Rupert Murdoch's Failing Attempts to Control the Internet Reformation
Rupert Murdoch lost nearly his entire investment in MySpace the other day when he sold the failing social network to musician and actor Justin Timberlake and an ad agency he backs for some US$30 million. This was a good deal less than the US$500 million-plus Murdoch paid for it.
Why did Murdoch make such a bad investment? Because he hoped to use the network as a vehicle from which he could disseminate news. He wanted to make MySpace into a mechanism to deliver current-events content. When it didn't work out – and he must have known that fairly soon – he obviously lost interest. And as his interest waned, so did MySpace.
This speaks to Murdoch's desperation – and mainstream media's generally. In a digital world, he is willing to burn US$500 million simply to confirm that a social network is not a news delivery system. I could have told him that for a much lower fee.
This also shows us the importance of news to the powers-that-be. The Anglosphere elites – for whom Murdoch evidently and obviously works – are determined (thus far without much success) to find a way to protect their failing information franchise.
Nothing in the past 300 years or so, while the elites have advanced their one-world-order, has been so devastating to their plans as the Internet and the rise of the alternative media driven Internet Reformation. It has poisoned the chalice and befouled the well; it has unbalanced the clarity of the concoction and clouded it with truth. A bitter brew ... for them!
Western power elites will do ANYTHING to reclaim their news franchise. When one looks at 20th century media development one is struck by its massive size and strategic composition. Every part of Western 20th century media worked seamlessly together. The whole idea was to create an increasingly militarized society that would accept global government as part of the natural order of things.
Hollywood delivered messages of violence and fear; the magazines and newspapers rehashed the same sorts of information and television – that unique, talking box – broadcast alarm and resolution-of-the same 24-hours a day.
There was no escape from it. If the world was not in death throes, that's only because the wise men clustered at the top of the West's painstakingly created authoritarian systems were saving the world on a real-time basis.
It is news dissemination that the power elite craves. Everything else is just a backdrop. The entertainment, the talk shows, the game shows, these were all merely the wrapper supporting the main act. Everything in Western media in the 20th century led up to the News Program. And the talking heads providing the "news" were glorified as great intellects worthy of the most arduous approbation.
Walter Cronkite, a febrile and shallow socialist, was the "most trusted man in news." Dan Rather, a compulsive self-aggrandizer, was a countrified, attack-dog. These individuals did nothing but read the news; but they were revered. Today, things have changed. Mainstream news ... very little. As a delivery mechanism of mind control it is failing. In fact, every part of the intricate system is failing.
In order to build a new world order, people must be either frightened or enticed into cooperating. It is a great deal easier to scare people than to bribe them, less costly too. But when the delivery mechanism fails, when people begin to tune it out as they have in the 21st century, then the message is muddled and gradually grows more insignificant.
Murdoch's properties are supposed to provide the conservative half of a worldwide Hegelian dialectic. He's been funded by Western elites to provide this vision because if one is to move society toward global governance, a conversation is necessary. Thesis, antithesis ... synthesis. Murdoch provides the antithesis, with relish.
As a major facilitator of the one-world conspiracy, Murdoch is tasked with taming the Internet Reformation. It must be brought under control and the Internet made to work on behalf of a larger world order.
One can watch him writhe, these days. We've compared him to Hamlet, especially a few years ago when he really seemed at a loss and began to lash out while mumbling to himself. He bought MySpace and ruined it like a petulant child when it didn't perform as planned. When he began MySpace had nearly 75 million users. It now has less than 35 million.
He's onto the next gambit – increasingly known in the mainstream media as "fail walls." These pay walls encircle Internet content like moats around castles. Instead of seeing articles for free, readers are enticed with an occasional news story and then urged to sign up and pay for access to fuller content.
The New York Times tried this a few years ago and saw its on-line circulation plunge; it is trying again now with a different model known as "freemium" – a mix of free and paid content which is said to be working marginally better.
Murdoch, however, is the most active participant in this futile circus. He's placed paywalls around his properties in Britain, The Times and Sunday Times, in the US with such publications as The Wall Street Journal and is now transplanting the strategy to his Australian publications. The fairly thick walls around his UK publications have indeed kept casual browsers out. Reports claim that the UK Times has blocked 20 million viewers and replaced them with 79,000 digital subscribers.
This is heralded as a "success" in the brave new world of the Internet era. Meanwhile, circulation figures from ABC show that The Times and Sunday Times print sales fell 14.8% and 9.5% year-on-year. The UK Guardian News & Media Group have pursued a non-paywall approach and reportedly generated a 50 per cent increase in digital advertising revenue in the first six months of the financial year. Free content – open access – works better than pay walls.
Murdoch has also started a dedicated, online newspaper known as The Daily. It is delivered through Apple aps and people pay for it. But the problem is no different; the information being delivered hasn't changed, only the delivery system. Murdoch keeps tinkering with the hardware when it's the software that is the problem.
It could be that the open-access model is the one that works the best. It certainly makes the most sense. The 20th century, as we've written before, was a time of artificial news scarcity. The 21st century is one of news plenty. In such a brave new world, how can one successfully charge for content? Better to give it away and try to surround it with ads or, in the case of the Daily Bell, operate a non-profit, advertising free site and rely on the generotisty of readers to help make the message grow.
But the trouble for the mainstream press is that the information has to be compelling in order to compete with the alternative media. DB reports a kind of truth; the mainstream media promotes fear and globalism.
In an environment where there is a plethora of product, the only distinguishing factor is quality. Power-elite media does not "do" quality very well. That is not why it exists. This is another problem Murdoch has when it comes to trying to charge for product. His news and information are a tool designed to advance the larger conversation and move it in the direction of international governance. He is not a free agent in this regard.
In order to compete with the Internet's alternative media, Murdoch's media has changed its tone. It is much more strident than in the past about "conservative" issues. This is because the free-market thinking that's driving the Internet Reformation is pulling the dialogue in a libertarian direction. Murdoch compensates with conservative viewpoints but gradually the fulcrum of the conversation is shifting.
In the 21st century, the larger social conversation is gradually repolarizing itself around what is natural and normal. The more people learn, the less convincing his conservative editorial thrust becomes; and the more strident authoritarian voices like Bill O'Reilly's become. People, once they understand their own manipulation, trend toward the libertarian point of view, which is why in the US, libertarian Texas Congressman Ron Paul is increasingly popular.
In order to accommodate the realigned conversation, Murdoch is forced to go along with it. This accounts for the rise of people like Glenn Beck. There is no way that Beck's increasingly libertarian viewpoints would have been tolerated in the 20th century – and evidently not in the 21st century either.
Obviously, the Glenn Beck experiment proved too arduous for Murdoch's Fox as Beck has been released and is now starting his own TV channel. It may be that Beck proves more successful on his own than with Fox. He claims to have retained his soul. This is another problem that Murdoch's media has – it doesn't appear to have much of a soul.
As the conversation shifts, Murdoch has to shift with it. But in order to accommodate the changing conversation he begins to BECOME exactly what his elite backers hoped to eradicate. To retain credibility he must present a version free-market thinking; yet this is anathema to his sponsors who wish only to promote covert and overt globalism. It is a conundrum.
This puzzle shall remain with the elites. The Internet Reformation, in fact, is a process not an episode. The trends that the Internet has produced are only going to get more powerful. As with the Gutenberg Press, the Internet's effects will not easily be tamed. The apparent results of the Gutenberg Press – the Renaissance, Reformation, etc. – reverberated long after its inception. The changes began to occur with rapidity some 100 years its invention. The changes spawned by the Internet began after about 20 years.
From this we can see, mathematically speaking, that the ratio between the Internet and the Press is perhaps one-to-five. It took the elites about 350- 400 years to control the Press and to begin to monopolize its output. Thus, it may take the elites about 50-75 years to control the Internet.
But there is something else to consider. Assume for the sake argument that the mainstream media historical timeline is an accurate one (which we no longer do, necessarily) there can be no doubt things have speeded up. There was a 25,000 year gap between cave paintings and incised tablets. There was perhaps a 10,000 year gap between tablets and papyrus. There was perhaps a 5,000 year gap between papyrus and the printing press. There was a 500 year gap between the invention of the press and the advent of the Internet.
It may be that just about the time the elites have managed to fully control the Internet – in say 50 years – a NEW technology will come along and make life difficult all over again. The competition between the elites and the middle class was fully joined with the advent of the Gutenberg Press. This marked a fundamental shift in human history from what we can tell, defining history as a race between technology and elite mind control. The confrontation has only sharpened in the Internet era.
We may be at the early stages of a great Internet-inspired Reformation. The initial Reformation gave rise to fundamental shifts in society 500 years ago and redefined the relationship between peasantry and the elites of the day. It also kicked off a series of low-level, pan-European wars.
If one studies the Gutenberg Press and its impacts, one can see plenty of parallels between what is occurring now and what occurred then. At the time, the elites struggled to advance their control and maintain what they had already achieved. But it seems to me they lost control, despite the wars, at least temporarily, and now they are losing control again. For those in tune with what is happening, the 21st century may eventually prove a fine time to be alive and working.
At some point, the confluence of modern free-market thinking may force the powers-that-be to take a step back. Murdoch's struggles are not made up. One only has to look at them over the past ten years to see a concretization of the theoretical proposals we've been presenting.
These issues are real. They may have great ramifications as the Internet Reformation rolls on, affecting everything from investments to lifestyle choices. In fact, I'd argue the impact is already a powerful one, even though people may not realize just what is occurring. Murdoch believes that he can regain control of the message with social networks, paywalls and dedicated content. He will likely go to his deathbed (he is not a young man) believing this. He and his backers and handlers may be wrong.
And just to prove how wrong … you can join the Daily Bell for no charge and receive an advertising-free perspective on the Great Conversation. We wear our agenda proudly on our editorial sleeves – to spread the awareness of free-market thinking concepts worldwide in the hope that the Internet Reformation (Knowledge Revolution) can halt the drive towards manipulated globalism. Take a look at what others are saying about our rapidly growing community of free-market thinkers – Subscribe Now.
Posted by Dave Jr on 07/02/11 06:47 AM
The Gutenberg Press exposed corruption in the Church and tipped it on its head. Today the same is happening to corrupt Government. The MSM is their front line of resistance. It is failing, the puppets agenda is being exposed. But what about the agenda makers, the puppeteers? They will have to come up with a new, better show.
Posted by rossbcan on 07/02/11 07:20 AM
DB: "As the conversation shifts, Murdoch has to shift with it."
The "conversation" is the intellectual environment, what, statistically, people consider as truth and, therefore, align their chioces and actions with. Elites know, damn well without "consent of the governed", they and their endeavors are adrift, without support at best and, when they push, outright opposition. "Consent" has been subverted (devolved) from "fully informed, willing", to "misinformed. defrauded", to "terror to defy" and, with increasingly available objective information is evolving back to where it started, people having a say in their OWN lives. It is the power to define and craft faux "reality" that our slavers seek to retain, since without plausible "reasons" for our collective servitude (a goal, which can only be achieved by usage of force / fraud, since honest, mutually agreed trade is NOT slavery), there WILL be serious blowback. THINK about it:
Click to view link
DB: "It took the elites about 350- 400 years to control the Press and to begin to monopolize its output. Thus, it may take the elites about 50-75 years to control the Internet."
They did so by consolidation of ownership of the means of information dissemnation into THEIR hands, thus controlling the script. The internet is different. In order to control it, they must restrict (censor) information available and destroy the adhoc, bidirectional, peer to peer one to one / many nature of the internet. In other words they must turn the internet into a unicast one to many broadcast means, with no way for extraneous information to detract from the "script".
This doomed endeavor will fail for three reasons:
First, any limitation of internet functionality will reduce value, but not cost. Free market alternatives will spring up like multi-heade hydras, growing a new head as each is cut off. The "value" of controlled media will plunge, as Murdoch discovered.
Second, the engineers / scientists who design / control the internet are very bright people. They will, en masse, provide alternative solutions when infrastructure becomes crippled by control. In fact, the internet is designed to be fault tolerant, routing around information transmission impediments. To a communications engineer, political or any other control of the free flow of information is a fault, as in general any who oppose the march of truth and freedom are "faulty" and will invoke a response proportional to and sufficient to counter any harm they may inflict.
Third, users will form their own private ad-hoc networks, unobservable by elites. If there is anything elites hate worse than their information / plans being exposed it is for others to have the ability to "conspire" against them, in secret and unobserved until it is time to unleash blowback.
Its ALL about choice. Be very careful regarding who / what YOU allow to influence YOU. Free, fully informed choice is a matter of individual and collective survival:
Click to view link
Posted by bewer on 07/02/11 07:31 AM
Agreed in general. Unfortunately, it is human nature to want to stay primitive; thus real freedom is agonizingly slow in coming.
Posted by amanfromMars on 07/02/11 07:53 AM
You may like to consider that the Internet already has its controllers and the likes of the old monied power elites, ..... who can try buying up what they now presently lack for future continuity of control, and the likes of the Murdoch empire which would try to cast a certain perception with their manipulation of provided programs and selective news items, which are only subjective tales in reaction to a planned event, which itself started out as a imaginative notion to be made a reality with its sharing, ...... are just not clever enough to process information into intelligence which renders to them what they desire.
The controllers of the Internet may not desire that the present, sub-prime, intellectually inadequate, establishment oldies have any future control over others, other than as a funders and supporters of those who would be exercising their remote virtual control in ...... well, a New World Order is what it exactly is, is it not?
It is new intelligence which you can share in an instant with everyone and which bursts misleading bubbles and false spin and would invite you to test it for all of its certain truths, which leads programs now. Money can buy those new intelligence suppliers, but to imagine that money can control them is to make a mistake which would identify oneself has being in need of the new intelligence being bought.
Posted by amanfromMars on 07/02/11 08:03 AM
Quite so, rossbcan, and the three reasons you have quoted for the demise of crooked control, are spread at an exponential pace and have already gone way past the critical mass stage for exercise of new player, Great Game global controls.
Posted by amanfromMars on 07/02/11 08:22 AM
And here is some crazy IMF advice which just shows how intellectually bankrupt the system's monkeys and organ grinders are ......
Click to view link
And the Daily Bell get a first class, ringside seat mention in the piece too :-)
Posted by General Quarters on 07/02/11 10:01 AM
Very well said DB:
Hegelian Dialectic and Hijinks
False Friends and Memes
Fifth Columnist and Hoaxers
Secret Orders and False Flags
Hidden Hands and 5 Pointed Stars on both sides
The global bankers use the governments of the world (Which they bought with made-up money) as little more then the means to run up debt on our behalf to enslave and control us by any and all means.
While the Gutenberg press had them befuddled for a while, they eventually consolidated and controlled the media.
It's critical to understand the move away from storing and hosting content locally and moving toward large hosting services in the cloud is a very large part of their response to the internet.
Local content should be considered King - but if nobody else sees it, it doesn't really threaten them.
So, it becomes critical to always have access to an anonymous, decentralized point to point means of communication.
In the end, free speech and the sharing ideas is their only enemy.
Simple as that.
Posted by alexa on 07/02/11 11:22 AM
I love you, Daily Bell! I turn to you for my daily dose of news, presented with intelligence, credibility and wit. As for the Globalist Elite - I hope we haven't reached a point where they no longer care about what the masses think and try to do something stupid by instilling some evil Presidential Executive order, using some "natural" disaster or another false flag operation..
Reply from The Daily Bell
They seem busy creating World War III ...
Posted by John Danforth on 07/02/11 11:29 AM
It is interesting to watch the migration from one social networking site to another. They can be thought of as internet fads, picked up with wild popularity, then dropped, discarded without a thought like yesterday's fashion. An AOL email address came to signify a clueless newbie, someone who thought the only portal to the internet was through a controlling mother ship, now people can hardly remember ever bothering with MySpace while Facebooking has become a verb.
Thought control is an insanely expensive enterprise; consider the resources spent upon it by every regime from Roman times to the present. It must be so because the masters are always outnumbered by the servants, the few must control the many in order to profit from the enterprise. Ultimately, persuasion must be the basis of any rule. People must willingly pay for their mind-control or eventually the entire edifice crumbles.
Widespread adoption of a mindset that gets people to willingly cede control to an elite must deliver a satisfaction of a basic emotional human need, or some material benefit. If the basis for that mindset is to rest on palpable absurdity, fear, or hate, or any combination thereof, it is next to impossible to put it over on people unless their exposure to a clearer truth can be limited.
So Murdoch is up against a difficult conundrum. He needs to get people to pay for their misinformation willingly. People gladly did so when their misinformation was mixed in with the only available source of news. The conduit of information formed first by the paper press and later, electronic broadcasting, also formed the perfect firewall to limit access. Whoever seized the press and its distribution channel or the microphone had absolute control over the message. The content could be delivered free to the user, by charging for access to a portion of the information to commercial messages. A very lucrative system, paying off in many different ways. It is interesting to note that the access restrictions have always been basically enforced with guns.
And now the entire access-control industry along with all the control systems it supports are caught up in a tidal wave entirely beyond their control. As Bill points out, various networking schemes and even the transmission media used are all designed to flow like a tidal wave around restrictions. To stand against it is to be helplessly washed away, unless a sturdy foundation is in place, in which case the tidal wave will simply wash over the top. Over, under, around, or through any restriction, it is inexorable, unstoppable.
Human desire is the motivating force for all of it, and the tools for shaping that desire have been irreversibly rendered useless.
Amusingly, the fickle public fascination with fads, amusements, diversions, porn, fairy tales, and every other puerile whim seem to play as much a part in the shaping of popularly held memes as any serious official line. This is acknowledged by the huge amount of resources devoted to State Entertainment, and here too, the conduit has been blasted open. The control has been lost and the revenue stream has been obliterated. Facebook will be dropped and forgotten as soon as a less-controlling, less-intrusive, and more alluring model becomes available, and all the grand plans to turn it into a revenue streaming vehicle for thought-control will be dashed, and not for the reasons the controllers anticipated, but simply because a path of lower resistance has been found for people to satisfy their whims.
The new meme is that people pay for access, not content. They pay for access to whatever they want. If they have to pay for content, they don't want it. If the content isn't what they want to hear, they will ignore it, and if they can't get what they want on a medium, they will not pay for access. It is glorious that the control mechanism has been dealt a mortal injury. It is laughable that the direction of the future depends on fickle faddism, practically impossible to predict. It is a fortunate Black Swan event, that this faddism actually pays for the medium upon which valuable information can ride for free.
Our future course will depend upon the ability of people to detect words which have the ring of truth, and whether those who value independence and freedom can sell the ideas enough to make them popular. This is not assured. Perhaps the elite will come up with new, better ways to get people to forge their own chains and prefer ignorance to knowledge. But at least for the moment, they cannot stop us from dispensing the acid that dissolves those chains.
It may take years or centuries, but the old-school thought-control mechanisms are ALL under threat, from public schooling and university education, to entertainment, to news, but most importantly, FASHION.
Here's a little snippet of the stuff that will no longer be silenced:
Click to view link
My thanks to The Daily Bell and to you, Anthony, and all the feedbackers here for piercing through the fog of the unknown.
Posted by DRJ on 07/02/11 11:32 AM
Great insights DB. I've never been able to stomach Murdoch's Fox "news" for more than five minutes. The problem is how well fox has penetrated the minds of the population. I recently shared a plane ride with an Army officer and I was stunned at the vehemence with which she condemned Iran and talked of the need to attack it.
Considering the hysterical, slobbering war-mongering, the shocking ignorance and bias promoted by Hannity/O'Reilly/etc., the complete and total manipulation of events, and their product: disastrous wars, millions dead, trillions squandered, the planet poisoned with depleted nuclear waste, and the nazification of the USA, Murdock has a lot to answer for. No one deserves his impending bankruptcy more.
The odd part is how they tolerate Judge Napolitano, whose voice resonates so strongly with freedom lovers.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Well, they always need a "spectrum." Napolitano, who is inoffensive and intelligently libertarian, provides it.
Posted by Stranger on 07/02/11 11:43 AM
While the internet has made the dissemination of information more open, it also makes the dissemination of bad ideas more efficient.
Ultimately, things like organization and leadership still matter, and say what you want about their newspapers, the global elites are still better organized than we are.
Yes, we know the truth, but what for? [a href=Click to view link"]We still cannot harm them.[/a]
Posted by John Danforth on 07/02/11 11:45 AM
I'll got out on a limb here, and predict that the silliness of using a virtual supercomputer with terabytes of information storage to access remotely hosted programs that store your crucial data on remote servers will work where it makes sense, and only where it makes sense - meaning in extremely limited circumstances - and so all that investment will end up where it belongs: in the wastebasket of some anonymous cubicle-dweller. I'll also predict that the putative justification for it (access by crippled handheld devices) will be blown away by ever more powerful miniature devices. Already a $100 phone has more capability and storage capacity than the third desktop computer I ever owned.
The "cloud". What a silly idea, taking control away from users. It will sell as a fad for awhile, then it will be left behind like a crumpled candy wrapper.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Why would someone place all their personal, sensitive information on someone else's facility?
Posted by John Danforth on 07/02/11 12:13 PM
THIS will do them in:
Click to view link
Posted by Avatar on 07/02/11 12:21 PM
In science the most simple comprehensive theory is the one most often adopted. Perhaps Murdock bought MySpace when it was the most popular social network site on the internet. He did not see FaceBook coming. The profit potential was there as evidenced by FB. Now he is selling to minimize his loses, especially after Google has announced plans to launch a more secure social networking site. The vast majority of these sites do not spend time talking politics or religion. Any basic research would preclude purchasing such sites for such a use a political propaganda. Again it is most likely a follow the money lesson. Murdock will write off his loss and pay a lot less tax this year. This same argument would be applicable to Twitter. Perhaps the DB should be more cautious of extremism in the pursuit of world conspiracy.
Posted by General Quarters on 07/02/11 12:34 PM
One can hope.
Perhaps at the dawn of the print revolution, people once said, wow, this is really taking off. As more and more presses are sold, the price will go down, they will get smaller and better and eventually everyone will have their own.
Unfortunately, that was successfully blocked until the internet provided it by surprise.
Beware the Internet Regulations, Provider Consolidations, Cheap hosting solutions and nudges to move to them, IPv6 possibilities combined with Cyber-war fears and National Security Interests, Orwellian named fairness or security bills.
Very serious attempts at control are coming, that is assured.
Posted by Capn_Mike on 07/02/11 12:38 PM
I thought I was the only one to regard "the cloud" in horror.
Back in the 70's we fought a revolution to "personalize" computing and keep our data close. Now people are giving this up? Voluntarily??
Weird. Especially since hard drives are virtually free.
Posted by Don on 07/02/11 01:13 PM
DB: "he is willing to burn US$500 million"
A scratch, a scratch; 'tis merely paper.
DB: "As a delivery mechanism of mind control it is failing. In fact, every part of the intricate system is failing."
"We [journalists] think of ourselves as 'gatekeepers.' But there is not much future in being a gatekeeper when the walls are down. (2004)"
Click to view link
Independence From the Press Rocks the Gatekeeper's World (2004)
Click to view link
Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press (2009)
Click to view link
"Bye, bye, those big upfront buys Pitched my client, who was pliant But the pitch didn't fly And old ad boys were drinking martinis dry Singing 'Tech has taken us for a ride' Algorithms got me cross-eyed." - Mad Avenue Blues (2009)
Click to view link
"The biggest issue ahead may not be lack of audience or even lack of new revenue experiments. It may be that in the digital realm the news industry is no longer in control of its own future." - The State of the News Media 2011
Click to view link
Posted by peri1224 on 07/02/11 01:23 PM
THIS will do them in: (Too much paper money, debt)
Are you sure? How will it do them in? To me it looks more like too much paper money will do US in, through chaos, food and resource shortages, etc. The paper money racketeers are very near their goal of owning a good part of the world. They have achieved it by printing unredeemable paper coupons, called money, and exchanging these for real things like land, shares, resources, incl. thousands of tonnes of gold, etc. The people are stuck with worthless paper, while the racketeers own a disproportionate share of all real wealth.
Now, let the paper money system go bust and bring on a gold standard that the people clamor for, and the racketeers will rule again. (Not with silver though).
It will take a little more to do the SOB's in.
Posted by William3 on 07/02/11 02:58 PM
I wonder if the nature of the Internet Reformation is much deeper than that of the one 500 years ago. The level of education among the broad population of people in the world today is much deeper than that in the 16th century. If so, the effect may be much deeper as well.
It's likely few understood how elite powers worked 500 years ago. They just knew they were oppressed and pushed for an opportunity for freer expression. Today, we have more information about the nature of the Money Elite and who they are. Will this current reformation lead to minions forcing the Elite not only to pull back, but indeed to take cover underground to avoid being run out of town on a rail?
Wishful thinking, but who knows how this will shake out.
Posted by memehunter on 07/02/11 03:46 PM
I like some of Molyneux's stuff, but this video does not impress me. The viewpoint is incredibly USA-centric for one thing (what about the blood, sweat, and toil of the Chinese, Japanese, and others?).
Moreover, one might agree with Molyneux that these foreign countries are accumulating claims on the future work of Americans, but then Americans enjoyed an incredible quality of life for most of the 20th century, partly at the expense of the Chinese, Japanese, and others. In any case, I have a feeling that these countries will end up getting very little actual value for all their paper dollars. I tend to agree with peri1224's analysis.
Finally, Molyneux's credibility was not enhanced (as far as I am concerned) when I became aware of his position on 9/11 a few months ago (I read most of his stuff after feedbacker Adam mentioned him on DB). This is becoming a sort of "litmus test" for me, and let's just say that I was not impressed at all by Molyneux's position.
Stefan Molyneux 05-28-2007:
"* If 9/11 was an inside job, it will never be proven. The evidence - and key witnessess - have all been destroyed.
* If it is proven, it will only engender anger to certain individuals, not the state as a whole. It will actually increase the power of the state.
* There are an infinity of truths out there, which will help our cause far more - why focus on this impossible one?
* It's not rational to focus on 9/11, therefore the motive must arise from childhood."
The motive must arise from childhood? Wow...