Newspapers are complaining about the lack of money and urge for payment in order to keep providing articles.
In the age of internet one can read the news releases of the institutions and analyse them oneself.
Mass media are usually owned by rich people, not necessarily well educated and usually with no qualities except luck. Like the clergy and the noble before the French Revolution, they only care about their income and their status. Like the clergy and nobility before them, they are unable to lead the society as they cannot even guarantee a constant flow of goods and services. They don't value education high enough, they urge the politicians not to change the bad educational system. In order to gain money they invented financial money where worthless money is produced and instead of investing in research for goods production in the third world in order to create a flow of goods and so a flow of cash, they want to bring that money in the goods and services market via pensions and insurances. So they have the mass media to make sure no politician stands in their way.
Marxism has failed repeatedly so that's why it is presented as the only opposition to this modern feudalism. If all art faculties have a marxist staffing, all alternative world views do not have a chance. Not only parties of the left, but populists who are placed at the right spectrum have the same national-bolshevistic ideas about economy; and national can be anything from USA or Russia, Europe, a current state or a smaller ethnic group. Everytime it is expected there will be problems with all those bad policies, the mass media actually advertise positively and negatively some personalities and parties of the above type.
Even if we believe that there are independant channels or newspapers, their journalists have the same marxistic and freudian ideas, otherwise they wouldn't have attained their degrees. One sees always the same article, of people who dream to make the world the garden of Eden. They want to bring seven buillion people in Europe -and not to the US- and they should have full pension, houses, cars, vacation everything. Everybody should stop producing goods or using technology as it is lethal for the environment, however everything should be available for everybody. No uses of natural resources, nothing synthetic, however everything should be available. If one asks them how this is all possible, they become either a fit of rage or a fit of riduculousness; or simply they will say that they will make it, they believe it.
If political parties are afraid of adolescent youtubers, it shows that they know or estimate their subjects as very easily influenced and they never did anything about it. Now they want to have some rules, that means censorship. They do not want independant citizens who can think for themselves, but subjects whose feelings can be easily manipulated.
In the age of internet one can read the news releases of the institutions and analyse them oneself.
Mass media are usually owned by rich people, not necessarily well educated and usually with no qualities except luck. Like the clergy and the noble before the French Revolution, they only care about their income and their status. Like the clergy and nobility before them, they are unable to lead the society as they cannot even guarantee a constant flow of goods and services. They don't value education high enough, they urge the politicians not to change the bad educational system. In order to gain money they invented financial money where worthless money is produced and instead of investing in research for goods production in the third world in order to create a flow of goods and so a flow of cash, they want to bring that money in the goods and services market via pensions and insurances. So they have the mass media to make sure no politician stands in their way.
Marxism has failed repeatedly so that's why it is presented as the only opposition to this modern feudalism. If all art faculties have a marxist staffing, all alternative world views do not have a chance. Not only parties of the left, but populists who are placed at the right spectrum have the same national-bolshevistic ideas about economy; and national can be anything from USA or Russia, Europe, a current state or a smaller ethnic group. Everytime it is expected there will be problems with all those bad policies, the mass media actually advertise positively and negatively some personalities and parties of the above type.
Even if we believe that there are independant channels or newspapers, their journalists have the same marxistic and freudian ideas, otherwise they wouldn't have attained their degrees. One sees always the same article, of people who dream to make the world the garden of Eden. They want to bring seven buillion people in Europe -and not to the US- and they should have full pension, houses, cars, vacation everything. Everybody should stop producing goods or using technology as it is lethal for the environment, however everything should be available for everybody. No uses of natural resources, nothing synthetic, however everything should be available. If one asks them how this is all possible, they become either a fit of rage or a fit of riduculousness; or simply they will say that they will make it, they believe it.
If political parties are afraid of adolescent youtubers, it shows that they know or estimate their subjects as very easily influenced and they never did anything about it. Now they want to have some rules, that means censorship. They do not want independant citizens who can think for themselves, but subjects whose feelings can be easily manipulated.
