ZH demonstrates the fact that alternative views of monetary matters have been deeply entwined with American right wing ideology, or just simply prejudices, since the 1950's when the John Birch society called for eliminating the Fed. Which coincidentally folded into familiar gold buggery and ancient tropes about Jewish bankers. ZH knowingly tapped into these things because that is where the market is. If it is Russian per say or consciously fascist with an agenda to advance such political emotions is probably secondary to just making a buck.
The old John Birch Society ideas of economics, as ill formed as they were, lead to an almost universal belief among Americans who identify as Liberal, or let's say not Conservative, to reject any questioning of 'the money' because such was seen as far rightest. In fact much of it was and is of the right.
Here lies the core of why Lee's analysis goes unheard. Of course the other root of the problem is almost nobody understands where money comes from, that is the mechanisms of it's creation. Which leads back to the rejection of any questioning of 'the money' because it's rightest. A vicious circle in other words. In nearly two decades of trying to engage non Conservatives in examining 'the money' never once have I gotten to first base.
