Posted by: graemebird | September 27, 2009

Iron Curtain Of Stupid At Larvatus Prodeo/How Is That Arabs-Alone Conspiracy Theory Going For You?

A fellow called dagget is over at Prodeo and he’s come up against an impenetrable wall of dumb. Included in this iron curtain of stupid is FDB and others.

The Thermate rigup is absolutely proven. Its not open to gainsaying now. Daggets speculations are just that. As to who did it I don’t suppose I agree with much about what he says. The point of this story is neither of us know “who”. All of us know HOW.

The Thermate controlled demolition is a done deal. And yet dagget is up against a Maginot line of such powerfully trained stupidity that there is no chance he can make a dent.

Here are some of the culprits in this new dark ages of dumb.

Katz, FDB, Paul Norton, Nabakov, Liam coming up with a crap saying from Carl Sagan, and others.

They are such retards that not one of them referred to the molten iron in all three basements. Liam reckons they didn’t find thermate. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Thats like going out the morning after Guy Fawkes night, finding very little in the way of gunpowder, and concluding that there was no explosions, you cannot prove anything, they didn’t hear a thing and by the way the burden of proof is on those guys with the gunpowder Guy Fawkes non-consensus theory.

These people mentioned above are not just fucking idiots and spineless insects on this subject. Doesn’t matter what the subject is. Its stupid-town wall to wall, and defense in depth should you ever make it past the Maginot Minefield. And a lot of these people that hang out at Prodeo are SUPPOSED TO BE TEACHING THE KIDS.

This is telling foreign countries that its time for colonisation if you are really as dumb as Larvatus Prodeo.

Catallaxy is really fucking stupid. But Prodeo is far more stupid again.

In terms of the absolute known FACT that this was controlled demolition with thermate, beyond an actual series of confessions, you simply could not have more evidence in favour of this known fact.

You’ve got the whole outside deal on video. You’ve got lectures and video showing you how thermate works. The tell-tale look of the smoke of thermate. The tell-tale of the metal that comes off such a reaction.

You’ve got architects lecturing on the structural side of things. You’ve got the basic laws of physics and people telling you how any other theory violates these laws and obviously so. You have frame by frame analysis that any educated person ought to be able to understand. You’ve got recorded witness testimony of multiple explosions. You’ve got this testimony in writing and on video. You’ve got the FUCKING AUDIO of explosions.

You’ve got , on video, interviews with the workers who will tell you that they saw flowing molted metal like in a foundary. You’ve got footage six weeks after that corroborating that point of view since even then when they are bringing up metal to the open air it bursts in to flames after all that time. You’ve got the mayor of the time essentially corroborating this side of things on video as well.

The girders were made of steel. Iron cannot decouple itself from steel from a building collapse any more than water, tea, sugar and milk will decouple when you drop your cup of tea on the floor.

You’ve got the tiny spheres of iron from iron being gassified and then returning to a solid. Total proof that Thermate and only Thermate could do this job.

You can verify everything for yourself and learn all about Thermate with visual verification for your own satisfaction at every last point of your self-education.

I can give you two or three guys who will go through the whole physical side of things step by step. The Arabs-alone incompetents don’t have a single person who can do this.

And in this total proof of Thermate demolition you have the fact that there is no competing theory to explain this business. None. We might have thought there was a decent experts theory (which explains all the known facts) that doesn’t include Thermate. But there is none.

Popular Mechanics don’t have it. Their knee-jerk theory is gone. Even they don’t believe it anymore. All of the taxeater efforts that may have seemed plausible early on when all of us were ignorant: They are all gone and there is no-one willing to stand up and go through the whole thing step by step and vouch for it anymore. People are under the delusion that there is some sort of extant alternative to Thermate out there.

And why would we be waiting on these other guys? If they get a serious physical explanation going and decide they want to present it on video well fine. I’ll listen to it most intently. But no-ones going to do that. Because anyone who tried to, not using thermate, couldn’t make that case. Which is why no-one does make that case anymore.

The physics stuff is a done deal. The physical reality of how the 3 buildings came down is known. We are not waiting on anyone for that. We have to find out who did this. Whoever it was didn’t count on youtube. We need to find these people and kill them.



  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    We are not going to let this filth Cambria get away with it. He makes the blanket lying claim that I don’t understand monetary economics at all. Though I’ve had a degree in economics since longer than almost anyone here and I consider this side of it my specialty.

    But when asked to get specific about where he feels he disagrees with me the lying dog refuses to do so. Claiming he has done so in the past is not the same thing.

    So welfare queen. The floor is yours you dog. But better still don’t ever show up here again.

    27 Sep 09 at 12:41 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I rang up Cambria to shout at him and this is where he came up with the innovative lying dog technique to claim to me STRAIGHT TO MY EAR that he thought that in his opinion I didn’t understand monetary economics at all. Actually he once described me as a monetary economics genius, and offered to pay some of my university fees should I wish to beef up the backing credentials. He also used to consult me on these matters. But that part of Jasons blog recrod is lost. This didn’t stop this lying dog flat out lying to me.

    Complete lying cunt right there on my phone and no third party to impress. Apparently the stupid wog thought he’d be able to tell me my new meme just like that. We have the links from 3 years ago that corroborate my side of the story enough for any fairminded third party to know what is going on here. Without government intervention this whole class of bank executives would have been wiped out. And a beautiful think it would have been too. Hence the Cambria lectures in favour of the lunatic Paulson heist and the simultaneous parallel deal where Cambria tries to conflate his image with free enterprise. When he is a full-blown supporter of tribalism in economics. He’s a full-blown cronyist. And these guys must be laid low. They will not voluntarily reform.

    So anyway I countered by asking him what SPECIFIC matter in monetary economics that he disagreed with me over?

    So he decides that if the conversation continues Its “likely to get abusive”

    Likely to get abusive? The stupid wog cannot even imply the truth under those conditions. Because the fact is I was abusing him from the moment he picked up the phone and I had already assured him that while he held the phone I would be continuing with this practice.

    This is what years in the bank turns a person into. A compulsive lying wanker always attempting to pull off this lawyerly soft-shoe-shuffle.

    Bring back dueling I sez. Its not that I’d even participate. But if other people were challenging silky greasy liars like this all the time, then more manly habits of conduct might prevail.

  2. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “So working for a firm having 5 trillion in derivatives makes a person corrupt and dishonest, does it…”

    In your case manifestly so. Because you immediately started acting like Fyodor. And you swung around in favour of bailouts when you had been dead against them. You had flat out gone against them in theory on the grounds that they caused “moral hazard”. Your words. On the phone to me.

    Look you are lying. And people who will remember back three years know you were backing me in arguments against Fyodor.

    Now if you are claiming that I don’t know what I’m talking about be specific. I had a degree in economics when I was 19. You only took that subject to first year. In other words Keynes 101.

    See you are a liar and you are going for the blanket denial. Though I have you on Prodeo siding with me on this selfsame subject well before your bank was about to go under.

    Me you and Jason know you are lying. And there is a simple test if I’m wrong.

    Focus on a specific thing that I’m saying. And tell me why you disagree with it.

    26 Sep 09 at 10:11 pm

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    So nice to see that you haven’t run away Phil. I was going to come looking for you and bring you back. By the hand if necessary.

    Look I wouldn’t think so in the main Phil. I know a lot of people take that point of view. To me its the Egyptian pyramids that are the more mysterious. I wonder how well we have that stuff nailed down. There may be a great deal more to what meets the eye in the Egyptian case. Whereas I’ve taken a totally unique view of Mars. Since the sort of things we see on Mars….. I think we will see much the same thing on the moon. I’ve taken the Mars operation to be pretty damned prosaic.

    Currently taking a pound of matter to the moon might cost about $10 000 dollars USD. Now the situation with husbandry of mundane gases on the moon is much more extreme than what it would be on Mars in the two-moon scenario. But even so, the cases are similar with regards to costs in some ways.

    Take for example where we go to laser those blocks out to make pyramids. We stretch out our retractable banded covered roads. For just this one time we put on the big pressurized suits. And we pull out an opening on the floor of these roads/the surface of the moon …….. so we can go to work there. But before doing it we pump out the air from one section to the other. Then we put on the suits and start drilling things down tight so there will be no leaking.

    Then we let air back in. Then we can take the big suits off again.

    So there we are lasering away. But everywhere we have pumps and vaccumns going. Every bit of vapourised rocks you suck up. For industrial safety reasons. But every gas is valuable. The vast majority of each gas particle generated will have an oxygen atom attached. Some of them will have a Hydrogen atom attached. We may have an entire pyramid devoted to releasing what on earth would be pollution, so that we can cheaply pre-sort these gasses before more sophisticated purification methods are put into practice.

    You know when you go scuba-diving Phil? You notice how the full tank is a lot heavier than the empty one? Think of how valuable every last little bit of gas-pollution would be to us?

    Now consider we have to cut costs with our exports. We have the helium three and the refined uranium. But to make generators work like on earth you might need and entire pyramid with variously pressurized cabins devoted to it. You cannot let precious water vapour into space right? So you’ve got to capture it all and shift it off to all these various cabins. Let some of it condense. In the night-time pump water out to get really cold and it ought to be able to get colder without freezing in low pressure.

    To contain all these processes cheaply we want these large structures.

    Now you see that D & M pyramid. We see how rocket fuel is so much more expensive for us than electricity right? When even pollution itself costs upwards of 500 dollars per pound. So to convert it to rocket fuel and compressed frozen oxygen is pretty damn expensive right?

    But electricity is cheap. So what we do is we find a mountain. And mountains on places without much atmosphere are usually rounded like large hills. Anyway we look at that mountain. Its near the equator. We imagine a five sided pyramid. One face due east. Forget about two of the faces since they are the wrong way to escape the lunar surface cheaply.

    So we carve out three faces of five. That way we can accelerate all these payloads to shoot out at any landing place on earth with the minimum rocket fuel expenditure. Well you see thats what it looks like what they did with the D%M pyramid. On the other side they have got a sort of horizontal landing arrangement with a sort of gully where your incoming payload gets to slow down as it goes around a corner and rides up the side like sprint cyclists, and then coasts around to where the launch area is.

    And why not? If the incoming landed everywhere you’d have to go out with this fucking huge machine which contains its own atmosphere. You’d have to pay five guys big money to just retrieve these things. The whole thing has to be done thinking about your margins.

    So to me a lunar base is all about dollars and cents and not so much about mysticism as other analysts might seem to have it. Its the gypo case that is more mysterious as far as I can see.

    27 Sep 09 at 11:46 pm
    Leave a Reply




  5. deration.
    “As I understand the Austrian viewpoint, the recession is the period in which the economy is correcting itself from the resource misallocations that occurred in the previous unsustainable boom.”

    Thats true in two ways.

    1. That is in fact the Austrian viewpoint.

    2. That is in fact the truth of the situation.

    “In a freer economy, the correction would occur more quickly and so employment would not lag much, if at all. But in an interventionist economy, govt attempts to ‘re-flate’ the previous bubble delay this corrective process. Businesses, mortgage-holders and investors who should fail are bailed out, and new businesses with sound investments are held back. And so the more the govt intervenes, the longer the lags in employment recovery.”

    This is all true but needs to be nuanced for current conditions. The message that has fallen down to us today is way too harsh. It reflects the situation from Mises of the 1920’s where staying on gold was simply assumed. Monetary growth had only been about 7% and only a few years of it. Effective reserve asset ratios were still fairly high by todays standards. Also as the message has been transmitted via Rothbard it has stayed this harsh due to the sort of relish Rothbard would have at all these banks going under and the ruling elite collapsing once and for all.

    The problem today is that the multiple of how much the sales revenue expenditure could have imploded is way too massive.

    You see cash divided by ponzi money got as low as 3%. We need reserves to be 40-60% before a free enterprise solution could be expected to bottom out. And the demand for money for holding could as much as triple. So the current prescription cannot be as harsh as either the Mises or R%othbard prescriptions seem to imply. And we must follow them in spirit insofar as the rearrangement of the structure of production and the return to investments that improve cash-flow are concerned. And yet not follow them in the literal since we have been left with a monetary system that is like an elephant balancing on its trunk.

    For the effective reserve asset ratio to go from 3% to (lets say) 45% implies a spending contraction of 15 fold. And adding the idea that the demand for money for holding could triple then spending could collapse all the way to virtually no spending at all. We might never recover. Totally different situation to what Mises faced.

    So what we want to do is find out what business sales revenue peaked at, then use cash injection via debt retirement to hit that level right away. Then use the reserve asset ratio to freeze GDR at that point. And then let the bad investments shake out from there.

    But we cannot let spending implode. Its true that they are going to screw it up endlessly. But we wouldn’t want to go the monetary deflation route. Too extreme and unnecessary.


    “lol GMB – I have not refused to look at the evidence. I have looked at every piece you have linked to.”

    Its too tiring to think about scrolling back to see some mistake in wording, some shorthand that I must have used, that you must have glommed onto, for this new round of tendentiousness and idiocy on your part Andrew.

    If you were an honest man you would know, admit and imply, that I had never meant that you were unwilling to cast your eyes in the direction of the photographic evidence.

    You know full well that what I am saying is that you LOOK, but you don’t SEE. You don’t SEE what it is you are looking at Andrew. Your eyeballs are facing the photograph. The lights are on but no-ones home. You LOOK but you don’t see. On account of you being a stupid dishonest cunt.



    I haven’t read the thread, so I apologise if you’ve already covered this ground. I have been continuing my auto-didactic education on monetary policy.”

    Fantastic. Let me be your guide and save you time.

    “I now argue – with my sceptical good mate who has a Harvard MBA (Harvard MBA not big on teaching Macro) – that the RBA/Fed merely increasing/decreasing the official cash rate, and rates of interest paid/charged on other bonds the RBA/Fed issues is not strictly monetary policy.

    In fact, I argue it is in fact FISCAL policy if the interest rate change is not accompanied by the RBA printing more notes either physically via a demand to the RBA subsidiary Note Printing Australia(NPA) to do so, or decides on an amount to be transferred electronically to non-government banks in the private sector.”

    This is a very good way of looking at it. These interest rate shenanigans will affect what the private banks do monetarily but only with great delay and its a social injustice since it amounts to a bank subsidy. In fact this bogus monetary policy, or fiscal policy as you would have it, is the cause of the crisis since it encourages private banks to increase the money supply, and does so without increasing the monetary base. Which increases the ratio of money supply to monetary base. And it was this behaviour under Greenspan and Bernanke which set things up increasingly more and more for a breakdown.

    “I thus argue, it is only when the RBA gives NPA the order, or decides on the amount of electronic transfer that we can say the RBA is actually EXPANDING the money supply.”

    Right. Just remind me what NPA is. Given that this would amount to a local institutional arrangement and not a universal generalization of monetary economics. So right yes. A good way to look at it. The increase in the monetary base may expand the money supply quickly and directly. However were it strong enough to solve the problem and bring sales revenue back to its previous high, it would be such a great amount of cash that it would then lead to the banks creating massive money supply on top of it over time, leading to galloping inflation and currency collapse.

    It therefore follows inescapably that the only valid, effective and fast policy is a combination of massive direct cash injection via debt retirement, along with an introduction and adjustment to the reserve asset ratio which prevents the private banks from pyramiding on that massive cash injection. There really is no way of getting around the above.

    “I argue that with this newly created money – either actual NPA-produced Bills/Notes OR the electronic way that the money supply is being expanded, because money is literally, not figuratively or metaphorically – being created out of thin air, with NO assets – gold or otherwise to back it.”


    “If the RBA uses this money created out of thin air in Open Market Operations to buy back Treasuries, that increases the amount of cash on both the purchasing banks’ balance sheets, AND the economy as whole – which unlike a long-term bond can be spent straight away, for example on providing personal loans or mortgages to ordinary Joes or to corporates.”

    Exactly. But bear in mind, to be effective IMMEDIATELY it must be a massive cash injection. And if it IS IN FACT massive and therefore effective immediately you don’t want the private banks to increase their mortgage loans too much. Rather you want the extra cash finding its way into business-to-business sales revenue.

    “The private banks are constrained by what they can do if all they had were 10 years bonds and/or Treasuries. So now, these formerly private-bank owned long-term bonds/Treasuries sit on the RBA’s asset book, and its asset book is increased by the amount of bonds/Treasuries it bought from the printed money.”

    Right. It would be more honest if they cancelled the debt. Just cancelled the bonds. Otherwise Stevens and his cronies will wind up high-hatting the rest of us, boasting about profits, hiring more staff, and getting the bank a squadron of private Lear Jets.

    “The printed money shows up on the private banks short-term assets at exactly the same amount as its long-term assets (bonds/Treasuries) decreases. So while the private sector’s net asset wealth does not change one cent, the distribution of value on the asset-side of the balance sheet shifts from long-term to cash. And this is what we mean by increasing the money supply.”

    Right. Well the MONETARY BASE in any case. See you want to strictly differentiate between monetary base and money supply. An increase in monetary base ought to immediately increase the money supply by a material amount, but only if it is MASSIVE. Then the banks will pyramid upon that increase and further increase the money supply if you let them. The best policy is where, as a group, you don’t let them. And you get the instant beefing up of business sales revenues but without extra indebtedness.

    “OK how is this, so far?”

    Excellent. The first person in three years to take the subject seriously and make a good fist of it except for Cambria early on (I know its shocking to say.)

    “So, what is the big deal? The big deal is that even though the private banking sector net financial assets does not change – long term bonds/treasuries have merely been exchanged for printed cash – a heap load more money will be free to hit the streets.”

    Right. And notice that the taxpayers liability has gone down. He no longer has to pay the treasury interest, supposing that the Reserve Bank is leaned on with extreme prejudice to retire the bonds outright and get with the cost-cutting in its own bloated and parasitical organisation. It is social injustice to have the taxpayer pay all this interest to the financial sector to the extent that the debt can be replaced with cash and the RAR increased.

    “Is THIS is the point where the discussion of inflation must begin?”

    Only in the sense that injecting enough cash to solve the problem immediately will tempt the banks into creating inflation if you subsequently let them get away with it. That is to say if you spare the banks the reserve asset ratio rod, you will spoil the currency.

    “BUT, ALSO, the net value of financial assets owned by the Fed DOES increase, precisely by the amount it printed to buy the private banks’ bonds/treasuries.”

    Very true Greenfield. But don’t let these parasitical slobs do things this way.

    “THEREFORE, in the Australian economy as a whole, the quantity of cash-money HAS increased, but so has NET ASSETS, as the RBA did not have to pay any real money for the bonds/Treasuries it bought from the private sector.

    Am I correct, or clueless?”

    You are by far the best learner in monetary economics of anyone I’ve encountered in three years. I am very encouraged that all is not lost for humane civilisation.

  7. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    This is a preview to what one has to learn in monetary economics to break entirely from the error of the mainstream. Nowhere is the mainstream more wrong right now, than in the final policy prescription for this subject. For the subject of monetary economics generally and how to deal with a crisis specifically.

    You people with a background in economics catch an eye-full of this. And bear in mind if you cannot understand this FACT below in the inverted commas, you will never be able to understand why a downturn must be met with savings, slashing spending, wage, salary, bonus, and dividends restraint.

    “Thus the conclusion is evident that,in the context of an invariable money, NATIONAL INCOME AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS ARE INVERSELY RELATED.” (Reisman).

    Just suppose you put me in charge of economic policy. And I decide that I am going to use cash injection, via debt retirement, and the reserve asset ratio to hit a predetermined level of total sales revenue in the economy and then stick rigidly at that level for ten years.

    Now I’m not advocating this necessarily. But just to make this technical economics point above.

    So suppose I figure out what the level of gross sales revenue peaked at before the bust. And suppose I tell everyone:

    “1. We will quickly move to 20% higher than this figure. We will discover where total sales revenue peaked. And we will quickly move to a rate of spending 20% higher than this recent peak.

    2. We will then rigidly lock this level of total business sales revenue in for ten years. We have decided to make nominal GDR 20% higher then its previous high to give everyone one last chance to pay off their debts before monetary conditions harden.”


    Now suppose I do all this. And I am true to my word. I bounce and flatten so that GDR immediately goes 20% higher than it prior peak. Then I fix that and hold it for ten years.


    As the economy grew and progressed then the inverse relation mentioned above means the National Income would drop all that time. That is to say GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT would be dropping all the time that the economy was growing and progressing, so long as the economy was INDEED growing and progressing.

    You might not believe that this would be the case. But I assure you it is the case.

    And this is one of these things that all people (you too Professor Davidson …… Kates you might want a look at this also) must have their head around before they can understand what needs to be done policy-wise, in the business of monetary reform, and particularly as policy relates to the TRANSITION!!!!! to sound money.

    Actually though I’m not advocating the above something like it would not be a bad way of dealing with fiat, while you were moving to gold, silver, copper and platinum as making up your money supply.


    One last fiat inflation under conditions where everyone knows that failure to pay down debts is failure per se, is by no means a bad way to ready oneself for slowly growing sales revenue under hard money.

    Lets emphasize the main point of the lecture here:

    “Thus the conclusion is evident that,in the context of an invariable money, NATIONAL INCOME AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS ARE INVERSELY RELATED.” (Reisman).

    Until people have sussed this out and are comfortable with it, and a lot of other counter-intuitive stuff………

    …… then it is impossible to resolve current policy controversies in favour of sound economic science.

  8. “For a non-Keynesian, the purpose of dropping interest rates was not to pump-prime the economy, but to ensure the ratio of broad money to production stayed relatively constant so that the value of money stayed relatively constant.”

    I disagree. The value of money staying relatively constant is not the main goal. Its not even a rational goal. I consider you to be a Keynesian.

    What you are saying here is arbitrary. People need a better argument than that. It might seem to you that you have impeccable policy recommendations, given that monetary, rather than fiscal stimulus, will presumably leave more capital accumulation intact.

    But being right for wrong technical reasons is no good. Everyone is in debt. Why ought they look at your argument above and find it of significant merit? Your opponents are telling folks they will give them all these jobs. You are offering PRICE STABILITY? One party offers to avert a grave crisis. You offer them price stability and you implicitly agree that there is such a thing as fiscal stimulus. If you are going to agree with the enemy in this regard it would be nice if you came out with some evidence or formally gave it away. Since in fact the Keynesian multiplier is rubbish. And there is no such thing as fiscal stimulus.

    You have to learn the material. Static consumer prices is not any sensible goal and is not a powerful argument to marshall against people whose macromancy you share.

  9. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Birdie – mMatter comes from four Greek gods/goddesses: Zeus, Hera, Aidoneus and Nestis + two immaterial principles: love and strife.”

    What if we take out the gods? That would leave us with what brings us together and what tears us apart. Push and pull. Two forces in the universe. Maybe we can get matter out of that as your theory insists. I think we probably can.

    Because these things are now open to revision. We have seen that science sociology overpowered science methodology in the last century and mistakes didn’t get corrected. We had the cult of the serial monogamy of paradigms. Which is the anti-thesis-itself of scientific enquiry. And we had stolen-money financing.

    Two consecutive days Cambria seemed to suggest that you can “polish a turd” which is to say that he seemed to fall for the idea that good statistics can clean up bad survey data, fraud or fraudulent reasoning.

    And in the same way we see a universal marked tendency to forget about William. That good English lad William. William who came from Occam.

    We don’t circle back over first principles enough. And we have locked in most first principles with a combination of biography and hero-worship. We have the parables of Einstein. His whole biography seems to have been cut up into parables.

    In fact, no matter how personally brilliant he was he was no mature epistemologist when he had his flights of intuitive genius. But the thing is flights of intuitive genius are internal as much as anything and the universe is external to us and we don’t find out about it through creative genius alone.

    There is a lot of slog and hard work and there ought to be supervision by people who know how to corral and aim genius with good methodology like Napolean aiming the totality of his canoneers.

    Starting out with love and strife, or push and pull, is about as good a starting point as any. Because the sheer weight of dysfunction is now telling us that the whole thing is due for a major overhaul.

    I think you’ve slipped in some of your Chinese understanding with a Greek Trojan horse Phil. Love and Strife. Yin and Yang.

    You are a sweetheart Phil. And an asset to this blog. Be nice to Tal. Be sweet to her and not just behave in a prescribed way. And get your coven of feminist friends in the background to think sweet thoughts towards her as well. The drawbridge has gone up. And you cannot be both on good terms with me without being and feeling sweet towards tal at the same time. Send her all your good zen. The strife was before. The love must come now.

    Here is tal being rescued from cancers. These are particularly obnoxious and misogynistic French cancers. They are keeping her awake, burning her with cigarettes. Forcing her to drink alchohol. They are basically torturing her for information. From memory they are brazenly torturing tal right there in the Eiffel tower. Tal doesn’t know anything. They want to find out where she fits into the big puzzle of things. But she doesn’t know and neither do they.

    The Major scoops her out of a hazed sickness of chemotherapy and takes her back to her husband.

    We want to be like the major. At least on some sort of Zen or Kharmic level. On that most fundamental level of love and strife. I’ve linked this video many times before. But being aware of your coven of friendly feminists I’ll link it again.

    Don’t just ACT sweet to tal but FEEL sweet to her. Not just YOU but your friends as well. All love and no strife until she is out of trouble. This is non-negotiable. I won’t take no for an answer.

    30 Sep 09 at 11:59 pm

  10. There is plenty of very concrete examples where group emergent behaviour can be demonstrated out of very simple low level rules.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    You may be right rog. How can you possibly know that at this stage? Have you been doing your own taping around the clock in the less than 24 hours since when I linked it?

    I don’t think so. So your statement contains wild speculation masquerading as knowledge. And it also oontains a lie.

    “Hey birdie, that backward speaking site that you linked to is ABSOLUTE RUBBISH….”

    Thats the wild speculation on your part. You are assuming occult knowledge.

    “As per usual..”

    Thats the lie right there you pathetic little shit.

    2 Oct 09 at 8:32 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    You may be right rog. How can you possibly know that at this stage? Have you been doing your own taping around the clock in the less than 24 hours since when I linked it?

    I don’t think so. So your statement contains wild speculation masquerading as knowledge. And it also contains a lie.

    “Hey birdie, that backward speaking site that you linked to is ABSOLUTE RUBBISH….”

    Thats the wild speculation on your part. You are assuming occult knowledge.

    “As per usual..”

    Thats the lie right there you pathetic little shit.

    2 Oct 09 at 8:33 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Of course we have intentions. Of course we have goals. Why do people like you feel so threatened by the idea that they arise from material brains and nervous systems? I don’t get it.”

    But fatty you are an idiot. Of course you don’t get it. You never understand anything. You are a blockhead. A dumb shit. You are one of the most dense people ever to post here.

    All you have said is that there is no further material involved than the molecules that make up the machinery of our brain. About half the people here probably agree with that. And you are such a dope you imagine you’ve invented the wheel or something.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “I don’t feel threatened at all. I don’t believe in the existence of free will or self. ”

    But WHY don’t you believe in these things? You believe in your own consciousness do you not? This consciousness ought not arise if we think about it in the first instance. We ought to suss things out, manipulate our environment, build giant buildings, corner our mate(s) and if successful with impregnation, later co-operate with them. Fight wars perhaps, and win them half the time, and all this without knowing a damn thing about anything thats going on.

    Its a good punt to think that with consciousness comes free will.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Here is Phil suggesting one way in which conscious humans can differ from non-conscious machines.

    “Even under similar conditions the performance of a single human being can vary greatly from one day to the next, let alone within a lifetime.”

    Here is Edney with a burst of soundness and relevance.

    “There is plenty of very concrete examples where group emergent behaviour can be demonstrated out of very simple low level rules.”

    Already thats enough to begin a full-blown enquiry into the subject of consciousness. We have the brain power and technology to go some ways into this story. But we lack the good habits and methodology. As well there is at least one Italian present. We want to go into something a lot easier to see if we can develop good habits and apply sound methodology. And then dovetail back to this fascinating story. And get very deep into it.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I know that Helen used to find you amusing Adrien. But I’ve never been able to ascertain why. You are boring. A cable guy. A no-friends Nigel. Its not personal since Tillman has often given me a lot of static as well. But as Ron Pauline Hanson, if he isn’t simply baiting CL, he can be extremely funny. I’ve yet to see that you could ever have this ability. Its not just that you are unfunny. Its that you appear to lack the ability to ever BE funny.

    A few days ago the Financial Review carried a story that made it very clear that our banks were about to launch a devastating attack on the Australian economy. The RBA, if they carry on as they have done in the past, will prove unwilling or unable to act against them to stop the devastation. But to know that this is implied strongly, almost to a level of certainty, one has to understand monetary economics. Without understanding monetary-economics, its not possible to make a pre-emptive finding on this matter, in the way that rog above affected to with reverse-speech.

    The banks will make heaps of money out of this disastrous behaviour. As will some of the people who take their loans, or who have already taken their loans and now choose to sell. Perhaps I myself will make out like a bandit because of what the banks are about to do.

    But for the economy as a whole it will be further devastation.

    The article was called:

    “Cash-Rich Banks Ready For Growth Opportunities” by Mathew Drummond.

    Now responsible adults, seeing that there is about to be this massive attack on our economy, ought to try and do something to head it off. Given that three years of trying to teach people monetary economics on this site has yielded very little in the way of results, this must say something about the habits, and epistemological failure of Catallaxians. And we ought to go all out to try and reform the way we go about RESOLVING an issue. It appears that almost none of you are capable of figuring out anything wherein you haven’t already chosen to believe the right outcome by sheer fluke in the first place.

    This is complete failure for supposedly educated people.

    The news that the banks are going to screw things up for the country ought to motivate people to try and change their ways in this regard.

    But we have to take a couple of steps back from the problem. Since first things first you need to know how to suss out right from wrong. Truth from error. And how to learn new stuff.

  11. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    ” In the EMH sense, of course, nobody foresaw the crisis, and if they did they would have gone short in early August 2007, when the crisis first became apparent.”

    Why keep bullshitting about this Sinclair. And no they wouldn’t have gone short. Short contracts are for a specific period. They are gambling. And the sort of people who foresaw the crisis wouldn’t necessarily get into shorting. Nor would they presume to foresee the crisis in the sense of knowing the exact week of a meltdown.

    This is a pathetic excuse for failing to give credit where it is due. You didn’t see the crisis coming. When it came you wrongly claimed that it had nothing to do with fractional reserve. And now you are saying that guys like Celente and Schiff didn’t see it coming on the basis that they weren’t up to their eyeballs in shorts.

    This is just pigheadedness on your part.

  12. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I can see the stewardship of the lickball anti-economist Sinclair is going to be deeply painfull.

    Sinclair. Are you really that much of a fucking moron that you cannot understand the role of fractional reserve in EVERY banking crisis? People show up to get their cash, AND ITS NOT THERE.

    Pretty simple I would have thought. Alternatively the banks will no longer lend to eachother, a process that is necessary to keep the illusion of money going, and so the payments system ceases up.

    From there if nothing is done quickly people will run to get their cash out.

    Now you do understand this don’t you? So how about putting this dumb fucking wop in his place? You are a taxpayer paid public servant mate. YOu are an educator. Don’t get in the way of education.

    You are beginning to reinforce some of the nastier things people say about Jews

  13. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Dandy. The combination of unstable and high monetary growth, with debt financing, with the company tax…. Means that management has no consistent basis for managing the company. Right there we see the almost impossibility of pricing a company. You cannot predict how management is to behave. You cannot say whether their behaviour is functional.

    Imagine two companies more or less the same in every way. One company is more highly leveraged then the other. Such that it will have a higher return on shareholders funds if monetary conditions are expansionary, but if not it will struggle to remain solvent.

    Even its theoretical price will jump around with the changes in monetary conditions.

    Supposing you have a company that wants to expand. It chooses to take on a lot of debt and run small losses. Who can say that this is not the right strategy given debt, unstable money and the company tax?

    These three complications make valuation and prescribed MANAGEMENT behaviour almost impossible to ascertain. And they lead to a different theoretical price with different changing conditions.

    Neoclassical economists appear to have about ten different versions of what they mean by “efficient” and its always a big fat movable feast.

    But if we say a market is efficient we ought to be saying that the market cannot get a helluva lot more efficient. This DOES NOT APPLY. We can get our market much much more efficient. And so we ought to.

    Looking at what people are now claiming for the efficient market theory they’ve basically bid away any meaning it might once have had and yet they are still clinging onto it. This is a dead theory. And its getting in the way of us making our markets more effective. Or efficient if you like.

    3 Oct 09 at 10:07 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “So can you point to any literature that supports this ‘bang on target every time’ theory?”

    Isn’t he saying that the efficient market theory is a crap theory?

  14. Seems that the Prodeo crowd got a little self-concious once they found I was watching their act. So they left this as the final comment.

  15. The thread at Prodeo is gaining new life. Norton and one or two others have just slowly got to where they can accept there is such a thing as a conspiracy. Fyodor is trying to make reality change by simply wrecking the thread like he always does. As if him typing literally, with his fingers in his ears figuratively, can change the reality of what went on.

    Look fellas. Molten iron ore was found in all three buildings. Thats the context here. This is what the discussion ought to focus on. Here we have an object lesson of why the public sector is dysfunctional, useless, and must be thinned down. Because these people are so useless they waste time talking about anything else but molten iron in all three basements.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


%d bloggers like this: