Why the Media Loves Oligarchies in America

Ferdinand Lundberg wrote a book called "The Rich and the Super-Rich". When I was 12 a television producer who was teaching at my church gave me a copy of it to read. After reading it we had a number of fascinating discussions, you see he had met some of the families mentioned in the book. Lundberg also wrote another book called, "America's 60 Families" about the families that own this country. If you want to read the books here are some links.

Archive - America's 60 Families

Amazon - The Rich and the Super-Rich.

Lundberg discussed the press in America's 60 Families and he brought up a fascinating point, he pointed out that the press didn't mind being owned by these families and actually rather liked it. Lundberg pointed out that prior to the depression the financial press was discussing amongst themselves the coming crash; but, didn't publish their findings. In fact, after the crash 80% of the press fought to keep out FDR. Lundberg lists numerous cases where the press almost unanimously failed to publicize event or presented false accounts to benefit the wealthy, nothing has changed.

Consider that prior to the stock market crash in 2007, the media ridiculed anyone who dared to say that we were in a bubble and after the crash the media insisted that it could not be foreseen, yet, that was a lie. Ask yourself why the media has not called for the jailing of the people who responsible for the crash and the rigging of financial markets.

Go back and read media reports about the Occupy Movement. The media despised the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party because they represented movements against the establishment in support of the populace. Read the media reports from the last year and a half that showed Trump or Sanders in a positive light, good luck. The press almost never writes about how 6 companies own 90% of the media in this country. Think about how the press refused to discuss the emails discovered by WikiLeaks that Podesta wrote, if not for the internet the press wouldn't have discussed them at all.

Right to Life or Right To a Life

I don't like Mike Pence. I just want to start with that although I wrote that before we finally voted for President last year. I think he is much more of a totalitarian than Trump would ever even consider. Pence wants to regulate your body, Trump doesn't.

Pence comes from a "religious" part of the party, Trump had been a Democrat. Why did Trump stop being a Democrat, why didn't he run as a Democrat? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Trump has almost never discussed abortion in public. They were not able to go back and find statements by him condemning abortion and he had been in the public eye since the early 80s. When Elton John got married he sent him a congratulatory letter. He openly stated during the election that he did not care which bathroom Caitlyn Jenner used in Trump properties. He had the sister of a transgender sing the national anthem at his inauguration. The media acted as if they thought Trump didn't know about Juliet Evancho or the fact that she is involved in a lawsuit over transgender bathrooms in Pennsylvania. I knew about it. I wrote about Juliet Evancho days after it was announced that she was transgender. Do you really think Trump didn't know about that when he selected Jackie to sing at his inauguration? Yet, the media never talked about Trump having Jackie anyways. The media did not talk about Trump's show of support or the fact that transgender Juliet Evancho was invited to come. You know how I know Juliet was invited to come? Because she turned down the invite and stated she had a prior engagement.

Juliet Evancho had the opportunity to attend the Presidential inauguration as a transgender and turned it down. Juliet made a mistake, Jackie did not. Jackie sang at the inauguration and Juliet failed to show up. Imagine a transgender female showing up at the inauguration standing next to his sister. That would have been on the news and would have normalized people like her even more. It was a public relations dream for Juliet's issue and she didn't take it. Why not?

I guess I may get readers of this post that don't know my feeling and thoughts and haven't read me before talking about the Evanchos because I don't have that many posts on them, maybe five in four years. Jackie Evancho is a great singer, I have seen her twice in person and really enjoy her. She had a brother who is now a sister. He seems like a nice kid, now a girl or young woman or whatever now named Juliet. My attitude about transgender is unusual. I am neither for nor against. Having said that, I am not for sex change operations. I believe wanting to change your natural physicality is harmful and unproductive. I believe we should accept our physicality as much as possible. Some people are tall and don't like it. I would not support them cutting their legs in half to be shorter. I would rather want them to accept themselves as they are. I don't think you can force nature. This should not be surprising as I am against genetically modifying people as a rule. I think nature does that better, if you believe in evolution you will too.

Maybe you cannot see how the title and this tie in. Mike Pence wants to outlaw abortions. He would probably outlaw transgenders too. Mike Pence is pretty much against welfare programs as far as I know. Trump is not, he just wants to create jobs so we people have options. I don't like Pence. There are many people who identify as Republican that are "Pro-Life" or against abortion that are not in favor of social programs. They are happy to see you born; but, don't care what happens to you after that. they just don't want you to be gay or transgender. Read that again if you have to.

Once you are born the world wants to tell you what kind of life you can have. Think about that insanity. Would the extreme pro life people allow abortions of gay babies? What if they could identify "gay sperm", the sperm that creates gay people, would they be okay with killing just those sperms? Would they allow the abortion of hermaphrodites, people born with the sex organs of both sexes? Which bathrooms should hermaphrodites use? Will they give the same answer for transgenders?

If you believe babies have a right to life shouldn't you believe they have a right to choose what that life is? Trangenders are choosing what to do with their body. Some people to have choose tattoos, some people choose to have abortions, some people choose to become exercise freaks or bodybuilders or incredibly obese, we make lots of choices with our bodies. It is as ludicrous to regulate what people can eat (like transfats) because they are unhealthy as it is to outlaw people taking a pill that makes them abort. Regulating how someone treats their body is as morally corrupt as slavery. In fact, it is the essence of slavery. Think about it, think about what right you have to demand that people take care of their bodies or use their bodies as you wish them to.

Left Versus Right or Rich Versus Poor?

Last night a conservative, gay speaker name Milo Yiannopoulos was prohibited from speaking at U.C. Berkley by rioters. This is ironic in that Berkley was the home of the free speech movement in the 1960s. It is also ironic in that many, if not most of the protestors, would tell you that the internet should be free and not have speech restricted.

Many will assume that the protestors are just a bunch of crazy Californian liberals; but, that would be a mistake. In fact, the U.C. campuses have been increasing the number of out of state students for years in order to increase revenue as in state people pay less. The cost to attend Berkley for non residents is about $60,000 a year, the cost for residents is about $23,000 a year according to their website. The average household income is about $50,000. So, how many families can afford to send their kid to UC Berkley, not too many. It is way beyond the reach of most middle class families and is getting even more remote.

Lets consider the reality of a college education for the middle class. Well, to begin with if they take out loans they could end up with a quarter of a million in debt and the opportunity to make eight dollars an hour. The higher education system is a business anymore, it is about branding and selling. It is a privilege which is very much limited to the children of the well to do and the colleges sell them on the idea of a good time. College is no longer as strenuous or difficult as it once was and the focus of classes has moved from business and science to social issues. As it becomes harder and harder for middle class families to send their children to college, the colleges themselves become populated more and more by the privileged and those children become less and less exposed to the middle class.

The people protesting at Berkley and now worried about manufacturing or farming jobs in the United States, they are much more likely to be interested in starting or working for internet companies. We are creating an America of two classes which are completely removed from one another and that is dangerous in many ways. What are the shared interests? Can we find common ground when there is no shared interests? The truth is that Americans attending UC Berkley have more in common with students who go their from other countries whose families are well off than they do with the middle class in most of this country and certainly than with those in the Midwest.

What we are witnessing is the effects of the technological revolution in the same way that the industrial revolution split this country into different classes with different interests. Look beyond the simple left right paradigm and look at the class paradigm or you will not understand what is going on.

Quebec Atrocities and Media Jumps to Conclusions

Last night the media was busy discussing the shooting at a mosque in Canada. The media immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was an anti-Muslim attack possibly caused by the United States travel ban. The problem is that at least one of the shooters appears to have been an Arab.

Pimpernel is a pacifist and rejects these types of heinous actions, I have written about this more than once. Our thoughts and prayers should go out to all of the victims.

Some small points and then the real issue. Firstly, the shock and anger over this shooting is surprising considering the fact that the west kills hundreds of Muslims on a daily basis in the countries that the travel ban has been placed on and nobody in the west seems to care. The media doesn't even bother reporting on all of the drone strikes done in the last months of Obama's presidency.

Now lets get to the media coverage. Within minutes of the shooting being announced the media was drawing conclusions. That is always dangerous and rarely accurate. When a Muslim couple in San Bernardino killed a number of people at a business the media jumped to the conclusions that it was Muslim terrorists and began speculating that the couple were part of a sleeper cell or connected to Al Qaida, I immediately wrote that we should wait for the facts to come out and not assume a reason. Turns out over a year later, NO connection to any terrorist organization has yet to be found. In fact, it looks like workplace violence.

We don't know the motivation behind these new shootings and the police have not claimed to know as of yet, so why did the media spin the story so quickly? The corporate media is trying to compete with the internet independent media; unfortunately in the worst way. When anything happens the internet immediately begins speculating without checking the facts, now the mainstream corporate media does the same thing so that they can seem relevant. This is especially true of shootings.

When there is a shooting the pro and anti gun proponents roll out their standard answers and if Arabs are involved the Pro and Anti Muslims sides come out with their standard answers. Neither side waits to find out the truth because both sides fear it will work against their stories. Before my readers make a conclusion I would ask that they wait a couple of weeks and let the facts come out as they will. Don't jump to conclusions, wait for more facts. We don't have to be as reactionary and biased as them mainstream media.

Hawaiian Pro-Immigrant Morons

Here is a video of protestors in Hawaii over Trump's keeping people from 7 radical countries out. I call them radical countries because the Obama administration chose the seven countries for special scrutiny over radicals in their country.

YouTube - Protesters at Honolulu Airport.

Imagine how insulting it is to real Hawaiians to see whites protesting the fact that we are enforcing our borders. We stole Hawaii from the minority indigenous people, just like we stole America from the Indians. You don't see a lot of native Americans protesting that more people cannot come into their lands. If native Americans or Hawaiians protested in favor of keeping out immigrants, what would the media response be?

Trump, Immigration and Media Lies.

USA Today - Experts question legality of Trump's ban on Muslim countries.  The title of the article alone is dubious. While many on the right would call America a "Christian" country, it is not. Iran can be called a Muslim country as it is a theocracy; but, that is not true of Syria which is a socialist democracy.

The truth is that the ban is legal whether you agree with it or not. There are seven countries which we are not allowing people in from, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. In fact, we have prohibited visitors from Iran before under Jimmy Carter during the 1980s Iran hostage crisis. We have a history of prohibiting people coming here from other countries and case law supporting it. What is particularly ironic is that President Obama, as he was leaving the White House, passed a rule that said we would no longer accept people from Cuba automatically if they reached America by boat. That didn't get a lot of discussion except in Florida.

The Washington Post - Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions.  This is another piece of propaganda. It implies that Trump only banned people from countries where he does not do business; but, in fact, there are a lot of countries where he does not do business, like Russia. He has no businesses in Russia and never has. Trump does have a golf course in Scotland, I guess he could have barred people from the United Kingdom from coming here. People from Lebanon can still come and that is a Muslim country that he doesn't do business in. I believe the only Arab country with a Trump property is Dubai, a Muslim nation. I cannot imagine why people would be surprised that Trump did not build a luxury hotel in Iraq or Syria during a civil war. So what do these seven countries have in common, oh wait, we have bombed them all or fomented civil war and that was under Obama. If we can bomb a country, refusing to let them send people here is certainly less offensive.

People are free to have an opinion on the validity of the ban; but, the media's hypocrisy and outright deceit in reporting the facts is disgusting. I thought they were worried about fake news, no wait, I know they have been printing fake news regularly since the consolidation of the media under Bill Clinton.

UPDATE:

I just can't get enough of misleading headlines that turn out to be untrue.

MSN - Washington Post - Judge halts deportations as refugee ban causes worldwide furor.  Read the article, the judge did NOT ban "deportations" as a whole. In fact he did not BAN deportations at all, he merely issued an order to delay the deportations of people who had left for this country from the seven banned countries at Dulles airport. These people had been flying here legally and the rule was instituted after they left. Here is a line from further down the article, "Donnelly noted that those detained were suffering mostly from the bad fortune of traveling while the ban went into effect. “Our own government presumably approved their entry to the country,” she said at one point, noting that, had it been two days prior, those detained would have been granted admission without question."

Why did the Washington Post lie, er, I mean misstate the facts or misrepresent the facts or just fail to be truthful? We have a corporate media, owned by six multinational corporations that controls 90% of the media. They represent corporate interests. The media is now more about selling ideas than products, they are into propaganda. It is not government propaganda, it is corporate propaganda.

One of the biggest media giants is Disney. They own ABC and many other media groups. They even bought out George Lucas and now own Star Wars. This is a company that had American tech people train their Indian replacements. Disney has a big stake in bringing in foreign tech people and paying them less than the Americans they replaced. By the way, that is supposed to be against the law.

I am constantly writing about the media, the purpose is to show you what to look for and not always about what they are discussing. Learn how the media manipulates the message and you can understand how to find the grains of truth in what anyone writes, even me.

UPDATE 2:

Seth J. Frantzman - Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you. The article goes over how the Obama administration was responsible for choosing the seven nations involved in the ban in 2015.

Lets Honestly Discuss Immigration

President Trump has instituted a ban on immigrants from certain countries for 90 days while the issue of vetting (approving) them is discussed and a new criteria is established. The media basically calls for open borders while Trump calls for limited immigration. What is the approach we should take?

The first question is simple, should we allow unrestricted movement between countries? I think most would say no. Should we allow criminals from other countries to come here? I think most would say no; but, we have before. We allowed unvetted people from Cuba to come here, think the movie "Scarface".

Let me ask the question another way. Should we allow any immigration? Well, many immigrants come here on educational visas to attend college. Should we allow that? Should we allow immigration from countries that don't allow Americans to immigrate into their nations? Should it be reciprocal?

Working class people want to ban the poor from other countries coming here because it lowers wages and they take jobs that Americans will do that do not require an education. Tech companies want immigration by tech workers from India and China in order to lower wages in those industries. Is that good for Americans? Many Christians want immigration from Muslim dominated countries for their Christians who they see as persecuted. Which persecutions matter, what about allowing in gays from countries where they are persecuted?

America and Australia are nations of immigrants. Australia was a nation of convicts, should they now be a nation that allows convicts from other countries in? I have heard and read many times that Trump wants to ban 1.3 billion Muslims from coming here, should we allow 1.3 billion people to come here. Do we need to increase our population that much?

Lets get back to the simple questions, how many people should be allowed to come here a year? The problem is not really who should be allowed to move here, the question is how many. Should we concern ourselves with the impact on society of immigration? Cultural society? These are all valid questions; but, I don't have the answers and from what I can tell neither does anybody else.

I disagree with Trump very strongly about Mexican immigration. I agree that we have the right as a nation to determine who comes here, the same as any other nation; but, the vast majority of Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, are a net positive on the country. The truth is that Mexican immigrants fit in quite well with the existing Mexican populations and they are willing to turn in criminals.

This post is not about the answers, it is about the questions. You cannot vet a person's soul, it is not for man to do. You can however limit numbers, that is achievable. We currently have around 330 million people in the United States, we could afford to take in 500,000 people a year without seriously challenging our society. The same cannot be said for Scandinavian countries which only have a couple of million people living there to begin with. If we don't address the question of how many we can never honestly address the question of who.