Posted by: graemebird | June 28, 2010

Comparisons Between Kennedy And 9/11 Conspiracy Murders.

We really have to grow up, and realise that both the Kennedy hit (The Big Event) and 9/11 (code-name currently unknown) were American conspiracies. That both were American-based conspiracies is an historical fact. The reality could not be any other way. This proposition is unassailable. No-one has come close to any sort of debunking in either case. Go find an alleged “debunking” and I can tell you now; it will be utterly underwhelming.

For those of you who haven’t researched the issue, here is a bit of an overview of both these conspiracy-murders. Its pretty vital that everyone grows up about this. We cannot have the luxury of having all these sheeple around, giving cover to the conspirators, by way of simple stupidity. It is of “Fermi Paradox” level-of-importance, that you all snap out of sheeple mode. Thats how important it is. Fermi-Paradox-Important. The future of humane civilisation is at stake.

Modified from some emails to a discussion forum:

The buildings were hit by two planes yes. But they were devastated otherwise as well. This can be proved totally, by the simple method, of reviewing the video and scientific evidence available. So these propositions being mentioned on Lew Rockwells blog ought not be a “disappointment.” Since the proposition (that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition) is an unassailable fact. I don’t like the implication of it either. But we don’t work backwards from such implications, to skew the facts of the matter.

There is no chance of the two towers coming down (in the way that they did come down) without the extra explosions. But a theory that claimed that this was possible, would still have to explain the explosions. We know that the buildings needed the extra explosions to come down in the way that they did come down. We also know that there were extra explosions. So theorising that the buildings could come down without the extra explosions is somewhat besides the point.

Besides the point? Sometimes I use understatement for effect.

The theory that thermate wasn’t used is not a winning hypothesis, since it cannot explain the residue of the thermate found. The proposition that thermate would not have had to have been used, falls short of explaining the residue of the thermate left behind. No ‘mainstream’ theory explains the molten iron in all three basements. Therefore all such theories are irrational.

The Warren commission report, is that of a theory, that does not correspond, to what we already know about the Kennedy hit. The Codename for the Kennedy hit was “The Big Event.” The assassination came out of project Mongoose, based mainly in Miami. It was workshopped all the way up the chain of command so as to move the responsibility for the CIA murder, away from the CIA and onto Johnson (and a multitude of other parties). That the assassination could have been blamed on multiple other parties explains the structure of it. But it was a CIA hit, no question at all about it. Although it is possible to allege that Operation Mongoose could have been “turned” (as it were) from the outside.

(((((This observation is important. The possibility of Operation Mongoose being “turned” from the outside means, just by way of two examples; it is not possible to rule out the motivation of Jack wanting to set a precedent that fractional reservists would not be happy about. It is not possible to rule out the possibility of communist infiltration and influence.

It is not even possible to rule out the notion of the involvement of a ruling class. Or the notion of the involvement of a covert-ops/fractional reserve nexus.))))))

Both Johnson and J Edgar Hoover helped with the coverup. The mob was also involved. Just as they were tied into Operation Mongoose.

Oswald was CIA. He was an anti-communist involved in the project to kill Castro. We have to get that straight for starters. Oswald was an anti-communist and a CIA agent. Yes and I was taken by surprise at this as well. I had always emphasized that Kennedy was murdered by a communist.

Oswald was helping out on a number of CIA projects in New Orleans. One of them was running errands for experimentation going on, to make a particularly deadly strain of cancer that would kill quickly, and hopefully not be traced back to the Americans. The virus was based on Simian 40 virus. The Simian 40 virus was progressively made more virulent, by way of treatment with radiation. The radiation method was a surprise to researchers, who had originally attempted to use the radiation, to make an inoculation against the Simian 40 virus, which was causing cancer to those individuals who had gotten their polio shots at around that time.

The cancer experiment was a success, more is the pity. We have to live with a CIA that can give anyone fast-acting cancer that will kill in a number of days. The CIA can also give anyone a heart attack, by shooting frozen poison into their body. The sliver of frozen poison melts and sets up a heart attack. Any suspicious death by heart attack, ought to trigger an immediate search for this poison. Any convenient death by fast-acting cancer, ought to trigger a search for the virulent strain of virus, that is descended from the Simian 40 virus. There have been many too-convenient heart-attack deaths since 9/11. None of them investigated in the required way. There have been many other types of too-convenient deaths as well.

The shot that caused the bloodspirt came up frpm the storm drain, at ground level. So we know the driver was involved. He had to stop, or at least slow right down, directly in front of the drain. That he did so, was in flagrant violation, of standard training in these matters. The drivers training mandated that he accelerate his way out of the kill zone, as fast as possible. There is no chance the driver wasn’t part of the plot, and a serious investigation would have had him under truth serum and hooked up to lie detectors.

Handsome Johny Rosselini confessed to making that shot from the storm drain, but its possible this is mobster pride, because this was the kill shot, and not all shots were successful. Other testimony would imply that Handsome Johny fired from the Daltex building.

There were about six shots timed to sound like three. The angle of shots makes it, that none of the bullets that actually hit anyone, came out of the Book warehouse. However at least one shot that hit someone, came out of the Daltex building. More likely two.

It was thought that 3 Corsican Maffia shooters were brought into town to make the hit, and then were spirited up out through Vancouver. But that was probably backup, or to throw the blame off, if the real shooters looked like getting caught. Classic doubling up on all aspects of the hit. Its not clear who made what shot, despite confessions.

The shot from the grassy knoll probably hit, but it wasn’t the one that created the forward spurt, and its a little bit hard to demonstrate that the grassy knoll shot definitely hit on video, though some are sure they can make that case. Me not being one of them. James Files has confessed to shooting from the grassy knoll, and photographic evidence is at least consistent with his confession, and with the make of Remington Fireball that Files says he used. Files said Nicoletti was one of the other shooters and he confirms Rosellini being a third.

Like the Arabs-Alone twin-towers story-for-idiots, the notion that Oswald killed Kennedy, not only is something that did not happen. Oswald shooting Kennedy from the book warehouse is a proposition that COULD NOT have happened like that. It goes against all the evidence. All the bullet angles;

The shot that caused the spurt came from the front right drain as discussed. And quite naturally made Jacks head and body go up, back, and to-the-left. This shot came from no book warehouse. Watermelon-balancing party-tricks to the contrary nothwithstanding, the crazy book-warehouse idea, would defy basic physics.

A cleverly-misleading animation came out which makes the book-warehouse-shots-proposition, appear plausible. But the angles are no good if you get to that part of the more extended show, when they brought the real marksmen in. Nice try but no cigar. The proposition rests totally on a single bullet making multiple wounds, at specific points, through two people. The proposition fails, since the actual wounds are in the wrong place. By just a few centimetres, but thats the end of the theory-sorry about that.

And while you may find yourself convinced when immersed in this animation, the animation is in fact a croc, which does not take-in all the other evidence, not least the pristine nature of the bullet, that was held (by the animator) to have gone through two people, with multiple entry and exit points. This is no small matter. That the bullet was virtually pristine, is a total debunking of the animators bullshit case.

When investigating a matter, all evidence must be taken into account, and not just that which suits an animators tendentious purposes. I’m pretty pissed off about the animation, and the animator, because I was stooged by it for about two or three years. This dude actually fooled me. Made a fool out of me for years on end. I’m right to be angry at him. I must find out the name of that dishonest jerk. The rest of you ought to also be mentally healthy enough to be really very angry at being taken in. If you cannot muster some sort of healthy anger at this sort of thing, there is no prospect of you ever breaking out of your state of engineered-stupidity.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Whenever there is a convenient death of any kind, it ought to be investigated, with the idea of conspiracy as a potential hypothesis. Any convenient death big or small. That of Presidents Lincoln and Harding. Of General Patton. Even when it comes to people like this fellow:

  2. You say that deaths need to be investigated, but what about disappearances? For instance, I understand that Bernie Madoff has disappeared. Certainly, I don’t know where he is. Could it be that he had access to sensitive knowledge, and was silenced? I think something similar may have happened to great Aussie hero Alan Bond, who went missing for a few years.

    • He hasn’t disappeared. Try to work hard on your stupidity problem when you come to my blog dummy.

  3. This is the embarrassing level of stupidity at Catallaxy and in the Australian economics profession:

    Birdlab quotes me. Everything he quotes me as saying is perfectly correct and known proven history. And the fuckwit thinks he’s made a point. The only point he has made in reality is that he’s a complete fuckwit.

    Incredible. And this fellow is respected at Catallaxy. Not merely tolerated but respected. A fellow economist. A brotherhood of economists that don’t understand economics.

  4. Here is the quotes that Birdlab has taken:

    “Oswald was CIA. He was an anti-communist involved in the project to kill Castro. We have to get that straight for starters. Oswald was an anti-communist and a CIA agent. Yes and I was taken by surprise at this as well. I had always emphasized that Kennedy was murdered by a communist.

    “Oswald was helping out on a number of projects. One of them was running errands for experimentation going on to make a particularly deadly strain of cancer that would kill quickly and hopefully not be traced back to the Americans. The experiment was a success and we have to live with a CIA that can give anyone fast-acting cancer that will kill in a number of days. The CIA can also give anyone a heart attack, by shooting frozen poison into their body. The sliver of frozen poison melts and sets up a heart attack.

    “The shot that caused the bloodspirt came out up of the storm drain, at ground level. So we know the driver was involved. He had to stop, or at least slow right down, directly in front of the drain. This is in direct contradiction of standard training in these matters, his job was to speed up and get out of the kill zone. ”

    Every proposition above is known proven history. Imagine being so stupid …. just so very very stupid, that you think that you’ve made some sort of point by quoting known proven history.

    I’d like to slap that cunt just for being so stupid. What a fucking moron. He should be spat on. Vomited on. Just for being that fucking irrational.

    But this is Catallaxy. Their irrationality is total. Its an arrogant type of stupidity. Its out there and proud. Obsessive irrationality.

  5. How do you know he hasn’t disappeared? Have you seen him? There’s convergent evidence here. He would have known all about the USA’s biggest Ponzi artists. He never gave much evidence at his trial. It’s pretty much certain that he’s hiding something, and that the authorities are colluding here.

  6. My God you are an idiot.

    Thats why you come to the conclusions you do, whereas I’m a genius, so I come to entirely different conclusions.

  7. Here is the idiot Birdlab at it again:

    I SEZ:

    “We cannot have the luxury of having all these sheeple around, giving cover to the conspirators, by way of simple stupidity. This is of “Fermi Paradox” level-of-importance, that you all snap out of sheeple mode. The future of humane civilisation is at stake.”

    IDIOT SEZ:

    Humane civilisation, indeed. I know third graders with better literacy skills.

    SO I SEZ:

    First draft shithead. Check again.

  8. Man I can’t believe the nerve of the Jew Bastard.

  9. Yeah just incredible isn’t it. But he’s no Hebrew. He’s a white nigger, who lives in Singapore. He’s white trash Ron. Not a semite-of-the-many-books at all.

    Ron I hope you realise that many of the people I admire most have been secular Jews? Just thought I might want to remind you of this now and then.

    The greatest scientist of the age; Ludwig Von Mises. Secular Jew. Rand, Rothbard, Reisman. Friedman was a great hero of mine. Still is. Largely for his staggering one man education mission after he got the Nobels, rather than his technical economic work (good as it was in many respects.)

    Thats a full half of the people I could name who I really look up to.

  10. I’ll try and list some others. Ron Paul. Tom Sowell. Senator McCarthy. Ron Reagan. Alan Keyes. Angelo Codevilla. George Patton.

    Already thats me about tapped out. So you see almost half of the people I would admire at that level are secular Jews. I don’t know about Codevilla’s status in this regard.

    In Australia I think very well of Gerry Jackson and Prodos. Prodos may be a secular Jew I’m not sure. Jackson is a Christian and English background.

  11. “You and Bird – the Cat’s two Keelhaul Kranks – went off on a rant about how Churchill and FDR were war criminals because they handed Soviet citizens back to Stalin at the end of WWII, instead of declaring war on the Soviet Union and marching to Moscow.”

    Tillman if I catch you lying about me again, even your alter ego will be banned. It is clear that the Washington team under Roosevelt WERE INDEED war criminals for operation Keelhaul, and for Dresdon. And at the very least this is a black mark against Churchill as well.

    This is obvious. The matter is unassailable and neither you nor any other nazi Keelhaul supporter has come up with any justification for this clear, unconstroversial, war crime. Do you think that Jason Soon managed to come up with a good argument in favour of Keelhaul? No of course not. The cheering on of mass-murder for Stalin by you two has always been incredibly chilling.

    I didn’t say anything about invading Moscow. After Hitler attacked the Soviets were in no position to take Europe, against American wishes, but for American aid.

    Anyone who supports Keelhaul is nazi slime. Simple as that.

    Other incidents are more questionable. More ambiguous. Certainly Horishima, Nagasaki, and the the incendiary bombing of Tokyo were technically war crimes and I would not have ordered any of them, being as I would follow just war theory.

    But there is no question that both Dresdon and Keelhaul were war criminal behavior. Not even a shadow of doubt about that. If you disagree, lets have that killer argument that you have presumably been with-holding from us all this time.

    Either put up or shut up. CL is right and you are wrong on this subject. There is no mystery here.

  12. As good as CL is he shows every so often that he’s not quite the committed intellectual logician he often seems to be.

    “Like Martian highways….”

    You’d have to wonder what the hell that was in aid of. When it came to the odd pictures of Mars, CL suddenly took an unscientific and emotional approach to matters, and declared certain data to be arbitrarily non-evidence. But evidence is just data, related to a specific hypothesis, by a process of human reason. So he was wrong.

    Still he’s Rafe level smarts. Its just a pity that he will let himself down by lack of formal commitment to the reasoning process in all matters, whether he likes the implications or not.

    Mild critical carping aside, you could not get an issue where one side could be more right, and one side more wrong, then CL versus Tillman on Keelhaul.

    Keelhaul was every bit as loathsome as the holocaust. They had less of an excuse even than what Hitler had. At least the Germans had diminished housing stock as a motivator. All the Washington traitors had was an obsessive wish to please Stalin. So very very sickening.

  13. dude
    why did you run away
    I’m not even logged into the moderation platform anymore.

    Sinclair is Ultimate Dictator.

  14. This Tillman sure is one loathsome Jew Bastard isn’t he.

  15. Mr B, do you think the Rudd plan to burn down houses with Dodgy Insulation was a sort of Reichstag fire type thing to diminish the Housing Stock and bring the Nazis back to power?

  16. Hi Mr B
    It’s me, RPH

    what a dirty Jew bastard this Tillman and my impostor is

  17. Hi M B

    What do you think of our lovely new PM?

    It will be a LONG LONG LONG time b4 the people kick out such a dazzling rose as she mark my words. At least 2 full terms she’ll get wait and see.

    Even our Tone’s head over heels in love with her according to the latest ASIO intelligence and Mr A now doesn’t have a holy hope of beating her. He’s dough in her hands Mr B. Soon to be toast.

    Ron

  18. “If you disagree, lets have that killer argument that you have presumably been with-holding from us all this time.”

    Graeme

    What Stalin did to the people repatriated under Keelhaul was criminal.

    But it wasn’t worth going to war with him over it in 1945.

    If you think that Keelhaul was a war crime, what do you think of the Soviets being a prosecutor at Nuremberg and trying to prosecute Germans for Katyn?

    We put up with a lot of shit from the Sovs in 1945.

    It’s easy to bitch with hindsight but at the time a war that killed maybe 70m people had just ended and no one (other than a few loonies like Patton and Le May) had an appetite for another one.

    That’s not a war crime.

  19. It’s certainly ’bout time we had a strongest leftist feminist “in control” of the country.

    It was soooo good when PM Gillard said she’d taken “control” And who could doubt this imperious woman’s word?

    PM Gillard now wields the power and will remain in control I reckon for at least a decade or more. Civilisation will be enhanced through the rule of feminist left libertarian socialists in power at last in Australia.

    Oh happy days.

  20. Philo:

    To our amazing good fortune!

  21. “But it wasn’t worth going to war with him over it in 1945.”

    Why are you choosing that date? Find me the most relevant date. If the most relevant date is not the Tehran meeting you tell me a better date and why?

    Stop laughing about the mass murder of women and children you fucking nazi cunt. There is nothing funny about this war crime. There is no reason to believe that not committing this war crime meant full-scale war with the Soviets thats a fucking lie you cunt.

    Just stop it. Sort your shit out on this, or I cannot let your alter ego stick around. I appreciate the humor, but if it turns out you really are a nazi cunt, then its not funny anymore.

    We will be going through a time of stress as bad as the thirties and forties, and we simply cannot have this idea that its okay to deviate from Just War Theory because that cunt Roosevelt did it. Stop it. This is our nephews and nieces we are talking about. Its their heads that are on the blocks here.

    Its not funny anymore. And thats an argument with CL you have lost. Simple as that.

    Grow the fuck up. It makes me sick too that this is a black mark on Churchill, since he was an icon of mine at one time. But we don’t do ethics, physics and history on the basis of the cult of personality. What Churchill did was ambiguous. There was nothing ambiguous with the way the communists surrounding Roosevelt had Washington acting as a shadow of the nazis themselves.

    Now I realise that part of the motivation of your alter ego is to tarnish me as an anti-semite bigot. But there is some real attempt at humor there and some actual success. You are better and smarter “in-character”.

    But I cannot let you come here to have a laugh and a joke as a faux-fucking-nazi if you are an ACTUAL FUCKING NAZI.

    I’m not THAT libertarian.

    Now I appreciate your presence but you’ve got to swallow your pride and take a loss here. You’ve got to admit to yourself that the cult of personality is no way to comprehend history and that you are wrong and CL is right on this one.

    He’s not always right. He usually is but not always. But there is no fucking contest here.

    You have been duly served. I’d rather see others hog your not unsubstantial internet creation then allow my place to be a forum for real nazis.

  22. “What do you think of our lovely new PM?”

    I think she never ought to have been an MP let alone a PM. I think I could have appreciated her as a civilian intellectual. I don’t know about lovely. But its pretty clear that she is not without female charms. I’ll do my best to not let them get to me.

  23. “It is interesting, in the context of this discussion. I’m really not trying to be provocative here but it is a fact that, for many years now, anti-semitism has been a predominantly leftist phenomenon. As for Hezbollah/Hamas, the parallels are both chilling and undeniable.”

    Leftist anti-semitism is scarier than the rightist version. Since a rightist racist will stick up for people he knows on the local level. The leftist anti-semite is chilling.

    These are people who would sell out their neighbors. Their friends.

    I’ll be as bigoted as I want to be. But the people I know, in the rural context. You leave your kids with them, they will load up their rifles and shotguns, and you will get them back in the same condition you left them there ….. though the roads be littered with bodies.

    Its when racism turns urban and leftist, thats when it gets to the scarier level.

  24. Ludwig Von Mises was not a scientist, unless you consider economics to be a science, which it isn’t. At best it is a social science.

    Scientist such as Albert Einstein or Neils Bohr would be rightfully considered the greatest of the last century.

    So can you please clarify if this was a mistake or you think Von Mises ranks as a scientist on a par with Neils Bohr?

    Von Mises doesn’t even rank that highly in terms of the greatest economists of the 20th century. Refer this poll, which puts him at No 30.

    http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue36/greatest20thcenturyeconomists.htm

  25. Economics is a science.

  26. ‘Scientist such as Albert Einstein or Neils Bohr would be rightfully considered the greatest of the last century.’

    They were clever people sure. But not great scientists. Einstein could probably be classified as a creative genius. But he was no great scientist.

  27. Von Mises is the greatest twentieth century economist. The greatest twentieth century scientist as well.

    George Reisman is the greatest living economist. Keynes didn’t even understand economics. He didn’t even understand the basics. Keynes was hopelessly unqualified and untutored in economics. And it shows. He started teaching economics after a single term under Marshall. His ignorance and lack of understanding is there screaming out on every single page of the General Theory.

  28. “Looking for advice.

    I’ve done a few searches for comparisons of the deadweight losses for different taxes, but only seem to get singular taxes, or a few comparisons of 2-4 taxes.

    This is a personal project. Help would be appreciated…..”

    Fire away.

  29. “Why are you choosing that date? Find me the most relevant date. If the most relevant date is not the Tehran meeting you tell me a better date and why?”

    It wasn’t worth going to war with him at the time of Tehran, either.

    The aim then was to take down Hitler.

    Churchill was quite clear on this point. And he was right.

    And supporting Churchill and opposing Hitler does not make me a “nazi cunt”.

    Churchill wasn’t a “nazi cunt” either, bro.

    You need to take a chill pill, Graeme.

  30. Mr Bird

    It appears your rogue CIA special ops has spread its tentacles into Australia

    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/labor-mp-attacker-claimed-to-be-special-agent-carrying-a-gun-20100630-zk3d.html?autostart=1

  31. “Keelhaul was every bit as loathsome as the holocaust. They had less of an excuse even than what Hitler had. At least the Germans had diminished housing stock as a motivator.”

    Sorry Bird but you can’t be seriously comparing Keelhaul to the Holocaust. The scale and outcome for those effected was vastly less. It was probably the most shameful things the allies did but certainly no holocaust. To claim that the holocaust was due to a housing shortage is also appalling.

    • Nazi Cunt.

      • Jew impostor

    • Keelhaul was worse. We were not in the situation where we had already lost and wanted to make our mark on the world. So Keelhaul was a worse crime and more senseless. More senseless and more gutless, by our own lights.

      Whereas Hitler had this goal of altering the genetic history of Europe, as far as I know we had no such goal. This was the murder of our allies, just for the sakes of murdering our allies. With the murdering of their kids thrown in just to show how completely treacherous and gutless we were.

      Keelhaul was worse than the holocaust. Much worse. And think of the motivation of it!!!!! Think of the hatred and contempt behind it. Look into the etymology of the wording of the project and you will see the Gestapo-like hatred we are talking about here.

  32. Yes the Holocaust was due to the Housing Shortage.

    You Fucking Nazi CUNT!!!!!

  33. These Stupid Nazi CUNTS!!!!! make me so mad.

  34. Mr B

    Why do you tolerate these Nazi Housing Shortage Denialists on your blog?

    It’s just a constant torrent of Lies and Idiocy.

    • I don’t know Ron. I really don’t.

      Things happen for a reason. Hitler taken as an individual, really did wish to alter the genetic future of Europe. But it ought to be noted that German society TAKEN AS A WHOLE did not go in for the full-scale slaughter, until we had diminished their housing stock by war policies that went against just war.

      This is why you must follow just war theory. We have to take a bit of fucking responsibility here.

  35. Mr Hanson,

    Pull yourself together man and control the language. There are children reading this blog.

    Mr Edney is a deluded fool no doubt but at least he is relatively civil. The cure for such idiocy is surely not banishment, but education by the erudite Mr Bird, on the facts and history of this issue.

  36. Mr Bird

    Ron here.

    What did Mises have to say about the propensity of banks to rip off the little people for the benefit of the ruling caste and dictate policy to governments thus undermining democracy?

    If Mises were alive today would he support the actions of the likes of Goldman Sachs and the government bailouts?

    • Mises may not have rejected natural law. Its not clear whether he felt, as a matter of honor, that he ought to advocate just policies on purely utilitarian grounds or not. Because you can see how that could work wherein, if you tried to justify JUSTICE on purely MORAL grounds ….. and you being an economist, that might imply that you didn’t have the economic justification.

      So I don’t quite know the story there. There is also the possibility that in the real world it might be next to impossible to justify a totally rigid allegiance to natural law, when we are suddenly hit with a potato famine, or in the face of so many old people now reliant on the pension.

      One way or another Mises felt it his place to justify matters on entirely practical grounds. And one way or another he felt his place to REASON WITH society, rather than advocate the bringing-down of bigshots, who it seems to me in 2010, cannot be reasoned with.

    • I don’t think there is any doubt about what Mises would think of the filth at Goldman Sachs.

  37. Mr Bird

    Was Marx a self-hating Jew or rather prescient in understanding the role of usury in cementing unequal class relations, fuelling endless wars and leading to the collapse of empires the beginning of which we are witnessing in the USA?

    Ron

    • This is the thing Ron. Always we see referred pain. Marx is formally and comprehensively proven wrong AS AN ECONOMIST. So we ought to put his pure-economics aside.

      But Marx was seeing certain tendencies that work on a deeper and wider level than pure economics. Yes he was absolutist. And yes he was trying to give a secular justification for a one thousand year old Christian COMMUNISM that kept bubbling up all the time.

      We don’t need to swing wildly from one thing to another. The pure capitalist economics is sound. But the real world practice of matters would seem to ensure that the combination of government and fractional reserve, plus bigshot influence, ought to negate the righteousness of free enterprise economics …. and tilt matters somewhat towards the Marxist vision of things.

      We need to have a counter-tilt, but not reject the great bulk of the libertarian vision.

  38. “It wasn’t worth going to war with him at the time of Tehran, either.”

    I didn’t say it was. Where does this fit into your argument in favor of committing war crimes you fucking moron.

    So you are saying …….

    You don’t think we ought to have gone to war with the Soviets in 1943….

    … Ergo, lets commit war crimes.

    That makes no sense at all you nazi cunt. The idea was to cut aid off in 1943 or thereabouts.

  39. “It wasn’t worth going to war with him at the time of Tehran, either.”

    Who said anything about going to war with the Soviets you nazi cunt???

    No-one said this. The discussion is your support for the extermination of our natural allies.

    Now why do you support this?

  40. “What Stalin did to the people repatriated under Keelhaul was criminal.”

    REPATRIATED!!!!!!

    Mate. Stop using the euphemisms and maybe you will be able to think straighter. I was brought up on a farm. I know that when we drive the cows to the sale-yards we are part of the slaughter.

    Onetime we got a cow in the milking shed, for the butcher to come around. I drove her in there, this smelly little man shows up with a rifle, the cow smells the blood on him, and on his car and she goes bezerk. We have one of those gates-on-wheels and I’m pushing it around to constrict her movements. Yet she is banging against the steel bars.

    The smelly little man pulls his rifle and makes the first shot. She stands up as if to say “is this what you want you bastard” and he shoots her again.

    You think I’m not part of this slaughter you are fucking joking.

    This was OUR war crime. This wasn’t Stalin’s war crime it was ours.

    And we have to come to grips with how taxeaters in the permanent bureaucracy can manipulate the leadership to such an effective extent……

    … We have to come to grips with the real history. The real history where legitimate leadership is manipulated into the most insane and bloodthirsty war crimes, for the most insane and bloodthirsty motives.

    • Well said, Mr B

      This was definitely a war crime by the Allies.

      Your moral compass is in tact despite your right “libertatian” leanings.

      Ron

  41. “for the most insane and bloodthirsty motives”

    Graeme

    The motive was to avoid a further European war after 70m+ people had just been killed.

    The bloodthirsty dudes were the ones who wanted to march to Moscow, like Patton.

    You seriously need to chill out.

  42. Graeme
    some of these Keelhaul refugees were SS Cossacks regiments, Ustahi.

    do you deny this?
    not all but some

    what do you propose we did with them? are we going to go to war over these war criminals?

    • No you are lying. They were refugees that crossed the Soviet border you lying cunt. But what is it exactly about Cossacks that makes Jason Soon want to murder their little girls, and anyone loosely associated with them?

      You are a fucking nazi asshole Jason Soon.

      Lets go over it again you fucking asshole. What is your justification for advocating the extermination of our natural allies? Lying about them all being Cossacks is hardly a justification. Particularly since you are lying, and particularly since I have no idea why you believe Cossacks need exterminating.

      First Jews now Cossacks? Is there no end to the people you want exterminated Soon?

      Or is it only Cossacks that you felt needed exterminating? If so why are you advocating the extermination of so many people who were not Cossacks? And what is it with the idea that we had to murder Cossacks?

      This is not the first time you have advocated the extermination of Cossacks and non-Cossacks in the same concentration camp as the Cossacks. You’ve advocated their extermination simply on grounds of them being amongst the same refugees as Cossacks.

      Fucking admit you are wrong you filthy dirty Stalinist Gook cunt.

  43. Yeah at a time when there were already millions of displaced persons all over Europe, why should the western nations have picked up a bunch of cossacks and SS men and resettled them?

    Our number 1 obligation in 1945 wasn’t to coddle a bunch of Nazi warriors and their families, and it certainly wasn’t to go to war with Stalin over them.

    Sorry but lots of people died in WWII. I’m not shedding tears over a bunch of SS men who get removed from the gene pool by Stalin.

    • Lets go again Tillman you filthy Nazi Cunt.

      What is your justification for exterminating our natural allies?
      There is no getting around the fact that we exterminated these people for no reason at all. We cannot avoid the fact that this war crime, much worse than the holocaust, was planned by Washington communists, approved by Roosevelt, and carried out in part by the British.

      • How were the SS our allies?

        I thought they became our enemies when we created the housing shortage and made them do the Holocaust.

  44. “Whereas Hitler had this goal of altering the genetic history of Europe, as far as I know we had no such goal. This was the murder of our allies, just for the sakes of murdering our allies.”

    ??? How does altering the gene pool of Europe become some sort of acceptable goal for mass murder??

    Look I’m almost prepared to accept that Keelhaul was a war crime done for simple utilitarian reasons, but it was not in the league of the holocaust.

  45. Not going to war to protect a bunch of Jew-bashing Cossacks and Croats is not equal to murder, Graeme.

  46. Keelhaul (the repatriation of soviet citizens to the USSR) was not a war crime.

    And nor was Dresden or Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

  47. Graeme

    Do you realise that Stalin had several thousand allied POWs in the Soviet Union at the time of Keelhaul, and that if the allies hadn’t repatriated the Soviet citizens then Stalin would never have released the POWs?

    Why did you want Stalin to murder our POWs?

  48. Mr Bird

    Ludwig von Mises was an economic advisor to the Austrian government during the Treaty of Versailles which was an unmitigated disaster for Germany. Good one Mises!

    Keynes’ “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” scuttled what public confidence there was in the settlement.

    You say that Keynes was not a first-class economist. This is untrue. Keynes was a brilliant intellectual, not only a theorist of economics, but an original thinker in the philosophical tradition of John Stuart Mill.

    He was an outstanding Eton student whose reputation preceded him when he arrived at King’s College, Cambridge in 1902. In 1909 he was elected a fellow of King’s and in 1911 appointed eitor of the “Economic Journal” at the age of 28.

    Keynes was a member of the wartime Treasury and represented the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the peace treaty talks in Versailles. He was rightly appalled at the punitive Treaty, resigned and thus motivated to write his book exposing the treaty.

    Of course Versailles gave rise to Hitler.

    The moral of all this is that Von Mises played an ignominous and counter-productive role in these historic events and Keynes a positive and ethically sound one.

  49. “Ludwig von Mises was an economic advisor to the Austrian government during the Treaty of Versailles which was an unmitigated disaster for Germany. Good one Mises!”

    I don’t quite see the logical connection here.

  50. Note. Mises was advising for Austria. Not for Germany. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was split up. The Austrians and the Germans were probably separate peoples in many ways, but certainly separate governments.

    I cannot quite see the argument. Mises is still the leading economist of the twentieth century. Certainly the first half and without controversy, or near second places.

  51. “You say that Keynes was not a first-class economist. This is untrue. Keynes was a brilliant intellectual, not only a theorist of economics, but an original thinker in the philosophical tradition of John Stuart Mill.”

    Keynes didn’t understand economics at all. Not even the basics. Keynes was certainly not in the tradition of the early Mill and probably didn’t get around to reading the early Mill, in the original.

    We are not talking a real dummy here. But we are certainly talking a fellow who never got his head around economics.

    • Your prejudice shirt-tail is showing.

      At Cambridge Keynes consorted with the likes of Lytton Strachey, E.M.Forster, Bertrand Russell, Leonard Woolf, Ludwig Wittgenstein (the Apostles) all of whom studied and discussed Mill. It was among these liberal and rationalist minds that Keynes developed his ideas about reasonableness and civilisation that underpinned his attack on the politics of the peace settlement in The Economic Consequences. He was a member of the Bloomsbury group and was also canny enough to make himself rich by a number of ventures in London, a display of practical economics rare for an academic.

      • Right. I did distinguish between earlier and later Mill. Other people reading later Mill is not quite the same as oneself reading and understanding the earlier good stuff. Its pretty hard for the historian to keep track of peoples reading habits. So the group discussed Mill. If so Keynes didn’t understand his earlier economic work. Or he would never have been so ignorant.

  52. Graeme

    “Do you realise that Stalin had several thousand allied POWs in the Soviet Union at the time of Keelhaul, and that if the allies hadn’t repatriated the Soviet citizens then Stalin would never have released the POWs?

    Why did you want Stalin to murder our POWs?”

    How many POW’s did our “ally” have under his possession at the Tehran conference?

    When are you claiming the aid ought to have been wound down?

    You see Tillman, it doesn’t matter what you say. You want to pretend that this complete cunt Roosevelt is a hero and you want these kids murdered. Even in retrospect, and even in theory, you want them dead.

  53. There were Ustashi and SS regiments among the Keelhaul refugees.

    YOU’VE SAID THIS BEFORE AS WELL YOU NAZI CUNT. BUT YOU WON’T SAY WHAT YOUR POINT IS. SO THERE ARE NAZIS IN THE SAME CONCENTRATION CAMP AS LITTLE GIRLS AND BOYS AND WOMEN. WHO WERE SIMPLY FLEEING STALIN. THE WORST MURDERER IN WORLD HISTORY.

    HOW WERE THEY TAINTED IN YOUR VIEW. BECAUSE OF THEIR PHYSICAL PROXIMITY WITH A COUPLE OF SS GUYS. SO YOU HERD PEOPLE INTO A CAMP WITH SOME SS GUYS. AND INSTEAD OF APOLOGIZING TO THEM FOR DOING SO, YOU DECIDE THAT THE GUILT-GERM HAS SPREAD TO ALL THE NON-SS GUYS.

    SEE YOU ARE A NAZI GOOK CUNT. NOTHING YOU SAY HAS ANY LOGICAL SENSE TO IT.

    YOU ARE WRONG. GO AND ADMIT TO CL THAT YOU ARE WRONG YOU FUCKING FASCIST ASSHOLE CUNT.

  54. I don’t care about ‘aid’ Graeme.

    fact is all we did was hand over some refugees who were more trouble than they were worth.

    • No no thats not what happened. What we did is murder our natural allies, their friends and family. You are a fucking idiot Nazi gook cunt and you haven’t justified it. You’ve just said its okay. Well it wasn’t okay. Its a worse crime than the holocaust. You saying its okay doesn’t make it that way.

      And I still don’t get what you have against Cossacks. Are Cossacks the new Jews or something? Or is it everything for Stalin? Stalin-worship?

  55. Graeme, I have to agree with you on WW2 forced repatriations. They flout the very first libertarian principle which is the right to physical integrity. That means no support for torture, targeted assassination, the death penalty, or sending civilians to their certain death which is what obtained here.

    I don’t agree on Mises. On practical matters, as Ron said, he was a failure. He advised on the Treaty of Versailles in such a way as to effect the humiliation and punishment of Germany. Keynes exposed the flaws in this treaty. Keynes of course really came into his own and his most important contribution in WW2 and its aftermath.

    Very few people have heard of Mises today for very good reason. Even on Ritchie’s list Mises was ranked lower than the Belgian Marxist Ernest Mandel who would be far better known today worldwide than Mises, again for good reason.

    • How can one deal with someone as much of a nazi as what Soon is. How does it go? Supposing I herd freedom fighters, refugees, and the family of refugees into a camp, where I also have some of the SS people who had not long before been exterminating these same peoples.

      Then in the view of these fucking nazis, Soon and Tillman, the guilt from their oppressors transfers onto the oppressed. Suddenly, according to Soon, they are all guilty. And all must be slaughtered.

      This is far less of a supposed justification than Hitler thought he had. At least with Hitler they had a whole string of bizarre beliefs to motivate them.

      Jason will not say what is motivating him to agree with worse criminal behavior than even the Nazis had on the fly. Worse for being more craven and senseless. Worse because the deluded Nazis could stay up all night telling you their bizarre grudges against the Hebrews, yet Jason cannot tell you his problem with Cossacks and others who the Nazis had just prior been trying to exterminate.

  56. One thing Keynes did for sure is debunk Say’s theory of markets. This is contested territory but sometimes we have to keep reinventing the wheel.

    • It was a failed debunking and he lifted it from some American. The problem is that Says law isn’t some simple one-line law. Its a series of arguments in opposition to some bad ideas that Malthus had. Keynes characterised it as “supply creates its own demand” as if Say and all the others from the prior century were claiming that monetary implosion could not happen. He just confused the issue.

  57. This is a good summary of the facts on the Keelhaul atrocity.

    http://worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Keelhaul.shtml

  58. O my what serious insects we have commenting here today.

    I trust you are enjoying your well-deserved holiday in Nirvana, Graeme.

    Btw à propos nothing foregoing, IMO the best autobiography written (that I’ve read) is that by the C19 French composer Hector Berlioz. It’s drop-dead acerbic among other glorious attributes. It’s geographically sweeping. This dude got around many dimensions. And he really dug and understood women, Birdy. Much like you do.

    This song is from one of his minor works. But indicative of his sensibility.

    • Yeah thats really pretty nice Philomena. I haven’t finished listening to the ones you posted the other day. For some reason the first one didn’t grab me. It sounded to me more like really good music for a movie score. Rather than straight pleasing to the ear. But I’ll have to go back and give it a fairer shot.

      • But Graeme. Some of the most pleasing, brilliant and perfect music was written for film scores by e.g. Chaplin, Nina Roti (Fellini), Ennio Morricone (The Mission and spaghetti westerns), Mikis Theodorakis, not to mention all those geniuses who wrote fantastic music scores for ballet, musicals, operas. I’m not a snob about music. If it’s good it’s good (though taste is to some extent subjective).

        Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky IS the film score.

  59. I’ll certainly have to look out for that autobiography. I’m having great time. But can only get to the computer now and then. And you are right. It is Nirvana here.

  60. Glad to hear that Graeme.

  61. We just cannot tolerate any war crime advocates in Australia. We have to look at repatriating some of these Nazi-asshats.

    “Although the US signed international agreements opposing forced repatriation, and verbally assured they world they would never countenance such actions, they inserted fine print in these documents excepting from the ban all those who originated from nations given over to the Soviets at the close of WWII.

    While claiming to “make the world safe for Democracy,” Roosevelt and his cronies condemned millions to slave labor camps. The Allies even kept secret from the world the fact that Stalin was holding over 5,000 Allied soldiers as hostages in order to make sure that the West complied with his demands for repatriation.

    US and British troops had to beat, drug, and drive at gunpoint these millions of liberty loving people back to Russia. Even after doing so, Stalin never did return American and British prisoners. They died in the Soviet Gulags. The US still refuses to open the archives about their fate.

    Even refugees that had fled from WWI and who had already been integrated into Western society were driven back into Stalin’s work camps.

    Thousands of Eastern Germans had fled the advancing Russian armies in order to find a haven in the West. Most were driven back to slavery.

    Almost a million anti-Communist Russian soldiers under Russian General Vlasov had defected to the Germans in hopes of freeing Russia from Stalin’s grasp. They had never become Nazis, but had agreed to fight on the German side solely for purposes of achieving Russian liberty…”

    A moral and strategic disaster. Even if it were a mild strategic loss it ought never have been contemplated. But in reality it was a strategic disaster.

    And yet even in hindsight fascist scum like Jason Soon and Tillman would do it over.

    This is what you get by judging history on the basis of the cult of personality. What is really terrible is people like dover, who is supposed to be an expert on these things, stays right out of it, and refuses to put down Tillman and Soon for the fascist scum that they are.

    Since Dover was unable to resolve his own contradictions in his interpretation of world war II, he too relying on the cult of personality. So he gives fascist scum like Jason Soon and Tillman the backing to not to have to admit they are wrong.

    Not once have I seen dover admit that Keelhaul was a moral and strategic disaster. He just lets his admiration for Churchill and his inability to criticize the sacred Roosevelt …. he lets these things block out the reality.

    Roosevelt at the very least is a confirmed war criminal. A total disgrace of a man. And you’d have to consider Churchill’s record as being pretty questionable.

  62. “Graeme, I have to agree with you on WW2 forced repatriations.”

    Thats because you are a human being Cybele. Not Nazi scum like Soon and Tillman.

  63. Look Edney. You had a point. I don’t think its a fair one. But it wasn’t insane and you made it.

    But why are you not coming down on the nazi scum, on the side of CL. CL is the only person who has talked sense on this matter at Catallaxy. When I came in onside of the memory of these murdered and betrayed people I was subject to a massive filibuster by these inhuman Nazi filth.

    You could have acted impartially and come in hammering them with both boots. Instead you lamely make some minor point on their side of the argument.

    Whats the matter with you Edney. Have you got no younger relatives?

    Fucking act with a bit of courage and help CL out for a change. He’s right. They are wrong.

    Its not as if this sort of thing doesn’t have ongoing practical reality. Certainly a hard rain is going to fall in the fairly near future.

  64. Here is Dover. Having his chance to come out against war crimes he instead comes in furiously on the side of Jason Soon and Tillman. In favor of murdering the small children of our natural allies:

    “BTW, Bird is unhinged by anything relating to the Soviets and WW2.”

    Thats all it takes. Because the moral coward, and failed historian dover, is held to be an authority.

    Absolute gold-plated cowardice. When given a chance to update the public on the reality of world war II, dover, even under a pseudonym, has proven to be too much of a coward.

    So no doubt, since many are gutless like dover, we may have to put up with another century of Roosevelt worship, and even killings with the Roosevelt example as the excuse.

    Very reminiscent of the cowardice Sinclair showed before the Senate when he referenced Mankiw and implied that the Keynesian multiplier was a bipartisan truth and worthy policy idea. Sinclair and Dover are the “Good Germans” of their respective fields. Willing to go along to get along, and not committed intellectuals.

  65. “agreed to fight on the German side solely for purposes of achieving Russian liberty…”

    Quite right Mr B.

    Like you I am very sad the Nazis lost the war.

  66. Fortunately we have real historians who don’t leave logic outside when they discuss history. Norman Davies for example.

  67. Remembering true friends and allies that we let down for the benefit of Stalin. It was just a matter of arming anyone willing to fight against the two tyrants. There was no need to funnel all the weapons and aid through the tyrants themselves. You follow reason and the two tyrants would have cancelled eathother. You follow unreason and genocidal hate and you get everyone killed, including your own conscripts.

    Basically the argument I’m having here and the argument with dover on World War II was a straight reason/unreason argument. Dover being on the side of unreason.

  68. Dover_Beach is the most degenerate (no wonder he’s anonymous) man I’ve seen posting on the intertubes. He’d kill his own mother if it turned a buck. He’s morally compassless. A true bro of Joe Cambria who tortures dogs for pleasure and beats his wife.

    • HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Certainly he’s got a moral fibre problem. And a logic problem. Despite pretenses, no committed historian.

  69. Soon, Tillman, dover-creep, Cambria, they’re all cut from the same cheap cloth, Graeme.

    They’re self-hating, pathetic, dumb, fascistic right wing scum and it’s great you have seen though them and are exposing them for the repulsive swill they are. Fortunately confined to one online sewer that no-one else reads or visits or links to. LOL. You are perfoming a great service Graeme, not least public health.

    • Too true, Phil.

      God know I hate those Jew Bastards.

  70. Here is an absolute MUST-SEE if you want to understand World War II. Its a great antidote to mainstream mental weaklings like dover, who won’t go more than three feet, from the stupid prejudices that we were taught in high-school history. Weaklings and cowards like dover, make even more feeble thinkers, like Tillman and Soon, happy about their mindless prejudices.

    Still I’m just so fucking mystified as this idea that we have to kill Cossacks? Its as if they are saying:

    “There’s a Cossack in that building hiding amongst the civilians…”

    “Quick, blow the building up.”

    Where on earth is this anti-Cossack genocidal impulse coming from? I think its coming from craven pro-Stalinism and its offshoot; the cult of Roosevelt.

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/201301-1

  71. I still chuckle when I recall “JM” making mincemeat of doverbeach when he tied himself in knots defending the coldblooded killing at point blank range of women and children in war. A truly disgusting human being thankfully exposed by JM.

  72. Lying nazi cunt Jason Soon re-writing the argument.

    “All I did was ask Graeme what he would have done about the Ustashi and SS Cossack regiments that were amongst the Keelhaul refugees and whether it was worth not trading our POWs for them, and he accuses me of wanting to slaughter everyone else in the camp with them.”

    Such a trade was never attempted. The argument in favor of such a trade was never attempted by Jason Soon. He is lying. This is not his position, that a trade ought to have been attempted. This has never been part of the argument. The fascist gook is lying.

  73. If Jason Soon is not lying, then once and for all he should admit he is wrong about Keelhaul, and he ought to argue rather that a trade ought to have been attempted.

    But the fact is he has always been obsessively in favour of the entirety of the war-crime of Keelhaul.

  74. Graeme, re Jason Soon, in my experience there are few bods more tragic and pitiful than deracinated Chinese-Malaysians obsequious and beholden to the dregs of American Kulture and the Man.

    • Yeah he’s sure beholden to the man. Natural born house-nigger, that fellow. Tragic alright.

  75. Excellent historian linked by THR. THR, being a moron along the lines of birdlab, thinks he’s neutralized someones arguments, merely by linking them. What fucking morons THR and Birdlab are. THR is also a compulsive liar.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

    I would consider this fellow has proven his case to leading paradigm level. As well Patrick Buchanans general view of World War II is the correct one, or at least on the right track. Although I myself don’t feel able to say that we fucked up until Barbarossa.

    We can say unequivocally, that the Western allies fucked up at least from Barbarossa on.

    Dover has tried to say otherwise, but not without running straight into basic logical contradictions.

    We can also say that without controversy, that the practice of bombing civilians was not just a moral blunder, but serious strategic idiocy. It drew resources away from the protection of our own soldiers via saturation bombing in the field. You don’t want your lads engaging the enemy, without overwhelming firepower.

    Obviously it was also idiocy to aid the Soviets for the length of time we did. This is not an argument that can rationally be contradicted. And dover was unable to do so. I find it fascinating that these mental losers at Catallaxy will go back to arguments that failed them the last time. Like some sort of Keynesian dog continuing to dig up his multiplier poop.

  76. UTTER BULLSHIT TILLMAN. IF YOU HELP THE WEAKER SIDE, BUT WHERE POSSIBLE, FUNNEL RESOURCES THROUGH TO THE PEOPLE DEFENDING THEMSELVES ….. RATHER THAN THROUGH STALIN-OR-HITLER THEMSELVES ….. THEN THE TWO TYRANTS ARE LOCKED IN THE BALANCE. HAVING MATTERS IN THE BALANCE MEANS YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF LEVERAGE OVER THESE GUYS. HAVING LEVERAGE MEANS YOU CAN DEMAND THEY STOP THE WAR OF EXTERMINATION AND SIMPLY FIGHT FOR THEIR SURVIVAL.

    NOW I ADMIT THAT AID HAD TO GO TO STALIN HIMSELF WITH SOME SORT OF DESPATCH. BUT ONLY EARLY ON. JUST FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OR SO. IT DIDN’T NEED TO BE A FOREVER THING. JUST A SINGLE BURST OF AID EARLY ON OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN WAY TO GENERALLY HELPING PEOPLE FACING THE BOSCH AND THE SOVIET-PEOPLE, BUT WITH CUTTING OUT THE SOVIET LEADERSHIP.

    THE IDEA WAS TO HELP PROXIES WITHOUT HELPING STALIN, EXCEPT EARLY ON. KEEP OUR GUYS OFF THE FRONT LINES, EXCEPT WHEN WE COULD OFFER THEM MASSIVE FIREPOWER COVER, INCLUDING SATURATION AIR COVER.

    BUT INSTEAD ALL THESE PRODUCER GOODS WENT TO THE SOVIETS. WAY TOO MUCH AID TO THE SOVIETS. FUCKING DOVERS INITIAL ARGUMENT WAS DROOLING IDIOCY. HE SAID THAT THE SOVIETS DIDN’T NEED OUR AID, BUT THEN TRIED TO MAINTAIN THAT WE NEEDED TO GIVE THEM AID ANYWAY, EVEN THOUGH HE MAINTAINED THEY WOULD HAVE WON REGARDLESS. THE FELLOWS ARGUMENT WAS MENTALLY DERANGED. THEN THE LOW FUCKER CHANGED HIS ARGUMENT WITHOUT A RETRACTION.

  77. NO YOU ARE JUST A LYING CUNT TILLMAN. OF COURSE THE BOMBING AND THE AID DIMINISHED THE ABILITY TO OFFER CLOSE SATURATION AIR SUPPORT.

    THATS JUST A FUCKING LIE TILLMAN. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LIE ON THIS SITE YOU COMPLETE NAZI CUNT.

    SO MANY OF OUR GUYS DIED, FOR THE LACK OF SATURATION AIR SUPPORT, THANKS TO THIS LUNATIC MASS MURDER OF GERMAN KIDS WE WENT IN FOR. AND THANKS TO WASHINGTONS OBSESSIVE EFFORTS TO BUILD UP THE SOVIET EMPIRE.

    ITS JUST DISGUSTING, AND THE KIDS HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT IT. AND IT DOESN’T HELP IF DOVER AND OTHERS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPETENT AS HISTORIANS.

    THERE IS SIMPLY NO WAY THAT OUR GUYS FIGHTING THE JAPANESE HAD TOTAL SATURATION AIR POWER SUPPORT. YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR TILLMAN.

  78. “But why are you not coming down on the nazi scum, on the side of CL. CL is the only person who has talked sense on this matter at Catallaxy. When I came in onside of the memory of these murdered and betrayed people I was subject to a massive filibuster by these inhuman Nazi filth. ”

    Because it wasn’t an issue I had been aware of particularly previously. I only really did my own reading on it relatively recently. That and I don’t have time to enter every since argument that arises. Its actually fairly rare that I engage in any heated blog debate anymore it takes up way too much time.

  79. Bird,

    Did you see you have made your influence felt in the pages of the Spectator?

    http://www.ipa.org.au/news/2153/speak-out-robert-manne-ken-henry-silences-dissent

    “On an economics blog normally catering to those excited about debating the pros and cons of fractional reserve banking, Catallaxyfiles.com, Davidson bas caught the Treasury misleading the government and the public.”

  80. Graeme

    Your plan was for the western allies to let Hitler and Stalin go at each other like a couple of pit bulls.

    Maybe that would have been effective in keeping them off our backs, but it would have meant death for even more tens of millions of people who would have been cannon fodder for those two psychopaths.

    Unlike you, FDR and Churchill didn’t want endless war.

    They thought that they could defeat the prime warmonger (Hitler) and then come to an accommodation with the murderous Stalin.

    As it turns out, they were 100% correct.

    We defeated Hitler, and then had 55 years of almost total peace in Europe until the Soviet Union collapsed.

    The peace of 1945 was magnificent.

    Brilliantly handled by the allies in just about every respect.

    Now you can pick at details at the margins, and frankly handing over a bunch of cossacks and SS men to Stalin was, in the scheme of a war that killed around 70m people, a marginal consideration. It was certainly a small price to pay for sustained peace in Europe.

    Remember, during the war, Churchill and FDR were forced to regularly make decisions that would result in the certain deaths of their own citizens.

    Why on earth they should be wetting the bed over a few cossacks and SS is totally beyond me.

    With hindsight, maybe you can find areas where we could have pushed the Sovs harder without going over the brink.

    But those are judgment calls informed with hindsight.

    Fact is that Churchill and FDR and their successors did a magnificent job.

    They were not war criminals.

    Now go take a chill pill and relax.

  81. response?

    http://graemebirdforum.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/60/#comment-2595

  82. These were war crimes Mr B. You are absolutely correct.

    Tillman is rewriting history – bloody unconvincingly too, I might add. Complete and utter bullshit from from go to whoa.

  83. Mr B

    Say’s law maintained that the general overproduction of goods was impossible, as was general unemployment, because workers produced goods only to enjoy the consumption of other goods. Every increase in investment was soon followed by an increase in demand. Savings were likewise used by the banks to fund loans for investments, so there was no real difference between saving and spending.

    Such unemployment as arose was temporary, soon rectified, or voluntary, when people took time off to enjoy their earnings.

    Keynes was not the only one to point out in the 1930s the system had produced a situation in which unemployment was not only widespread but involuntary, and far from temporary. His radical observation was that people do not spend every increase in income they receive. They spend more but they hold back some. This was significant because it had a domino effect whereby businesses would not spend all their profits in investment and as a result the system outlined by Say would gradually slow down and eventually stop.

    This had 3 effects; 1) that an economy depended as much on people’s perceptions of what was about to happen as on what actually happened; 2) that an economy could achieve stability with a significant measure of unemployment within it, with all the social damage that followed, 3) that investment was the key matter.

    This led to his crucial insight that if private investment wasn’t happening the state should intervene using govt credits and manipulation of interest rates to create jobs. Whether these jobs were useful (building roads) or wasteful didn’t really matter. They provided cash that would be spent in real ways generating income for others which would then be passed on.

    • Thats not SAYS law. Thats Keynes’ crude and ignorant interpretation of Says law. The Classical economists were fully aware that there could be recessions. The whole series of arguments that came to be known as “Says Law” or the law of markets, came ou of a recession. They were in a recession when this series of arguments was kicked off, by Malthus wrongly contending that you could assist the recovery by extra government spending. So the series of arguments, condensed under the phrase “Says Law” were founded on recession. This shows just how much of a lunatic Keynes was, and how young and ignorant were his followers. Since when he claimed to be the first person to diagnose recessions, this was a level of stupidity and idiocy seldom seen before or since in the humanities.

  84. Following the 1929 crash and the depression that followed when unemployment rose to around 25% in the US and 33% in parts of Europe and when around 9000 US banks failed, most economists at the time believed the correct course of action was no action. Conventional wisdom held that depressions were therapeutic, that they squeezed out the inefficiency that had accumulated in a nation’s economy like poison and to interfere with that natural economic course risked inflation.

    THIS IS ONLY HALF RIGHT. ITS TRUE THAT THE BOOM IS WHERE THE DAMAGE IS DONE, AND THE CRASH IS WHERE THE DAMAGE IS HEALED. NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

    BUT ITS NOT INACTION THAT IS NEEDED. ITS RELENTLESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING CUTS, AND TRYING TO GET WAGES AND PRICES DOWN. RELENTLESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING CUTS TO MAINTAIN SURPLUSES, EVEN IN THE FACE OF VICIOUS DEFLATION. A DEVALUATION AGAINST GOLD AND A PERCENTAGE JUBILEE WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL. AS WELL AS EASING UP BANKRUPTCY LAWS. ALWAYS MAKE THE BANKS FEEL THE HEAT IF FRACTIONAL RESERVE IS INVOLVED.

    UNDER FRACTIONAL FIAT THE PRESCRIPTION IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WE CAN GET INTO THAT IF WE WANT TO. BUT UNDER FRACTIONAL GOLD YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DEAL WITH MATTERS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.

    WE NEED SPENDING CUTS TO STAY IN SURPLUS, EVEN UNDER VICIOUS DEFLATION BUT THE SPENDING CUTS NEED TO BE MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE WE ALSO NEED THE SPENDING CUTS TO FUND TWO TYPES OF TAX CUTS, WHILST STILL STAYING IN SURPLUS. THE FIRST TYPE OF TAX CUT TO REVIVE THE ECONOMY. THE SECOND TYPE FOR COMPASSIONATE REASONS AND TO HELP WITH THE MORAL SUASION TO GET PRICES, WAGES, DIVIDENDS AND BIGSHOT SALARIES DOWN.

    KEYNES WAS, AS I SAY, TOTALLY IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS. CRIMINALLY SO. HE ADVOCATED SPENDING INCREASES. SO HE WAVED A CARROT IN FRONT OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE DAY, JUSTIFYING WHAT THEY WERE ALREADY DOING.

    SINCE THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE DAY WERE FOLLOWING THE WRONG AND INSANE KEYNESIAN POLICIES ………. THIS IS WHY WE CALL IT THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

    HAD WE FOLLOWED THE CORRECT ANTI-KEYNES POLICIES THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO GREAT DEPRESSION, BUT RATHER THE MONETARY CRUNCH OF 29-31.

    KEYNESIAN POLICIES NEVER WORK. THEY ARE INSANELY ANTI-ECONOMICS. WHAT THEY DO DO IS BOOST THE PROFIT SHARE, EVEN AS THEY THROW EVERY BUGGER OUT OF WORK. THEY ARE THE MOST HATEFUL VANDALISM OF THE ECONOMY, AND IT ALL COMES FROM KEYNESIAN IGNORANCE COMBINED WITH KEYNES’ SELF-PROMOTION.

    AS I’VE EXPLAINED. FOR SOMEONE WHO IS NOT IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS, EVERY LAST PAGE OF THE GENERAL THEORY IS A SICK JOKE. ITS JUST A DISGRACE. WHAT KEYNES WAS PLAYING FOR WAS THE ELITE GOVERNMENT THIEVES ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE UTOPIAN ESCHATOLOGISTS, WHO IN 1936, WERE BRIEFLY DISILLUSIONED WITH BOTH SOVIET COMMUNISM AND NATIONAL SOCIALISM. SO THAT UTOPIANISM HAD NOWHERE TO GO. IT WAS A FLOOD LOOKING FOR AN OUTLET AND IT FOUND KEYNES.

    ALONG CAME THIS QUEER SELF-PROMOTING KNOW-NOTHING, WITH A LOT OF BORROWED IDEAS, ALL OF WHICH WERE WRONG, AND HE FASHIONED A NEW VIEW OF ECONOMICS, BASED ON MASSAGING OLD ECONOMIC FALLACIES. AND THIS NEW VISION WAS TO APPEAL TO DISILLUSIONED COMMUNISTS, GOVERNMENT USURPERS, AND BIGSHOT CRONIES ALIKE.

    WHILST MARXIAN ECONOMICS IS TECHNICALLY WRONG, THERE IS SOME VALUE TO BE HAD IN A MODIFIED, AND LESS EXTREME, MARXIST SOCIOLOGY. BUT THERE ISN’T THE SLIGHTEST ATOM OF VALUE IN ANYTHING OF KEYNES. ITS A TOTAL CURSE. ALL OF IT IS WRONG, NONE OF IT IS ORIGINAL. ITS ALL MISLEADING, AND EVERYONE AT CATALLAXY HAS FALLEN FOR THIS IGNORANCE AND IDIOCY TO SOME EXTENT OR ANOTHER.

    ITS NOT A QUESTION OF HIM HAVING A POINT, LIKE MARX HAVING A FEW GOOD POINTS, SKEWED TOWARDS HIS JUSTIFICATION OF COMMUNISM. IN THE KEYNESIAN CASE THERE IS NO GOOD POINTS. NOTHING OF ANY VALUE. BUT WHAT APPEARS TO MAKE HIS VIEW CORRECT TO THE IGNORANT IS FRACTIONAL RESERVE. ONLY THE EFFECTS OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE COULD CLOUD PEOPLES MINDS ENOUGH FOR THEM TO BELIEVE THE MINDLESS IRRATIONALISM OF KEYNES.

  85. “They thought that they could defeat the prime warmonger (Hitler) and then come to an accommodation with the murderous Stalin.”

    Oh that is too droll. Except I’d wager this Tillman tryhard believes it.

    But o my what a cartoonish, kindergartenish view of history.

    Really some of these rightwing fascist-leaning trolls are complete and utter simpletons when it comes to historical forces, interactions and complexities.

    It is such a relief Graeme to have a worthy interlocutor such as you to spar with across the political divide. These other clowns are simply so swinishly stupid it’s staggering (if delightful!).

  86. “THERE IS SOME VALUE TO BE HAD IN A MODIFIED, AND LESS EXTREME, MARXIST SOCIOLOGY. ”

    So you really are a commie, eh Bird?

    WHAT A CLOD YOU ARE. KEEP READING, YOU BRAIN CRIPPLE, UNTIL YOU GET THE CONTEXT. THERE IS NO SHRED OF USEFULNESS IN KEYNES, THOUGH YOU, BEING AN IDIOT, FELL FOR IT ALL AND TALK ABOUT “AUTOMATIC STABILISERS” AND OTHER KEYNESIAN IDIOCY.

    THIS REMINDS ME OF THAT TIME BEFORE THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, WHEN I SAID THAT WE OUGHT TO FLUSH IN 17 BILLION IN NEW CASH, AT THE SAME TIME AS RAISING THE RESERVE ASSET RATIO.

    AND YOU YOU DUMB WOP CLOT, CAME RUNNING IN AND ASSUMING I WAS ADVOCATING INFLATIONARY MEASURES … JUST LIKE THE STUPID WOP DOPE THAT YOU ARE. YOU COME RUNNING IN EVERY TIME WITH YOUR IDIOTIC COMMENTS. THIRD PARTIES GO AND READ THE REST OF HIS RUBBISH. THIS IS THE SORT OF IDIOCY THAT WE GET FROM PEOPLE RUNNING THINGS NOWADAYS. MOST OF THEIR NUMBERS MADE UP NOW OF A SPECIES KNOWN AS THE “PRIVILEGED-IMBECILE”. THE PRIVILEGED-IMBECILE, A CREATURE HAPPY TO SAY ANYTHING AT ALL, NO MATTER HOW STUPID, SO LONG AS IT HAS SOME DISTRACTION VALUE.

    You’ve come out of the closet with this revelation, so what’s holding you back from coming out of the closet with Phil?

    How many closets do you have?

  87. Here we see the sum total of “thinking” (to coin a euphemism) at Catallaxy. Here we have the welfare queen, bank communist, and hard-core house-nigger ……… the degenerate and stupid wop, JOSEPH CAMBRIA …… trying to pull the leftist reversal and make out that I’m a commie.

    The point is that there is some analytical value in Marx insofar as history is concerned, but there is never any analytical value in Keynesian economics. Informal Keynesian investment theory is fine. Though it may be less useful in the current rigged markets.

    But there is some value in Marx since in criticising capiitalism, he is really describing mercantilist and crony behavior. His criticisms aren’t valid for a theoretical, well-run minarchist society.

    What his critique is useful for is the type of behavior we see from Joseph Cambria. Like when Cambria reckoned that poor non-bankers ought to save the asses of rich bankers. What a cunt you are Joseph Cambria. And not even a clever cunt at that.

  88. I WAS JUST NOTICING WHAT A BLOCKHEAD YOU ARE. THINKING THAT THE AMERICANS WERE IN RECOVERY. SPECULATING THAT THEY WOULDN’T GO INTO RECESSION, AS IF THEY EVER CAME OUT OF RECESSION. THERE IS NO RECOVERY IN THE US DUMMY.

  89. “Cap;

    Answer that question correctly and you’ll make lots of money.

    I think we have a pretty hard road ahead but I don’t think the US will dip back into recession although it really appears things a slowing down.”

    Its never come out of recession. And the US will predictably dip back into technical recession when the stimulus spending runs out. It would be some fluke of timing, with monetary expansion, for this not to happen.

  90. “Recession” in the context of this discussion means technical recession.

    WELL AT LEAST YOU’VE GOT AROUND TO NOTING THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENCE. I SUPPOSE THATS PROGRESS. ARE YOU STILL CLAIMING BLACK AND BLUE THAT YOU CANNOT CUT SPENDING IN A RECESSION? INCREDIBLE. LIKE YOU WERE A HOMER CLONE OR SOMETHING.

  91. Have you got it sussed whether President Harding “did nothing” or not?

    He cut Federal Spending in half blockhead. He didn’t “do nothing” as you wrongly contended. He slashed spending.

    I was hoping two years on you might have been able to nail that one down.

    What about carbon taxes shit-for-brains? You still advocating that you science-genius you?

    See you are a fucking dummy Cambria. Get over yourself.

  92. Here is the thread where the sellout Cambria came out in favor of the biggest theft in history.

    http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/09/21/sukritron-paul-911-truthers-and-currencyfractional-reserve-conspiracies/#comment-91421

    Is he ignorant of economics? Or is he just a filthy traitor? I’ll let you decide.

  93. Was there a Catallaxian economist NOT in favor of the bailout? I don’t think so. I think that every last one of them either stayed silent or came out in favor of the bailout.

    Sinclair Davidson proved to be so ignorant he thought the meltdown had nothing to do with fractional reserve!!!!!!!!!

    What hope have we got when people who are supposed to know this sort of stuff are so appallingly ignorant?

  94. Now the morons at Catallaxy are arguing ….. wait for it ….. in favor of bankrolling mass murderers, and committing war crimes as military strategy. The idiocy there just doesn’t seem to quit. You’d have to wonder if Kates, Rafe and CL ought not quit that place so as not to be associated with these dummies.

    Here is an excellent discussion on the subject of Churchills policies. At least Churchill was an understandable human being. But there is no need to assume that all his policy was good or sensible.

    http://mises.org/media/1061

    There has never been an excuse sinking all our military into the field, once the two tyrants were fighting toe to toe. It meant we had no leverage over either party, and so we were unable to stop them slaughtering millions of people.

    There was no excuse for bombing civilian areas. Using up resources in mindless slaughter of non-combatants was taking resources away from the protection of our soldiers. Many tens of thousands of our own soldiers died because of this criminal diversion of our resources.

    Its important we don’t screw this up again. When we are talking Catallaxy we are talking people SO fucking stupid we cannot get them to get things right, even in retrospect.

  95. A correction to a typo I made that Birdlab is drawing attention to.

    The Wright brothers had the American patents for flight, and so that therefore the development of the American aircraft industry was hampered until the Americans entered into World War ONE (not world war TWO as I wrongly typed)

    Out of necessity the Wright Brothers patents were effectively cancelled, and so the twenties was a time of rapid development of aircraft ability in the US.

    • NO THATS CRAP. IF YOU ARE FINDING IT HARD TO COMPREHEND FELLA, I RECOMMEND READING A FEW TIMES THROUGH. SORRY FOR THE TYPO. BUT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT YOU WOULD KNOW THAT I WAS OBVIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT WORLD WAR ONE.

      LUCKY I BROKE IT UP INTO SEGMENTS. GIVE YOU GUYS A FEW DAYS TO COME TO GRIPS WITH EACH SEGMENT IN TURN.

  96. Graeme, you’re right. It would be inadequate to label Marx as simply an economist.

    Many people regard him, alongside Auguste Comte, as one of the fathers of sociology. His interests went much wider than the purely economic.

    For Marx, in order for human beings to be free they must understand *freedom*. And it was his aim to show how the material outcome of history has interfered with this understanding and yet he thought it the central drama of politics.

    • Right. But it must be understood that there was a dangerous tendentiousness with Marx. He was using all his powers to serve the cause of communism. Or more dangerously (dangerous for purely psychological reasons), the utopian-eschatological cause. Sometimes this is described as Post-Millenarianism. Or at least the latter phrase seems to describe a phenomenon quite close to what I’m trying to talk about when I say “utopian-eschatology.”

      You have to break it down to the sort of wondrous emotion a kid might get in discovering the book of revelations for the very first time. The problem with utopian-eschatologists is that this sort of feeling is motivating them almost the whole time. And in practice it leads to a tendency to bring the disaster forward.

      What is most frustrating currently is that the bigshots in banking and government, in Europe and the US, appear to be daring us. They appear to be operating at such a corrupt level that my lecturing about “patient-utopianism” will all be for nought.

      “Go on you cowards….”

      They seem to be saying.

      “…. go on you wimps. You have your rifles and your pickup trucks. Use them. Do it. We just stole off you in broad daylight now do it DO IT……”

      they seem to be urging.

      But Marx was bad news because in his early life he was the one willing the violence on.

      Then it was Marx urging on the violence. Now its these bankers, getting Greece in debt first, with extorted resources, and then using that lever to wrench all these sacred Greek islands away from that nation. All these banking losers ought to be at the Centrelink looking for work, but instead these welfare queens are thieving Greek Islands off Greek people. What if they came after us for Arnemland? Ought we not then get a bit angry about it? Fortunately for us gunfights will likely be general in the Northern Hemisphere before we are tempted into violence ourselves by such a putupon.

      But generally speaking its a mistake to try and WILL-IT, that we break up history into the before and after of a certain future date. Because it is only great tragedies that separate lives into the before and the after* And the last thing you want to do is foist terrible tragedies on people.

      We just have to summon the will, to ban all political contributions, not coming from the after-tax income of individuals. We have to find a way to make that stick. We have to educate people that a bankers due is only a cut of interest. Not the entirety of the interest. And not nearly the entirety of the principle that the banking industry gets when it creates new money.

      And we have to educate people that Northern Hemisphere bankers and other sundry money-creators (outside of mining) are every bit the mortal enemy of our interests as the Soviet Union once was.

  97. Mr Bird

    I hope you are well.

    I wanted to give you an update on some of the doings of my husband Joe Cambria. I’m afraid his poor health has contributed to worsening personal and business behaviour (not to mention shocking hygiene issues, but I’ll spare you the nauseating details for now).

    One of my main current concerns is that he’s built 10 single room cells in the back yard of the house – without Council approval, needless to say – in which he has installed 10 overseas Indian students. He claims they’re sharing our home under the auspices of the government HomeStay Program. But they are NOT part of our family, and the only thing they receive in the form of “board” or other help is a single plate of rice and steamed chicken a day which he leaves in a couple of pots outside the single bathroom provided for them. He has also forbidden them to sit outside in the back garden.

    I’ve protested about this horrendously exploitative, indeed illegal operation, but JC insists that he is making a few thousand tax-free bucks a week and that I should “zip my big fat gob” or he’ll give smack over the head with his golf stick.

    It’s a terrible state of affairs, Mr B. JC would do literally anything for money and his next plan is even worse.

  98. “He was using all his powers to serve the cause of communism”

    Yes that’s right which at the time he lived entailed agitation in support of the successful completion of the forestalled or stymied bourgeois democratic revolution in France, Germany and elsewhere.

  99. In the same way all the so-called communist revolutions of the 20th century were couched in terms of and were actually about seeking to achieve first and foremost unattained bourgeois-democratic goals, above all national independence and sovereignty, self-determination, freedom from colonial rule, industrialisation, modernisation, social justice and economic equality.

    No wonder “communism” was so popular worldwide.

  100. Injustice is a bad thing. Since when the forces for justice are pitted against the status quo, its like two fists pushing against eachother. Its so easy for utopian eschatology to come along and nudge matters towards disaster.

    I myself just cannot understand why people would want to perpetuate less than fair practices.

    Beyond having maybe one house paid off, and a couple of moderately sized stashes of silver locally. One modest stash of gold overseas ….. Once you were at about that level, you could afford to be idealistic about community affairs.

    So I don’t know why people aren’t that way. I suppose being born into wealth of such a magnitude as to constitute political power, does something rotten to many people. And one supposes that a lifetime benefiting from a sordid racket like fractional reserve, might get to be pretty corrupting as well.

    I’m sorry to say that I think that working in the public sector a long time can be corrupting too Philomena. But the taxeater effect is something I’m more familiar with. This presumed crony-effect is pretty scary, since I don’t really know anything about it.

  101. “I’m sorry to say that I think that working in the public sector a long time can be corrupting too Philomena.”

    I agree with that in so far as the public sector is constituted and framed in a specific context that we must reflect on because it is actually existing.

    Life is corrupting, by definition, including its human constructs. Think of one human created institution that is uncorrupted. Are there any?

    But it is not the public sector per se. After all it doesn’t exist in a vacuum in the same way banks do not or universities or misogynistic creeps like BirdLab or the anti-semitism of a Tillman or the personal, amoral greed of a Joe Cambria.

    Historical and dialectical materialism which Marx made the greatest contribution towards developing as a tool for understanding reality do help in understanding all the above, all phenomena. And without understanding, even a halfway decent approximation towards understanding, anything, there is little hope of improvement – in any sphere of endeavour.

  102. Much of our labour market is licensed and rigged, so it can be pretty hard to say, under current circumstances, who in the so-called “private sector” is making a contribution above his rewards, and who is dragging ass. The entirety of the professions is a rigged labour market now.

    Surveys often come out, of a sort that high-paid taxeaters (eg. Sinclair Davidson) like to quote. This is where it is shown in the US, that the guys at the higher percentiles of the income tax range are paying a disproportionate amount the income taxes.

    I don’t know quite what the point is to this. But certainly thats a reality that we don’t want to be ignorant of. But the point I would make is that a lot of these high income earners, have been able to aspire to such a terrible tax problem, by way of the systematic exclusion of others from competing with them.

    Now these exclusions are myriad and can be very subtle. Sometimes they are not so subtle. As when the unsubtle pedro assured me that “Anyone can get a law degree” since I was pointing out that a law degree was a pre-requisite to many jobs.

    Obviously a lawyer earning 300 000 a year cannot be unambiguously counted as a wealth-producer, who is being unjustly gypped by the government. Since he is a creature of government himself.

    Certainly if a tradesman is a good tradesman, and who makes 200 000 a year, he is clearly making a terrific contribution to wealth-creation under the current setup. And he will be flayed alive by taxes, to the detriment of all. On the other hand he too benefits from all these restrictive measures. Some of them understandable. Most less so.

    Under growth-deflation capitalism, no fractional reserve allowed …. and if taxation was minimalist, but definitely redistributive, so that after 50-100 years your ancestry was pretty irrelevant to your standing……

    ….. Once we got to that point, supposing no part of the labour market was rigged…… well then after 50 years or so, making money really would be economic development, and wealth would tend to signify virtue. I know you’ve probably been soured on this possibility, but try and think how on earth you could make an unjust fortune, given the above circumstance?

    What seems to have happened is that cronytown has extrapolated from this hypothetical to pat themselves on the back as they suck all the resources away from people making a contribution.

    This only in subtle ways and degrees in Australia, but now brazen and open in the US.

    But in any case I assume that anyone who is running his own business. And lets say he’s making 200-400 thousand profit a year. I suspect he’s giving much more than he’s getting. He’s supporting a terrible tax burden. I assume he’s creating new wealth, unless his business is flipping houses or some such thing. And that the fact that we aren’t allowing his profits to be reinvested is impoverishing us all. I think it is this group, almost alone now, that we can make unambiguous claims for the validity of their wealth-creation.

    This is all a long way of getting around to the point of this fellow I’ve seen talking whose name escapes me. He doesn’t deny that the top 1% make a terrific contribution to the tax burden. He doesn’t go into the debate as to whether the top 5 percentile or the top 1 percentile are holding the economy aloft or not.

    He instead focuses on a much smaller group of elites. He’s talking about the top ONE FOURTEENTH of one percent of income earners. He’s talking about the segment that are so high income as to exert political power on a personal level.

    This fellow seems to ascertained, that if you are at that level, matters in America are just horribly rigged in your favor. I imagine this is the case in a lot of places. Where for example Chinese families spread into South East Asia. They become the great wealth creators of the area. They start up small businesses. Save like all getup. They just work around the clock. Funneling money back into their businesses.

    But a couple of generations on their role becomes far more ambiguous. Here they are bundled up with the politicians. Getting all the infrastructure contracts. Being first in line at the new money spigot of the international bankers. Are they still wealth creators? Wealth destroyers? Wealth excluders? Or some indeterminate combination of all three?????

    Now this is what we don’t want. We don’t want this sort of ambiguity. We must have a system where the wealthy are the virtuous wealthy. Where when we see the rich man drive around in peak-time in his SUV we just are happy that its he who is paying the congestion tax, and we are getting off almost scott-free on our small cc motorbike.
    Its only when we KNOW that wealth does mean virtue, at least for the most part, that we can feel good about the society we are living in.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I must try and track that fellow down again.

    To me it shows that we need to think harder about how we tax. I’d want cascading total assets tax of one percent, with a threshhold for human beings. . Cascading transfer of ownership tax of 1 per cent.

    About a 5 per cent GST for the moment while we are weening off welfare for the old guys. Congestion tax …. Maybe maintain such land value taxes as we currently have. And an income tax of maybe 15% but never ever ever for retained earnings. And never for anyone who could be so much as thought to be struggling.

    So that it might kick in at first at 30 grand and another 30 grand for each registered dependent. But from there just lift it straight up from the ground

    But perhaps for a while, and until hard money was in place it might be as high as 30%.

    But definitely we would want no way out for the richest of the richest. No way to escape the cascading total assets tax for the those richest of the rich. Because for people this wealthy, until we have been in growth-deflation for about 50 years, they really will be getting a free ride.

    And do we not see this every year with the surveys of the wealthiest Australians?

    This is not justice. This is not justice.

  103. Graeme, there’s quite a revealing and interesting thread over at LP on Bob Carr and the ALP and the role of the CPA.

    Thing is the defeat of “communist” politics in Australia was achieved largely by means of the ALP Right and it is this beast which thereby was able to deliver the appalling regimes and politics we all must endure at state and federal level today.

    Similarly, the success of neo-liberal imperial policies have brought us the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq, the horrendous erosion of civil liberties, the worldwide growth of Islamic terrorism, and the destructiveness and criminality of out-of-control banks and corporations, such as BP.

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/07/05/the-essentialist-anti-communism-of-bob-carr/

  104. Graeme, delete BirdLab at 9:14 please.

  105. “Much of our labour market is licensed and rigged, so it can be pretty hard to say, under current circumstances, who in the so-called “private sector” is making a contribution above his rewards, and who is dragging ass.”

    Well yes, and that includes the truth about taxation. It is such a Byzantine thing we don’t really know the half of it but it keeps being said and shown that the rich don’t pay tax at all, or have myriad ways in avoiding it and that is particularly true in the wealthiest countries such as the US. And corporations scream blue murder if they have to pay tax anywhere near the rates you and I and most “ordinary” workers pay.

    Re law degrees, I agree not everyone can do them, because they would send the likes of you and me, and other sorts, stir crazy. I’ve got a QC, a Supreme Court judge and a barrister in my immediate family circle and while they’re excellent and smart people that has nothing to do with their legal training and experience which in many other ways has been a hindrance to them, intellectually, as they’d probably agree.

  106. I did a better draft of the big post above Philomena. Might be worth skim-reading it again.

    Yeah I do take your point without necessarily accepting your definitions. What we end up with never seems to be the right thing according to any philosophy.

    The libertarians movement gets skewed, and used for “free trade” agreements. But these are not free-trade-agreements they are government-to-government cronytown-to-cronytown agreements.

    They will be destined to be simply expanded for loss of personal, local and international sovereignty down the track. Should any wimp at Catallaxy queer me on this point, I have already acknowledged that a great deal of good did come out of many of these deals for awhile. I’m not denying this Catallaxy. So shut the fuck up, you don’t have a point.

    You see there is never really any such thing as a free trade deal. They are merely taxeater-to-taxeater deals, skewed by cronytown, on the one hand, and by the globalist left taxeaters on the other.

    So always we see valid ideas systematically skewed and exploited.

  107. John Ralston Saul who is anti-Marxist btw would agree with most of what you say on free trade. He is the best.

    I must dig up his definition tomorrow from his Dictionary. It’s a hoot and so true.

  108. “Well yes, and that includes the truth about taxation. It is such a Byzantine thing we don’t really know the half of it but it keeps being said and shown that the rich don’t pay tax at all”

    Right but here we don’t want to be caught out. Its not THE RICH as in the top 1% rich that get out of it. In the US its more the super-rich. Not the 1-in-100. But rather the 1-in-1000-2000. They are the guys on the pigs back.

    And it may be that the figures that someone like Sinclair is inclined to quote are somewhat tautological. Sure if your income is deemed “taxable income” you show up in the top 1% and obviously you pay a huge whack of taxes. If you are a small businessman and this state of affairs reduces reinvestment, we are all the worse off for your exploitation.

    But supposing you are yet richer. And your lear jet and most everything else is deductible. So you don’t even show up in the top 1%. Since the loopholes are working for you. You earn more than 1 man in a 1000 does. And yet your income for tax purposes is next to nothing.

    So its likely that the figures are very slippery. And that the top 1 percent that the proud statistician is boasting about are really just the exploited-yet-somewhat fortunate 1%……

    … whereas if you really truly do earn a great deal more than that top one percent, you don’t even get to be counted in that top one percent. Since the politicians may well be at your bidding.

    It does seem to be the case that the politicians are at those peoples bidding.

  109. “Where when we see the rich man drive around in peak-time in his SUV we just are happy that its he who is paying the congestion tax, and we are getting off almost scott-free on our small cc motorbike.”

    Yeah bring on the congestion tax. And higher petrol prices too. It’s the only way to make us think individually and collectively about what we are prepared to pay for using non renewables and causing massive pollution.

    I put my money where my mouth is on this. I’ve never owned or driven a car. And I’ve only just recently bought a vehicle, a motor scooter. It costs me $6 a week in petrol.

  110. OBVIOUSLY I’LL DELETE YOUR POSTS UNTIL YOU LEARN TO BE A GENTLEMAN TO MY FEMALE VISITORS. I CERTAINLY DON’T WANT THIS BLOG TO END UP LIKE CATALLAXY. BEAR IN MIND THAT I TEND TO BLAME MYSELF FOR THE DOUBLE-X CHROMOSONE ETHNIC CLEANSING THAT WENT ON THERE. I NOW SEE THE ERROR OF MY WAYS.

  111. “John Ralston Saul who is anti-Marxist btw would agree with most of what you say on free trade. He is the best.”

    One of my first essays on this blog was about him. Be careful since I’m in favor of something very close to free trade. I’m against free trade deals. Catallaxy is always standing by with the brand, and when they brand you they always lie.

    Anyway with Saul, I didn’t have a problem with his analysis. My problem was where he refused to give us a valid solution to the observations he was making

    I might bring that one to the front and see if I still agree with what I said about him.

    It was a little bit different with Kenneth Galbraith. There I would see that he was perceptive. I’d agree with a lot of his observations. But in the case of the tall guy, I would disagree point blank with his prescriptions.

    With Saul he made no prescriptions, which was frustrating, since I wanted answers.

    But by now I figure I have most of the answers. So maybe I could read him again without such displeasure.

  112. I’d be fascinated to read what you wrote about John Ralston Saul, Graeme. Everything you write is of interest to me. And as I said, I really dug Saul, and still refer to him a lot. He is such an entertaining writer and I don’t know that it is fair to say he had no answers, just criticisms. But then that in itself is not necessarily a deal breaker I don’t think.

  113. “Yeah bring on the congestion tax. And higher petrol prices too. It’s the only way to make us think individually and collectively about what we are prepared to pay for using non renewables and causing massive pollution.”

    Don’t get too Pigouvian-enthused Philomena. A congestion tax is quite enough the burden on the working man. And certainly any taxes on synthetic diesel and Australian produced alternatives to petrol (LPG, natural gas, et al) must be done away with in the lead-up to the congestion tax.

    Always remember that the global warming deal is a hoax. And so is the Big Bang Theory.

    The implication that the Big Bang Theory is a hoax, suggests to us that matter must be being converted from stuff, where matter already is. Matter must be its own converter. It must convert stuff into matter.

    Hence the expanding earth theory. And if this is so, while we will hit peak oil, our oil exploitation is not likely to drop at anything like the rate expected. Plus we can be pretty sure of a helluva lot of local gas supplies in a great many places. The amount of Methyl-Clathrates on the sea bed is truly awesome.

    So for now, though I think we are selling our gear at way too cheap a price in many cases ….. Still there is no good cause to lay big burdens on the working man over it. We will use the fuels more wisely if we get bitch-slapped around in peak-time. Thats a good enough start.

    We must guard against Pigouvian-extremism.

  114. Okay Philomena. I brought that post to the front. I hope on re-reading it isn’t so embarrassing that I would feel the need to edit it. But it might be that I won’t re-read it today. So you better read it before temptation to rewrite history sets in.

  115. Thank you Graeme. I will read it anon.

  116. Actually I just re-read it. Its better than I thought but doesn’t say anything about Saul or Galbraith. My diatribes on these guys must have been in now lost Catallaxy archives.

  117. Yes, I didn’t see much about Saul or Galbraith.

    I still find it hard to fathom that Soon and Sinclair Davidson were so inept and careless to lose TWICE most of Catallaxy’s records. It makes me think it was probably deliberate.

  118. Mr Bird, I heard an econonist working in China advising large corporations speculate that China could at some point simply stop trading with the rest of the world and rely on its own internal resources and thereby massively reduce its carbon and ecological footprint into the bargain.

    • Well its good that they have such diversity of production. But there is no known reason why one would wish to reduce the amount of life-giving CO2 that one bequeaths to the natural world.

      • Of course there is reason.

        The Chinese leadership is very concerned about its environmental impacts, and is very aware of the need to curb pollution and carbon emissions.

        And it is making headway in addressing these problems according to some organisations including the World Bank which reported that last year China invested $34.6 billion in clean technology and produces more wind turbines and solar panels than any other country.

        Air, water and food quality are viewed as national priorities and are being addressed by varied means including through the building of mass transit systems, the focus on developing energy-efficient infrastructure, systems, cities, agriculture, the use of clean technologies, etc.

        The economist I heard said that China estimates that 40-50% of its carbon footprint is attributable to export product manufacturing and that if it eliminated that, which it could choose to, though not in the short term for obvious reasons, it could massively reduce its environmental impact.

        And he said the Chinese government knows full well that clean technologies alone will never be enough. It knows it must, and has as its goal, the reduction of its overall demand for energy.

        In that regard it is already ahead of the rest of the world.

      • “The Chinese leadership is very concerned about its environmental impacts, and is very aware of the need to curb pollution and carbon emissions.”

        The first part of that is good news. But note how the adoption of the Orwellian language of the energy-deprivation promoters has you bundling up two radically different things. Its not “carbon” we are talking about. Its the food of life, the miracle gas, CO2. And I don’t consider the communist leadership as moronic enough to worry even a little bit about putting airborne plant fertiliser into the air.

        Yes China is a big polluter. This is more a concern for their own people then anyone else.

  119. Here is John Ralston Saul on Free Trade. It is really quite brilliant and very prescient vis-a-vis what Rudd was trying to do with the mining tax on Ken Henry’s advice.

    “The creaky old crudeness of the free-trade miracle can be seen in its obsession with specialisation. Each person in a given place may not wish to devote themselves to coal-mining. They may wish to grow some wheat or research new medications, even if others in other places can do these things cheaper. Should the market be organised so that they cannot grow and sell their wheat or find the cure to a disease? The free-trade theory says yes. They must do only what they do the cheapest.

    But societies limited to one or two specialties are no longer societies. They are abstract production units and will suffer from the ills of overbred animals which have wonderful legs but weak lungs or a magnificent tail but no brains. Theories of generalised market-driven specialisation leave everyone – in all classes – dangerously dependent on one or two goods. And the market is fickle. We can hardly blame it for that. With every shift in the patterns of market-driven production and consumption, whole societies can be thrown into despair.

    We all know about the instability inherent in Third World countries dependent on the production of one or two commodities. Free trade, as presented in the last quarter of the 20th century, aims to convert all of us into commodity producers.”

    • There is a version of free trade that was being promoted which said that the specialisation, that lead to greater productivity, was to be not at the level of the firm, but at a wider level. At the level of whole sectors of the economy. So that we were supposed to lose all our manufacturing. Its really this bizarre version of what free trade is about where Sauls commentary seems relevant. The stupid version of what free trade was supposed to lead to was based on a totally wrong interpretation of the concept of “comparative advantage”. Meanwhile the real reasons why matters were being skewed in this direction weren’t being addressed. Taxes on retained earnings. Monetary dysfunction. Dysfunction in the supply and demand of internationally traded currencies. Massive parasitism in government and banking. The advantages that multinationals had over small business. (With their lobbyists, accounting departments and lawyers they could effectively pay very little taxes. Which would be okay, but their local-only competitors still had to pay theirs. Hence the skewing.) and on and on. Problems that were not being addressed by these membrane-shallow ideologues.

      Australian economists, instead of appreciating the situation for the dysfunctional mess that it was, invented a whole new version of comparative advantage. A wrong one. A hob-goblins midnight mirror imagine of the real thing. Now both sides of the free trade debate are perverted by that wrong-headed notion. Both sides think that our higher labour costs must lead to our loss of manufacturing. But the idiot Australian economists on the right THINK THATS A GOOD THING. Can you believe such incredible idiocy?

      And plus they will not speak rationally about it. You point out that they have fucked up in both theory and practice, and they will accuse you of being against free trade. I am forced to go with the other side primarily now because of the lunacy of the alleged economics right in Australia. But their opponents are not unreasonable. My friend Heath came around not so long ago and we were agreeing on manufacturing-infrastructure (together I think of them as “Heavy Metal” being the torso of the economy. Without the torso you are lost, even if you have big biceps and calf muscles, in practice you aren’t useful without the torso. Well we weren’t really talking in these terms. But he expresses skepticism that we can maintain our manufacturing without tariffs.

      I say to him an other people who take this position “Supposing you were running things. As your economic advisor, if I said ‘give me 18 months and I’ll have us in surplus, can we then take the tariffs off’ ” …. he says “Of course. That will mean you have succeeded”

      You see both sides are agreeing. The economists are saying that free trade means we have to lose our manufacturing. But we can reindustrialise big-time, with or without trade barriers. This is something Jason Soon, Sinclair, Kirchner et al, seem incapable of understanding. Jason goes so far as to identify strong manufacturing, not with capitalism, but rather with Stalin. The fellow he wanted us to finance in World War II, even in retrospect. Here was I thinking that strong manufacturing was an expression of capitalism. But Jason won’t have a bit of it. Strong manufacturing, to Jason, is all about Stalin.

      These guys always get everything wrong and they portray an evil perverted version of capitalism to the people. Like for example, to Sinclair and Jason a communist government nationalising our primary resources …… thats free trade. These people are just lunatics and sell-outs when it comes down to it.

  120. As discussed many times before, tracking whether a country is in or out of recession, by way of tracking GDP, makes no sense whatsoever. Real GDR would be a better metric. However the unemployment rate is an excellent proxy. And since we have unemployment plotted for the US we can answer the following question with great clarity;

    Is the US in recession still? Or has it moved into the recovery phase?

    http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?nov09

    As you can see there is no recovery. Or as Gerald Celente often says “Its not a recovery. Its a coverup.”

    Profits were boosted with deficit spending. The stockmarket was blown up with money at almost zero interest given straight to Goldman Sachs and the other cronies. There is no recovery nor any sign of it.

    Once the stimulus packages all run out there could, with a little bit of luck be some tiny drop in unemployment for awhile. But things are jacked up for this to be fleeting. The US will not ever get out of recession with current policy. The US will crash into anarchy on its current glide-path. There isn’t any doubt about this at all. Only radical policy reversal could, even in theory, save them now. And I don’t see any way this radical policy could happen politically. We are talking partial Jubilee. A massive government culling of departments. The move towards 100% backing. Can any of you see all this happening at once and soon? No? Well neither can I. So we have to face the reality of collapse-to-anarchy in the US definitely. Probably in Europe too. Where does that leave the rest of us?

    This is the reality we are dealing with. This isn’t even Soothsaying. Because they could technically save themselves as I said.

    Make your plans accordingly. Since there really is no doubt about this.

  121. Mr Bird

  122. What a very strange post.


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: