Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
It is over-priced, over-stated, and famously bi-polar. If the Economist magazine was a person it would be treated for various ailments, given prescriptions, psycho-analyzed and told to reenter reality. The famous British glossy is suffering from doddering old age. The dichotomies in its physical and mental makeup are obvious. For those who like to impress people by saying at dinner parties ‘I get my news from the Economist’, you might want to save your breath. It has about as much cachet as saying you get your views from CNN.
In the past 20 years of reading the newssheet some obvious assertions can be made. Evidently the Economist is strong on financial and trade matters, and its writers support the idea of a strong military. Of especial interest to us cretins who believe in market capitalism and that peace is achieved through strength, is the Economist’s strong support of free trade and investments, created by well functioning capital markets which in turn feed a technologically advanced and well trained military.
The sections on Finance, Trade, and capital markets are alas rather short, perfunctory and do not consume enough of its well manufactured space. In any typical issue they constitute 10 pages out of 110. The writing on ‘realism’, Western foreign policy, or how to protect our civilization are very scant usually constituting of a few articles here and there in each issue. As one of the few broadsheets supporting the reality of price points, embedded in market complexities, and military strength through innovation and ‘realist’ policy, this is a pity.
So much for the rationalist side of the Economist.
Outside of these matters the opinions of the Economist reflect so much mainstream media gruel. Pick up any issue and the following will be displayed. These themes are surprisingly similar, and standard fare in each and every issue. Take April 21 2007 as a recent example.
Apologies for Europe:
The Economist has 60% of its revenue in the US. To its credit is is less anti-American than almost any paper save the Wall Street Journal. It is however, quite pro-EU and this befuddles the reader who expects the Economist to be the paper for small government, low taxes and free trade. The Economist calls for EU reforms but not nearly with the same vociferous, out of breath, heated resolve in which it criticizes the US or Israeli action in Gaza and beyond.
The Economist makes bizarre claims including the idea that the Dutch or the French are the most productive in the world [EU productivity is quite low though it varies by industry of course]; or that European unemployment is only at 8% [it is closer to 20% when you analyze the real numbers]; or that European expansion and integration is a good idea [it just promotes ever more socialism]. This magazine rightly railed against the EU Constitution as a phone book sized nonsense, but then claimed that it was only necessary to rework and rewrite it.
Pro Open-Borders and unfettered immigration:
The Economist is a whole-hearted supporter of open borders, illegal immigration, and the relativity of all cultures. It apparently does not believe that massive influxes of people with non-Western attitudes will misshape Western society, or cause financial ruin. They are sorely wrong.
In the April 21rst issue when reporting on the French election and the frontrunner Sarkozy’s supposedly massive veer to the ‘right’ [in a country where right wing is defined as those who don’t believe in total state Marxism], the Economist said, ‘France, [Sarkozy] said, should not renounce 2.000 years of Christian civilization and heritage. Distaste for all such talk is one reason why …..are turned off by… Sarkozy’s divisiveness..’
Wow. A politician who says that Western Christian civilization is a noble thing is of course for the Economist and the mainstream media, a right wing demagogue, burning with racist hate and intolerance. Stupid. Sarkozy is correct that the Judeo-Christian culture is superior. It manifestly has helped create the modern world. This is not a right vs. left wing concept. Nor is it radical. The Economist seems to believe that all cultures are relatively great, that Islam poses no threat, and that anyone who has pride in their civilization is a fascist. News for the editors at the Economist – fascism is a far left phenomenon combining nationalism, socialism and state terror into one governing ideal. Having pride in the West’s culture is not ‘divisive’.
Anti-Republican:
While not anti-American the Economist is certainly anti-Republican. It supported John Kerry the man who spent 3 months in Vietnam, with no discernible wounds, garnering 5 medals, which is impossible in a war [he wrote his own recommendation reports]. The paper is decidedly anti-Bush and though it timidly [kind of] supports the war in Iraq, it has little time for Bush or his government.
Very few articles are even-handed when discussing US politics with the Economist generally favoring illegal immigrant amnesty; carbon and gas taxes [to solve global warming]; higher taxes on the wealthy; and more government intervention on social issues [gun control for eg. or education]; and limitations on how the military can fight the war against Islam [it wrongly concludes that G-bay is torturing prisoners for eg., or that the Americans have been complete idiots in Iraq.]
In the April 21rst issue it writes for example, ‘neocons have been discredited for ideological reasons.’ This references the American project in Iraq. What piffle. Neocon as a word is meaningless – it references Democrats who became foreign policy hawks and moved over to the Republican side. There is no neo-con movement. There is no uniform Conservative movement, just as there is no monolithic Republican movement. So called neo-con foreign policy setting in Iraq for example is a myth. How does the Economist make the connection between the Bush strategy of preemption and the Kennedy-Johnson Democratic party’s intervention in Vietnam? Were they ‘neo-cons’ as well? Ridiculous.
Ambivalent about Islam:
The Economist has not run an intelligent piece on Islam in its history as a newsletter. It continually gives Islam a pass. It understates the number of Muslims in Europe [now at about 50 million] and says that Islam is not a threat to European civilization. The magazine is bizarrely pro-Turkish demanding that the Sunni Turks comprising 80 millions be admitted into the EU. It dismisses criticism of Islam as intolerant and usually rants on about the passivity of the ‘faith’.
It has never discussed Turkish genocide [5 million dead in the 20th century] in detail; nor does it spend much time on the 300 million butchered in war by Muslims in the past 1300 years. A typical passage can be found in the April 21rst paper when the Economist as usual criticized Israel, ‘Budgets and infrastructure projects tend to favor Jewish towns over Arab ones;…and cases of police brutality against Arab Israelis all too often end up unsolved.’
I have never read a piece criticizing the Arabs. For the Economist it is the racist fascist Jews surrounded by 200 million people who declare daily in various ways that the Jews must be exterminated who are the real baddies of the Middle East. That is sound and intelligent analysis. For the record the Economist quotes of course an Arab scholar at a Jewish University, paid by Jewish taxpayers, when it comments that the nasty Jews are brutalizing the wonderful, peaceful, kind, loving Arabs.
Ambivalent about Statism:
Global warming is an example of the Economist’s bi polar mentality. It has never published any science to backup the bizarre claim that carbon dioxide emissions, of which the human race emits only 4% of the global total, causes climate change. In fact any scientist will tell you that the opposite is true. Carbon dioxide levels reflect climate patterns. Its support of Marxist methods to combat the non-science of Globaloney Warming is simply a travesty.
The Economist is mediocre on Global Warming and other areas of state aggrandizement. While generally suspicious of government it does little to support why less government is beneficial and how a market oriented system produces everything from wealth to higher culture. It is diplomatically apolitical when discussing the crushing statism of Latin America [outside of Chile]; China or Russia; and is far too European in its gush over Europe’s vitality. Strangely it seems to covet the UN, never revealing the inner bathos of that corrupt and rather useless group.
So buyer beware. The Economist is not high brow. It is not that interesting. It is standard media fare with a twist towards free trade and open markets. It is inconsistent, bipolar in some ways, and suffers from the sclerosis of old age and internal politicking and bickering. If you are looking for a supposed ‘right wing’ alternative to the grey pasty mash served up cold and limp from the mainstream media, you won’t find it here.
