Krugman’s Ethos Slips as He Criticizes the Pathos of the Rich.
Abstract:
Krugman composes yet another propaganda piece that forces the association of the
rich and all their nasty and unacceptable attributes with Mitt Romney. The usual
crude propagandistic elements are present in this hackneyed ragzine piece
including the occasional literary quotes necessary to denigrate the rich. The chief
lie in this article is that you cannot be successful unless you acknowledge the
roadways, public urinals and wonderful gifts given you by your wonderful
government. This screed is a joke.
As we peruse the deified
pages of the near-bankrupt NYT —aka
the Walter Duranty Papers[1][2]--a
turn-of-the-crank Marxian puppet stage where
kinky intermezzos and grand opera ring to the heavens until the wall paper
curls, we must always be alert for novel designs and other odd bits of
propaganda that are thoughtfully woven into the fabric of the average op-ed
piece presented before us. As is tautologically universal in the Paul Krugman
essays[3], his
propaganda pieces frequently begin with a crisis and broadcast the urgent need
for the expedition for the ‘facts’ so the guilty can readily be identified by
the reader. The solutions, as always, depend on higher taxes and more
government spending and this harangue habitually pacifies the local
left-liberal to the point of boredom for the reason that they are already part
of the game and know the score. The rest of us know this is just progressive
politics. The effort, then, is to merely stimulate the peanut gallery. The rest
of us must signal the polis about another warped political essay that strives
to maintain liberalism, or worse.
Today we are
presented with an essay on pathos of
the sort that can be conveniently employed to demonize ‘the rich’ who, not
surprisingly, are the ultimate enemy of the poor and downtrodden[4]
but also the source of their income from tax revenues and charity. The usual propagandistic elements are all
implicit in this piece and will be pointed out to the reader as necessary.
How
to best read my blogs:
[I
offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact
language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that
nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read
the emphatic points
in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com.]
He begins.
““Let me tell you about the very rich. They
are different from you and me.” So wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald — and he didn’t
just mean that they have more money. What he meant instead, at least in part,
was that many of the very rich expect a level of deference that the rest of us
never experience and are deeply distressed when they don’t get the special treatment
they consider their birthright; their wealth “makes them soft where we are
hard.””[5]-- Pathos of the Plutocrat By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: July 19, 2012
This is a common
but not exciting lead-in to a diatribe and begins with the prophetic recital of some obscure quote
from just about anywhere in the leftist
literary pig pen that suggests the leading point, which we must assume is true,
that rich people are monsters. So, the expectation that the lower classes
should respect those with wealth is obtuse and one must focus upon what
characterizes their inhumanity and greed, we note from extrapolation of this
point. Missing in all such cases is the reverse observation that the ‘poor’
retain no congratulations to those with business and other skills that provide
millions of jobs for those in the lower echelons of society. This is a one-sided issue where the rich can be
properly condemned. But, the reverse is not true as the ‘poor’ are
somehow innocent of sloth, sodomy, crime, and many other negative attributes.
Then, the lies thicken like spilt blood at a sacrifice:
“Needless to say, this is crazy. In fact, Mr.
Obama always bends over backward to declare his support for free
enterprise and his belief that getting rich is perfectly
fine. All that he has done is to suggest that sometimes businesses behave
badly, and that this is one reason we need things like financial regulation.”-- Pathos of the Plutocrat By PAUL KRUGMAN
This is a bald-faced lie given
this psychotic hatred of American
Exceptionalism, his incongruent attacks on our energy system
and his rescue of pathetic union-blasted corporations like GM and Chrysler.
Check out this recent comment now being waffled away by his staff:
“For the record, here's what the president
said:
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with
me -- because they want to give something back...Look, if you've been
successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own."
"I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because
I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be
because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there
are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
"If
you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that
allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a
business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own.
Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make
money off the Internet."[6]
This is so sophomoric that it begs the question if Obama ever wrote crap like this in his several university antics. Nothing is available on what he wrote not even at Harvard. This is a very rigid and apolitical statement that reeks of bias and coaching by Marxists out for revenge.
So, we wander from a phony premise into the slime pits of bald lies
and what else do we find:
“Wait,
there’s more. Not only do many of the superrich feel deeply aggrieved at the
notion that anyone in their class might face criticism, they also insist that
their perception that Mr. Obama doesn’t like them is at the root of our
economic problems.
Businesses aren’t investing, they say, because business leaders don’t feel
valued. Mr. Romney repeated this line, too, arguing that because the president attacks
success “we have less success.””--
Pathos of the Plutocrat By PAUL KRUGMAN [Emphasis is
mine in all quotes unless specifically stated otherwise.]
Obama and his father were Marxists
of a crude and lower degree but now
are considered firm leftists in their views. Recall that his mentor was the Communist Frank Marshall Davis[7][8] It is absolutely true that Obama hates business as he denigrates business
leaders daily but the part about investing needs expansion. But, he does accept
their money when he needs it. Whores
do business like that. Krugman would love to put this question on a
personal basis thus sparing us the truth that Obama’s messy economic designs
and unrelenting taxes and penalties are the reason businesses sits on the
sidelines and holds their cash.
Then, we get to the real point
of this essay the blasting of Mitt Romney because he is rich.
“Like
everyone else following the news, I’ve been awe-struck by the way questions
about Mr. Romney’s career at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he founded,
and his refusal to release tax returns have so obviously caught the Romney
campaign off guard. Shouldn’t a very wealthy man running for president — and
running specifically on the premise that his business success makes him
qualified for office — have expected the nature of that success to become an
issue? Shouldn’t it have been obvious that refusing to release tax returns from
before 2010 would raise all kinds of suspicions?”--
Pathos of the Plutocrat By PAUL KRUGMAN
As Obama managed to place nearly all his personal information in some
kind of sacred vault with the able assistance of his mentors [Axelrod probably]
we might ask for his university grades and courses, papers he wrote, test
scores and details of any ‘work’ he did as a community organizer as well and
how that gave him the skills to be President. These have been carefully sealed
like Hillary’s writings and of course Bill Clinton. It is interesting that of the four lawyers of the
Obamas and Clintons there are no court cases, law review articles or other
works accustomed by be associated with the legal profession. Hillary’s
only job was influence peddling of Arkansas state projects to the Rose Law
Firm.
Krugman ends:
“O.K.,
let’s take a deep breath. The truth is that many, and probably most, of
the very rich don’t fit Fitzgerald’s description. There are plenty of very rich Americans who
have a sense of perspective, who take pride in their achievements without
believing that their success entitles them to live by different rules.
But Mitt Romney, it seems,
isn’t one of those people. And
that discovery may be an even bigger issue than whatever is hidden in those tax
returns he won’t release.”-- Pathos of the Plutocrat By PAUL KRUGMAN
The acknowledgement
of concessions to offer broad and sweeping ultimata generally are put up front
in most propaganda pieces but this one is set to the end for emphasis. If we
were to learn who was on the Krugman goodie goodie list it might be those rich
[Kennedys?!!] who are really leftists or, like GE, splash forth campaign contributions as bribes.
Those would be welcome as are others like Warren Buffett.
So ends another spiteful and mostly
infantile piece of sleazy journalism for the socially and financially busted paper
known proudly as a place to accommodate most of the hackneyed scribbles and coached mental
gyrations of the near-financially bankrupt New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers.
Crude
sophistry as usual.
Comments: ryckki@gmail.com
[1] The
Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Israel
[2] In honor of that celebrated Communist
stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT . The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty,
a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.
“He said that these people had to be
"liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the
proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a
means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said
that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death."
Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for
or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the
article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine
was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of
Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which
only history could judge.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
[3]
Krugman Searches for His Own Truth in an Irish Mirror. He Reflects upon the
Mirror and Finds Himself as Originator of the Eternal Solution. Tax and Spend.
[4]
Avoiding the hackneyed “exploitation of the masses” this time.
[5] Pathos of the Plutocrat OP-ED COLUMNIST By
PAUL KRUGMAN Published: July 19, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment