Posted by: graemebird | May 16, 2009

The “No-Regimes-To-See-Here” Cult. An Historical Review/Explanation For Fermi’s Paradox?

From YouTube.

Weak. Feeble. And in no way evidence for the “no-regimes-to-see-here” doctrine or the “planes-alone” conspiracy theory. You are going to have to come up with some evidence for your own paradigm.

When Lockerbie happened the “no-regimes-to-see-here” doctrine was far weaker, and it was understood that terrorist attacks were to be linked with regimes in most cases. Lockerbie was 1988. But in 1993 when the world trade centres first massive bombing happened, The then President made a speech as though it were a natural disaster. And no attempt was made to find which regime was responsible. Clinton didn’t want anyone getting sweaty palms about Iraq.

The rest of the 1990’s was from there on in, the case where the various bureaucracies, initially having been under Clinton’s influence, were set on a path of reinforcing this mistaken bias. So planes crashed in many places and a building was destroyed in Oklahoma, and no attempt was made to link these destructive events with regimes. Naturally this dysfunction amounts to encouragement for the regimes to plan greater atrocities. And this attitude would be an encouragement whether the regimes were involved in these attacks or not. The encouragement would still be there, pursuant to the demonstration of this attitude, even if it were the case that the incidents I’m talking about were all accidents and acts of lone nutters.

The climax in craziness came when all manner of attacks were going on against American manifestations abroad, like the embassy bombings. And the Clinton administration insisted on blaming the whole thing on a mysterious Saudi billionaire. Thus solidifying the Dr Moriati view of terrorism. Of course Osama was willing to take responsibility. And thats why terrorist outfits get the big bucks. They are meant to take responsibility for the regimes involved. So this ought not have fooled anyone. Since regime leadership knows that it could well be blamed, nothing that Osama did could logically go ahead without the approval of the major terrorist regimes.

The major terrorist regimes that I’m speaking of, that Osama would need to have advised, would have been at the very least Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Since to defy any of these 3 countries was to cut off a source of funding, as well as to risk you, or people in your outfit, being tortured to death.

If those of you who ought to have known better didn’t want to drive people nutty with conspiracy theory, then you ought not have encouraged this Dr Moriati view of things. Or the no-regimes-to-see-here anti-history. A little bit more more understanding of the conspiracy theorist is in order. They know something is wrong. But like that whacko that Mel Gibson played in that movie, they don’t necessarily know what it is. They are sensitive to the reality of things not making sense. So it isn’t any wonder that many of them have started blaming other Americans for what looks to be to them an inside job. I don’t think its an inside job. I don’t think Americans can keep an inside job, or a blowside-job secret. But we ought to find the truth no matter what.

In this particular case the conventional view is inappropriate. Since the conventional view prejudices an unlikely conspiracy theory as if it ISN’T a conspiracy theory. This conventional view is also a spinoff of the no-regimes-to-see-here ideology. The conventional view is more unacceptable then that. Because it is a do-nothing view. Its a bury everything view. Its the view that all anomalies have been sorted and we must not, by any means, start snooping further.

So we have two dysfunctional sides of the debate. Both sides of the debate are dysfunctional and for similar reasons. But it is the conventional view that is more to blame. The conventional view is more to blame for several reasons.

1.They are unscientifically prejudicing one conspiracy theory.
2. The evidence sytematically runs against the planes-alone conspiracy theory.
3. The no-regimes-to-see-here bias or doctrine is extremely threatening. In fact it could contribute to the end of humane civilisation.

AN EXPLANATION FOR FERMI’S PARADOX?

Because with the growth in power of international organisations it will mean that powerful people in our own countries will be able to work through foreigners, and organs of foreign regimes, to kill or hurt any normal people who speak out.

I cannot over-emphasise the danger here. In fact this may be a substantial reason why we may not have found a great deal of evidence for other intelligent life in the galaxy. Once these powerful goons can work through EACHOTHERS organs of State then we are in serious trouble.

Already there are not unworthy suspicions that Clinton and/or Obama, might have kicked off this practice.

It is for this reason that arguing against finding the truth, arguing against vigilance, and arguing in favour of the no-regimes-to-see-here cult is one of the most dangerous tendencies ever to befall our species. It could be the end of a world worth living in.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Good post by Kates over at Catallaxy.

    http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/

    Slashing government spending does, a priori, increase employment. And certainly it increases private employment. This ought to be obvious once we are aware of the full scope of spending in the economy.

  2. Ron Paul quoted from back in 2003 predicting a crash.

  3. Which plane crashes specifically are you saying were attributed as accidents but were actually the result of terrorist attacks? Flight numbers and dates please.

  4. Well we don’t know do we. Because the people who were supposed to check out potential terrorist and regime action decided they did not want to do their job afterall. They cannot expect people to replace the professional efforts they ought to have fulfilled via a bedroom computer.

    If you refuse to look you will find nothing. So for example no effort was made to link the first World Trade Centre bombing and the Oklahoma city bombing to any foreign regime.

    The dysfunction went further than that. Because the CIA WOULD INDEED confess to Iraqi terrorist attacks. But only the ones in which they managed to foil the attack. This bullshitartistry gave the CIA a 100% success rate in stopping Iraqi terrorist action. Which is just ludicrous. Since terrorism is so easy to perpetrate the idea that you could stop 100% of Saddams attacks is just silly.

    So the pattern was if they could pretend that it wasn’t a terrorist attack then they would do that. But if they couldn’t do so they would blame the terrorist organisation and make it look like these people act alone.

  5. IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE I’M GOING TO HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF.

    Well we don’t know do we. Because the people who were supposed to check out potential terrorist and regime action decided they did not want to do their job afterall. They cannot expect people to replace the professional efforts they ought to have fulfilled via a bedroom computer.

    If you refuse to look you will find nothing. So for example no effort was made to link the first World Trade Centre bombing and the Oklahoma city bombing to any foreign regime.

    The dysfunction went further than that. Because the CIA WOULD INDEED confess to Iraqi terrorist attacks. But only the ones in which they managed to foil the attack. This bullshitartistry gave the CIA a 100% success rate in stopping Iraqi terrorist action. Which is just ludicrous. Since terrorism is so easy to perpetrate the idea that you could stop 100% of Saddams attacks is just silly.

    So the pattern was if they could pretend that it wasn’t a terrorist attack then they would do that. But if they couldn’t do so they would blame the terrorist organisation and make it look like these people act alone.

    DID YOU CATCH IT THIS TIME YOU FUCKWIT? ITS POINTLESS TO DISAGGREGATE IT DOWN TO ANY ONE INCIDENT. SINCE ANY ONE INCIDENT COULD INDEED BE SOME SORT OF ACCIDENT. THE PROBLEM COMES WHEN THE AUTHORITIES PRETEND THEY KNOW THINGS THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW. AND THEREFORE DON’T LOOK FOR ENEMY ACTION. AS IT STANDS THE CIA HAS A 100% HIT RATE FOR INTERCEPTING SADDAMS TERRORIST ATTACK ATTEMPTS. WHICH IS SILLY.

    THEY CAUGHT SADDAM WITH OPERATION DOGMEAT. WITH THE PLOT TO MURDER A FORMER PRESIDENT. WITH HIS PLANS TO ATTACK RADIO FREE AMERICA IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC. THEY NEVER LINK HIM IF THE ATTACK IS SUCCESSFULLY CARRIED OUT.

  6. HOW WOULD I KNOW? I’M NOT PAID TO INVESTIGATE. ITS WHEN PEOPLE PAID TO INVESTIGATE DO NOT DO SO THAT MATTERS BECOME SUSPICIOUS. YOU MENTIONED TWO FLIGHTS. ONE PRE-1993 WHERE THEY WANTED TO LINK A REGIME. ONE POST 1993 WHERE THEY DID NOT.

  7. THE CLINTON ERA WAS A TIME WHEN PLANES WERE DROPPING OUT OF THE SKY ALL THE TIME. IT MAY HAVE BEEN BETTER TO WALK:

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/brown.html

    HOW DID YOU ASCERTAIN THAT TWA FLIGHT 800 HAD COME DOWN VIA AN ELECTRICAL FAULT? YOUR LEFTIST SECOND SIGHT IS REALLY SOMETHING HEY?

    THE REAL POINT IS THAT I CANNOT REMEMBER DETAILS BACK THAT FAR AND AM NOT TAKING TIME OUT TO GO INTO THE DETAILS NOW. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS AN OFFICIAL STORY THAT YOU CAN PARROT FOR EACH OF THESE INCIDENTS. I’M JUST HAPPY THAT CLINTONS NOT THERE NOW AND THAT PLANES TEND TO STAY UP IN THE AIR. WHETHER OR NOT HE OR SADDAM WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOME OF THESE ITS JUST GOOD THAT THIS ERA IS NO LONGER HERE.

  8. I DON’T KNOW. AND I’M NOT CHECKING IT OUT. BUT YOU OUGHT TO CHECK THIS OUT:

  9. Can’t view it.

  10. Bullshit you cannot view it. Its working fine.

  11. I’M NOT LOOKING FOR THAT INFORMATION NOW. GO AWAY. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT FLIGHT TWA 800 CAME DOWN DUE TO AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM? PERHAPS THEY ALL DID. LOCKERBIE AS WELL. HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE THINGS?

  12. What is the evidence for this.

  13. I’LL ASK AGAIN. WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE ELECTRICAL FAULT BEING THE CAUSE OF THE PLANE FAILURE LEADING TO THE DEATH OF EVERYONE ON THE PLANE.
    THIS TIME GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE. DON’T TELL ME THAT THIS IS WHAT THE INVESTIGATORS CAME UP WITH.

  14. CAN YOU IN FUTURE NOT POST EVIDENCE IF YOU DON’T HAVE ANY? THE TRANSCRIPT TALKS ABOUT WORN WIRING AND ADMITS WORN WIRING IS A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE. IT DOES NOT EVEN CONSIDER ANY OTHER POTENTIAL CAUSE. THE ONLY THING THATS EVIDENCE FOR IS A “NOTHING TO SEE HERE BIAS” BUT SOMEHOW YOU KNOW IT WAS JUST AN ELECTRICAL FAULT FROM YOUR LEFTIST SECOND SIGHT. MARVELOUS HOW YOU DUMB-LEFTISTS KNOW EVERYTHING.

  15. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS OTHER STUFF DIDN’T HAPPEN AND THE ELECTRICAL FAULT DID?

  16. Adrien has linked one of the Catallaxy threads from some time ago. It shows people at Catallaxy simply incapable of comprehending defense issues or of discussing new topics without compulsive lying. Really quite extraordinary.

    http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=3432#comment-81200

    Tillman actually argues that we ought not respond to a future or nuclear intimidation on the grounds that nothing we can do can alter the prospect of this intimidation. As if it were like some inanimate lightning strike or something. He predicts that we won’t get hit. And therefore its not worth discussing the prospect of such intimidation. He simply cannot get his head around national defense issues. And this appears to be the case with all the taxeaters that responded to what I said at all.

  17. Extraordinary that thread is. Anger-provoking too. Why did Jason lie all the time. How did gilmae and Tillman manage to get that stupid. Incredible. How is it that they could be so inept at judging the prospect of space-based-laser and so in favour of leaving us vulnerable to ICBM’s?

    You can see why mass-sackings in the public sector is just so important.

  18. GO AWAY LUKE.

  19. I ASPIRE TO QUALITY. I’D WANT A RIGHTEOUS AND COMMITTED VOTE RATHER THAN WORRY ABOUT THE NUMBERS AT THIS STAGE. AFTER ALL I DIDN’T CAMPAIGN THAT TIME AROUND. AND MAY NOT CAMPAIGN SERIOUSLY NEXT TIME EITHER.

    WE WANT MEN AND WOMEN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND FEELING VOTING FOR US. NOT THE HOI POLOI. WHEN THE COMMON RUN OF FELLOWS HAS DECIDED THAT THERE IS NO OPTION LEFT BUT TO FALL BACK ON PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS THEN WE CAN BE CONFIDENT UPON HAVING THEIR VOTE.

    ONE HOPES THAT THEY DON’T WAIT UNTIL THE GREATEST ISLAND IS ON THE VERGE OF BEING OCCUPIED. THATS A HASSLE THAT I’LL PREPARE FOR BUT WILL NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT IF IT COMES.

  20. Kill yourself Luke. Your life has been a lie.

  21. ARE YOU TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT AWAY FROM LUKE…… TILLMAN?

    STUPID CUNTS ALL OF YOU AND IT DOES NO GOOD TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN MINDLESS PARASITES.

  22. Tell us what you know about the SS27.

  23. A wasted investment against space-based defense.

  24. “The SS-27 is currently portrayed by Russian accounts as being immune to any ABM defense the United States can put into being. The missile is capable of making evasive maneuvers as it approaches its target, enabling it to evade any terminal phase interceptors. It almost certainly also carries countermeasures and decoys to decrease the chances of a successful targeting.”

    Big fucking deal. Let them waste all their money so long as we get the space-based missile defense so we can laugh at these stupid pretentious slavic cunt cunts.

    Why do you think I was pushing space-based defense in the first place Tillman you pathetic shit-for-brains?

  25. NO OF COURSE NOT YOU DOPE. OTHERWISE WHY THE FUCK WOULD I HAVE BEEN PUSHING A SPACE-BASED SYSTEM ALL THESE YEARS?

    FUCKING HELL YOU ARE A STUPID CUNT.

  26. It would be pretty good if JC and Mark and the others could tell us those circumstances were mass-sackings DON’T lead to trade surpluses. That would be good for starters.

  27. THATS IDIOTIC. FOR EACH MISSILE THEY BUILT YOU COULD GET ENOUGH JUICE FOR 10 OR 100 NEW SHOOT-DOWNS. SPACE-BASED LASER MAKES ICBM’S OBSOLETE. NO QUESTION OF THAT WHATSOEVER. BUT IT DOESN’T MAKE ALL NUKES OBSOLETE. ONLY THE ICBM’S.

  28. SO WHAT. IT JUST PROVES WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. SPACE-BASED LASER CAN MAKE ICBM’S OBSOLETE. SO WHY PAY FOR PRETENSE, HALFWAY SOLUTIONS, OR THE IDEA THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SHOOT SOMETHING DOWN WHEN ITS ALREADY DESCENDING ON YOUR PEOPLE.

    THREE MILES PER SECOND MAY SEEM FAST. BUT LASER CAN OUTRUN THAT LIKE THE FAT THING IS FROZEN IN THE AIR.

  29. It’s gotta find it first

  30. “you employ detectives to track down the protestors and you sack them also
    .
    Scratch the Bird and you get Beria. He’s got these ideas about freedom which require a fascist apparatus to manifest”

    How is this for the exaltation of parasitical perogatives. Cutting off taxeater funds and giving them a tax voucher is the same as murdering them and their family as far as Adrien is concerned. And a one-of outsourced job to a handful of private operators is the same as setting up the Stazi or the KGB in his idiotic view.

    This is taxeaters being pampered to the max, turning all things on their head. Of course morally this is outrageous puking hatred from Adrien. Spitting poison from him and showing that he’s basically a Stalinist. Its the wretched soft-pedalling of communist holocaust. And apparently having to get a proper job is akin to facing the nazi-holocaust according to parasitical values. Which is one reason they lynched McCarthy of course.

  31. “Put up taxes for a few years, put those stimilus packages away and put a few years hold on those other spending initiatives until the budget can cope without massive debt, then ge tback into it.”

    Mass-sackings Pete. I think that was the solution you were looking for. Mass-Sackings. Don’t be afraid to say it.

  32. Catallaxians are talking about the land tax again. This is the traditional Catallaxian debate where they pair off into the stupid side and the evil side. With Sinclair holding his traditional position on the stupid side. Humphreys so far is taking a moderate position, or it seems that way so far.

    We mustn’t lose sight of the idea that what we are really after is an abundance of land substitutes. ie Spacious high-rise and basement working and living space. To bring down the cost of living and to solve some of the paradoxes of land that make its supply and demand quite different from lets say consumer goods. We want to also wipe out the last bit of semi-plausibility to any Malthusian-fascist ideas that are getting around at the moment.

    In the medium term stretching to a few decades, land-tax isn’t the best way to do this. And if in some cases it might be its only likely to be where you have slashing maybe $10 in other taxes and clawing back $1 with an incremental increase in land tax.

    In my view the problems of land supply are better served if the money isn’t taken off the landowner. But rather set aside for him to invest in vertical development when the amounts are accumulated enough and an economic opportunity presents itself in his area. If he buys a house these provisions will be likely fulfilled at first simply if he puts in a new basement or something of that nature. Only later would he need to invest the set-aside funds in some local high-rise proposal.

    But even this is premature. For the time being we have all manner of taxes and we can therefore be in a position where some of them can be cut and other deductions can be had that would encourage vertical development. And an increase in land tax would only come in if these myriad potential cuts and deductions lead, or were expected to lead, into a spillover into increasing land prices.

  33. Even if we went down that path it would never be in the 4% per year or 7% per year Mark utopianism. Maybe 2% per year above a threshold of 100 000 dollars per registered dependent. Or something like that. Take the family farm right out of it. And people of retirement age need not worry about having to pay.

    The problem with Marks calculations is that they do not seem to be taking into account that the land tax itself would crash land prices. Hence the capital base that he is calculating the land tax on would be diminished by the existence of the land tax.

    And why on earth would you want to fund the current level of thievery by any means? Thats crazy. Under my scheme in 50 years time the whole deal would likely be funded by peak-time infrastructural use. Probably mostly road use. And the land-tax would be more like compulsary super. That you can access as soon as you find an appropriate high-rise project locally.

    This would spur on the development of arcology. Of huge Ziggurat-style buildings. And the buildings that straddle the roads.

  34. “While I was at Treasury talking about land tax, I was asked about a particular OECD study that ranks the impact that particular taxes have on growth from worst to ‘best’ (or least worst). The actual analysis is done is a different paper. According to the study corporate income tax has the worst impact on economic growth, then personal income tax, then consumption tax and finally property taxes (in particular recurrent tax on immovable property) the least worst impact on economic growth…”

    Unfortunately the OECD are full of shit. Since they cannot seem to tell the difference between land value tax and property tax. Property tax has to be immensely damaging. Since it makes a big problem even worse. The big problem being the chronic undersupply of vertical development. Property tax is not land tax. They might seem similar. But one if handled properly and very incrementally may well be the least bad of the taxes. And the other, the property tax, has to be almost as damaging as the corporate income tax and I would say worse than the personal income tax. Other than that the OECD is on the right track. Since the corporate tax is appalling.

    Any taxes on reinvestment profits are just horrid. You ought to be able to reinvest in your own company and never pay taxes on any profits. Taxes on profits are a sin. They are an outrage. An example of thieves who are stupid thieves. Only when you pull the resources out of your business for personal use ought you pay anything on the drawings and even this of course only while we are phasing down the parasitism.

    We have to sack people by the bushel right now and if we can get rid of any taxes on reinvested profits we will be out of the doldrums SO FAST that the only problem will be finding ways to stop the parasites taking advantage of the embarrassment of loot that will be arriving before their greedy eyes.

  35. Mr Bird
    Is that avatar a picture of you?

    Oh my! What a handsome man. You could’ve moved me away from lesbianism if I’d met you in my youth. You still might.

    All you have to do is admit that global warming has been proven.

  36. Thats about the state of things on the religious front.

  37. “The bottom line is that we cannot really know how the economy would have performed without the stimulus.”

    BETTER. This we can say with assurance. In the same way as we can usually say that more of almost anything would have been sold at a lower price.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: