28 thoughts on “Twitter Replacement Thread Seven

  1. Rabbi Singer claiming that the Jews and the Christians worship different Gods. Putting down the idea of the trinity. Singer good in small doses, but here he sounds like he’s having some sort of excess saliva problem. Despite my admiration for the deep Catholic intellectual heritage, on this matter of theology, I cannot help but lean towards the power of Rabbi Singers reasoning. Particularly as when the Rabbi is slim he bears a pleasing resemblance to Bob Dylan.


  2. Australia has a severe private debt problem. People are living under incredible financial stress. We need some sort of debt relief now before there is a complete disaster. And its time to break the banks up.


  3. People are getting hep with how pathetic our banking system and therefore our economy is right now. This young fellow is calling Australian rich people “rent-seeking parasites” He characterises our economy as digging holes, rent-seeking and guarding our property. Real generational anger here. And rightly so.


  4. Economically ignorant nutballs like Sinclair Davidson, who never thinks a usurer could do anything wrong ever, reckon that there is no problem with private debt. This is so stupid there is no way to approach this perspective very easily. If someone is that stupid you don’t have a common basis for debate.

    In reality the damage done to our economy, by dysfunctional money and banking, in the last 30 years, is much more devastating then any overspending welfare state could ever have perpetrated. Its been this ghastly wrecking ball. A massive orgy of wealth destruction.


  5. Dollar for dollar, the least damaging debt under fiat money is that debt lent by ones central bank to the government. The so-called modern monetary theory guys are incredibly flippant when it comes to deficit spending. But they do have a point. There is no comparison to the damage done by deficits raised by borrowing off the banks, or private debt for non-wealth creation purposes, created by the banking system. Not all debts are equal and if ones central bank finances a government deficit, dollar for dollar that is not nearly as damaging as other types of debt. So for example the Japanese loaning money to their government and to other governments is kind of gaming the international system.

    Sure its nutty for the Japanese to be doing this on the level they were doing this. But up to a point, and I’ll demonstrate this in a thread later … up to a point, considerably lower than what Japan has been doing, this type of debt is functional, and if you really wanted to be a spendthrift like Japan, you could say that they are gaming the international system. And good on them.


  6. From elsewhere:

    Traditionally men often wonder about the constitutional objectivity of women. But one reason why I keep running into female nutritional researchers that seem fantastically motivated and exceptionally objective could come down to the maternal instinct. The women who run these autism societies are not the least bit intimidated by the medical mafia. The attempts of medical oligarchs to sanctify every single vaccine specifically, and establish mind control norms over society more generally, have no power over these mothers. The bigshots may as well be trying to screw with Tom Bombadil. Since these mothers want to get their kids fixed up. Not in some small way but, in every cell of their motherly female bodies. You have housewives teaching themselves to read and critique scientific studies …….. WELL, and just for the sake of their kids. Stephanie Seneff brought her prestigious scientific abilities across to the field of health and nutrition because her husband got sick. Rhonda of course has a husband and young child to think about. J T Wiley became a legendary researcher AFTER having 5 kids. One doesn’t want to go around promoting male chauvinism as a general principle. But if there is one field where you will be showing yourself up for being a crude oaf if you hold such prejudices, it would be in this field of nutrition. If we didn’t have the internet, and you couldn’t have these videos in the background playing many times, then if you happened upon one of these women by chance, you would be scrambling for a notebook and trying to get everything that might spill from their mouth down on paper. In other fields women can be known for great genius. But one wonders about their objectivity. Germaine Greer, Ayn Rand, Savitri Devi. Plenty of women around whose intelligence can be intimidating. But objective? Fairminded? Well I suppose I chose three very smart extremists for my examples. But in the field of nutrition, its as though the maternal instinct becomes an aid to the scientific method.


  7. From elsewhere:

    Stars don’t form through hydrogen self-compression. Thats crazy-talk. The stupidity of this idea comes from heritage formula deification. Not from the scientific method. Conservation of mass and energy laws are not merely wrong they are logically impossible. Energy and mass must be increasing the whole time or they would not be here at all. Moons grow to planets grow to stars grow to bigger stars and the nuclear fusion version of how stars work has been disproved and was never a serious idea. With all the above in mind it turns out that planets have a limited time where they can harbour intelligent life. For this reason any intelligent species will attempt to terra-form other planets, and hollow out asteroids as bases, if they can do so in a low cost fashion. For this reason we can expect that intelligent life has spread out and is pretty ubiquitous. Hollowed asteroids have ready electrical energy available to be tapped from the solar wind. This is a pretty robust base from which to ride out extinction events and such inhabitants ought to be able to pick up the pieces and re-colonise damaged planets.

    The gravitational shock model is pretty dubious. Orbits are far more forgiving than what heritage formula would make them out to be. Two large objects don’t collide, despite the recent gravitational wave false flag, and if they did we would have evidence of it every month. If large objects did collide a single supernovae would lead to a cascade of failed orbits.

    The Oort cloud model is arbitrary and not valid at all. What really happens is planets, moons and stars can explode at any stage of their development. The orbit of two or more large objects is energy positive, contrary to conservation law foolishness. What this means is that there is enough extra energy for comets to develop and clean up all the extra debris. With this recycling of planets comes the recycling of microbial life. Evolution isn’t a single planet young-universe phenomenon. The idea of a young universe only 14 billion years old is risible and is not something that ever came out of the scientific method.

    The supernovae story is a valid point. But supernovae are just part of the exploded planet phenomenon and not anything to do with the near crazy doctrine of “the main sequence” of stars. So while he’s right about the near extinction events, his entire point of view is based on bad mainstream science.


  8. These guys have the right idea about creating extra habitat on a macro level. They are sinking old ships, in order to create extra habitat in the ocean. But there ought to be more thought to how we could be creating more safe havens and micro-scopic fuckpads for the little stuff. So for example on land the mixing of biochar with soil has been practiced by ancient peoples in South America, and the resultant micro fuckpads lead to greater soil productivity for centuries after.

    A good start and cheap. But we can improve this act. What we want to aim for is the reconstruction of a situation where the oceans are bursting with plentiful cod and other species. Big fish there for the taking.

    There is a big problem with modern fishing methods. Fish ought to be sorted and thrown back for breeding purposes. In some species, depending on their specific life-cycle; females, and the larger more robust males, ought to be thrown back. Modern trawling equipment, when fishing for cod, often brings the cod up from the deep so quickly that all the fish are killed by decompression. Look fellas, free enterprise and all that. But if you have a system where fish are sorted, and half of them thrown-back with breeding in mind, and we combine this with a system of artificial reefs …. we can have the ocean so chockas with fish that we have more fish to eat than 1000 years of universal feasting could ever put an end too. I need to talk about communist fish hatchery schemes as well. More about this later.

    Just imagine if aliens were harvesting us in the same way. Grabbing us in groups but throwing back the high IQ guys and the women? Would we now be short of people on the planet? Of course not. The aliens would never run out of lower IQ men to eat. There would be also certain cultural improvements the surviving men could take advantage of.


  9. There is this terrible bias in favour of throwing back small fish. But supposing the aliens kept throwing back the small male humans? We would now be a race of pygmies. Throwing back juvenile fish is one thing. But SMALL FISH? No we have to do better than that. Onboard sorting technology ought to be able to tell the difference between juvenile and small males. We want to eat the small males and throw good breeding stock back. In the 19th century fish catches had fish of more species and they were bigger. Even on these fishing shows, and in local regulations we have this terrible habit of throwing the little ones back. But when you are breeding pigs you keep the bigger ones, put a ring in their nose so they don’t eat the children, and they get to be aged sex-addicts. We all have yearnings and aspirations.

    Its not just a matter of the total volume of fishing.

    In earlier centuries the haul of the fishermen would have been a collection of fish larger than today, and more diverse than today. We want to reverse this tendency to create pygmy fishing populations.

    We can do so much better that it just boggles the mind at how full the seas could be with fish. And it wouldn’t take all that long. Just to give you an idea of the potential fecundity of fish:

    “A female cod will lay up to 500 000 eggs per kg of her own weight. Consequently, a 3 year-old female of half a kg can produce 250000 eggs; an 8 year-old female of 5 kg can produce 2.5 million eggs per year. A cod can live to over 25 years of age and weigh over 90 kg. Although the fecundity decreases at large weights, a heavy female will still produce an impressive number of eggs. A record 9 million eggs was found in a 34 kg female. Virtually all of these eggs, and subsequent larvae, will die during the first 3 months of their life. In theory, only 2 eggs need to survive to maturity if the number of fishes in the sea should remain constant.”

    Getting the picture here? It took five hundred years to fuck things up for our fisheries. Most of the damage done since World War II in every likelihood. We can bring it all back in less than 100 years. But we need to pull the fish up onboard alive somehow. And we need fast sorting technology, to throw most females and big healthy breeding stock back. We have to overcome the foolishness of throwing the runts back, and feeling virtuous about it.


  10. Okay so throwing the little ones back may be a fine rule of thumb for the casual fisher. But the commercial guys ought to do better. Once most businesses have been converted to the sole trader model, then the zero interest loan with conditions, is the best mode for industry reform. Unlike subsidies, the zero interest loan is not an offensive intervention into price allocation, if you have a situation where you can stop the funds being used for the seeking of easy capital gains. This would take regulation, enforcement and surveillance in an inflationary environment. Under hard money and phasing towards the taxation of economic rent, then it would require only the lightest of touches. The situation would basically enforce itself.

    If we get policy right fish will jump willingly into the humble mans boat. I don’t think thats too much to ask.

    His good lady will still have to cook the fish, which is a bit of a hassle. Its a bit of a put-upon that you cannot simply hold out your plate, and the fish jump onto that plate, already fully cooked, using coconut oil, butter or the finest olive oil. Or perhaps simply baked in a slow-cooker, covered in spices, and surrounded by baking paper to maintain the integrity of the fish oils and contain that oil. However this vision goes beyond the scope of frugal communist projects as I would envisage them. Yet we can have fish jumping onto our boats. Blood Oath we can. Having the oceans and rivers chockas with fish …. this is not too much to ask. Lets get started now.

    Even in the case of the more small-time fisherman, you could have an on-shore sorting facility. If you can keep all the fish alive to take to this centre, then its a matter of paying a sorting fee, the fish deemed good breeding stock are then reclaimed and sent back to sea. The fisherman gets to keep the rest. Not the libertarian model I know. But the idea is to have the sea teeming with fish. Almost jumping into the boat of hungry families everywhere.


  11. The potential to have the oceans teeming with fish in a fairly short period of time is awesome. From the point of view of the commercial fisherman, Cod stocks didn’t fall off a cliff until 1992. Underlying problems probably didn’t start until a few decades prior to that. So we might say that we had a resource that just kept giving for the 500 years up until …. lets say 1950.

    “They sought counsel from a British Royal Commission on trawling, of which Thomas Henry Huxley–an evolutionary biologist famous for determinedly defending Darwinian dogma–was a leading member.

    Huxley advised the fishermen to continue fishing wantonly, citing their complaints as “unscientific.” At an 1883 National Fisheries Exhibition, Huxley delivered an address in which he stated, “Any tendency to over-fishing will meet with its natural check….This check will always come into operation long before anything like permanent exhaustion has occurred.”4 Huxley reasoned that only the weak cod would get caught, and the “stronger” ones left would continue to evolve.”

    Fishing in a better tomorrow: As easy and righteous as fishing in the afterlife

    Seems a bit nutty sure. Behind any grave Evil you will find a Jew, an Englishman, a banker, or a Huxley. But in this case Huxley wasn’t envisioning modern mechanised trawler fishing. In that 500 years, up until perhaps around 1950, we did probably hurt the cod population, but mostly only in terms of reducing their average size. Since we weren’t really screwing their habitat, their breeding capacity was up to coping with our fishing capacity. Other than reducing their size, by this bad habit of throwing back the little ones, things were pretty damn awesome in the pre-war era. But what about 1992? How could things have fallen off a Cliff so badly in this one specific year? To find a potential answer you need to go to the specific lifestyle of the fish itself.

    Without pretensions to knowledge of what really happened, think of a two-fish model.

    Spratts and Cod. When the Cod is little the Spratts eat them. When the Cod gets big, they eat the Spratts. So the older Cod need to keep the Spratt population in check, to stop the Spratts from cleaning up all the little ones. Huxley was probably not working off the logic of the dual predator relationship. He was probably thinking that if we catch a lot of Cod, the fish they eat will become more abundant, then the remaining Cod can breed with unrestrained food availability. Sounds pretty logical. But when the whole life-cycle is taken into account you could see how a vicious cycle could develop.

    There is talk of a Cod bounce-back just in the last couple of years. But we want to do better in the future. When they put the ban on Cod back in the day, the trawlers would come in and pull everything up from the bottom and all the fish were killed by decompression. Then they were thrown back dead. So we need much better technology then that. Forcing new technology on the fishermen, that perhaps does lead to less efficient catching but that allows discrimination in breeding stock return, is the way to go.

    Back when I put my name up for the Dobell election, I was very keen on aquaculture. I don’t like it in every last case anymore. Sure it has a role. But I think enlightened hunter-gathering, coupled with communist habitat building is the better model, for the bulk of the industry, at least in the very long run. (There is a third leg to this tripod that I will get into a bit later.)

    But with conversion to the sole trader economy, and the zero interest loan being the main change agent, there would be a lot of opportunity for some fish farmers to move across to enlightened hunter-gathering.

    But with the move to enlightened hunter-gathering we need to be able to say …. “Hey look this Cod isn’t handling things at all well right now. We have to look at focusing on fishing mostly Spratts for the next five years…”

    We need to be able to bring every fish up alive …. we need the fish to be sorted at sea and the better breeding stock thrown back. Which means, at least in some species, and at some time periods, most of the females get thrown back, some juvenile males, large for their age (high tech sorting needed), and some bigger breeding males. Now that means a great amount of investment needs to be made. But the result would be a sort of fishing Nirvana. It would be akin to the kind of fishing we do in the afterlife.


  12. The sinking of these old ships to form artificial reefs is a cheap set-and-forget policy. We want these low-cost low-maintenance arrangements. It may be thought that the fact that the sea is, in most places, too deep for these artificial reefs to be powerfully useful, is an inhibiting factor to establishing unsurmountable fish abundance. But this is not the case, since with the right ballast in principle you can sink an artificial reef to the depth of your choosing. Of course we must not let such projects in any way inhibit the circulation of the great ocean conveyor.

    The possibility of creating all these floating artificial reefs ….. fairly deep but still in the photic zone … has national defence implications. We want our submariners to know every nook and cranny of the territory they need to defend. We don’t want them hanging out in the middle of the ocean, naked and an easy target. Submarines of all sizes need artificial reefs to hide behind. Adjusting the ballast of these floating artificial reefs every few decades, is a chore for our navy boys, and merely part of them learning their territory and becoming unbeatable within it.


  13. Fish caught and then processed on the same boat. Mixed emotions at the excellence of this. But if fish can be processed on board, they can be scientifically sorted for breeding worthiness on board as well. It just needs more investment to get that extra stage in the game happening. The video hopeful and horrifying in equal measure. Actually the Antarctic could still handle a lot more of this type of thing, without great damage, for some time to come. Fish still plentiful in the deep south. At least thats my understanding, which could be dated.

    One may imagine that the situation is worthy only of despair. But one thing that the nasty global cooling that will hit very hard in the 2030’s will bring is the potential for a very strong bounce-back in fish stocks. Colder water holds more oxygen. And the cold water of the middle of the 21st century can lead to plentiful fish if our policies are enlightened.

    In a better tomorrow, and that may be centuries from now, these big factory ships could be hauling in catch after catch, and be unable to make a dent in the oceanic fecundity.


  14. Of course the closer is the number of fish egg production to the number of fish sperm production, then less is the benefit of eating the runty males and throwing the others back. So the specifics of the fish itself are very important, and policy cannot be made apriori.


  15. Good looking girl. But like the Picture Of Dorian Grey the evil that is inside her must one day be manifested visually

    For she was destined to become the Wicked Witch of the West.

    Ugly evil wrecking ball. Notorious RBG. Party people in the crib get hyped.


  16. Societal collapse is all about the sudden loss of complexity. So part of the project of engineering a progressing economy is to reduce complexity in some areas, even as complexity has to grow in others. Conscious effort must be made to simplify money, banking and finance. To localise and simplify maybe 50% of agriculture. To simplify government and so forth. Its manufacturing where we need a lot more complexity. The complexity GROWS in the other areas, but is NOT NEEDED in the other areas. Complexity must be scaled back in the other areas. Complexity, running out of control, is a grave threat to our societal resilience.

    Its not just about shoring ourselves up in time for the next perfect storm of disasters though. With complexity in government, finance, money and banking …. and much of general business, comes parasitism and bullshit jobs. With the growth in complexity of agriculture comes food that is full of toxins and absent nutrition. There is however no getting around complexity in manufacturing. That has to be global, and with long structures of production. We can pick ourselves up off the ground and get manufacturing going again, so long as we don’t have unnecessary complexity in these other areas.


  17. Think of what a ghastly threat it is: this insistence of Jews and quislings that our money supply be mostly fresh air? Think of what a threat that is to us. That means under attack all our money will disappear. We will be thrown into immediate incapacity to act. No capacity to produce anything. Buy anything. Organise for the local defence. That can only be done with a medium of exchange in proper balance with the economy. So people who advocate fiduciary media and fractional reserve are traitors. The money supply MUST EQUAL the monetary base for national defence purposes. This is not an optional matter. Not only that but the majority of the money supply has to be cash balances in the hands of the people. Which means silver, and not gold is the money that has to be promoted. We need that silver in the hand to prevail under conditions of disaster.

    This should be what it looks like, for poor people, as they sit on their balcony, in outrageously spacious apartments in small towns.

    All the tall buildings should be built with invasion and natural disaster in mind. They ought to be surrounded by permaculture farms on every side.

    Now my idea of the layout of cities is that the small towns become high-rise, and wind up surrounded by small permaculture farms. Consider what complexity in city-scapes and in agriculture means if we are either subject to a massive natural disaster or under full-scale invasion attempts. That is chaos. All that really bad food that we have no capacity to get hold of when we are trying to protect our kids. Yes we still need imports and exports of food. But unless the high-rise is surrounded on all sides by permaculture then the efforts to get hold of terrific food, while we deal with a crisis, will distract from our dealing with our crisis and obviously so. So really the things I talk about here are only prudence and common sense.


  18. With the prospect of having so many floating artificial reefs out there we also have the capacity to have 9-man midget submarines as a big part of our defence. When you teach a kid to swim really quantity of time in the water is the most important thing at first. Its a whole different world in the water. I had a swimming school but I was skeptical of how much we could achieve with the little ones, unless the parents were finding the time to take the kids to play in the water the rest of the week.

    By analogy its not the best idea to put these 18 year olds in a nine man submarine and right away expect to start teaching them the finer points of destroying the Jew navy where it sits and bombing Dimona. The capacity to destroy the Israeli navy is a key strategic issue, since the decision-making oligarchs in places like “The City Of London” don’t want us to do that. Also smuggling in small hit teams into countries to knock over Jewish billionaires is a key strategic move. This can only be done these days with midget submarines. But to me its a failing effort to try and teach teenagers to perform these acts from scratch. Thats a bridge too far. First they need years working in this foreign environment, coping in this other-wordly gloom, becoming agile on this planet that we never knew. Plus the naval bureaucracy needs a lot of learning, in keeping a huge number of these teams co-ordinating well as one unit, as clans, or alone. There is a lot of problems to work through on that score. Thats years of effort and its not something that can be hurried. Which gives us the capacity to produce an insurmountable lead in the field.

    Our submariners are exposed in open ocean and this is not good enough.

    We want a full-featured ocean, and our lads need to know it like the back of their hands.

    So the solution is to start a lot of these kids operating communist fish hatcheries in these floating artificial reefs. Bring the whole thing full circle. Turn out these midget submarines like the Japs turn out cars. Lets have two hundred miles of an ocean just full chockas with fish. Makes our guys hard to catch as they hide behind all those fish and those floating artificial reefs. Right now they are fully exposed in open sea and thats not in keeping with our secondary mission of sending all our boys home to Momma.

    Gold coin showers are fine for Australians.

    When silver coins are hard to come by.

    Ultimately no Israeli or Jew billionaire ought to be able to delude himself that he can hurt the sovereignty of Australia, and we are not coming after him, and with impunity. But this training leads to overseas export opportunities. Our own silk road project in a way. Since our navy can learn everyones coasts, better than they know their own coasts, while these countries pay our guys, to seed their oceans with abundant fish. Its my goal to have your average Australian rolling around in silver coins just for the fun of it.


  19. God created men but Sam Colt made them equal. On the international level submarines are not tapped out as a leveller.

    We need Australians to be unrivalled masters of the submarine world and the only way to do this is at a profit in some overall sense.

    “The concept of Submarine Freight Transportation System (SFTS) was suggested in 1997 by Vladimir Postnikov. Present time this system is considered as a sea subsystem of Global Intelligent Transportation System.”

    We got to get right on top of this system as a matter of national defence. We have to be able to break blockades. Actually there is the potential for submarine cargo transport systems to be more fuel-efficient even than surface container shipping. Sure it may take three centuries for the one to become more cost-effective than the other. But the thing is that drag in the water goes to the square of velocity. But surface tension goes roughly to the cube. Its possible to make submarines fantastically streamlined like the great fat pin-headed seal. But you can only go so far in that direction with a surface vessel. Dirigibles and submarine cargo are a nice mix as well. Plus you don’t have to worry about submarines sinking when they already have.


  20. I have this intuition that the bigger whales actually need deep ocean sea pressure to stop them getting a kind of temporary Alzheimer’s disease. I think if the really big ones are up at the surface too long, that they lack the compression necessary, to force enough oxygen to their brain. In this way of thinking, when they get lost in shallow water they get incredibly stupid and thats why they cannot seem to help themselves and wind up beached. Don’t know if this has been proven but thats what I am getting. Plus if their eyesight isn’t great, but their sound navigation is fantastic, like Daredevil really, these shallow waters would become pretty confusing. Might be weird to imagine that any creature would need to hold its breath and dive deeply just to be able to think clearly. But thats the position I’m taking with it.

    The best streamlining I’ve every seen would be that of the Weddell Seal. You get one of those really fat females, to look at their ludicrous fatness you would think the water would stop them dead. But the water seems to hold such tiny resistance to them. I cannot find one fat enough, and swimming fast enough, to show-case this principle.

    How this applies to submarine cargo is that you would need to be able to detach the fatter middle sections which would be cargo holds, and then immediately re-assemble as a smaller, slimmer submarine. I have seen an animation of this concept but cannot find it again. Extremely difficult technical obstacles to overcome. Communist projects need to be started early on a TINY budget, and must be pursued over many decades to be cost-effective. You try and rush these things, or increase the cash allowance before all aspects of the team are in place, you will just end up with one debacle after another.


  21. Surprising economics of slavery. This is stunning news. More later. Like nothing you have ever heard before and a bit sad because of the implications of lost opportunities.

    Charles Murray talking about how African men test a lot lower in IQ tests than most other populations. But there is a bit of evidence around that this IQ business is not telling us the whole story, that the difference may be a bit exaggerated. But I think its a real phenomenon. I don’t think people are being necessarily racist to point it out though I think a bit too much is made of it. Now Charles from memory said something like ….. if you see a white guy with an IQ of 75(?) (cannot remember the real figure) you will see that there is something wrong with his face. He has social skills problems. Whereas the black fellow with that IQ is unlikely to have these social skill problems and his face looks fine and healthy and happy. Now you cannot quote me on any of this, because it represents only my feeble memory of something I was watching ten years ago.

    My experience is that at the other end of the bell curve something similar may be going on. Not every IQ tested individual at 150 is the same. And one supposes that if you have an African or African-American man tested at that level, he would be quite the extraordinary fellow. Ali I think tested sometimes just average and sometimes only a bit above. But Norman Mailer considered him a true genies. He mentioned him in the same breath as Charlie Chaplin and Norman Knew Chaplin and considered him a genius also. So I get the feeling that not all IQ’s are the same. That an African IQ of 130, though it may be exceedingly rare, is likely to be held by an individual who is an exceptional renaissance man, whereas the white guy with an IQ of 130 may be some try-hard library lizard who cannot get the girl and probably ought to get a job subsidy to place him in computer coding jobs, since he may not be able to do anything else, unless he has a chess hobby.

    Did Carl Sagan have a higher IQ than Degrasse-Tyson? Sagan certainly had people under his sway from a Charisma point of view. His science was completely useless.

    Lets bale out of this line of enquiry and go into an extraordinary understanding of the Southern States. According to this version, Mississippi was the richest per capita state of the union, at the outbreak of the war of Northern Aggression. In this story the South was FAR RICHER than the North per capita. Just extraordinary. This is of course the non-slave population. But this fellow is saying that even if you bring the slaves into it, the Southern States were STILL richer than the Northern States per capita ….

    More later.


  22. Damnation. Got triggered by this low IQ type over at Professor Quiggins place. Lost my temper and made a complete cunt of myself. Now Professor Quiggin basically has to ban me forever and block me. Last two Monday message boards. Check it because it will be wiped in short order.

    Hugo says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 3:20 PM
    Monday’s Four Corners re glyphosate was an absolute Barry Crocker. It was every bit as shoddy as Maryanne Demasi’s Catalyst stories on Wi Fi and statins from a few years back.

    Ian Musgrave, lecturer in pharmacology at the University of Adelaide has an article at “The Conversation” that tries to calm the nervous Nellies. **** theconversation.com/stop-worrying-and-trust-the-evidence-its-very-unlikely-roundup-causes-cancer-104554

    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 5:16 PM
    A complete nonsense article. For starters Musgrave ought not be thinking about cancer, but general health and all causes mortality. Secondly he’s not looking at the body of the studies but he is reviewing the happy talk in the conclusions of meta-studies. This has some ways to go as an example of anyone “following the science.” Incredibly stupid idea that people have; that you lazily look through the summary and gauge the sentiment of the way its worded, rather than the science in the body of the study.

    If you want to find someone talking more seriously about glyphosate, then Musgrave appears capable of, try Stephanie Seneff.

    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 5:33 PM
    Its possible to bring down anyones cancer risk by tossing them off a very high mountain. If glyphosate is really really bad for you it could kill you before you have a chance to get cancer. This is why only some measure of general health, or all causes mortality, can ever make sense when you are considering the effects of a pesticide or a vaccine. So for example where vaccines are concerned, you will struggle to find any study ever that shows a vaccine to reduce all causes mortality. But you will find studies that show the whooping cough vaccine reduces the susceptibility to whooping cough. Whether the kid lives long enough to get whooping cough is not factored into the study. And for the most part the people making money off these things, are pretty happy if they can show that their concoction creates the right antibodies. An outcome at least two steps away from the idea of improving general health and reducing all causes mortality.

    harryrclarke says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 6:13 PM
    I thought this AFR article on Glencore is worthy of attention. Why should free trade in capital be encouraged when foreign firms value local assets more highly simply because they avoid taxes using creative capital management practices and transfer pricing? Note a couple of facts in the article:

    Glencore have transferred $20b in assets out of the Australian tax net.

    Their $3b purchase of MIM assets years back was fully paid for with profits in 2 years.


    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 9:25 PM
    I think that free trade in “capital” (a new level of ponzi-money, sitting above that which is generated internally) is de-stablizing. It subverts normal balancing mechanisms between countries. Leading to chronic trade deficits in some countries, that can go on for decades and hollow an economy out. I think that a lot of these so-called free trade agreements are a bait and switch, smuggling in various numbers rackets under the banner of free trade. Free trade in “capital” lacks the Riccardian justification of free trade in manufactures. Think how amazingly functional our savings banks were in the sixties. Savings generated locally were lent to local businesses. Fantastic. Kept the economy in balance and the jobs in the small towns. The economy in better balance when the savings are recycled, for the most part, in the geographical area, where they are generated. The kids don’t realise how magnificent our banking was circa 1950-1970. Almost idyllic in my view.

    J-D says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 11:18 PM
    This is why only some measure of general health, or all causes mortality, can ever make sense when you are considering the effects of a pesticide or a vaccine. So for example where vaccines are concerned, you will struggle to find any study ever that shows a vaccine to reduce all causes mortality.
    Wrong. I didn’t struggle. I found one easily. I expect I could find more with little additional effort.

    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 10, 2018 AT 10:54 AM
    No you are talking nonsense as usual. You don’t have the data. You are lying. I am not wrong about anything. Are you a Jew?

    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 10, 2018 AT 10:58 AM
    Its just complete rubbish the whole lot of it. You were suckered by the sentiment of the wording. What do we have there? A complete confusion of aggregation. Bayesian voodoo. Where is the unvaccinated population? Where is the unvaccinated control group as opposed to a single vaccine? Don’t tell me I’m wrong when its just you being an idiot. What am I wrong about you low-IQ degenerate? Explain it to me in your own words. And next time you read a scientific study try not to get excited by a word or two.

    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 10, 2018 AT 11:06 AM
    Lets go over it again you jerk. I told you you could not find even one. You didn’t find one, you cannot find one with a little bit of effort. You cannot find one with a lot of effort. You cannot find a person to find one for you, even if you pay them a great deal of money. Now do we have that clear?

    Spend all of next week if you like. You are not going to find one. Stop provoking people by claiming they are wrong when its just you being mentally deficient and jumping to conclusions. Where is your control group? Where is your comparison with a like group of kids that got one vaccine wherein another group, didn’t get that vaccine. I asked you one time to attempt not to be an idiot. I don’t expect to have to ask you a third time.

    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 9:43 AM
    Professor Quiggin once suggested that we ought to prioritise submarines as part of our defence. I have gone back and forth on this idea myself and I know our submarine projects have had a lot of bad press. But its looking like a fine idea. The submarine is looking like the best leveller when it comes to dealing with stronger powers.

    I think its a matter of persistence over many decades to make sure our lads are superior anywhere close to the continent. Its not something we can rush, which means competing with us is not anything else a competitor could rush. I think the idea goes well with another idea; to have a communist undertaking to produce lots of artificial reefs, floating and otherwise, for the purpose of providing habitat to stimulate abundant sea life. I would start the teen submariners off, helping set up these artificial reefs, and even working on public goods fish hatcheries. This ought to be communist. Its too costly to try and get back the benefits of a fish hatchery directly.

    I say start the kids off on these easier tasks, because its a different world down there, an undiscovered planet. Prior to being trained how to take out other peoples navies, inhibit their trade without casualties, launch special operations onto any coast on the planet, and other extremely delicate missions, I think they just need to be supreme masters of the territory, and of oceanic dexterity.

    Our submariners are exposed in open sea. You want a more featured and abundant ocean territory. Give the lads more things to hide behind. Plus we want extreme fish abundance. Fishing is not best achieved under the capitalist model. Enlightened hunter-gathering combined with communist seeding is the best model for fishing in my view. Not every last inch of the earth needs to be under the capitalist model. A lot of it yes. But not all of it.

    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 9:55 AM
    Hugo one small thing. Yes it does look like a lynching for sure. And you may not be a fan of backward speech analysis. But the backward speech analysis is suggesting that this really did happen to Christine Ford when she was 15, and that she was quite traumatised about it. The same analysis shows that the Judge cannot remember the incident but his protestations are not honest. Now this is back in 1981. In a situation where he was blind drunk. But we don’t want to think this woman at least is lying and that she was not affected in a serious way. The other thing is that there is some talk that this fellow helped out in writing the patriot act. Not the most patriotic thing to be doing if true.

    I go for a hard right interpretation of constitutional law. I think the leftist side of constitutional interpretation is pure usurpation. So I suppose I’m taking the mirror image position to you. I would be more inclined to this fellows interpretation the Ginsburg lady, who just makes it all up as she goes along. But on the other hand this fellow …. a little bit dicey. Not someone who ought to be persecuted. But kind of questionable.

    Tim Macknay says:
    OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 1:18 PM

    Could you be a bit more specific about the “behaviour of the feminists” you’re referring to? I’ve read a bunch of stuff about Kavanaugh online, including some articles about him on The Guardian, which are opposed to his appointment to the Supreme Court bench. But I haven’t read anything that I’d characterise as even remotely like a “lynch mob”, so I’m a bit unsure what you’re referring to.

    J-D says:
    OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 1:19 PM
    Is anyone else uneasy about the left wing and feminist lynch mob’s behaviour towards SCOTUS nominee, Brett Kavanaugh?
    I have not heard or read about any behaviour by opponents of the nomination that makes me uneasy, but maybe you have heard or read about some other behaviour that I haven’t? Perhaps you could explain which behaviour you’re referring to and why it makes you uneasy. Or perhaps you don’t care to make yourself clear; of course you’re not obliged to.

    Yes it does look like a lynching for sure.
    In a lynching, somebody is killed. In this case, nobody has been killed. So it doesn’t seem like a lynching to me.

    John Quiggin says:
    OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 3:56 PM
    As regards the recent hoax, there’s plenty of discussion at crookedtimber.org. IMO, this is a pretty low-grade hoax, comparable to the Windschuttle Quadrant effort a few years back. It’s been all downhill since Ern Malley in the world of hoaxing.


    A minor point of amusement is that lots of people appear to have taken the hoaxers at their word, when they describe what they did. Doesn’t it occur to these people that they might also be having their legs pulled?

    rog says:
    OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 4:14 PM
    If you are going to use feminists as a pejorative or as an argument then I think you have lost the argument.

    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 4:58 PM
    Nothing more from you on this topic, please. If you decide to comment further on other topics, please read the comments policy and avoid personal attacks – JQ

    Hugo says:
    OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 10:17 PM
    @ Tim Macknay

    If you search “Brett Kavanaugh” at The Guardian site you get 233 results. As far as I can tell, most of these represent an article. I see plenty of statements like this re the confirmation hearings:

    “Ford composed, human and brittle; Kavanaugh snarling, rude and unravelling. This was the bad guy, the images screamed, and he wasn’t even trying to hide it. But with every new revelation, with every apparent lie Kavanaugh told during his testimony …”


    In order to see any criticism of Ford, I had to leave the left wing reservation and enter the right wing parallel universe. If I hadn’t first left the reservation, I wouldn’t know that some of Fords statements have been disproved and that there are some prima facie reasons to doubt her testimony just as there is with Kavanaugh’s testimony.

    I have no idea who is telling the truth and neither does anyone else apart from them. If I took The Guardian with more than a grain of salt on gender issues, I would “know” Kavanaugh is guilty. To hell with the need for a trial.

    J-D says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 6:50 AM
    Hugo, if you found some people criticising Kavanaugh and some people criticising Ford, why is it that you mentioned being uneasy about the way Kavanaugh was being treated but didn’t mention being uneasy about the way Ford was being treated?

    I don’t find the fact that a person is being criticised sufficient to make me uneasy.

    Hugo says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 1:54 PM
    @J-D: “Hugo, if you found some people criticising Kavanaugh and some people criticising Ford … “

    You are being disingenuous. I found the Left behaving like the Right. I expect better from my side.

    J-D says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 11:03 PM
    If I observe people on the left publicly advocating for their favoured causes, I do not feel myself uneasy because publicly advocating for their favoured causes is something that people on the right also do. If I observe people on the left soliciting donations, I do not feel myself uneasy because soliciting donations is something that people on the right also do. If I observe people on the left organising and mobilising support, I do not feel myself uneasy because organising and mobilising support is something that people on the right also do. So, if I observe people on the left publicly criticising Brett Kavanaugh, I do not feel myself uneasy because publicly criticising people is something that people on the right also do.

    Hugo says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 11:32 PM
    “If I observe people on the left organising and mobilising support, I do not feel myself uneasy because organising and mobilising support is something that people on the right also do. So, if I observe people on the left publicly criticising Brett Kavanaugh, I do not feel myself uneasy because publicly criticising people is something that people on the right also do. ”

    Fabulous. That makes two of us.

    Hugo says:
    OCTOBER 9, 2018 AT 11:34 PM
    Oh wait, I just spoke to Captain Obvious and he also agrees. So that makes three of us.

    J-D says:
    OCTOBER 10, 2018 AT 8:48 AM
    If people criticising Brett Kavanaugh is not the behaviour which has made you uneasy, then what is the behaviour which has made you uneasy?

    Visigothkhan. says:
    OCTOBER 10, 2018 AT 10:51 AM
    Basically this is a story about Jews persecuting a Catholic. The Jews already have three of their people as Supreme Court Judges. That is not enough for them. Hugo was wimping out by describing the persecutors as feminists. When we see a witch-hunt, and even one with a scintilla of truth behind it, we need to look at this ethnic component of abusers affecting to be the abused.


      1. I am about to give you a field of study that could get you a mobile phone prize, if not a Nobel prize. Putting together a mathematically elegant model for human capital reinvestment under slavery norms. I have the goods here.


  23. Nick Gruen appears to be weathering well on the intellectual front. I could not tolerate this fellow a dozen years ago. A real dummy I thought back then. I still think that as well. Over-promoted Jew.

    But NIck sounds kind of intelligent after all this time. His 60’s may be a good decade for him.

    Of course I’m going to disagree on everything he says. Except about Australia and slavery.


  24. Excellent article by another late bloomer Professor John Quiggin


    He just banned me and wiped my more offensive posts. But he was a better sport then the Jew Sinclair since he left some of my better posts intact. Bravo.

    “Why has Australia done so badly? The reform process in Australia has treated markets and competition as goals in themselves, rather than as policy instruments designed to produce useful price signals and thereby guide investment and consumption decisions.

    The failure to consider the appropriate role of prices can be seen at every stage in the process, from generation to retail.”

    You could not improve on that could you? Its perfect. Professor Quiggin taking his science much more seriously these days. Its a short article but its all good. Perfect. And he’s a big believer in price allocation now. People used to laugh at me at Catallaxy when I was talking about clear rules for tunnelling under houses and public buildings. But how the hell else could a competitive “public goods” market be pursued? So what was the ridicule about? If you cannot establish clear property rights for trans-spatial goods, then you must run a communist grid. There is no getting around that and we cannot be half and half about it. So Quiggin of course is completely correct. The Grid must be communist. Then we make other actors work on a capitalist basis so we get something resembling market investment and price allocation.

    It fucking baffles me that this was ever controversial.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s