Posted by: graemebird | April 12, 2010

The Social Fucking-Faux-Pas Of Intelligent Design/ The Current State Of Play.

FROM ELSEWHERE:

I don’t think I’m making a slight carping criticism. Or if I am it is pretty slight. But I did notice the fear factor when the topic of Intelligent Design came up.

I try to separate my own beliefs out some of the time and just listen to the quality of the arguments. So I was surprised at one stage when I was finding that as a rule things had changed with (for example) the abortion debate. I’d seen Ayn Rands screed on the matter and considered it pretty superior. But I did notice that her argument didn’t really hold up for later term abortions. It was predicated on the idea that these abortions were early term.

In any case I started noticing that the pro-abortion types had become typically hysterical and evasive. And the anti-abortion types has gotten their act together and were using pretty strong arguments. I can say that without regard to my own beliefs. I believe argument-quality to be a technical matter.

Likewise with the pro and anti Israel arguments. And this is probably a function of our leftist secondary school teachers cherry-picking the footage. But I had seen all these examples from the early seventies of these rational Arab intellectuals dealing with hysterical Israel supporters, and they just couched it in terms of diposession and property rights, whereas when I (it now seems a bit shameful) sided with the other side, I found pro-Israel types to be kind of crazy. Talking about Moses and all that. But later on the quality of the argumentation flipped and I feel the pro-Israel position is usually argued convincingly. I don’t think its any point me trying to hide that I’m a fervent supporter of Israel now.

This long-winded intro comes because I know intelligent design is a very sensitive subject. I myself am an atheist. I do expect to be believed when I say this. But recently the better intelligent design people have emerged as the more serious and committed scholars. The usual suspects simply refuse to take on their objections in a serious way.

Now the thing is you have people like me and this Berlinski fellow. And I’m certainly no intelligent design person in any sort of supernatural sense. I’m not necessarily an intelligent design person in the Von Daniken sense either, though a few matters have come to light recently which brings this possibility higher in the plausibility stakes in my view.

I’m looking for another paradigm. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are. But the road that leads to the answers is paved with the objections of the intelligent design people. These are pretty damn strong.

What I was going to say about Berlinski is I IMAGINE he’s coming from a similar point of view to me. I imagine he just want science to prevail. Personal belief ought not be important to science, properly considered, which ought to be all about method and process. Its that the process has fallen apart; this is why I find myself provisionally siding with the I.D. people these days.

The intelligent design arguments are better arguments, in all likelihood, for some more enhanced and sophisticated view of natural history, then for any idea of supernatural intervention. Lets get back to the science. If the bully-boys refuse to recognize the mystery, then you’ve cut off the scientific method at the knee-caps. Where do you go from there?

For the moment, until such time as a revamped paradigm of evolution is on the table, I will put about the tentative conclusion, that the universe is not big enough for Darwinism and the Big-Bang-Both. Because the sophistication of the individual cell is just astonishing. And until we have much better developed theory we have to assume there is a lot of extra-Darwinist mechanisms involved or else a lot more time involved. For the moment we have to downgrade the idea of evolution being a one-planet young-universe sort of deal. And the rejection of the Big Bang for this reason is not a bad thing its a good thing. Since the Big Bang is one of the most illogical, unscientific, and embarrassing theories on the books. The consensus science-maffia bully-boys ought to decide which theory they want to abort.

The reason why I bring up this powder-keg, is that it may not be a strategic thing for climate-empiricists, to offend our natural allies. None of the smarter ID people would ever likely fall for this trace-gas-hysteria. And all of the smarter ID people are coming up against this totalitarian streak in the world of public-sector science-worker nastiness.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. 1) All theories have deficits, this is part of why science progresses.

    YOU IDIOT. SCIENCE DOESN’T PROGRESS BY LEARNING TO LOVE ONES DEFICITS. SCIENCE WOULD PROGRESS IF THE EVOLUTIONISTS TOOK THE VALID CRITICISMS SERIOUSLY AND SAW TO THEIR DEFICITS. IF YOU THINK EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS GOOD AS IT STANDS….. PROVE IT.

    2) You have to provide strong supporting evidence in favour of your claims when those claims go against prevailing theories.

    TOTALLY WRONG. PREVAILING THEORIES HAVE TO PROVE THEIR WORTH. OR THEY OUGHT NOT PREVAIL. THEIR PREVAILING IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE. IT DOESN’T MATTER IF NON-PREVAILING VIEWS AREN’T POWERFULLY SUPPORTED. THEY AREN’T THE VIEWS GETTING IN THE WAY OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. THE PREVAILING WRONG VEIWS ARE. GET IT TOGETHER.

    3) Scientific theories are not proven as such,

    NO FUCK THAT BULLSHIT. THATS A LIE. IF A SCIENTIFIC THEORY CANNOT BE PROVEN ITS EITHER WRONG OR ITS SUPPORTERS ARE USELESS.

  2. All theories do have deficits. By definition. Intrinsically.

    To believe otherwise is hubris and unscientific.

    Plenty if not most leading evolutionists in their field do take on board the contradictions, anomalies, mysteries, unanswered questions implicit in evolutionary theory.

    Graeme, I can’t help but think you are arguing against a dogmatic, low-level minority enclave within evolutionary theory science. An easy but unrepresentative target.

    I can list those current perplexing questions about evolution off the top of my head and I am not a scientist just someone who has read about the deep, detailed ongoing debates and hypotheses and the attempts to construct an evolutionary synthesis drawing on and referencing a range of separate disciplines and their specific methodologies.

  3. Yes its true that most theories have deficits. If they didn’t they would be facts. But you are in the way of progress if you learn to love deficits.

    Truism was saying that as an excuse for not proving his theory. He’s got to prove it. There are no exemptions to the scientific method, except on Sundays.

    You have models, theories, facts and hypotheses.

    The evolutionists are doing such a bad job, we may have to downgrade their theory to a model. They refuse point blank to test their theory. To try and falsify or verify it. To take on board the criticisms of their opponents.

    Believe me, neither truism or anyone else has tried to prove their case.

  4. “Graeme, I can’t help but think you are arguing against a dogmatic, low-level minority enclave within evolutionary theory science. An easy but unrepresentative target.”

    I think you are absolutely right Philomena. But these idiots seem to be ascendant right now. Consider the conversation I had with John H. He was fine. Not like these other morons.

  5. LOOK. YOU ARE PROBABLY RIGHT. PROVE IT.

  6. Now here is a documentary “Icons Of Evolution.” Now if you think there is no need to improve upon current Darwinist thought PROVE IT.

    So simple. You saw how I operated with at least making an excellent beginning apriori case for the basic thrust of Bill Gaede’s version of light and gravity.

    Now thats the sort of thing we would want. Of course we deserve better since all the funding is going to this mainstream view.

    What has changed recently is the cell has been shown to be far more sophisticated then anyone had imagined. Until stupid-town gets its act together what this means, for the time being, is we are talking about an older universe, and a multi-planet evolutionary “factory.”

    But first of all we have to have the proponents PROVE THEIR THEORY to some reasonable degree. To actually take the idea seriously that they must PROVE IT. This is not about beliefs. This is science. You have to prove it.

  7. YOU MADE A NUMBER OF ASSERTIONS. YOU MAY BE RIGHT. PROVE THEM.

  8. PROVE EVERY LAST BIT OF IT. BUT DON’T BULLSHIT ME THAT SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT PROVING STUFF. BECAUSE THATS EXACTLY WHAT SCIENCE IS ABOUT.

    NOW ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOU BELIEVE IDIOCY LIKE SPECIAL RELATIVITY, THE KEYNESIAN MULTIPLIER, THE VALUE OF DEFICIT SPENDING, THE BIG BANG, THE IDEA OF THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE, AND THE IDEA THAT THE STANDARD VIEW OF EVOLUTION DOESN’T NEED SOME WORK……

    …. WELL THEN OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO TELL ME THAT SCIENCE ISN’T ABOUT PROVING STUFF. OR HOW COULD YOU LIVE WITH BELIEVING ALL THIS UNSCIENTIFIC BULLSHIT?

    THE HEART IS A PUMP! THATS A FUCKING FACT. YOU DON’T THINK WITH A LITTLE EFFORT YOU COULD PROVE THAT? HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN CAN BE COMBUSTED TO MAKE WATER! YOU DON’T THINK THIS IS REAL KNOWLEDGE? WE FOUND THIS OUT, AND THIS BECAME FACT, BY PROVING IT, THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. WRINKLE NOT THY FOOLISH BROW AT ME YOUNG SIR.

    IF YOU ARE GOING TO CLAIM SOMETHING PROVE IT.

    REMEMBER IT IS NOT EVOLUTION PER SE THAT I’M QUESTIONING. BUT THE GENERAL VIEW WHICH I FIND TO BE UNSOPHISTICATED AND BASE. BUT MY BELIEFS ARE GOING TO COME INTO IT AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. I’M UP IN THE AIR ON SOME MATTERS. IF YOU THINK NATURAL SELECTION IS ADEQUATE TO THIS TASK……

    PROVE IT.

  9. All that bluster over at PZ Myers place and these guys are just speechless when asked to make their case.

    See that Philomena? Get John Z in the right mood and you will have a reasoned case. And he will agree that the standard story does need some work.

    But not these people. They know it all. And they demand a handicap.

  10. Now I’ll start you guys off. What we see in the tiny cell is just extraordinary complexity. We see something akin to PROGRAMMED INFORMATION.

    See this is easy for me. I can talk around the subject of evolution all day and all night, dreaming up potential scenaries that might in the final analysis plug up this deficit we see in either the Myers understanding or the Myers ability to communicate. Here I use Myers as a proxy for all these assholes.

    So we see that we have a lot of information embedded in biodiversity.

    But people a little bit unconvinced that this diversity and the sheer complexity, particularly within the individual cell, could have come about by natural selection alone ……..

    …. They make a good point. Now any atheist-biologist worth his sale ought to be able to beat this point. But there is no use pretending its not a good point.

    They look at the situation and they are dumbfounded. And they say:

    “….. I cannot believe this incredible sophistication came from blind chance… ” they say “BECAUSE AFTER ALL, NATURAL SELECTION REDUCES AVAILABLE INFORMATION”

    So then they shake their heads, and these are smart people, knowledgeable people, dedicated scientists. They shake their head and say this:

    1. We are lead to believe that natural selection is what creates all this sophistication. All this INFORMATION.

    2. Natural selection, by its very nature, reduces the amount of informatoin.

    3. One and two don’t go together. Something is missing.

    Now this is very reasonable. It ought not be a sacking offense.

    Now I’m alright Jack. I can talk and type about why I think this very reasonable argument can be overcome ALL DAY. I can invent scenarios easier then Gore Vidal can invent characters.

    I’m Okay.

    You are not Okay.

    Remember that book that came out?

    “I’m Okay, You are Okay”

    Remember that?

    Well thats all wrong. Because I’m Okay and you guys are NOT Okay.

    And matter of fact PZ Myers is completely fucking useless.

    ITS OK FOR THE KIDS TO THINK. YOU MIGHT THINK ITS NOT OKAY. BUT I ASSURE YOU ITS FINE AND DANDY THAT THE KIDS BE STIMULATED INTO THINKING. AS PART OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS.

    Now the kids being given this information…. Well thats a bit of a poser. And they are allowed to think. They ought to have many points of view available to them , and it would be good if they thought them through.

    Discriminating against a good biology teacher who cannot quite believe the shoddy case the public servants are making is like discriminating against a red haired teacher. Or a female teacher whose tits are too big, or something like that.

    A dedicated person, who is good teacher, presents a broad spectrum of arguments to their class, thats what sets the class alive. Thats what makes the learning experience valuable.

    Not this communist dictatorship that Myers is after, where you bring in some commie civil liberties union to brazenly misinterpret the constitution, and get a good teacher sacked……

    This is in not any way designed to have these kids thinking and learning and learning to think and discussing these matters between themselves.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Look I fucking can do this. I can come up with scenarios to explain this matter. They may be right, wrong, on the right track, on the wrong track. This is always the case at the hypothesis-generation stage.

    But I’m not the one asking for good teachers to be dictated too by national socialists like PZ Myers. I’m not the one asking for good teachers who are really dedicated to their calling, to be sacked, because they realise that the public servants haven’t got their shit together.

    So start off with this powerful argument. How can natural selection explain implied information of immense sophistication, when natural selection is a culler or information?

    Start with that.

  11. hey graeme

    check this out.

    your hero Neal Adams is coming up with a new Batman mini series. looks badass

    http://io9.com/5363646/batman-arms-himself-for-new-big-name-series

  12. Well you know. To me it is all about the science.

  13. What do you mean natural selection is a culler of information?

    And how do you account for the fact biological variation within species does exist and becomes more and more conspicuous as we move up the evolutionary scale and that this biological variability is highest in human beings, the most successful species and that we display a greater degree of biochemical, structural and temperamental diversity than do the members of any other species?

    Isn’t every single human being genetically unique? How does this reduce information?

  14. This is what I”m asking the guys who want to ban dissension to answer.

    They could also start by telling us what they think is behind the Cambrian explosion. Since here we see, in a very short time, the explosion of pretty much all the different types of animals and if anything the diversity dropping after that. Whereas if it was just natural selection you would expect the diversity to happen slowly over time as we diverged from a common ancestor.

  15. Well hanging everything on one theory, natural selection, is not right.

    We know of at least four mass extinctions possibly caused by meteorites or asteroids and the devastating impact of these could have caused not only extinction of other species but changed the habitat and climactic conditions to such an extent that as in a later period led to such things as disappearance of the dinosaurs. This in turn would have had a liberating effect on other species, such as mammals.

    The disappearance of the dinosaurs allowed mammals that had thrived and survived partly because they were more numerous, if small, to grow larger in the absence of competition from T-Rex et al.

  16. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago.

    Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

  17. Its extremely sudden.

  18. It is still a contrast, Ritchie, to the evolutionary record overall which is very slow.

    But it is species’ advantages that seems to be key to extinction or proliferation.

    Neanderthals co-existed with homo sapiens from about 50,000 to 28,000 years ago. We know their brains were as large as ours, they appeared to look about others in their group, even buried their dead, and had tools. But why did they disappear? Many palaeontologists think there can only be one answer: homo sapiens developed the ability to speak. Language gave us such an advantage in the competition for food and other resources that we helped wipe them out.

  19. Define “extremely” and “sudden”.

    DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN? I’LL SAY AGAIN. 5 MILLION YEARS IS EXTREMELY SUDDEN AND OBVIOUSLY SO. TO GO FROM BABY SPONGES TO ALL OF LIFE IN 5 MILLION YEARS. THATS EXTREMELY SUDDEN. YOUR FINGERNAIL ARGUMENT IS NO ARGUMENT AT ALL. DON’T TRY AND BULLSHIT PEOPLE WITH MINDLESS DISTRACTIONS.

  20. I find the term “intelligent design” unconvincing and at bottom religious in nature. (Not that I am mindlessly anti-religion).

    I think evolution was random, accidental and only occurred in the way it did within given biological, chemical and all the other conditions, sequences and constraints necessary for it to have occurred in the way we sort of know it did. And which in different circumstances would not have occurred or unfolded in the same way, if at all.

    And I think we have ascribed “intelligence” to something which in other spheres we categorise as “mathematical” or “scientific”. And maybe we can self-congratulatorily label this “intelligent”.

    But isn’t that “intelligence” an outcome (at best) and still a provisional human construct and subjective estimation, rather than a pre-existing, autonomous objective driver?

  21. I tend to think that also. But if these people want to go around branding Sarah Palin a “creationist” just because she wants open discussion in class, then they better make a good case in that direction.

    They just have no idea how the full spectrum of life could have exploded into existence in 5 million years. Standard Darwinism cannot deal with such an event.

  22. People have to face up to it. 5-10 million years is too short a time for natural selection to explain it. So either these guys are going to come up with a greatly enhanced version of evolution, and plausibly explain it, or they are not being serious.

    5-10 million years is so blindingly fast, without a more powerful mechanism we are going to have to assume terra-forming.

    The Cambrian issue isn’t going away. Its time for people to be a little bit more scientific, grown-up and respectful.

  23. Moderated from elsewhere:

    An international cabal of anti-Catholic pooftahs, infiltrates the church, for the purpose of sexual exploitation of minors.

    Should something be done about it? Or ought the suffering of the children be ignored on the basis that it isn’t happening because it cannot be happening, because there are no conspiracies?

    I’m not qualified to say where conspiracy ends and useful idiocy starts. But you’ve got to respond to the lies and unethical behaviour as and when you see it. You’ve got to stop the racket. You don’t have to explain all aspects of why and how the racket got going.

  24. The Cambrian issue isn’t going away

    Indeed, he’s going to continue to be around as long as fractional reserve is around.

  25. Yes an interesting co-incidence isn’t it?

    What do you make of the Cambrian explosion enigma?

    Of course I’m not saying……..

    1. Five million years is too fast to go from sponges to nearly all the main groups of animals we see today…

    ERGO

    2. Yahweh and Jesus did it.

    Thats not my argument at all. But if anyone thinks that the basic Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is enough to explain that sort of development, then they really aren’t being serious.

    So tell me your thoughts on the matter. Surely science must continue to develop in this area, to explain how this could have happened?

    Surely the answer is to persist and find the answers?

    Not to pretend that its all normal and according to Darwin.

  26. So you are a supporter of commie Stephen Jay Gould?

  27. He named it. He didn’t explain it adequately. Punctuated Equilibrium is a phrase. Not an explanation. Well not quite. It IS and explanation, just not an adequate one in the circumstance.

    I had a similar explanation before reading Gould but I didn’t understand the enormity of the problem.

    Certain explosive developments require pre-requisites. Once those pre-requisites have been achieved the explosion may occur at any time. Although it may be some time before it actually DOES occur after every last one of the pre-requisites has been achieved. This is in the nature of innovation as such. And not just innovation in the natural world.

  28. Sure but these guys think punctuated equilibrium falls out naturally if evolution is regarded as a self-organizing critical process.

    http://chaos.swarthmore.edu/courses/SOC002a/p4083_1.pdf

  29. Right but this is an entirely inadequate viewpoint for what happened in the Cambrian.

    See how closely related we are to the Chimpanzee right? Common ancestor about six million years ago.

    Under the Cambrian model, the fish, amphibians, proto-mammals, proto-dinosaurs and so forth …..

    Well under standard Darwinist assumptions they must have all been related just as closely as we are to the Chimp. Or often as closely as the Kodiac Bear is to the Polar Bear.

    We would have to get the genetic information to see if this is true. But is it a realistic assumption? What do you think?

  30. Mr B, are you suggesting a gang of extraterrestrial fornicators has been visiting earth and having its way with our primitive organisms?

    Is my granddaddy an alien sponge rapist?

    This is very disturbing. I might need to spend a bit of time in the bunker to get my head straight.

    We should add this to B. Hussein Obama-Soetoro’s articles of impeachment, anyway.

  31. Mr Bird

    what do you make of this?

    This makes my blood boil. That uppity black man really has to go

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bigger_the_thug_the_deeper_the_bow/

  32. ((((The deep characterisation just isn’t there. One of the points I was going to make about the science of character creation is that the motivation not to be found out as oneself is part of it. Your motivation is slipping. But I’ll go along with it))))

    Steady on Winchester. He’s not a black man.

  33. The cambrian explosion didn’t take 5 million years, it took about 50 million.

    WHICH PART OF IT? MOST OF THE DIVERSE PHYLA WERE IN PLACE WITHIN ONLY 5-10 MILLION YEARS. ON WHAT BASIS ARE YOU GIVING US THE START AND FINISH DATES?

    Also thinking of a animal that hasn’t changed much over a time period is no proof that others couldn’t have changed that much.

    WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN “COULDN’T HAVE” WE ARE INTERESTED IN WHAT IS AND IS NOT PLAUSIBLE AND HOW PLAUSIBLE, IN COMPARISON TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES. WE DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER AND SO WE ARE COMPARING ALTERNATIVES WITHOUT PREJUDICING ONE OR THE OTHER. YOUR LANGUAGE IMPLIES THAT ONE THEORY GETS A HANDICAP.

    We don’t disproove evolution by finding ancient morpholocially similar jellyfish.

    WE AREN’T ATTEMPTING TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION. WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED. YOU NEED A MORE SCIENTIFIC CASTE OF MIND.

    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT “ALL YOU’VE PROVEN” FOR? WHAT HAVE YOU PROVEN? NOTHING!

    NOTHING EXCEPT THAT YOU CANNOT RECOGNISE A MYSTERY NO MATTER HOW BLEEDING OBVIOUS!

    • Excellent retorts, Mr Bird, to these phlegmatic “arguments”.

      You are really coming into your own now aren’t you.

      I love to see a magnificent work in progress.

  34. “Mr B, are you suggesting a gang of extraterrestrial fornicators has been visiting earth and having its way with our primitive organisms?”

    Part of my enhanced version of the scientific method is to always have at least 3 (and better still 6) paradigms (theories or hypotheses) in parallel. And you are ranking and re-ranking them as each new bit of evidence comes in. Evidence or information THAT IS NEW TO YOURSELF.

    Only a brainwashed idiot would fail to put terraforming in amongst these explanations. Seriously. You would have to admit to your own indoctrination, and inability to think for yourself, not to have it there amongst your other theories.

    You don’t believe it. Belief is not part of the scientific method. You don’t have to believe it, you just have to keep testing it against your growing knowledge in good faith.

    Now suppose I had terraforming as one of my six explanations. And I would be a total idiot not to have.

    Now then supposing you start off being a uniformitarian and then you learn a bit more and become a catastrophist.

    Catastrophism would make crude Darwinist evolution more plausible, because it means the constant vacating of some niches.

    But it would make terraforming disproportionately more plausible, because it would force intelligent life to terraform.

    So you might not end up with terraforming as your lead paradigm, by your expanding knowledge of catastrophism. But the distance between the two would be less than it was before.

    So if terraforming sounds utterly implausible to you its important still to have it there as one hypothesis. Since you don’t know what you don’t know and when you know more it ought to affect your various rankings.

    So for example I’ve grown powerfully more catastrophist in the last few years. And of course there has been the shock of the hybrid skull.

    When it all settles down one supposes that I’ll be thinking that terraforming probably played a part here and there.

    But if you haven’t absorbed the implications of the skull, or aren’t convinced of periodic disasters hailing from the rest of the galaxy, don’t expect the terraforming hypothesis to loom near the top of your estimates. Because the distances between stars are so vast, that without these other understandings, one would not expect the aliens to make this distance.

    The other thing is the big bang. If you still believe in this idiotic theory the prospect of terraforming will be beyond the pale for you right now.

    But good practice would demand that you hold it as an hypothesis in parallel just the same. Because its not a matter of belief its a matter of methodology.

  35. You see above. That where the Cambrian explosion is concerned the tree of evolution is upside down. We reach the point of maximum diversity right near the start of it. Survival of the fittest cuts down the diversity.

    Edney if you cannot see a real problem here you are yet to evolve eyes.

  36. Mr B

    I don’t like watching youtubes because the dial up in the bunker is quite slow.

    But can you tell me, does the Cambrian Explosion have anything to do with a Towelhead taking out JC and hopefully some of his Jew Banker Friends?

    The Lord knows I am no fan of those camel-humping Jihadis but I am somewhat on the same page with them when it comes to regulation of the international financial system, if you catch my drift.

    • Mr Hanson

      Choosing between the Hebrew moneylenders and the Moslem hordes may seem like a tough choice. However I think you are too harsh on the Chosen Race. They may have crucified Christ but I have met quite a few patriotic Hebrews in my military service. Not all of them go into money lending.

  37. Its all in vain if at first you don’t get rid of fractional reserve.

    Note how the pigs in animal farm started to look like humans? You take Cambria out of banking without first getting rid of fractional reserve, then banking will CREATE more Cambrias.

  38. “Sure but these guys think punctuated equilibrium falls out naturally if evolution is regarded as a self-organizing critical process”

    It hardly really matters what some fellow thinks.

  39. The idiot Reynolds is still spruiking the advantages of fractional reserve EVEN AFTER we’ve seen where it leads. But since he can find no actual benefits he’s giving it the benefit of “saneness”. Some people were born stupid and they are never going to be any other way.

  40. Mr Bird

    One has to consider whether it is stupidity which is forgivable in the eyes of our Lord or dishonest self interest which motivates Mr Reynolds and his usurer ilk. After all his whole livelihood is dependent on the perpetuation of this fraud which has milked many a farming family dry and thus deprived this once great country of the salt of its earth, the ones whom you so evocatively described who grew up without any indoor plumbing and were therefore free from the ravages of flouride and other chemicals meant to pacify the populace in preparation for the New World Order.

  41. Our Lord threw the money changers out the temple Mr Bird.

    When will you do your part and do the same?

  42. I’m trying to follow the deeper meaning of what the Saviour was trying to pass down to us.

  43. Mr Bird, much as I love Italian men, who are among the sexiest and most beautiful men in the world, it is true – is it not? – that banks were invented by the Italians.
    banks proliferation from C12-13 on, the French, who can generally be relied on to be the first to oppose a bad thing, at that time questioned their efficacy and ethical raison d’être.

    And if we look at Italy today, certainly in the last century, we can shake our collective heads in dismay and sorrow at where this not so great idea of banking has brought, not only the Italians, but most of the rest of the civilised world.

    What say you?

  44. Well it was brought back after the fall of Rome in a big way, first in Venice, and later you have the Florence banking families. Although there may have been a continuation of banking at some humble level in Constantinople.

    Its not banking per se that is the big problem. Its fractional reserve banking. This is the curse of mankind, this practice.

    • YOU’VE GOT SOME ALTERNATIVE THEORY HEY YOU DUMB WOP?

  45. Fractional reserve exploitation can destroy any country no matter how sound. No matter how good the economy is going it is never going so good that fractional reserve cannot bugger the economy.

    We’ve seen the banksters bring down Japan and the Republic of Ireland for example. We cannot afford this practice anymore. We have too far to fall.

  46. Mr B

    Is it your Thesis that the Cambrian Fractional Reserve System is some sort of Dago Ponzi Perpetual Motion Machine? i.e. Cambrias automatically create Fractional Reserve which in turn create more Cambrias?

    Where does it end?

    Don’t we need to nip this in the bud?

  47. I have found a PATRIOT

    Is that not magnificent?

  48. And now look at this Hideous Lesbian persecuting Dr Taitz

  49. Incredible isn’t it. One of the most important jobs there is and this fellow has given less information than what he would have needed to join up for little league. The anti-vigilance crowd are proof positive that we are in a new age of unreason.

  50. And Mr B, just between you and me, I reckon Orly would be a real goer. Dentists love to inflict pain, and that can’t be bad, right?

  51. She would be a real goer, for the fact that she is a smart, non-nihilistic girl, about the right age to be a real goer, and she is looking out for all our interests. . She is a good girl doing the right thing, and that tends to make her a bit of a hottie. .

    You keep your hands off her you dog. And make sure you tell her about me.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    A moderated post from elsewhere:

    Trying to suss out what your tone-of-voice arguments are about is tough work. Its a bit like that scene in ‘year of the dragon,’ where the cops have a couple of nuns listening in on the dialect of some drug-dealers.

    I can see you are very very angry at someone called Joanne. And it appears that you are angry on the grounds that Joanne is not a SOOTHSAYER. By the tone of your voice it appears that lack of soothsaying ability has now become the identifier for the person you wish to rubbish. She is not a soothsayer. Therefore she is a witch.

    Your Gramscian nonsense will avail you little you anonymous worm. Because everybody knows that it is the TERMS OF REFERENCE for any enquiry, that determine whether a whitewash is likely or otherwise.

    If you are going to be angry at women for not being Soothsayers pal, you might want to see a psychiatrist. You don’t want to let things get out of hand.

  52. PHILOMENA

    MF is not those things you think he is. He’s not any of those things and its a bit of a mystery to me why he could not have done me a personal favour and tried to be patient and kind with you.

    You must realise that me and MF view socialism, in the broad sweep of 20th century history, as being like a giant abbatoir where good girls like you get murdered and the children get tortured.

    You having been on the left, have absorbed a lot of the one-liners, slogans, and suppositions to distract from all that. But this is the way me and Michael would see it.

    So you talk in that old-time leftist way you cock the gun for Michael already. Then if you insult him for any reason …….. well you see the gun is already cocked.

    I asked Michael, and I’ve asked CL to pull back from insulting you and try and be patient. I like all three of you, and I would have wished I had enough credit built up with the three of you such that you all could humour me. This was not to be.

    Now you are in a position where almost all your insulting comments towards these two would probably pass, whereas my place is not a place where anyone can be abusive of Philomena. So this time I want YOU to be the one to hold back. I want YOU to be the one to turn the other cheek.

    You see you did insult Michael first. You really did. And since me and Michael would hold socialism responsible for the sadistic deaths of 100-200 million human beings last century ….. then he would have gone ballistic the minute you went and insulted him.

    Plus he would have been unrestrained, because he would have thought, that I would have edited him pretty quickly, which somehow I didn’t get around to doing.

    You must show restraint Philomena. Especially where Michael and Currency Lad are concerned.

    The rest of them you can kick in the nuts and I encourage you to do so.

  53. A bit of an update on what I’ve been getting down too:

    Was thrown out of Tuggerah NAB just for asking for the manager’s birth certificate. Fascist pricks.

    Kevin Rudd is a Russian. Here’s the evidence – look left of the d key when typing his surname, and you get Kevin Russ. Blame Keelhaul

    Took my laundry into the local yum cha place only to be told to fuck off and take my GMB currency with me. Gook cunt.

    The 20th century eradicated smallpox. This century we need to get rid of fractional reserve banking. And Reynolds.

  54. Indeed we need to get rid of fractional reserve banking. The curse of the galaxy. The ultimate in subtle insipid societal rot, posing as a relatively harmless bit of a graft and a lark.

  55. Graeme, I think the beginning of wisdom is to accept that it is not necessary or often even possible to like your friends’ friends. It is too much to ask of any individual relationship, however close, and ultimately futile.

    I have absolutely no interest in what C.L. or Michael Fisk think about anything because for reasons I won’t go into (in deference to you) I think they both have fundamentally uninteresting minds. And of equal importance, they are constitutionally incapable of honest, good faith, courteous debate.

    As is crushingly obvious to observers of both these men in action, this view is widely shared by probably the vast majority of people who have ever crossed swords with either of them in the blogosphere including, or even especially, as I recall, on Catallepsy, a blog I haven’t looked at for a long time.

    You are entitled to your opinion of them, just don’t expect others – or me – to share it.

    As you know I am, by contrast, fascinated with your deep, lively, curious, contradictory, oppositional, knowledgeable, witty and often tender mind, even though we disagree profoundly on many political issues, including many if not most aspects of 20th century history.

  56. Mr Bird,

    I have not graced your “blog” for quite some time but I am keen to know your thoughts on this recent nuclear security summit held by the marxist Usurper in Washington.

    My thoughts are that it is an excuse for the Usurper to down his trousers in front of the resurgent russian crypto-commies. As we have previously discussed they have no doubt planted many briefcase nukes in American cities and have been holding the leading politicians to ransom on this basis. There is no other conceivable reason for McCain to not have made a deal about the true birth place of the communist islamic Kenyan.

    It seems to be no coincidence the death of the Polish President. Putin and his KGB cabal are showing their hand, and we can no doubt expect that the US will further denude its nuclear shield while the Russians claim to do the same. What proof though do we have that they are doing the same. None.

    Once the Usurper has left the US open it will be a short march for the Chinese and Russians to carve up the globe between them.

    While I understand your interest in these questions of human origin and banking I fear if our best minds do not constructively turn their minds to best how to deal with the Hordes of asia western civilization will soon be undone.

  57. Well thats about right. He is not subtle as to who he is loyal to. He bows to the Chinese sponsor. The Saudi King. And he throws nuclear weapons away in the face of the only person who can destroy the US from a military standpoint. They reduce their nuclear arsenal without all the talk we heard during Reagans time. “Trust But Verify” Reagan insisted. Obama will insist no such thing so its a one-sided disarmament.

    Very many Americans know what this fellow is about because he is constantly letting his foreign supporters know that he’s still with them with his blatant symbolic gestures. He puts the Chinese flag on the White House Lawn. He betrays his Polish allies on a special date. This is the drumbeat confirmation that he is with his allies and has not gone native and is not with the American people.

  58. Miss Philomena,

    I am pleased to see that despite your support of international communism that you at least have seen what a marvellous gem our Mr Bird is.

    I have not written here for some time, only stopping in for the occasional browse. I often balk at some of the topics he broaches. Mr Bird and I will have to differ about the likelihood of the role of panspermia in the origin of the species. Indeed I would not use the kind of gutter language he chooses to use at times.

    Despite this fair minded people from across the spectrum can recognise this diamond in the rough as I am pleased you have done above.

    Despite some questionable political views, you seem a fine young woman. I would implore you to exert yourself to examine many of Mr Bird’s fine teaching here on this blog on economics, politics and history as he speaks truth even if sometimes the details are confused. It is, I feel, merely a result of the gurgling ferment of innovation that exists inside Mr Bird’s fertile brain.

  59. Mr Bird,

    We know the evidence. It is clear before our eyes. The question is how do we get our message out and what to do? As much as I loathe the American Mugabe, I would never see our american cousins spill their brothers blood to rid themselves of him, while the communist hordes laugh on at the spectacle.

    Such an outcome is no doubt part of the marxists plans for it would cement the Usurper as a leftist saint. We must discourage this outcome and push for a peaceful resolution.

    I come here as I have been in some distress after this disgraceful unilateral disarmament. Do you have any ideas on what we should look to do?

  60. Mr Glover

    I pray you are not a Communist mole out to dampen Mr Bird’s crusading spirit.

    What should we do? A bullet between the eyes of that sexually ambivalent Moor would do just fine

  61. Mr Quatermain,

    As I have explained, such a course of action however much it would seem logical would have the marxist islamists falling down laughing. I sincerley believe it is their plan. It would cannonise the Usurper and leave America at war with itself. We must rid ourselves of the blight in a civilized manner and not fall foul of the perfidious tricks of the islamo-marxists.

  62. The best thing to do is ask him for his birth certificate. Find out who this fellow is. Who is daddy is. This sort of thing.

  63. Ignore this, it’s just to get E-mails about follow-up comments

  64. ……..

    …..On Jennifer Marohasy’s “Wrong Policy on Population: A Note from Peter Ridd” thread (Note 1) on 18th August 2009 @ 10:41 am you confidently stated QUOTE: On another note here is what Barry Brook did to the person who started this thread: “Pete Ridley said 24 June 2009 at 6.12……….

    Gz, rfrncd Prfssr Rmnthns ppr f yrs g bcs hd bn drctd t t nl ths mnth b wll rspctd scntst whm ndrstnd t b nvlvd n mprtnt crrnt rsrch nt spcts f th mpct f th q-sp ….. UNQUOTE.”

    Right. I don’t remember the incident. I cannot quite make sense of that big post. What are you driving at? A case of me mistaking you for someone else? Barry appears to have mellowed a bit and may not be as dogmatic as he had been. Clearly when he first opened his blog he was wallowing under the curse of the lone paradigm. And he was being rude to Jennifer and others. I haven’t seen him being as nasty as all that lately.

    I want to approve your post. But I just don’t quite understand it.

    How about deal with your several complaints one at a time. I cannot remember any of my wrong-doing from that far back. Back then Barry was sort of lock-step with the basic model. You know. The one that doesn’t work.

  65. ..On Jennifer Marohasy’s “Wrong Policy on Population: A Note from Peter Ridd” thread (Note 1) on 18th August 2009 @ 10:41 am you confidently stated QUOTE: On another note here is what Barry Brook did to the person who started this thread: “Pete Ridley said 24 June 2009 at 6.12……….

    Well you’ve busted me pretty good and proper for making a mistake 2 years ago. But you are rubbing it in pretty thick aren’t you Pete? Why not correct me right up front? I would mentioned that I’d messed it up and that would be that.

    Note that the worst thing about politicians is they are wrong, they don’t correct themselves, and they then go ahead with their wrong schemes to the detriment of society. Better to have someone who makes mistakes and his mistakes are filed in the dustbin and not turned into huge gaudy failures like, for example, the home insulation scheme.

    I’m a little troubled that you’ve been carrying this knowledge of me mixing up your identity for two years now.

    You ought to have told me right away Pete.

    Was it that big a deal? Like I mixed up your name with some other fellow. Thats a real biggie then? So shocking you didn’t tell me at the time?

    Surely something else is bugging you right?

  66. Hi Graeme, no, nothing at all is really bothering me except that you gave the impression of jumping to a totally wrong conclusion on the most flimsy evidence. I only came across this yesterday during an unrelated search and pointed it out your mistake as soon as I knew about it. When I linked to your blog from Jenifer’s I was struck by the apparent arrogance of “Graeme Bird for higher office” and stuck by the fact that there was nothing on the page worth reading. Instead of using your link direct I cut and pasted into my browser https://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/who-is-more-qualified-to-comment-on-climate-science-matters-me-or-barry-brook/ which leads to a page with your header but “Error 404 – File Not Found Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here” (I have today tried to link direct from Jenifer’s page but it is just the same). After my experience with Brook I was eager to see what you’d said about/to him so was disappointed that there was nothing useful on the page.

    My clash with him was in June last year but although I was banned from his blog I have kept an eye on his threads and his dogmatic position about the validity of The hypothesis didn’t seem to have changed last time I looked.

    Regards, Pete Ridley.

    I know nothing else about you, excepting that you appear to be sceptical about The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis.

  67. I’ve just has a look at some of your comments elsewhere, particularly on ABC articles. I suspect that you have the same opinion as I do about Polly Higgins and her supporters concerns about “Trees Have Rights Too” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/04/ecocide-uns-next-scam-after-all-trees.html)

    regards, pete

  68. Right. Well this is all good. Make sure you correct me on any other mistakes you find me making should you get the chance.

  69. Good work Mr Bird,

    Unlike these science workers and politicians its good to see you admit your errors.

    Now as to the birth certificate. We can all appluad the valient efforts of Orly Taitz but it now seems pointless to pursue this issue further through the courts as it is clear that hardcore-marxists in the US justice system have pretty much shut down that avenue.

    What do you think of these Tea party fellows? Perhaps if we can get a good body of these right thinkers in congress we can get them to start to raise the issue there perhaps leading to an impeachment.

    Rather than come out with every bit of evidence whenever its uncovered (when its clear that the marxists are planting false trails) we need to compile a really big body of evidence (weeding out all the fake documents the marxist have planted) then really hit him hard with it before the election. The one piece at a time approach has seemed to fail as they can just mock it as each comes to light.

    And we want him at least impeached (arrested as a Usurper would be ideal but impeachment is a first step), just getting him to lose the election won’t be enough.

  70. Mr Bird

    That ignorant swarthy trader Mr Cambria is mocking your scientific credentials

  71. I have been following what the God-hating Trotskyites Hitchens and Dawkins are planning to do to the Vicar of Rome when he visits the UK. I think they may be on to something.

    So I am planning to make a citizen’s arrest of the Usurper when he visits Australia.

    I don’t expect much support from Local Law Enforcement so I may need to keep him Detained in the Bunker pending Trial.

    I will need some assistance in providing security for the Prisoner so I expect to call on some of you to provide arms and assistance.

    Mr B, can we borrow your ute to transport the Prisoner from the place of arrest to the Bunker? I’ll pay for the diesel. Perhaps Mr Quartermain can drive?

    I will be in the backseat with the Prisoner commencing interrogation.

    The main charge will be Debasement of the Currency and Kowtowing to Foreign Powers and Orientals. I’d like to charge him with Conduct Not Befitting a White Man but I’m worried he’ll weasel his way out of that one.

  72. What terrible news. He’s visiting Australia. I hope people at Catallaxy don’t lose their dignity and go downtown lolly-gagging about, waiting to get a glimpse of this homo criminal, like he was their favourite movie-star.

    Yeah that wop is a real dummy alright. One time I was totally unable to convince this blockhead that the Triceratops laid eggs. He wouldn’t wear it. Cambria so stupid that because the Triceratops looks like a Rhino, the dumb Goth could not absorb the reality that it laid eggs like any good dinosaur.

    Dude is so stupid he may have trouble with understanding that some Rhino’s are sheilas. Being as they all look so damn butch.

  73. Richard the constitution is pretty clear on this. Obama, as a usurper, cannot be impeached. He’s got to be hauled away in irons. The problem being that in the modern era, when he bullshitted his way into the job he got himself his own Praetorian guard. Which he will by now have stocked to the gills with loyal reds and Muslims no doubt.

    Even the attempt to impeach him would fail. Since it would wind up being split down the middle with people who wanted to stick to the constitution, not wanting to imply he was President by calling to impeach the fellow.

    Its just not OK to let this stuff go ahead in the first place. Notice how the Supreme Court Head Justice was so conflicted he fluffed the oath. And the conman just confidently helped him through.

  74. Mr Bird

    I wish you would refrain from using foul language in the title of your posts. I wish to expose my grand children to worthy moral exemplars on the web and your site would be a top candidate but for your language.

  75. He’s not bringing the girls Ron. This is about the only time one could ethically attempt to bundle him off to the big office in the sky, see if he wants to sit in someone elses chair there.

    Not that I want to encourage anyone on this score. No use throwing your life away for something of this nature. One would hope that the Americans could use his time out of the country to plan something. Though I don’t think the bullshitartist would ever risk staying away for any length of time.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Someone was telling me about the Aquino assassination. The story as told to me (since I don’t remember it at the time) was that they hauled this killer out of jail to do the killing. But either the boss or Imelda then decided that this fellow will miss. So they got a military assassin to do the job. The murdered the first fellow on the bus on the way there to do the job. Then they murdered Aquino immediately as he was walking down the stairs, but had the criminals body to throw there as well.

    I don’t know whether this footage confirms the matter. But there may be something in the way of things that if the government stages an assassination they are going to have to build around it. The government would never just shoot the target straight and be done with it.

    Another video shows that his version of the story was a little bit wrong. The criminal was still alive and does seem to have shot Aquino. But in the end an investigation got 25 military types arrested over it.

  76. Are you for real?

    Did Cambria really think that a live dinosaur would just pop out of Triceratops’ pussy?

    Stupid Fucking Dago.

  77. Mr Hanson

    I believe that the infiltration of the Moors must have dumbed down the level of civilisation in those swarthy garlic eating parts of Europe. How else to explain the decline of the societies that once boasted Ancient Greece and Rome, our intellectual forefathers?

  78. Yeah Ron. Cambria got so mindless where I was concerned I could not reason with him on any matter. I told him that the Triceratops was officially more closely related to modern birds than modern Rhinos. He wasn’t buying any of it. But that was Catallaxy too at the time. Didn’t matter what I said. Didn’t matter how logical I was. It would just be filbustered away, and with the mention of Martians.

    I’ve never understood the automatic denial of the possibility of alien visiters. My view was that they would almost never come here simply because it was too far. But if you see something that might suggest that some of them did indeed come here ……. why would this be something you would rule out?

    I just think people are Sheeple. And a lot of the worst sheeple appear to be atheists brought up as Catholics.

    I don’t blame the Catholic religion. But I do blame early Catholic schooling. Since the anti-Catholic cabal of homosexual nihilists that infiltrated the church, may well have insinuated their anti-Catholic influence into early Catholic schooling. A silly unsupported thesis? Well I don’t know a thing about it. I keep wanting to find out who and who didn’t grow up under early Catholic schooling.

    These fags would have programmed in the idea that there is never a conspiracy. That authority is always right. All the terrible lies which allowed these anti-Catholic pretenders to exploit the children and get away with it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I don’t approve of that anti-Moor type of talk Winchester. There are plenty of excellent black people who have been overlooked for high office and peoples discrimination against such talent is part of what has cursed them now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Here is the best show on the Kennedy assassination I’ve yet seen.

  79. Gentlemen,

    In the deep melancholy which I have subsisted since the usurpation of the homo-islamo-marxist I often thought to wonder if Australia’s greatest gift to the world could be this.

    In our nation we are sitting on the worlds largest supply of Uranium, should we do the world a favour build the world’s biggest nuclear stockpile and launch a first strike against the communists. Suicide of course but it would allow us to wipe out many times our number of marxists and mohammedans. Much of the country is already desert and quite remote from the rest of the world, for our small sacrifice of 20 million we could say wipe out 1-2 billion in the marxist and mohammedan nations, and leave a legacy of prospertity for the remaining 4 billion inhabitants of earth.

    I am not serious of course but it is something I pondered when searching my soul for solutions to the marxist usurpation.

    Mr Bird,

    Again you are indeed correct. Impeachment would legitimise the Usurpers election. Mark me for a fool for not having considered this.

  80. But Mr Bird
    Surely as an admirer of Shakespeare you can see how Obama is like a latter day homosexual version of Othello, who may let loose his rage on the American populace at any time.

  81. You haven’t been reading your just war theory Ron. See this is what happens. The homo’s infiltrate the early Catholic schooling. And they teach the maleable children ….. the little Bahnisches, the little Rudds ….. They teach them all this subversive anti-Catholic garbage …. And then they say:

    Remember children. There is no such thing as a conspiracy. Then they have ritual humiliation of conspiracy theorist effigies.

    But what they don’t do is teach them the deeper Catholic intellectual tradition. Because if they actually educated these people they wouldn’t be able to abuse them sexually at a later date.

    So everyone misses out on just war theory and all the other good stuff.

    We can defend against nuclear attack and without targeting civilians. But we need a lot of time to get in that position. This blog deals with all the issues involved with this absolute mandatory requirement. We have to get started. But first we’ve got to have a change of heart towards reason and away from Catallaxian mindlessness.

  82. He’s already loosed his rage on the American people Winchester. They are suffering mightily under his wrath. For starters few can get jobs, because all the spending that would give them jobs is being diverted to government and consumer spending.

    Secondly there is this ludicrously named Health Care Reform, which will systematically starve the elderly of health care and make the American hospital one of the unsafest places on the planet for anyone suspected of going against the dictator.

    Its a quixotic plan sure. But its pretty close to being in operation already.

    People who have never been ideological often imagine that others are like themselves. But an ideologue like Soetoro would see things in clear primary colours. His world is more akin to the world of “A Man Called Thursday” then the drab Time Magazine world the centrist lives in.

  83. Mr Bird,

    How often I have heard you say we must go after regime leadership. This is a far nobler strategem that any I have described, but will it be effective?

    As you have described these marxist are sheeple. Even more mindless than the herd of crony-capitalists at Cattleaxy. Pruning the leadership may just make new more vigourous growth take place. They are a hive mind infected with the socialist virus to the core and it matters little who leads.

  84. The regimes that would give us trouble are the same ones that will turn their populations around very quickly, and convince them that Australians are their brothers and always to be treated with respect and patience.

    This will be the case if some of the leadership are killed in shocking and unaccountable ways and the survivors are living under a feeling of impending doom and fear.

    I’d make an exception in that I’d use nuclear weapons at sea. We cannot send our submariners into the deep without that sort of advantage. Water being the ultimate shock-absorber. We need nukes to stop a foreign navy from daring to mass its forces. If they come in ones and twos and try to land so be it. They will be picked off over time. But if they mass their forces we ought to nuke them under those circumstances.

    One can see how one would be tempted to use nukes in other circumstances, but if you succumbed to that temptation well that speaks for a lack of morality in terms of the investments you’ve made over the prior two decades.

  85. “…… Well given the incredible oversupply of Chinese males, The Burd better start teaching said stolen maidens how use an AK-47 in stilettoes.”

    He’s a righteous gay man is Patton. Look how effortlessly he conjures an incredibly alluring vision of future immigration policy. One of the few thinking-men left on Catallaxy.

    However I’d prefer our new Australian maidens to get comfortable with the AA12 shotgun and the metal storm handgun. And also get used to monitoring a half dozen metal storm robot sentries from a position of safety.

    https://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/aa12-shotgun-with-less-lethal-rounds-for-every-hardened-australian-home/

  86. Mr B

    Look at this picture of Triceratops:

    I am sure you are familiar with it.

    Are you saying that Cambria seriously thinks that Momma Triceratops could jam that through her dinosaur pussy? Look at the horns!! Obviously it had an egg.

    If he can’t grasp something as simple as that no wonder Fractional Reserve baffles him.

  87. Exactly.

  88. Hi Rich

    Many say that the “International Communism” of which you speak is purely a figment of the fevered imagination of self-described “libertarians” and other right-wing conservatives in organisations like the LDP in Australia and equivalent groups and individuals elsewhere.

    However, I agree it is important in a democracy that people are educated and informed about what right-wing market fundamentalism, neoliberal economic theory/politics and opposition to “international communism” looks like up close.

    And Mr Bird certainly does oblige students of this legitimate political enclave with forensic-level explications of today’s self-described libertarians’ world-view on all these important matters, plus a vast range of others, from homosexuality to religion, the nuclear winter, World War IV, assassination of political opponents, Armageddon, climactic catastrophe, immigration, the role of women, and so much more.

    For this, we all must be grateful.

  89. Graeme, I don’t know that you can legitimately or persuasively comment on Catholic school education unless you’ve undergone it.

    Plenty of people on both the liberal left and the right are defenders of the Church even up to and including its ongoing systematic cover-up of systemic physical, psychological and sexual abuse of children and young people in its institutional care over centuries and which continues today. Heaven help all the poor children in the new Catholic growth areas of Africa and south-east Asia!

    Yet it’s also true that a Catholic education and upbringing has spawned generations of the most unsheeple-like people who could possibly exist. People who champion and advocate political goodies such as freedom and liberty and emancipation.

    And often too, for the lucky ones, these same individuals also have a strong personal sense of genuine spirituality, something that the Catholic Church institutionally annihilated a long time ago within its clerical and organisational leadership and among vast swathes of identifying or practising Catholics.

    I think you’ll see all this exemplified on the couple of relevant threads over on LP in the last week. Watch especially for comments from sg and Fran Barlow (positive) and Kim and su (negative).

  90. “Graeme, I don’t know that you can legitimately or persuasively comment on Catholic school education unless you’ve undergone it.”

    No I cannot. You are right. But I’m deeply suspicious so I’m making a bit of a joke about it. I’m very very suspicious. I’m dubious of people wanting to abuse Rantzinger. I haven’t been reading the papers and so don’t know on what basis they are singling him out.

    You see I wonder about the congregation. How could they, who are closer to the problem, have let it continue? Why didn’t they speak out? Why not get one of your protestant mates to tip off the police and have some of these pooftahs arrested?

    Plus I look back at my history in Australia. I think about some of the people I’ve had great trouble with. Sometimes I know and sometimes I wonder if the pattern isn’t there. If its secular types, but with a Catholic early schooling.

    So the prejudice is there. Since I cannot go around hunting down peoples backgrounds I cannot tell if its a well-founded prejudice or not. Plus since I know nothing about that schooling, and don’t know whether its been influenced by these criminal molesters who have infiltrated the church, then all I can be is incredibly suspicious.

  91. “Yet it’s also true that a Catholic education and upbringing has spawned generations of the most unsheeple-like people who could possibly exist. People who champion and advocate political goodies such as freedom and liberty and emancipation.”

    I’m sure thats true. But is it true in Australia for many people under 40? Here I speak of now secular people? I wish I could confirm what you are saying. But with secular people, under 40, having had that background ……. well I’m not seeing it myself. But then I may be attributing that background to people I’m not sure of.

    When I say in Australia, I’m talking about those in Australia who were brought up with early Catholic schooling here.

    And all these gay infiltrators? How influential have they been on the early childhood education front.

    Catholicism is a conservative religion. One that emphasises family values, REASON when they aren’t talking about the church itself, and all the other good stuff.

    Well then how comes it that you get legions of these Prodeo people? Surely most of the prodeo crowd are secular types with the early Catholic schooling?

    But even that I don’t know. I could not be more curious about this supposition. Its bugging me because I am unable to confirm or reject it.

  92. You can’t excuse the Pope, any Pope, the nominal head of this powerful institution in the same way you can’t excuse the head of any state or institution, whether it is Howard, Rudd, Hitler, Obama, Mugabe, Putin or whoever.

    The fish stinks from the head down, no?

    Figureheads are not totally to blame, but in such a position you or I would have a go, wouldn’t we? We’d throw caution to the wind and stand up for what we really believe in and care about (assuming, ideally, that’s not merely power, status and $) and call on and enable others to support worthwhile goals that don’t exploit or abuse or oppress others?

    But then to ask that first question points to the very problem. Why do we have these feudal relics, heads of state, at all? What does this have to do with democratic ideals and individual freedom and liberty? Very little really.

    We’ve really got a long way to go haven’t we.

  93. Yeah you cannot excuse the Pope. But what about the rest of the congregation. Some pooftah molests a fourteen year old boy, why isn’t he arrested and put in the hoose-gow? The Pope personally intervene?

    I remember this animal rights girl I had a lot of trouble with when I first arrived in Melbourne. She was telling me about all these clergy coming down with aids. She was saying how sad it was. Well of course its sad when anyone gets such a disease. But it seemed odd to me. Because a lot of gay men at that time were coming down with it and I couldn’t get why she thought it was PARTICULARLY sad when it happened to people whose life had been a lie.

    And I was shocked that there were so many Gays in the clergy. As if the clergy had made hypocrisy a sort of higher virtue or art form. They ought not have joined. They don’t let girls in the hierachy. So what is going on with all these homos. And being as so many of them seem to have found their way there and promoted eachother you have to wonder as to their effect on the children.

    Then you see all these Catholic-schooled types spending no end of time promoting anti-Catholic values and them too stupid to be doing so out of their own valid reasoning. But rather it seems they KEPT TO THEIR SCHOOLING on a deeper level.

    Bahnisch is an idiot. If he’s a leftist its not because he’s rebelling against his schooling through the systematic exercise of reason. Yes its true he may be rebelling against the church values. But with that many homos in the system, who ought not be there in the first place, then the schooled values and the church values might not be one and the same thing.

  94. LP’s Kim and Mark B are straight down-the-line practising Catholics and strong defenders of the Vatican, Graeme. I find their silence and/or apologetics appalling, but somehow in a very sad way linked with their lame, gutless politics.

    Other than that I don’t know. LP is pretty fluid these days, all sorts of people posting there some religious some not, some secular types supportive of religious freedom, others more proscriptive. Quite a brew.

    Plenty of young people today who had Catholic education are open minded but to the extent they are not it’s more a reflection of current political times, rather than their religious upbringing and education.

    For it is the times that are having a deadening effect on political thought amongst young people generally, today and in the recent past. Most young people don’t give a stuff about politics – real, worthwhile, meaningful politics, not infotainment and sectarianara – and that’s been the objective of mainstream political leadership and the mass media. They want people to be bored and alienated by politics. Think of the leeway and license that gives to them.

  95. Okay so I better re-emphasize that I know nothing about it. What I do know about is the incredible effectiveness a secretive network can have in influencing a wider institution. The way the relative handful of communists in Washington in the 30’s and 40’s did untold damage.

    The ensured war with Japan. They influenced the zeitgeist of the administration to such an extent that American policy and Soviet policy became dreadfully aligned. More research would likely reveal their responsibility for Dresden, Keelhaul, the loss of China, and the failure to allow Americas South Korean allies to be able to buy the heavy artillery that would have deterred the Korean war. And in fact most pozy decisions and much of what was wrong with the institutional culture in the post-war years.

    Tiny secretive networks within a large institution can be devastating. Every meeting you go to, every decision that is made, these people have already strategically planned the matter, sized up all the participants, and gone to manipulate all of them for their key strategic plank. Sometimes no doubt acting like conservatives on all the minor issues.

    So while this wild suspicion I have is almost bound to be wrong, as most armchair thinking is, still I’ll keep it in mind.

    I just wish I had the ability to either find out more about it and conclude I’m wrong or otherwise.

  96. “LP’s Kim and Mark B are straight down-the-line practising Catholics and strong defenders of the Vatican, Graeme…”

    So why do they spew all this anti-Catholic stuff about the place? Why is Kim so open about her bisexuality. About kissing Maria Shriver (to be wiped soon).

    I mean I like all leftist girls not in power. But its so strange. Here they are. Supposed to be Catholic. Yet against all the church is supposed to stand for. We have people here who we cannot rely on. Who we could never trust if there was some sort of external threat.

    We could not predict what they were to think on any issue, because its all strategic to them.

    I just don’t get it. I liked how Reagan reached out to the Catholics and swung everyone onside when we needed them. It was terrific to have that sort of default support and co-ordination.

    But I don’t get what is being turned out of these schools.

    These people are supposed to be educated to think like Aquinas one would have thought. So how come they were fooled by a completely idiotic CO2 scare.

    What about the others at Prodeo. Who can you dob in for their early childhood education?

  97. What about the Norton’s

    Commie Paul and alleged classical liberal Andrew. Both these people give me the shits. Can you dob them in?

  98. It is a huge still properly untold story isn’t it, what went on, goes on, in religious orders and Catholic-run schools and other institutions.

    Thing is the victims were kids mostly, or in positions of lesser power, so just like everywhere else no one talks or tells. And they just get away with it until sometimes, at best years later, some individuals speak out and perhaps there’s finally an investigation or the volume of complaints against individuals are too great for the institution to ignore.

    It’s interesting though too than many people who were “fiddled” with in the Catholic Church, by priests or nuns, weren’t traumatised by that so much as they were by the overarching mind-deadening blanket of forced conformity, authoritarianism and punishment, that is, of course, a characteristic of all hidebound, hierarchical, intolerant institutions and their representatives and leaders.

  99. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual or bisexual. Freud reckoned that bi-sexuality was the healthiest, probably most natural sexuality and that homo- and hetero- were the stunted aberrations. I’m hetero but I don’t for a moment think that makes me better or more “normal” or “decent” than the other options.

  100. Yeah look I think this is fine if this is the best person for you. The best way for you to be given your wiring. I come across as anti. because leftists immediately start conducting campaigns of sexual harassment when you are a rightist blogger.

    But Catholic clergy living homosexual lives sets up a lie at the centre of the church which must radiate outwards from there. Just as fractional reserve undermines the institution of capitalism, so must a crypto-gay network undermine the Catholic church. Gay men belong in the congregation. After all we are all sinners. No-one is perfect.

    They belong in the congregation. Not buggering eachother in the hierachy.

  101. So nuns are doing a lot of fiddling also?

    Is that true? Of course the victims should deserve our sympathy. But the poor deprived women. This is all rather unhealthy I feel.

  102. But it is not so easy to differentiate or separate the centre and the congregation is it? And after all, we must remember, both are made up of imperfect, sensual, sensuous, desiring human beings.

    Re the nuns. Like most things to do with women, compared to men, it was all a lot softer, less explicit or carnal, more innocently flirtatious, more benignly emotional and egalitarian.

  103. Right. I certainly believe what you are saying about the girls.

    No look its an official hypocrisy if they let gay men into power. Perhaps they ought to encourage them in some roles. But not in the paid hierachy. Having one scandal like this naturally set up the situation for a far more horrid scandal to grow out of the official hypocrisy.

    So what started out as an innocent and harmless hypocrisy morphed into a terrible monstrosity BECAUSE it was an hypocrisy. Because it created a secretive subset within the church. At least thats how I would make it. People have to go back to Augustine and this idea that human institutions are all prone to corruption.

    You know all that talk about the City Of Man and the City Of God. Pootown and Australia City.

  104. “No look its an official hypocrisy if they let gay men into power”

    Look at what? Who are you channelling here?

    And you’re missing the point. It’s not a case that “gay men” were “let into power”. The chronology is all wrong for starters.

  105. How did they get there? What is the chronology?

  106. The chronology is that men and women join religious orders in their teens or early 20s at the latest.

    They are people who overwhelmingly have themselves had a religious upbringing and education. And they were/are young people whose main motivations include: they believe they have a religious vocation; they want to escape from a material world that appals and frightens them; they’re not interested in, ignorant of or fearful of all manifestations and expressions of human sexuality; and/or they are happy to enter a place where such views can be validated even rewarded and honoured.

    That’s the beginning of the chronology.

  107. Well that might be right early on. But come on now. These guys must know they are gay? You cannot seriously tell me that people going into the clergy do not know that they are homosexual.

    And what do they do when they find out? Twenty-five years ago we were talking about clergy coming down with AIDS for goodness sakes.

  108. Well I do seriously tell you that are your sexual labels are risible not least because they are static.

    Just yesterday I got my hair cut by a Greek woman in her early 20s who still lives at home and whose 15 year old sister announced to all and sundry at a family dinner that she was a lesbian.

    Yeah, right they all said. As they should.

  109. Come on Graeme, “rights” have been mentioned three times on this thread yet you ignore my comments about QUOTE: Polly Higgins and her supporters concerns about “Trees Have Rights Too” UNQUOTE. Doesn’t she get you excited?

    (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/04/ecocide-uns-next-scam-after-all-trees.html) UNQUOTE.

  110. Trees most certainly do have rights Mr Ridley, even prior rights to you and me if they are older than we.

    This is ABC in a civilised society.

  111. Ha Ha. I’ll have to find out if she gets me excited Pete. If the trees want rights they ought to petition for them and pledge their sacred honour.

    I’ll look into it later.

  112. I suspect that Polly is saying this, resultant from her anti-Catholic early-Catholic schooling, influenced unduly by this cabal of anti-Catholic homos that have infiltrated the church.

    If trees have rights, well pedophiles haver rights also no doubt. And the rights of man are effectively watered down to nothing.

    One supposes that a few of the older trees may have some heritage value.

  113. Funny how libertarians hate trees. One does wonder where this weird pathology comes from. Were their their fathers and grandfathers all crazed loggers or farmers who thought they needed to cut down all the trees to make room for the sheeple?

    The mind boggles.

  114. Philomena, you seem to be one of Polly Higgins’ supporters wishing the UN to bring in that “5th Crime Against Peace – Econocide”. Maybe you’d like to take a look at the A/V of a dead tree’s funeral (Note 1) arranged by Americans who appear to share Polly’s feeling about trees rights. This is how people like myself view her and her supporters like yourself.

    I’d be interested to know how you feel about the rights of snakes, spiders, mice, rats, etc. and let’s not overlook those mites, leaches, parasites, worms, germs and viruses – do they have rights too?

    NOTES:
    1) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygY57FdRcr0&feature=player_embedded

  115. Its not about hating trees Philomena. But their rights are somewhat lower on the scale then the rights of humans. In fact trees have no rights. Not being sentient beings who can petition for them.

    Putting the rights of trees ahead of the rights of humans is what murdered Brian Naylor and his wife. We let the Chinese take one of our own hostage. Which shows we aren’t now willing to stick up for the rights of our countrymen, at least against China, if our countryman is ethnic Chinese. To start putting the rights of non-conscious cellulose before the rights of humans means a further downgrading of the taxpayer.

    The taxpayer who pays for public servants, whose only true long-term justification for their jobs is to preserve the rights and the dignity of those they live off.

  116. If corporations have legal rights and legal standing why not trees and rivers and animals?

    http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/wildlife/360285/enshrining_legal_rights_for_the_planet.html

    Polly rocks (thanks for introducing me to her Pete) and so does her mentor the brilliant Austrian artist, architect and environmental activist, Friedensreich Hundertwasser, from whom she says she took the notion that “trees have rights”.

    http://www.gothereguide.com/hundertwasser+house+vienna-place/

  117. Graeme Hundertwasser settled in New Zealand and died there. I didn’t know that.

  118. Thats just a short drive from where I was brought up. He must have gotten there after I left.

    I’m still thinking all these homos must have unduly influenced the zeitgeist.

    You would seem to be a case in point. Probably you have embraced your early-schooling, even though you be in rebellion against our more righteous church.

  119. The US military says things are looking bad on the Peak Oil front, Graeme:

    http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=55731

    If only they had read Catallaxy then they would know that there’s really nothing to worry about!

  120. Yes thats right. To beat the logic of peak oil we need a whole new generation of drilling equipment that can go much deeper. Because the standard wells are already on a plateau.

    Catallaxy is a very strange place. They haven’t come out in favour of growing earth theory. Nor have they embraced the theory of abiotic oil. Yet the boneheads still cannot understand the logic of peak oil .

  121. HOLY SHIT YOU ARE AN IDIOT. TOO MUCH OF A PZ MYERS BUTtHOLE TO SO MUCH AS INVENT AN ARGUMENT OF ANY SORT.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: