Posted by: graemebird | October 15, 2009

Why The “GAEDE ROPE THEORY” (Of Light And Gravity) MUST Be Correct.

Bill Gaede explains his system of physics over at Youtube under the general topic of “Einsteins Idiots.” Now its a terrific system. Mostly I like his youtubes for his stringent methodology. He really brings home the power of defining things sharply. But of course I’m not in the position to verify every last part of his system as the revealed truth to the nth degree.

But the general thrust of his rope-theory of gravity and light pretty much MUST be true.


Down the bottom I’ll link to Maurice Cotterels excellent short history of how the public service money-pit known as PARTICLE PHYSICS got so horribly corrupted. So economists. Don’t be afraid and don’t feel you are all alone. You have your public service money pits (for example the doctrine of the Keynesian multiplier) and the physicists have their public service money pits also. I’ll have to transcribe part of it and rely on the reader to follow the link and read the rest of the page. Since it appears to be an internet book. And so I cannot seem to copy it direct.


“Scientists cannot understand why the positive protons in the centre of atoms do not simply spring apart-their positive charges repelling each other. In 1935 a researcher named Yukawa suggested that another substance or particle must exist to ‘glue’ the protons together in the nucleus, a kind of atomic ‘velcro’. But an objector to Yukawa pointed out that if indeed that were the case…..”

I started talking about this topic awhile back. You see the mainstream story of the structure of atoms is untenable. Because the protons would blast themselves apart. Or if that gig was somehow solved, the electrons would just fall into the nucleus and stick to all the protons. There really is no sense to what we’ve all been taught. So when asked to justify this, the insiders just lie. They deny all knowledge of this physical description of the atom. They will lie about it until their face falls off and beyond. When I entered into this topic on this blog there were enough physicists around to indeed confirm the idiotic and baseless road the study took. And the billions of wasted dollars involved.

This Maurice Cotterel link appears to be an internet book. I have no comment on the rest of it. But the remainder of that first page is really rather good. It shows the feebleness and baselessness of the direction that particle physics has gone. It shows this in very few words. And it gives you an insight as to how elites work. Perhaps you’d better read Maurice on that page over a bit before you continue. The important thing to understand is that we have gone down a certain road because of stolen money and science SOCIOLOGY. Not because of the powerful strength of reason and the abundance of evidence backing the priesthood compromise models up.


I just had got used to looking at things as if it were all three-dimensional Brownian motion. Atomic billiards as it were. So the full strangeness of what is being claimed didn’t really hit me even whilst I was disputing the received wisdom.

For example, when searching for a 3D billiards version of gravity that was not occult, naturally the only alternative that presented itself was “push gravity”. But I had problems with it. Since I ended up reasoning that what was required to make it work was the visible universe being surrounded by some bodies producing these superfast gravity-producing particles. Like really fast neutrinos. So the Universe appeared like it would have to be surrounded to make this push-gravity work well.

But thats not the real reason Push-Gravity is wrong. The real reason is that, its been calculated that gravity, if we assume everything is particles, moves as least 20 billion times as fast as light. The physicists would lie that it propagates at the speed of light. And they make all their excuses but thats all nonsense. Gravity, for all practical purposes, is instantaneous. Whereas light takes time. And when people work the numbers gravity (assuming its all about particles) is at least 20 billion times as fast. You see to get this far you have to already have deep-sixed the simple-minded idiocy of special relativity. But that goes without saying.

But to tell you the truth. The idea of “gravity particles” travelling that fast for no damn reason at all didn’t seem strange. It only seems strange now that I have the Gaede rope-theory alternative. You see the mainstream view of light is itself idiotic.

Think about it. And I’ve used the comparison before. Think about Forrest Gump running away, flat out, for no reason. “Where are you going Forrest” and why are you running so fast. The particle physics fantasy of the photon is like this. A photon is generated ex-nihilo, then it immediately buggers off from wherever it was generated, at the speed of light.

How ludicrous.

Why would it do such a thing” “Where are you going little photon? Come back. Don’t you like us? What is propelling you?, and why are you running so fast?”

Does the photon move in waves? Or a straight line? Is it a wave or a particle? “A wave is not what something is. A wave is what something does.” (Gaede). No pressure. The people who think light is a particle cannot tell us if the particles fly straight or in waves. Nor can they tell us WHY protons would fly in a wave-like trajectory, if they ever did. Fans of Michael Jackson? Couldn’t get enough of the Lambada or Dirty Dancing? Photons who just dig watching the swimming, and particularly like the butterfly stroke?

But if you are a bigshot stolen money Professor, and you and your crowd bitch about it enough and cry and cite your credentials and published papers, sooner or later someone is going to come up with some bad theology like the “dualistic nature of light” or the idea that a photon is a “wavicle”. All bullshit of course. But thats how this socialist science gig works.

There is no such thing as a photon. Nor would there be any reason for a photon to be created eh-nihilo, and immediately beat it (jus beat it) at the speed of light. The whole idea is silly. And yet for gravity to work under particle physics, we find that the particles that would have to drive push-gravity, would have to hot-foot-it at least 20 bllion times as fast as light again. No alleged photon ever had a reason to do a runner at the speed of light. And yet particle physics implies that gravity-producing particles would have to travel in all directions 20 billion times faster than light, bare minimum.

Gaeda therefore wins in this part of his model. He’s so far ahead, it turns out, that he basically wins by default. You see there is no other explanation in town. There is no particle alone. And every proton and electron in the known universe must be connected to every other. Some directly, all indirectly. Otherwise it simply could not be the case that gravity could propagate that fast. Thats really the end of the matter.

So what is causing such speed of light? Gaede gets us to imagine a clothesline. You have two ropes that make one rope since they are wound around eachother orthogonally. Gaede says something about Grandma’s test. You have a tight rope like this with pegs at either end of the clothes-line. If the rope is wound tight and orthogonally when you tap the pegs to rotate them at one end, the pegs at the other end respond SO FAST.

It is THAT which is the source of all this incredible haste. Not a whole lot of photons, newly-created, making like they want to be anywhere but where they were born. It is this part of the Gaede theory that is simply unassailable. And its a good thing too. Because it gives us a non-voodoo explanation of gravity and mass.

Here we already have the means to find out a great deal about these ropes. After all we already know how fast the signal moves along the ropes in various conditions. Thats enough for a computer modelling research project right there. Experiments on orthonological ropes. Finding what different ropes, different types of rope, different tightnesses of ropes, different diametres of the orthogonal ropes. How does changing various factors affect speed. We can generate different rules of thumb. And we can find out a lot about the nature of these ropes by extrapolating and theorising from these rules. We want to find out how varying factors affects the speed of signal along the ropes.



  1. Various anonymous gutless cowards are running an attempted hatchet job. So I’ll have to accumulate posts here:

    “graemebird Says:
    October 15, 2009 at 11:25 pm | Reply
    There is not disturbing misogyny anywhere. There is disturbingly gutless behaviour by anonymous people such as yourself. This girl was anonymous. She hasn’t even shown herself to be female for starters. And she’s being, by implication totally abusive of A REAL NON-ANONYMOUS WOMAN being mistreated. And all you anonymous cowards to is run interference for anyone who sticks up for Orly. You are gutless mate. Pathetic. A runt.”

    Hey Bickle you stupid gutless cowardly little runt.

    Check this out for a test:

    Put Birdlab and “Russian Whores” straight into the google. Thats when you see what guys like you and Birdlab are all about. No doubt under half a dozen different names.

  2. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Suppose you have a carbon tax – how, in principle, is it any different to say, raising the minimum wage? In the latter case, raising wages may be associated with slightly less hiring and retention of staff, but employers will still be reliant on labour. In roughly the same manner, I suspect they’ll also be reliant on carbon, even if they have to pay a bit more for it.”

    You cause unemployment in the first case, mindless poverty and malinvestment in the latter case. Given the period we are in in industrial history we may wind up in a capital/energy vortex. The carbon tax is unacceptable. Even if it weren’t harmful, it would be unacceptable, simply on the grounds that its based on lies and contempt for evidence and the need for evidence.

    There is no problem known that a carbon tax could possibly be a solution to. Note the fakery of idiots and congenitally dishonest people like Humphreys and Cambria attempting to idiotically poo poo the need to make road usage more user pays and clear up congestion, whilst at the same time adovating a carbon tax. It amounts to an attempt at “positioning” themselves as alleged free enterprisers. When really they are pro-crony bullshit-artists.

  3. graemebird Says:
    October 16, 2009 at 12:41 am | Reply
    Well now you are just clearly lying like Birdlab.
    “……but I dare say he’s a fellow who comments under another name elsewhere…….”

    So thats how its done is it? Certainly how you assume its done. You may have narrowed your own identity down some you worthless runt.

    graemebird Says:
    October 16, 2009 at 12:44 am | Reply
    What a couple of sad, worthless gutless wankers the two of you are. What worthless people. Spineless insects. Vermin. So you just get all anonymous and you start lying about what people say. Shred the comments, forget the context, never mind that the post was up for about three minutes twice and no longer. Never mind that all of you are anonymous yeller belly-crawling lock-step leftists.

    You were happy with what they did to Orly were you not? Sure you were. Just pick out a conservative woman and make a witch-hunt out of it.

  4. graemebird Says:
    October 16, 2009 at 12:49 am | Reply
    So the two of you are happy about Orly being fined. Are you as well happy about Donald Young being assassinated? While you are gloating over Orly’s scapegoating why not dance on Donald Youngs grave while you are at it? Thats the essence of what you anonymous cowards are about isn’t it. While you are at it why not treat the memory of Quarles Harris in contempt. Or have a shot at the two other gay guys murdered in Donald Youngs curch.

    None of these murdered people are likely to see justice unless Orly’s cause is successful with or without her taking further part in it.

    graemebird Says:
    October 16, 2009 at 12:51 am | Reply
    What a sad couple of pukes you two are. You work with Birdlab all the time hey Bickle you runt? Or you go about this sort of business alone. Like the pathetic moron that you are.

  5. graemebird Says:
    October 16, 2009 at 1:22 am | Reply
    You are useless Bickle. You can’t even write. You’ve never had an idea of your own or you would not have started this sort of blog once. Every inch of you is repulsive Bickle. You smell. You are smelly. You are a real stinker. Not one part of you isn’t vile and ugly and free from your general stench. You have a particularly ugly brain. I was going to compare you to the phantom of the opera. But thats entirely wrong. He had stature, style, could sing and dance and was creative. Only half his face was deformed. Whereas you are deformed all over, can’t sing or dance, don’t have a creative bone in your body and couldn’t think for yourself if you were paid a days wage every minute to do so. You are small potatoes. None of your socialist friends like you. They know you, like they, are all grubs. They don’t have any human feeling for you. Rather you all merely share the same project. Even your relatives are only dutifully regarding of you but secretly they are holding their nose. Holding their breath. You are no good and there just isn’t a remedy for it. No-one ever who has started up a blog of this sort has been anything more than uncreative human slime. And you don’t differ from the rest in this respect. You are nothing. A no-account. A dimwit living a totally gratuitous and second-hander life.

    Third Parties: If anyone out there is feeling sorry for themselves take heart in the fact that someone somewhere somehow(???) may have “made love” (excuse me while I take time out for overwhelming nausea) to this horrid slug Bickle. So no matter how depressing your memories are at least you are not saddled with that sort of curse. You can count yourself comparatively fortunate no matter what else makes up your circumstances.

    Bickle you are vermin. And if you had any decency at all you would wind this miscarriage of a blog up. Most particularly you would leave Mr Hall alone. He deserves better than to be harassed by mentally deranged trash like yourself.

  6. graemebird Says:
    October 16, 2009 at 1:31 am | Reply
    Bickle smells. Its an ugly smell. Like carrion and cheap perfume mixed up. Ugly he is. Ugly. You ever started a blog like this up Max? A pretty weakass thing to do don’t you reckon? I cannot see you doing such a thing. Just this stinker Bickle. And that fat fool Birdlab. Girlymen, living other peoples lives.

  7. graemebird Says:
    October 16, 2009 at 2:07 am | Reply
    Name 3. I said name three. Look at you you stinker. You are back here and you couldn’t even name one.

    Finally you hit me a good one in the jaw. Touche oh stinky one touche:

    Refusal to condemn Cambria. I’m with you on that one. I’ve been too forgiving and mild where Cambria is concerned. Thanks for that. I better just go put some steroids in my coffee so it doesn’t happen again. He’s a pretty smooth operater this Cambria. Joe 90 all grown up. I don’t why I’ve been so feeble in the face of this obvious betrayal.

    Travis Bickle Says:
    October 16, 2009 at 2:09 am | Reply
    I don’t why I’ve been so feeble in the face of this obvious betrayal.

    Because you’ve grown flabby, both in mind and body?

    Graeme Bird – supporter of two crony stalkers in Iain Hall and Cambria.

    graemebird Says:
    October 16, 2009 at 2:18 am | Reply
    Until this moment, Bickle, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness.

    My inability to ever harden my tone towards Cambria in the face of his total betrayal of human freedom is a grave weakness and for this I am sorry. I think you’ve said enough don’t you? Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

  8. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    ” you were given definitive proof earlier of places where the right capitalist system solved overfishing.”

    What is the evidence for this? And in any case, what exactly was sold off and to whom? Its absolutely unacceptable for taxeaters to be selling a lot of stuff that they do not themselves own and then splurging the cash on crap.


    So even if it solved the overfishing problem, given that there are better ways to solve this problem, then offloading the right to fish and subsequently blowing the cash on government rubbish could not be more offensive.

    Consider the land-based comparison. Imagine you came to a land where most people were hunter-gatherers, then the parasitical section of society sold the hunter-gatherer rights to vast landed territory, thereby depriving (and therefore starving) heaps of people who had that prior usage, and then they blew all the cash, and borrowed to the hilt and blew that as well.

    Maybe there wouldn’t be OVERHUNTING. But thats not natural law. Its not capitalism. Its not natural justice. Its cronyism and its absolutely unacceptable.

    That the consequences may be less severe with what you are suggesting does not make this cronyist “solution” any less of a travesty of justice.

  9. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Where doesn’t it work?”

    What do you mean “WORK?”

    Where is the commitment to policy-quality, property-rights, justice, economic effectiveness and so forth.

    This sounds like Cambrias excuse for supporting rampant looting of the treasury to give to bankers. His justification AND I QUOTE “It could work”.

    What do you lunatics MEAN by the word “Work”.

    Suppose Cambria decides he is going to be a Broadway star. He can’t act I’m supposing. He cannot dance in this story. He sings flat. He pays his way in and basically underwrites the whole thing. Barely anyone shows up and only because he pays them.

    Now afterwards he is interviewed and he says:

    “You know at first I didn’t think it would work. I didn’t think I could DO THIS. But later I realised “Hey yeah I can do this” You know. And my acting. I said “Hey yes this could WORK. And it did WORK.”

    Would that be evidence of the best possible production he could have put on? Would this be evidence of the best possible interpretation of the particular play that the group could deliver?

    Would this be evidence of a commitment to QUALITY in the theatre, as you dummies ought to be committed to economic policy quality?

    I don’t THINK-so.

    You guys are supposed to be educated people. What the hell do you mean “WORK”?

    If you are pretending to be economists and pretending to have some sort of economics understanding you’ve got to know what it is you mean when you say stuff.

    When the Romans came to Carthage at the end of the final Punic war, and murdered every man, woman, child, animal, left no stone unturned in the city, and spread salt on the ground that WORKED in some senses of the word.

    But it wasn’t powerfully effective economic policy for that geographical area where the city had once been.

    Now lets put a bit of thought into it. You people, are supposed to be educated, and yet you will see a policy that restricts our freedom and fundamentally freezes fish production at the hunter-gatherer stage, buggers our rights of access at sea, as they are now buggered on land, and is absolutely miserable from a philsophical and economic point of view.

  10. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Right. They ought to be taking up far less resources and “earning” far less profit. This is not paradoxical to anyone that understands the situation.

    Rog its not a problem that its government owned. Its a fantastic stroke of good fortune. Were it privately owned like in America, we would have an even worse set of vipers at the heart of our system. This is most likely one of the reasons why the Americans are far more awash in conspiracy and paranoia then the rest of the former first-world colonies. We don’t need, and ought not have a central bank at all. But by goodness if we have one it better not be private. Thats one of the truly worst disasters imaginable. Its bad enough that we have to put up with elected officials. But to make them junior partners or conetending junior/senior partners to bankers is too terrible to contemplate.

    Currently the private banks get far more of the benefit of new money creation then the government does. This is just biazzare. It beggers belief. It would be understandable if the central bank were privately owned. But its hard to see how they’ve possibly gotten away with this rort for so long given that the central bank is indeed owned by the government.

    Can anybody explain this? Its a mystery.

  11. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “It’s a huge area of social and political debate, not reducible to a derisory free market one-size-fits-all actual non-solution suggested by comments here.”

    I couldn’t have said it better. And yet every time we’ve tried to have this debate, its fallen to pieces as the lock-step mindlessness and knee-jerk cronyism has engulfed the whole issue. I’ve circled over the right APPROACH to privatisation and wilderness. And these guys just don’t have the mental discipline or intellect to work the problem through step by step.

    Its a question of incredible importance. Opportunities are being missed daily. Meanwhile that idiot traitor Prime Minister in the UK is having a sickening fire-sale and explicitly to make up the shortfall for all the money he stole on behalf of the banks. The BANKS for the love of A. Mazda. By privatising in this failed way he will ensure a cronyist, and not a capitalist market after the privatisation. He will insure a non-effective industry. And INEFFICIENT market in the terminology of many foolish people.

    Message to the idiot Brown: You are supposed to steal FROM the bank you jerk. Not FOR the bank.

    You keep at it Philomena. I assure you that the right way of doing things can be revealed just so long as people are determined to take a step by step intellectual approach. Which consists largely of ignoring Cambria, and Mark Hill.

    “It’s a huge area of social and political debate, not reducible to a derisory free market one-size-fits-all actual non-solution suggested by comments here.”

    Beautiful. Poetry.

  12. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    What has your last post got to do with anything? I din’t say anything about easements. Your form of privatisation is idiotic, and has no philosophical backing to it. Its basically a sale and splurge deal. We lose the gear and they waste the money. Everytime and without fail. Your privatisation is as bad as what could be imagined. So sub-optimal as to be a crime.

    This is where people trained on opportunity cost seem to be hardwired to the absolutely apparent stupidity, wherein the dummy says to himself…..

    1. Is this particular privatisation solution a little bit better than socialism.

    2. If the answer is YES the mind closes down entirely. And no valid, better or much better alternative will be thought about.

    3. Total mindlessness is justified in the conversation from here on in.

    We have gone over this so many times. Sadly this is one of these situations where even Jason has been appalling and appallingly mindless. Which is not always the case as it is for you and Cambria.

    But anyway we have been through this issue many times and the three of you have always ruined it and never understood a thing.

    I was hoping that now with Philomena here, you guys would decide to lift your game and we could work through this in a disciplined way. If you cannot agree to do that then just bail Mark.

    Because if we’ve been here before and you STILL don’t understand anything I’m talking about then clearly you ought to read more and type less.

    Another thing I’ve noticed. If I hold out against you guys insane cronyist solutions, and not back off on my opposition to them. Once you cannot put these crony-socialist, highly regulated solutions over, then what happens is you all get tired, don’t care about the solution any more. And it becomes a monologue.

    I mean its incredible. You want to argue about this stuff but you never want to learn anything. I’ll ask a question to lead you guys through the series of problem you need to understand to find a better way to privatise, And each one of you in turn will refuse point blank to answer the question, you know, for arguments sakes. So I’m hoping that Philmena’s presence will wind up picking up the blogs performance.

    Or better still she may be the impetus for the whole thing, with me steering the discussion through the problems involved.

    People you have to learn to RESOLVE stuff. You don’t just filibuster you RESOLVE stuff. Look at the many things you’ve proved utterly incapable of RESOLVING Mark. You and Cambria.

    Now do better this time. Or try to type a whole lot less.

  13. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Cambria. Just following on from your points:

    4. Stock trading like anything else is based on reason.

    5 . Its lucky for you that being right 50% of the time is good enough. Because otherwise you couldn’t be on the bludge.

    6. Our inflationary monetary system has the effect that it makes your line of work easier than it ought to be. In effect subsidised. In the past it has made real estate fortunes for bigshots still easier again. So that you are employed in this business is no way proof of your great incite into these matters.

    7, Stock trading is absolutely dead easy. The efficient market theory can go to hell because thats the truth of it. Getting a reasonable stake together and a little experience is what is hard. And you’d probably be a better trader if you listened a bit harder to good points like the one Phil made instead of being a one-eyed, two-faced, uppity hubristic twit about every last thing.

  14. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    There seems to be this one way bigotry going in the automatic moderation, where the dope Cambria can talk in uppity fashion to Philomena whereas I cannot criticize the uppity Cambria. Is this the economist in awe of the rich man? Is this what made Bernanke forget every last thing he ever knew and follow the idiot Paulson?

  15. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    The problem with a “RIGHT” on a bill of rights is it purports to overide future and present legislation and common law. Now why should the politicians of the single era who made the bill of rights, and the legal people who creatively abuse the bill, have this outsized power?

    My conclusion is therefore a bill of rights must be built up one clause at a time. With each clause and amendment, needing a super-majority in both houses. Instead of a Bill as such, if we built up an evolving Bill, one amendment and clause at a time, each covered by super-majorities in both houses, and all on the basis of ORIGINALISM, so that it is less subject to legal wanker abuse…. I think then and only then the idea has legitimacy and legs.

  16. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    So when you are wrong about Quantas you are a genius. And when Philomena is right about some aspect of something she’s still no good. And when you agree with me about something I”ve said somehow thats a failing point to my argument.

    Face it Cambria. You are a moron.

    17 Oct 09 at 3:56 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Sinclair you are clearly suffering from Bernanke’s disease. You really are in awe of this dumb wop aren’t you? I think you are. I think you are bowled over like Bernanke before the lunatic Paulson. A real dope, if ever there was one.

    You don’t really understand how these ponzi-racketeers make their money do you? He’s a dummy. And he’s rude to people who are much smarter than him. You ought let me stomp him in a timely fashion.

  17. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Sorry boys, but Gore Vidal for decades and to this day is one of the most popular and successful writers in US history.”

    Gore Vidal is an astonishing writer. Its not like his prose is particularly fancy like Norman Mailer or Cormac McCarthy. Its more like he can effortlessly create dozens and dozens of characters that walk in and out of his pages. Not only that he may be able to RE-CREATE characters. Bring them back from the dead. His historical novels are a true history lesson in themselves. They are collectively a magnificent history of the United States. Well I assume so anyhow. I must read his novel BURR all the way through.

    Lincoln is an incredible novel. I had been reading management books from the age of 14 and yet the character of Lincoln himself in that book appeared to be like a new lesson in the science of management. The way he freezes out Seward. Very memorable him sneeking into town with only Alan Pinkerton for security. Most shocking one of his secretaries exclaiming first thing after Lincoln’s first inaugrual “So its war then” or something similar. Since we have all been brought up to look at that speech as the most heartfelt plea for peace. And Gore just slams us with a more realistic view of the history of it.

    Gore Vidal doesn’t like Lincoln. He tends to blame Lincoln for the war. Thinks he made the wrong call. And yet he is still able to create this three dimensional character who seems to be a self-taught management genius. Whereas of course the history is that Lincoln made a lot of mistakes. Wrong strategy for starters.

    Temptress Philomena, I don’t have any sense of humour for gear like Myra Breckinridge. I suppose you think that sort of stuff is funny. I won’t ever read that again and I didn’t find it funny the first time.
    Vidal as essayist and realignment of American left and right.

    Vidal noted that Reagan was a highly skilled actor and just narrowly went against casting him for his play An American President. But he had all the usual silly things to say about Reagan. On the other hand Pat Buchanan worked for Reagan and was a big supporter. Hated the Soviet Union.

    Once Reagan and the Soviet Union both were gone to my astonishment I found that their foreign policy was basically identical. They were both pretty nasty about Israel in my view. But they were both more stay at home types. Bring the boys home. A Republic not an Empire. This was a bit of a revelation to me at the time. Matters had decisively changed and the right was never again as it had been. A sort of anti-conspiracy, big foreign policy consensus. Somehow thrown together by William Buckley Junior.

    I don’t think Gore Vidal has a great track record of being right when it comes to conspiracy. But I see him as having the right DEGREE of conspirational thinking. Guys. None of us can really know what goes on behind closed doors.

    But this anti-conspiracy occult knowledge business. This is just moronic. You are just moronic Cambria. You’d make more sense if you understood that when you were talking to Philomena you were talking to someone a great deal smarter than you. Trading is easy. Your line of work is a subsidised business.

  18. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Bird you realize that by making all these racist remarks towards me it proves the fact that you’re about as libertarian as any commie.”

    Well thats about exactly what you’d expect an illogical, or should I say PRE-Logical dumb Vanilla-Goth Cuckoo-baby pretending to be a Roman WOULD say. Stupid woppy-Goth peasant.

  19. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “individual liberty stands implacably opposed to the sort of nationalistic state sovereignty which has been the foundation of our immigration and refugee policies.”

    Just incredibly mixed up thinking in 2009. As the global governance disaster moves forward, sort of unthinking and outdated goosestepping by anyone in the public sector who thinks more immigrants will shore his position, so he needs not retrain as a plumber. We ought expect more and more of this jive indeed from anyone who wants praise heaped upon them and a promotion. And doesn’t mind talking nonsense to get it.

    The statement is confusing three ideas and is in fact irrelevant if true. High levels of immigration are neither the right nor the wrong policy bias independent of whatever else we have on the fly.

    In 2009 State And even REGIONAL sovereignty are absolutely vital if individual liberty is the goal. The worst threat to humane civilisation is not even nuclear war anymore, though yes that will thin our numbers down a great deal. The worst threat, or should I say clear and present oncoming catastrophe is GLOBALISATION. Not of trade and not of immigration.

    But of global “governance”. This constant and growing loss of regional sovereignty will be the death of a culture that even remembers what it means to be free, confident, and to be able to speak ones mind. In my view its already happened. I can speak and think more freely than most because I expect any career aspirations are shot to pieces. But we have seen here that allegedly free men cannot bring themselves to oppose even such foolish globalist co-opted ideas as the Keynesian multiplier. Meanwhile the stupid and mentally docile grow more upwardly mobile daily.

    A family gets beaten to death for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and one of our own gets taken hostage in the same fortnight. Whoever did it, a message of sorts is received whether it be sent or not. No-one can ever know when misfortune befalls them if this is the accumulated biases of globally-minded actors. A conscientious honest and excellent scientist loses her job with an allegedly free-enterprise consultancy. A Professor is booted out of an allegedly private University.

    The shouting down of any agency in these matters and the attendant embarrassment with being thought to be suggesting that opponents act strategically and in concert (are our adversaries all supposed to be atomistic idiots or something?) grows more and more hysterical, even as cross-border co-operation and networking (from every level of the various public services and institutional agencies of bigshots) has to be assumed to be expanding away from our gaze even as it does before our eyes.

    What idiots anti-conspiracy cultists are. My goodness what morons.

    Back to immigration. Of course taking more migrants from poorer and less free countries is a fine thing to do. If we can rightly do it in concert with expanding our own liberty at home. Not if its just some way to keep useless government spending funded and growing debt interest payments met on time with a whole swag of new taxpayers, arriving in boats from overseas. Its not OK if its about public sector people wanting to get house-servants like the big corporate types they paradoxically appear to admire and support so much.

    This is all a lot of crocodile tears. And I know that its crocodile tears because I want to help these guys but the people pleading free immigration don’t. We know they don’t because when we tell them what needs to be done to make more immigration workable they don’t care. And they are opposed to anything of that sort.

    Ideally I’d like us to take a lot more refugees and migrants as well. But whenever I talk about how we can do this, and it still be in the interests of incumbents, its just all a big yawn. So we know this is just leftists and triangulaters trying to wrong-foot true friends of liberty. We know its just people trying to make sure there is enough in the kitty to keep their public service salaries and pensions going.

    But the whole point of this story is we cannot keep them going. It is precisely those salaries and extra-large pensions that must be dissolved. Whether or not we want to be generous with immigration and particularly if we do.

    All policy matters must be judged in terms of how they hinder or help:

    1. Our ability to resist nuclear intimidation.

    2 Our ability to survive and prevail against nuclear opponents, in negotiations as well as in war, total or limited.

    3. Our absolutely imperative necessity to start moving towards near political-autarky.

    4. Our ability to improve the individual liberty, and even yes the PRACTICAL AUTONOMY of taxpayers who are already incumbents.

    Should we then have more or less immigration?

    (a) Can you prove that it would help 1-4 above.
    (b) If not the answer is NO!!!!! unless
    (c) We can change our domestic circumstances such that after those changes the new immigration will THEN help 1 through 4.

    So idealistic people are interested in (c). And they ought to be interested in little else. Anyone not interested in c who is advocating higher immigration ought to be just basically be judged insincere.

    Each person receiving public money has to ask themselves this one question.

    “Do I want to help these people so much that I’m prepared to see most of our non-defense spending be axed, If not then you are not serious about helping migrants. Migrants are a tenth order concern to you. Nass-sackings must come first. Then the migrants will

  20. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “As Gore Vidal said recently air travel is loathsome these days, the flights are longer – deliberately to charge high prices….”

    I’ll take the first half of it on faith, but the second part of it, well one would have to know what the structural problems are about, causing them to do this. It must be remembered

    1. that the market had spoken and they were all supposed to be shaken out. Yet the government bailed them out. And then imposed upon them THEIR version of security as opposed to the airlines version.

    2. You cannot talk to a farmer out near Picton, and set up some cut-price airport where the planes land along a long highway, and launch on Maglev up the side of the hill, defraying the costs with the nuclear generator-coal-to-hydro-carbon fuels setup you have got going nearby. This is anti-competitive.

    3. A lot of these people have been bitch-slapped around for price-fixing, and the fear of being accused of this might be a big deal. Also this alleged behaviour smells uncomfortably of what happens when you get price controls. After awhile people will find ways around them. I don’t know if there is anything going on there.

    4.Since zoning, customs, immigration and security are a big part of the airline industry they could be subject to creeping governmental nastiness. I cannot comment on where they are with that side of things.

    5. We live in a debt-based system. Yet airlines, being as they tend to have only two or three competitors on any one route, have a tendency to want to avoid an all out price war. Since once they get started nobody wins. And this excessive debt that overhangs the system might get these guys acting in counter-market and cronyist ways when juxtaposed on the fact that there ought be many dozens more small airports, and the fear of being accused of price fixing and so on. They might engage in “non-price” fixing “as it were.”

    The bailout of the airlines is really, at least in part, a bailout of the banks as such. If it had not occurred the new owners would be carrying less debt, would be smaller in size, and probably there would be more of them. Particularly if we took a different model. Instead of “Too Big To Fail” It could be “Too Big Is Good To Fail”

    Think of what “Too big to fail” does to industry more generally.

    Gore is getting on now. But at least the first half of his statement ought to imply that there is a problem here. His diagnosis, given all the above, is clearly POSSIBLE. But we would want to know more before taking his diagnosis. A fellow I knew at university is an airlines analyst. But I don’t now know him well enough to ring him up, review this post, and make some supplementary comments about the recent history of it, to see what might be going wrong with the general business model.

    High debts make corporations act pretty ruthless and nasty. They are not a feature of real capitalism, since money will often tend to grow in value it would often be best to wind your act down if you were facing high debts. I’m claiming that ltd liability ought mean 100% equity. And here we see another reason why many airlines are likely bigger than they ought to be. And perhaps less customer focus. But coming from me, as a non-frequent flier, further comments would be totally speculative. I know I got messed around terribly when I went to NZ.

    17 Oct 09 at 11:40 pm

  21. “Wrong. Beck has been caught lying, attributing false positions to a dead environmentalist. He’s also minimised the risks of using DDT, despite having had them pointed out by numerous bloggers with numerous studies to back them up.”

    Without evidence. Its all a beatup. What about the risks of not using it, putting the producers out of business, bureacratising its use, and making it more expensive. What possible risk could there be to rival matters on the other side of the balance sheet.


    You are from a crowd who claim CO2 is a pollutant. You are not going to be the least bit credible claiming DDT is particularly harmful as far as insecticides go. Its a lie. And worse than that its a globalists holocaust-denial lie.

    Beck is right and you are wrong. We would want to see transparent evidence. Know how much exposure is bad.

    One time they made by regulation “NUCOSEF’ cough medicine have to come in bottles half the original size. This put the price up substantially and now its basically a failed product.


    With DDT, the failure of the mass-murderers to completely wipe DDT off the face of the earth, in no way ought to stop us from calling the genocidal actions taken a ban.

    So in advance we can say that if you fall into playing these word-games that are usually played here….. If you go in for the word games its tantamount to a confession that you hate black kids and would see them all dead.

    I’m not sure if there is any pesticide that is powerfully healthful to humans in high quantities. How about Mortein? We ban Mortein? It cannot be too magnificent to drink surely? How about that rat poison that Beria fed Stalin. Now maybe we ought to ban that one.

    Since when did insect poisons have to be totally beneficial to mammals? I’ve never heard such a preposterous notion. Its meant to kill insects or make them beat it. Its not meant to be some sort of tonic for the rest of us.

    Now that the nonsense about DDT has started, its time to come out of the closet so that I can name and shame you as a holocaust denier.

    Whos is Travis Bickle

  22. Graeme Bird Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 18, 2009 at 3:51 pm | Reply
    Now that the bullshit about DDT has started its time to come out of the closet so that I can name and shame you as a holocaust denier.

  23. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Why are you bringing GDP into it Mark We’ve been through this before and you don’t appear capable of learning anything. Don’t talk about what you don’t understand. Since nominal GDP is by no means to the totality of spending in an economy it therefore follows that you are wrong and idiotic to claim that:

    “If actual GDP is less than projected, we can conclude that k < 0.”

    This is quite apart from the fact that the economists are pretty hopeless at predicting anything. And notice that your ignorant analysis has quite forgotten about monetary conditions. Pretended that they don’t exist.

    Its your flat learning curves that offend me the most Mark.

    There are quick ways to respond to aggregate shocks. Whatever you mean by “aggregated shocks”. I’m pretty sure that you don’t have a clue what you mean. But thats neither here nor there. There is always the ability to respond quickly to anything. As Henry Ergas has said “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

  24. “Down the bottom I’ll link to Maurice Cotterels excellent short history of how the public service money-pit known as PARTICLE PHYSICS got so horribly corrupted.”


    Site deity sez; Note that

    1. even when these blockheads tell the literal truth, they are lying. They manage this shabby act by their dopey and use of the English language.

    2. I never said I had proof of Cootterel’s theories. I’m not promoting Cotteril’s theories. I’m promoting some aspects of Bill Gaede’s theories, some aspects of Neal Adams’ paradigm, and some aspects of the Electric Universe crowd, who deal in plasma physics.

    3. Think of the oddness of the phrase “Remotely True” when it comes to a physics paradigm. Perhaps I’m quibbling. Lets try and rewrite his objection for the sakes of intellectual precision.

    “You HAVE NO evidence ABOUT COTTEREL’S THEORIES BEING EVEN broadly on the right track!”

    I could maybe dispute the above if this is what you had said. But you didn’t say this. What you said was that you were a moron. In effect that is exactly what you said. I agree that you are a moron.


    There is no possibility of responding directly-and-productively to any statement as existentially idiotic as the above. With new theories, we don’t begin with proof we always consider data and evidence and we use the incoming data and evidence to rank and re-rank the paradigm against at least two other competitors. But I wasn’t promoting Cotterel’s theories. I was promoting the theories of other parties.

    Posted Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    I’ve never seen enough work done on the fact that water exists on earth at very close range to its two phase changes. I’d want to see the effects this has compared to methane on Titan.

    For my money what the average person perceives as the “greenhouse effect” isn’t the greenhouse effect at all. That is to say what we perceive as the greenhouse effect is not the effect of absorption-scattering, but rather is to do with water “dithering around its phase-change” region. Water going too and from gas to liquid suspended in mid-air. Water going to and from liquid to gas, in terms of clusters of molecules too small to be considered to be “droplets.”

    Posted Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at 3:00 pm | Permalink
    I think we have to worry about disasters on the Tokyo Tsunami scale and 1,2,3,4 and 5 orders of magnitude more powerful. After all for every extinction event there must be thousands of culling events. This trace gas hysteria is a big distraction from real worries.

    I’ve got to rebuild a house lets suppose. What if I make it a socially embarrassing shape in order to make it more robust? What if I build a pyramid in a large suburban plot and a dome in a life-style semi-rural area and start stockpiling gravity-operated water filters, wood-gasifier power generators, and freeze-dried food. Its not only that this would be socially offensive under current assumptions. It would be banned outright by most councils.

    Crowding out real problems with make-believe ones is no small problem. Its potentially a civilisation-killer. Our success will be based on what we DO NOT worry about as much as anything else.

    Posted Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    I was wondering when someone would do something about these pig-ignorant CO2-bedwetters. Clearly they weren’t brought up right, and they lack all the social graces.

  28. Mr Bird
    is this you commenting or is someone impersonating you?

    • No thats not me. Thats almost definitely Jason aping my writing style from a couple of years back. He’s got a real flair for phasing in and out of writing styles.




  31. I like it

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 )

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


%d bloggers like this: