes and stripped pensions etc. that inevitably end up being produced by this process impoverish the public.
The money-funnel from the many poor to the extremely few super-rich, is terrific for the aristocracy, but bad for the public. It’s a business-plan that’s designed, and that is being carried out, by the mega-bank’s top executives and their friends, to funnel the public’s wealth to themselves, no matter how much the public inevitably will lose from it — which is far more than the elite crooks gain from it. This operation is no mere “mistake.” To say that “the Justice Department is repeating the mistakes” is false; and the reporter himself knows that. But he also needs to keep his job — and, above all, his future employability.
Nor is Obama’s refusal to prosecute these crimes a mistake. And Obama has consistently refused to prosecute them. These things are no more “mistakes” than are common bank robberies by outsiders to a bank. Outsider heists (“bank robbers”) get vigorously prosecuted. As the great criminologist William K. Black famously said, “The best way to rob a bank is to own one.” Only at the top (and the people who serve  the top) in America, is criminality not  prosecuted.
The U.S. has the world’s highest incarceration-rate of any country that has more than 100,000 citizens — and not merely the highest number of prisoners, of any nation, including China and all of what the U.S. ‘news’ media commonly refer to as ‘dictatorships.’ Which nations are actually police-states? If you’re rich in America, then this country isn’t one of them. But otherwise, it certainly is, more so than is any other large nation

For everyone but the very wealthiest few Americans, America is a police-state, notwithstanding the media’s calling it some sort of ‘democracy.’ For the very poor, it’s very much a police-state, even though conservatives call it instead a “welfare state,” precisely so as to smear the poor, to add insult to the mere injury of the ugly reality.

As if the Sovereignty Clause, which is also the Welfare Clause, of the U.S. Constitution, were meaningless, or should be ignored. The aristocrats have named that clause instead The Preamble, and called the Taxation Clause the ‘Welfare Clause’; but, actually, the Preamble is the Constitution’s overriding statement, the Constitution’s Sovereignty Clause, and it is simultaneously  the Constitution’s Welfare Clause, because it raises “the general Welfare,” of “We, the People,” to the very highest level of Constitutional importance — that of sovereignty, in America.
This level of importance overrides that of taxes (with which the aristocracy have always been concerned above all else); and, therefore, to call the taxation-clause the ‘Welfare Clause’ is a gross distortion, which is based solely upon the aristocracy’s higher concern about taxes than about the general welfare. But, in any case, the U.S. Constitution opens with its supreme commitment, which includes “the general welfare.” That’s just a Constitutional fact, no matter how much the aristocracy despise “welfare.”
And no matter how skillful a journalist may be, lying in journalism is unforgivable — but it’s so routine in American ‘journalism,’ that one might more appropriately call America’s ‘journalism’ as constituting public relations instead. It’s PR for a governmental-economic system that funnels wealth from the public to the aristocracy.
It is the system that hires and fires journalists; and that, thus, controls what gets reported, and what does not, and what the placement of individual ’news’ stories will be, the prominence of them, and what in these ’news’ stories will be emphasized and de-emphasized. 
All of these things don’t happen by accident. They happen by the reality, that if the employee fails to comply, he or she will lose employment, and then will be blackballed by all of the aristocracy’s other ‘news’ media — which is practically all of the ‘news’ media.

Any journalist who refuses to compromise truth — to compromise it in the ways that the management require — gets fired (or equivalent). That’s done by media-executives in order not only to get rid of resistors but to keep all of the other ‘journalists’ in line. And, once a journalist gets fired, then he or she does become virtually blacklisted by the rest of the paying ‘journalism’ profession — that is, the employers. A fired Republican journalist can become picked up by a Democratic ’news’ medium, and a fired Democratic ‘journalist’ can become picked up by a Republican ’news’ medium; but, in either case, such a continuation of the person’s career can occur only if that ‘journalist’ refuses to report things that the entire aristocracy  want the public not to know — such as what you’re now reading, which is, as one aristocrat, Warren Buffett, once publicly admitted and shockingly phrased America’s chief reality:
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” That “rich class” isn’t actually the top 1%; it’s the top twentyor so, of billionaires in America. However:  the CEOs of giant banks and oil companies and military weapons-makers, and their lobbying firms and other fixers for those few top aristocrats, buy the laws — and the press-coverage and non-coverage — they wantthe public no longer do that, they don’t own the government, via their citizenship and votes and  taxes, in today’s America. The elected politicians represent almost only the aristocracy who fund their campaigns. The public get fed the lines that are acceptable to this aristocracy.
Here's an example of a journalist who refused to complyAmber Lyon was a rapidly rising star journalist at CNN when her insistence on not covering-up the brutality of the way that Bahrain’s fundamentalist Sunni royal family, and their fundamentalist Sunni royal friends, squashed the peaceful Shiite demonstrators in Bahrain, who were seeking basic democratic rights for the Bahraini public, who are overwhelmingly Shiite, and who are thus labelled as “infidels” by fundamentalist Sunnis (such as the Sauds, who own Saudi Arabia, and their friends the Khalifas, who own Bahrain), and thus are treated like trash by them. Lyon’s refusal to hide what the CNN executives required her to hide, led not only to her being fired, but blackballed, so that her soaring career was suddenly but utterly destroyed, and she now needs to pursue other means of trying to make a living.
It was one of Mr. Obama’s ‘liberal’ supporters and financial backers, who had famously said, on 26 November 2006, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”  
As a first-class hypocrite himself, who takes advantage of sophisticated opportunities to transfer his tax-obligations quietly onto others while urging publicly that his nation’s tax-laws should demand more of billionaires and less of the general public, Mr. Buffett was there verbally attacking, instead of (which is far more normal) publicly championing, the Robin-Hood-in-reverse that he sees in his country, and that he here affirmed to be the real  “class warfare” in his country.
That’s extraordinary, but Buffett said nothing to amplify his comment there, and he wasn’t invited to:  no agent of the aristocracy (such as the conservative reporter to whom he had said this) asked him any questions about it — there was no interest whatsoever, among the aristocracy’s press, for him to provide any evidence, or amplification, upon that shocking (and shockingly unhedged and true) remark, from one of America’s top aristocrats. He knows the score. They all do. But saying it publicly like this is virtually unheard-of. Instead, there are numerous statements to the exact contrary, from the aristocracy’s agents, such as, for example, from the top Clinton-Obama economist, Harvard’s Larry Summers.
On 15 June 2012, Bonnie Kouvassi at "Huffington Post," bannered “Larry Summers: We Need To Focus On Inequality of Opportunity,” and she presented video of him teaching at Harvard, in which he said, “I think we can accept, I think we should accept inequality of results, recognizing that those who earn more are in a better position to contribute more to support society.” He attacked those who criticized America’s extreme inequality of wealth, and he praised at length “those who are in a better position to contribute more to support society.”
Summers’s aristocrat-enhancing view was that, even in a nation of such extreme wealth-inequality as America, inequality of opportunity can be reduced without also reducing inequality of wealth. It’s not just false, but absurdly false:   In a country with such extreme wealth-inequality, inequality of opportunity is largely the result of inequality of wealth. Addressing the former without also addressing the latter is doomed to fail.
One side of that whole cannot be attacked without simultaneously attacking the other side of it. As a reader at a blog phrased the matter, on 29 September 2013:   “The privileges of wealth grow exponentially with each generation in no small part because of the greater educational opportunities the children of the rich have – with less distraction from needing to work their way through school and less debt with which to begin the ‘rat race’.” If anyone should know about that, it’s the former Harvard president Summers. He knows the reality. He simply lies about it.
That type of thing (what he said, but not his having been lying there) can be reported in the mainstream U.S. press, because perhaps as many as 30% of even the aristocracy — including people such as Buffett, but only Democrats, none of the Republicans who are in the aristocracy — disagree with Summers there. Basically, all of the aristocrats feel personally entitled, as aristocrats everywhere do (regardless of Party). They feel that they are superior and have a right to exploit the masses. This philosophy has been stated by the aristocracy’s ‘classics’ ever since at least the time of Plato — the propaganda-profession is ancient.
What America’s aristocrats all agree on are mainly to rape the publics in poorer countries. (The leaked “Summers Memo” from 12 December 1991, when Summers was Chief Economist for the World Bank, said that, “a given amount of health-impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a wad of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.” And he’s a ‘Democratic’ economist.) 
For example, even "Huffington Post" has never even so much as hinted at the reality in Ukraine, that the 20 February 2014 overthrow of the Russia-friendly leader Viktor Yanukovych and replacement of him as leader by the U.S.-aristocracy-subservient Arseniy Yatsenyuk (by the U.S. State Department itself, 16 days prior to the overthrow) was a very bloody coup, and not any sort of ‘revolution’ as the entire U.S. media misrepresent it as having been. Even the formerly honest British newspaper, the "Guardian," was taken over by the aristocracy in recent years and now derives its income from distorting and falsifying the reality about that, instead of by honest reporting. Even the "Guardian" has become untrustworthy.
The Western press that failed to report that Bush and his sidekick Blair were lying, knowingly fabricating, about ‘Saddam’s WMD’ in 2002, deceiving their countries into an invasion of Iraq, didn’t apologize for their having gone along with those lies and become accessories to mass-murder, but instead became even more uniformly untrustworthy.
Western ‘democracy’ is only in the past tense. Imperfect as it was, it’s gone now. The only remaining vestige of it is a ceaseless ongoing PR campaign. How long will the Western publics continue to believe it?

No comments: