Posted by: graemebird | August 1, 2010

THE STUPIDEST PRIME MINISTER EVER. /(pristine edition).

<

AT LEAST ONE OF THESE TWO MEN IS HOMOSEXUAL BY INCLINATION. NEITHER HAS HELD A PROPER JOB EVER. BOTH ARE FAKE PERSONALITIES (BUT ONLY ONE CRIMINALLY SO.) BOTH HAVE ALREADY!!!!!!!! DONE IMMENSE HARM TO THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. BOTH OF THESE GUYS WERE MEDIA DARLINGS PRIOR TO THEIR NOMINATION FOR THE LEADING TICKET IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PARTIES. BOTH OF THESE GUYS ARE MENTAL MIDGITS WHO HAVE NEVER PERFORMED IN ANY REAL JOB EVER. ONE OF THESE GUYS IS A FULL-BLOWN PSYCHOPATH.

Is it any wonder that these two “men” hit it off?

Advertisements

Responses

  1. The above is pretty much how this thread appeared originally in March 2009. I like this more minimalistic thread.

    The old thread has many additions to it, and is now under another name. The old thread also includes a retrospective discussing first the article which motivated me to write this thread originally, as well as a postscript explaining the consequences of Rudd’s appalling behavior vis a vis asking Beijing for favors. I’ll include some of that bellow. But I wanted to reconstruct this thread to something close to its pristine form.

  2. Unrighteousness Of Rudds Posture Towards The Communist Menace:

    Below we have a youtube which may be an analogy to many things. But surely it is a very good analogy to both Kevin Rudds Prime Ministership, and Barry Soetoro’s performance as Usurper-President.

    Here is a link to the newspaper story that inspired me to take a shot at Kevin. Though I never did get round to working it into a proper article:

    I had just read about how our tenth soldier killed in Afghanistan
    was being brought home and I turned the page and read this:

    “CHINA is secretly helping to bankroll Kevin Rudd’s economic rescue plan as concerns grow over the relationship between the Communist superpower and the Labor Government.

    The Courier-Mail can confirm that China is a significant investor in Australian government bonds — used by Canberra to fund billions of dollars in emergency spending.

    Market insiders believe China is buying 15 to 20 per cent of the $2 billion in Treasury securities being issued every week.

    This would make China the single biggest lender to Australia, although details of who owns the bonds are cloaked in secrecy.

    The program, authorised by Treasurer Wayne Swan, will leave Australia with a debt bill approaching $200 billion.

    In response, the Opposition has raised concerns Australia could end up politically “handcuffed” to China as a result. China’s appetite for Australian bonds comes just days after the Prime Minister secretly met China’s fifth most powerful figure, Li Changchun, at the Lodge……”

    OK SO WHAT IS THE ARBITRAGE? WHAT IS THIS FILTHY MILKY-BAR-KID TRAITOR GIVING IN RETURN?

    “…….Mr Rudd is also arguing for a stronger role for China in global affairs during his visit to the US and Britain.

    China’s Ambassador to Australia, Zhang Junsai, declined to comment. But China has made no secret of interest in buying Australian investments.

    China has its sights on a number of prized infrastructure and resource assets. The most sensitive is Chinalco’s $27 billion bid to lift its stake in miner, Rio Tinto, to 18 per cent.

    China has amassed a huge $1 trillion-plus portfolio of US bonds, recently flexing its political muscle as the US economy fell into recession.

    “We welcome foreign investment but not foreign investment that is handcuffed to political interests,” Mr Hockey said……..”

    LOOK AT THAT!! HONEST JOE HOCKEY FRIGHTENED OF BEING RAINED-ON BY OUR ENTIRE QUISLING ECONOMICS PROFESSION. JOE YOU GET OUT THERE AND DECLARE THAT THE CHINESE BUYING UP OUR RESOURCES, ESTABLISHING GIGANTIC MANIFESTATIONS OF THE PARTY IN OUR CITADELS, AND BECOMING OUR LEADING CREDITORS HAS GOT FUCKING NOTHING TO DO WITH SOUND ECONOMICS OR FREE ENTERPRISE AND THATS THE ECONOMIC SCIENCE OF IT. I SHIT YOU NOT.

    “……Senior government figures privately admit the growing level of Chinese investment raises significant issues, including national security.

    Mr Swan, who will rule on the Chinalco-Rio Tinto deal, played down talk of a Chinese takeover.” ”

    I HOPE NONE OF YOU ECONOMIST LIARS WILL PRETEND THAT GETTING INTO DEBT TO COMMUNISTS, AND COMMUNISTS NATIONALISING OUR GEAR IS FREE TRADE. BECAUSE THAT ORWELLIAN IDIOCY IS GETTING OLD. THIS IS WHAT WE GET FROM A QUISLING ECONOMICS PROFESSION WHO ARE TOO STUPID OR GUTLESS TO CHALLENGE THE KEYNESIAN MUTLIPLIER BY ATTACKING IT AT THE THROAT AND NEVER LETTING IT GO AND KILLING THIS IDIOTIC ECONOMIC FALLACY FOR ALL TIME AND DRIVING A SILVER STAKE THROUGH ITS HEART AND COMING BY FREQUENTLY FOR AN ETERNITY TO MAKE SURE IT IS STILL DEAD.

    DAMN YOU CLUB TROPPO AND ALL YOUR FILTHY KEYNESIAN CONTRIBUTERS AND ALL YOU LIKEMINDED ECONOMISTS AND ALL YOU APPEASERS, ALLEGEDLY ON THE OTHER SIDE.

    DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL.

    WHAT HAVE WE GOT FROM YOU YOU CLOWNS, EXCEPT FOR 52 BILLIONS IN UNNECESSARY AND HARMFUL DEBT TO THE COMMUNISTS AND THE LOSS OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO COMMUNIST OWNERSHIP TO BALANCE THAT OUT, AND ON TOP OF THAT A PERMANENT EXPANSION OF AN EXTENSION OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY RIGHT HERE ON OUR TERRITORY.

    WAS NOT AN EMBASSY AND SEVERAL THOUSAND SPIES ENOUGH FOR YOU MULTIPLIER-BELIEVING DUMBASS ANTI-ECONOMIST NUTBALLS?

  3. THE TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF RUDD ASKING THE CHINESE FOR FAVORS AND GETTING IN THEIR DEBT:

    Postscript August 2010: Retrospectively we can see the chain of events of the Rudd posture of asking the communists for favors. The communists shell out billions for him to blow thanks to his groveling. Then they get turned down on Rio Tinto. Immediately hostages are taken, an Australian family is clubbed to death, and the government backs down, sells more resources to the communists, and calls the selling of further resources to the communists a diplomatic triumph.

    You never ask these nasty bastards for favors. You never get in their debt. And this lunatic spent all his time in foreign diplomacy. What did he think? That they would shell out all that cash for him personally and not expect a great deal in return? We see from Rudds ineptitude the consequences. The short-run damaging of our economy, with tens of thousands of people thrown out of work. Further damage should we pay this money back. The sell-off of more of our gear. Further strategic gains for Beijing in terms of the communists getting a greater foothold and presence here. The murder of an entire Australian family. The imprisonment of Australians. And all just to help one narcissists career out.

    Its hard to imagine one person doing so much damage by crawling around on his stomach pleading for favors and money.

  4. COMMENTS MOSTLY FROM FEBRUARY 2010 ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM OF MONEY-CREATORS ACTING LIKE THE WORST IMAGINABLE DRUG-DEALERS….. PUSHING DEBT ON POLITICAL DEBT-JUNKIES.

    BROUGHT TO THE FRONT AGAIN AUGUST 2010. People are suddenly saying things like “I had no idea what a lunatic this fellow was.” But I for one think that his lunacy was always pretty apparent. Scroll down to the original minimalist post. It is called THE STUPIDEST PRIME MINISTER EVER

    First published March 2009. Brought to the front February 2010 to prove I wasn’t exaggerating. Most readers found this thread just way too out there. I was telling the truth. But also it has implications for Greek debt, American debt and so forth. See that asshole below. He has unemployed many people, and retarded the road to sustainable recovery. Because he is an asshole. Worse still he has put you and me in debt, and he now expects you and me to pay this debt even though we didn’t spend the money, did not want the money spent, did not want to borrow off the communists. How is it moral that we pay for what this asshole did to us. Consider this in the light of the Greek and American debt crises. And our own, which is severe, but not quite as severe. Can anyone tell me why I should have to pay for this fucking asshole Rudd. Who took the job of Prime Minister when he had no capacity to do the job?

    This is a serious question. Why should I pay for this cunt? Why should you? Why are me and you now in debt to the Chinese communists? Is it money that the communist party members have saved? Did we agree to borrow from them? I cannot find a fucking reason why I should pay for this cunt. So many of our mates have already been made to pay.

    Rudd, stupid cunt that he is, borrowed all this money from communists FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHOKING OFF OUR EXPORTS. Thats the effect. He delivered, to the public a prosperity delusion, in the form of tax rebates, and paid for this by making our imports seem cheaper than otherwise, and choking off our exports. Thus he delayed recovery. He caused massive unemployment. Since, from the point of view of NOMINAL spending, he simply redirected spending from business-spending, to consumer and government spending. Thereby rendering-unemployed, tens of thousands of people. Wages and salaries are a BUSINESS EXPENSE. They come straight out of business spending. If you redirect business spending you make people unemployed and obviously so.

    Why ought we pay the money back? Justice would consist of confiscating the special superannuation largesse, of everyone involved in this anti-economic treason.

    BAD-BASTARDS-BONUSES BLOWN-BUDGETS AND BANK-BAILOUTS.

    Now look at “Obama.” This is not his real name by the way. He was born with this name. But his real name is Barry Soetoro. But anyway it is “Obama” that has, along with others, borrowed these huge amounts of money. In doing so he has rendered millions of Americans unemployed. When they finally get jobs, why should they be liable to pay this debt? It makes no sense!

    Look you can say that this makes sense but it doesn’t. You can pretend its sane but it isn’t. You can protest its fair until the cows come home, but you will be lying until they do.

    So if you,me, the Greek public, or the American taxpayers are forced to pay back these debts, IT WILL SIMPLY BE A BANK AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY.

    Now I don’t know about you guys. But if Barry Asshole had made me unemployed, by redirecting all that spending from business spending to bad bastards bonuses, bad budgets and bank bailouts, I would not feel powerfully motivated to pay this money back once I got a job. How about you? Now we have to stop from being abused by assholes like Kevin and Barry.

    We were told they were so fucking smart. They are not smart. They are fucking morons. The number of people Barry has gotten killed is too hard to assess. Particularly since his participation in the body count tally started before he was President. Clearly Donald Young was murdered on his account just for starters. Of this we can be very sure.

    Barry is a homosexual. If not you tell me where his old girlfriends are. Why haven’t all Barry’s very many old girlfriends made millions in womens magazine articles, back when Barry was the epitome of a living version of what girls thought about when they read romance novels. There was Barry. 21st century fantasy Messiah. Yes we can. The reason his old girlfriends didn’t make that money, didn’t attain that girly prestige, is that Barry HAD-no old girlfriends. Because Barry is a homosexual.

    I remember looking at these Messiah’s that used to captivate people, on the cover of those Romance novels back in the late 20th Century.

    Well there was Fabio. What a marvellous name for a new Messiah? Fabio. He had great hair. Fabio. You can say it ten or twenty different ways. Fabio. Slow or fast you can say his name. Fabio. He was clean. Fabio …. was no homo …. as far as I-know. Nobody was murdered so Fabio could get his job of new Messiah.

    Then there was another bloke. Same build as Fabio. Fantastic name. In the tradition of Fabio was his name. And like Fabio he had great hair. Fantastic hair this kid. A fantastic name. His name was fantastic. As was Fabios. And they both had just wonderful long hair. The other bloke had lighter hair than Fabio. But great hair just the same. And both these gentlemen. Fabio and the other one. They both had these amazing names. Mysterious. Exotic. If you are a sheila, (I imagine) ALLURING.

    Now hows that for progress? Because not even thirty years later we have these fucking assholes, in the position of 21ST CENTURY MESSIAH…………. And they have fucking names like “Kevin” ………………………………….. and “Barry.”

    I don’t know how people so fundamentally unqualified could get these jobs. Did they go to one of these seminars for the long-term unemployed? Did they fill in the right forms? These are dummies. boneheads. real fucking shitheads. Both of them. And they got the top jobs.

    The girls and boys down at Centrelink must have been so much on the fucking boil that fucking day I can tell you. All of them. That one morning when Kevin and Barry walked in. They must have all started their day just the same way. They must have woken up real early. With that fire in the belly. They must have said.

    “I’m getting to work early. I’m just gonna find the first client. Don’t care if he’s got no experience. Don’t care if he’s never worked a proper job before. I’m just going to do my job. I’m going to find this client the best job in the world. Whether he is qualified or not.”

  5. Barnaby Joyce. Pretty much the only Parlimentarian with an understanding of economics. Australia’s natural leader. Tony Abbot is a weak compromise compared to Barnaby. Tony comes under the heading of “good enough.”

  6. Barnaby Joyce is the Joe Cambria of the Australian Parliament, i.e. a fool and a buffoon. Actually, from his entertaining performance – and no one takes him seriously – he of course is far more charming, endearing and engaging than the crude simpleton, JC could ever be. Category error really to compare the two. My bad.

  7. He’s no fool. He’s just lays down a lot of unpopular truthzzzzz. Which are really the only truthzzz for a conscientious politician to be focusing on. Since its the gorilla in the room, that everyone is trying to ignore, that is going to cause you the most trouble. I must say I feel somewhat uncomfortable with you praising Cambria to the moon with such a flattering comparison.

    He got in trouble by pointing out that the Americans may default, this could lead to a financial armageddon. and that therefore we ought to be prepared and ought not be in a pile of debts.

    Now this is all true except for the fact that the Americans WILL default. Either by galloping inflation or by a more formal default. But essentially he’s totally right, and he was run down for it. Now he would have known he was risking his position. But its better to lose that position then back yourself into a corner, wherein you won’t be able to speak these uncomfortable truthzzz openly.

    People will eventually understand that he was right all along.

    • YOU ARE THE RETARD CAMBRIA

  8. Yes, it was an unfair comparison. Barnaby Joyce resides on a qualitatively higher intellectual and ethical evel than the likes of JC.

    It’s a pity the current British Iraq Inquiry doesn’t extend to the role of John Howard in endangering the national security of Western countries, including Australia, with the illegal and totally counterproductive invasion of Iraq.

    Last week the former head of MI5 Baroness Manningham-Buller told the the Iraq Inquiry that the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US, Britain and Australia significantly increased the terror threat in the UK and had radicalised a generation of Muslims in anti-western sentiment and support for terrorist attack against civilians.

    Blair, Bush and Howard should all be charged with treason, endangering their nations and war crimes against civilians, direct and indirect, including of their own countries.

  9. May I ask a favour?

  10. Of course.

  11. “Blair, Bush and Howard should all be charged with treason, endangering their nations and war crimes against civilians, direct and indirect, including of their own countries.”

    I would see them as the patsies. Because I would think that if we are assuming that the American shadow government was NOT involved in 9/11, then the first few months of the war in Iraq was a reasonably legitimate affair.

    I’m more scandalised by the US troops being there seven years later. By the mismanagement that this implies. Nine years later when it comes to Afghanistan. I’m scandalised by us ever having Australian soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan. When Afghanistan is much more amenable to proxy war, and only the first couple of months of Iraq would seem to have needed the better trained solidiers, to deal with the potential for the vandalisation of the Iraqi oil paternity, as well as for the possibility of chemical weapons being unleashed.

    I wouldn’t know if we could ever trust these people again. So I would wish Israel well if it were to try and set back the Iranian nuclear program with some surgical bombing strikes. But I can never fully get behind such an effort again. Because whilst I’d approve of Americans and Australians supporting what I’d consider to be prudent military action ……. who-ever is pulling the strings would seem to be able to cock things up and keep our lads in harms way, for their own purposes ….. or otherwise out of sheer ineptitude.

    The Americans just aren’t sound enough internally to conduct rational operations overseas. They appear to be being run primarily out of a covert-ops/money-creators nexus. Such that anything they touch can turn to burnt flesh and ruin.

    Clearly I cannot condemn Howard for what he did since I supported him. But we must make sure our allies know that we are only there for a short time. Nine years in Afghanistan is scandalous disregard for our soldiers and their Mothers.

  12. I’m not anti-homosexual, while being female and heterosexual. I’m not a supporter of the ALP or of the American Democrats. And Obama has been a disaster for his party and his country. Rudd was a disappointment, but then I had few illusions in the ALP and even less today.

    BUT.

    That photo-shopped image of Obama you have posted is of dubious value to your argument. For one it is ambiguous and would be viewed in quite different ways – some even favourable – by different people.

    My (and presumably some others) reading of it is that it is unnecessarily demeaning.

    If you oppose his policies then by all means explain why. But attempts to physically humiliate him, or any human being, albeit via e-images, is another thing entirely. And despite what you might be trying to achieve it actually puts the focus and spotlight not so much on him but on those who would post such an image.

    It’s your blog. But I wish you would remove it for the reasons I give.

  13. I just cannot see how one can be too demeaning of this fellow. He has spent millions of dollars avoiding the need to prove that he is eligible to run. He’s hidden all his real documents and appears to have released a whole string of fake documents. Some as an attempt to try and get away with usurpation. Some with the apparent intention of demeaning people who are questioning his eligibility. So he’s a presumed felon and usurper.

    He’s ruined the lives of tens of millions of people. He’s helped spark off sectarian violence and mass-murder in Kenya, in the middle of his Presidential run. Three or four gay men in his church were murdered during his Presidential run. He’s mad multiple audacious attempts to sneak in tyranny by the back door. No matter how unlikely one imagines these various attempts to ultimately be successful, its very clear that the motivation is always there with him.

    He’s a creep. He’s living a double life. I couldn’t find a better picture if I tried.

  14. Well, then. Why does your choice of image of a man living “a double life” entail the (homo) sexual? What does that have to do with politics, his politics, anyone’s politics?

    And if some men do indeed live “a double life” sexually, is that their fault? Or is it rather indicative of the absence of a genuinely free, open, tolerant, libertarian society which does not make men feel the need to hide the ways in which they voluntarily and non-exploitatively express their sensuality and their physical desires?

  15. As well as living a double life he’s also a homosexual. Or so it would seem.

  16. Again, the image says more about those who think it reprehensible than it does about the subject.

    Obama is not anti-homosexual, on the evidence. Nor ditto can he be said to be homosexual. And even if he is/was. So what?

    Obama strikes one as exactly the sort of urbane hip elite US inner-city liberal who’d pride himself in being non-judgemental about sexual practice or preference. This of course is not a radical stance today. It’s a mainstream.view and social acceptance. Legal acceptance of homosexuality is recognised in law in most jurisdictions in the civilised and/or Western world for very good reason. It’s a civil liberty. An individual’s sexuality has nothing to do with their politics has no bearing on national security and is not the business of you or me or the state.

    And it is a fact of life that a significant proportion of the population are themselves open to, participative in or associated in some way with people who conduct same-sex relationships.

    So what?

  17. I think the evidence shows him to be homosexual. And he ought to be questioned over the murder of the homosexuals he knew in his church.

  18. It all sounds like a very bad film script.

    A person’s sexuality is by far the least interesting and most immaterial thing about them.

    It certainly is no character, personality, political or any sort of indicator about them or their beliefs, political persuasion, personal habits, psychological outlook, food preferences, etc whatsoever.

  19. Right. If he were a homo with redeeming features, it wouldn’t worry me. So for example the left make hay out of the fact that one of McCarthy’s staff was gay. But obviously that means nothing to me. It seems to mean a great deal to people like Jason Soon.

    So the fact that he is likely a closet homo, is not that big a deal to me, supposing he were fundamentally sound in other departments. But supposing he’s a real skank and he means great harm to everyone? That mean I cannot make visual jokes about him?

    I think he’s a felon, an usurper, and a callous little bitch. I think he helped spark sectarian violence in a once peaceful country. Everything they told us about him were lies. Its not even clear he is an American citizen.

    The take-home-story is the following:

    It appears that having gotten away with 9/11, whoever is really running things, could not give a toss any longer. And will just place anyone they want in power. The real power must be essentially a money-creation/covert operations NEXUS…. Since were this not the case they simply would be incapable of getting away with, all the things they appear to be getting away with.

    • Jason Soon is a homophobe?

      Why am I not surprised.

      • Its worse than that in a way. Here Jason is affecting to be a libertarian, but scrupulously twisting matters to go against “the right” on strategic issues. And it doesn’t matter if those strategic issues are sixty years old.

        Its very strange. I just imagine that even if there are people who act like leftist agents of influence, and are 95% probably not that way, it doesn’t really matter. I have to simply assume they are anyhow. Because the effect is the same. Just put a few Chinese agents of influence on the ground, next thing they’ll have every Chinaman in Australia, doing their work for them. This is what they are supposed to be expert at after all. Else they wouldn’t be on the payroll.

        Our greatest living economist made a speech at a Republican party dinner honoring the homosexual in McCarthy’s team. He couldn’t give a toss about his inclinations. Neither could McCarthy.

        But Obama’s presumed oddities are quite relevant. Since these are things that skilled backers have over him, should he decide to slip his tight leash.

  20. But maybe you’re right. Maybe whoever photoshopped that pic is on to something: that there’s a fey, camp, exhibitionist superficial Obama who’d dearly love to break free from the dominant personality of Serious Subdued Calm Thinker and explore this outré sub-personality and have a lil fun away from Michelle and the girls with all those squadrons of buffed and toned gay men dressed in similarly risque, transgressive apparel, men who think he’s definitely one Scrumptious Black Tasty Morsel.

  21. Exactly. And I expect to hear a “hear hear” from Mr Peter Patton once he gets around to reading your excellent post.

    I don’t share that view of the usurper. His impressive walking talking reading act does nothing for me. What I’d want to do is shoot him in the leg, and then give him a good talking to. Using hard kicks to the other leg, as punctuation marks. Sadly payback can seldom be that well calibrated towards moderation, and therefore must usually be abandoned, even when it is due.

  22. I had a Russian friend who use to practice her Jungian-inspired sub-personality identification practices on me (she was trying to get out of software development and thought this might be a career goer in Bondi, Glebe and Balmain.)

    One practice was she would ask what question do you have about yourself. It could be anything. And then you’d sit in one chair with another chair alongside. She would then ask the question and say she would like to hear from the subpersonality (Jung said we have a potentially infinite number of them) who most knows about this. And you’d answer.

    And you would have to change chairs each time a different personality spoke. It was amazing to hear what you found yourself saying. People even speak in different tones or registers with varying levels of vocabulary and fluency reflecting the different ages of the sub-personality speaking at any one time.

    Amazing stuff.

  23. Right. Might even be useful in acting class. I don’t think I could be a productive subject unless the duty free hooch was available.

  24. Re the Chinese. I heard an economist the other day, a Chinese specialist, say that China will probably just buy Australia one day. They don’t need to go to war against us. War is just a form of economic competition isn’t it and in many ways conventional war is being surpassed as a desirable or even necessary means to the same end.

    And if China does “buy” Australia holus bolus that won’t necessarily be a bad thing for the existing population. As the economist said, one of the first things they’d do is massively invest in infrastructure, very fast trains, processing plants, steel plants, manufacturing plants, here on Australian territory employing Australians rather than taking all the gear off shore to fashion and process elsewhere as is currently the case.

  25. Well exactly. They are getting all they want, without even a fight. And yet these morons at Catallaxy say “sure sure. Sell our gear to the communist government. Thats free enterprise.”

    Communist nationalisation of property, has never been, and is not now, free enterprise. But at Catallaxy the house-niggers “think” otherwise.

  26. Free enterprise is a bit of a misnomer isn’t it? Where did it ever exist?

    • Very good question. I’d nominate for investigation a number of Northern States of the US, between the time of Andrew Jackson and the outbreak of the Civil War. And even in that idyllic period (supposing you were neither negro, nor indigenous Indian) there were these massive financial crunches coming out of the periods prior, and possibly also the result of malign banking cartel interference.

      So its pretty hard to think of times and places that would qualify. For my part I’,m not interested in any inflationary time period. Since a period of rising prices and massive expansion of the money supply, can never be a show-case for the volunteer society.

  27. I object to your use of the word ‘nigger’ Mr Bird. Delete that or I will never visit here again

    I NEVER USE THE WORD ON PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVEN SO MUCH AS A SWARTHY COMPLEXION BLACK-MENA. DON’T MISUNDERSTAND ME. THERE ARE MANY ITALIANS I’D NEVER USE THE WORD ON. BUT YOU SEE CAMBRIA IS PASTY-WHITE AND LOOKS LIKE A MUMMIFIED JOE-90.

    • Pasty-white mummy, eh. Oh dear. Well it doesn’t help to sit on your arse all day in a darkened room in front of a bank of computers and post angry bullshit about other people all day, that’s the moral of the story.

  28. Mr Bird, if you really supported so-calle free enterprise, surely you must support its paragon, fractional reserve banking?

    • Fractional reserve banking is the living pox of capitalism. It is an interference with the price system. The setting up of a phantom-supply OF ANYTHING is incompatible with effective resource allocation under a free society.

      So no. There can be no fractional reserve. No comex. No naked short-selling. None of that pyramiding jive. Each of them are a brutal attack on the free society. Since they are a massive imposition of the system of price-lead-allocation.

      • FRACTIONAL RESERVE IS NOT FREE ENTERPRISE. ITS NOT BANNING CONSENSUAL ACTIVITY TO GET RID OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE. BANNING FRACTIONAL RESERVE IS NOT AGAINST CAPITALISM, ANY MORE THAN BANNING THE SETTING UP OF PEDOPHILE RINGS, IS AGAINST FREE ENTERPRISE.

    • You fucking moron. I don’t need to BASE what I’m saying on some individual?

      Get out of here you fucking idiot. UNDERSTANDING STUFF, means you don’t have to take things on faith.

      Why do I bother?

      Its not something that you are every going to understand.

      • NO YOU FUCKWIT. FRACTIONAL RESERVE IS PHANTOM SUPPLY. PRICING IS A PROCESS WHICH IS DRIVEN BY SUPPLY AND DEMAND. HENCE NAKED SHORT-SELLING, FRACTIONAL RESERVE, AND OTHER METHODS OF PYRAMIDING AND PHANTOM SUPPLY ARE MASSIVE ATTACKS ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION. SINCE THEY ARE MASSIVE ATTACKS ON THE PRICING MECHANISM …. SINCE THEY DISTORT THE INTERACTION OF REAL SUPPLY AND REAL DEMAND.

        I HOPE I’M NOT FUCKING GOING TOO FAST FOR YOU ……….. YOU SELLOUT LITTLE BITCH.

  29. Nationalisation of industry has often been a defence against foreign ownership and thus a central plank of national independence movements and struggles for national self determination and against colonialism.

    Either we have nationalisation (or its various subsets) of key industries or we have foreign ownership and exploitation of national resources. It’s not rocket science.

    You could view the mining tax of Rudd as a form of nationalisation which was defeated by the mining companies backed by a corporate international media because these interests don’t want to see a reduction in corporate profits which will be repatriated god knows where. Certainly not to us, or the benefit of future generations, in the long run.

  30. But you could set it up that you have local ownership. Parliament can pass a law mandating that only Australian citizens can buy certain shares.

    But the main negligence of the economists was to fail to recognize that there was something wrong with our foreign trade and the currency trading system. The economists went so far as to remake the concept of comparative advantage. The remade “comparative advantage” anew, rather than come to grips with the fact that there was something seriously wrong with the monetary/currency/banking side of our system of trade.

  31. The mining tax was anti-economics idiocy. You have stealing. Then you have stupid stealing. The miners were right to defeat that tax, in their own self-interest, but also on patriotic grounds.

    Taxing retained profits is always a sin. It ought never be under consideration. The arguments made for spreading the wealth around ought to have been directed at cutting the tax on retained earnings, but beefing up the royalties charge.

  32. I think Charlie is an Augusto Pinochet sorta guy, Graeme. He’s defending that sort of free enterprise. Or perhaps the free enterprise that exists in the newly liberated, democratic republic of Iraq.

  33. “The miners were right to defeat that tax, in their own self-interest, but also on patriotic grounds.”

    Self interest? So might equals right these days does it?

    And patriotic grounds? Another furphy since the mining companies concerned were mostly foreign owned. Oh you mean patriotic towards foreign interests? Why didn’t you say so!

    • No Philomena. I’m telling you. If labour had wanted to share the wealth around, and had done so through higher royalties, I would have looked the other way.

      The tax they chose was anti-economics idiocy. Thats the point. It was just wealth-destroying craziness. It would not have returned more money to the treasury. It would simply have wrecked things.

      I’m saying they could have leached far more out of the mining sector by getting rid of taxes on retained earnings altogether …. and kept edging up royalties charges.

  34. He’s defending the sort of free enterprise where he’s a house-nigger and the bankers run the government, and their big corporate clients run everything else under near-monopoly conditions.

  35. Well it was wealth destroying since as even Gillard and everyone else agrees we have now seen at least halved the potential wealth garnered from the tax which could have been used to invest in Australia and its people’s future.

  36. But any musings of that crowd are neither here nor there. The form the tax took was INHERENTLY wealth destroying. Taxes on retained earnings are inherently wealth destroying.

    What have you got against cranking up the royalties charge? Doing that and getting rid of the company tax on retained earnings …. that would have been enlightened fund-raising. It would have been smart stealing. It would have raised more tax revenues and created more wealth.

  37. LISTEN YOU FUCKING MORON. THE PRICE ALLOCATION MECHANISM IS DRIVEN BY SUPPLY AND DEMAND CAPICHE. SUPPLY AND DEMAND LEAD TO PRICES. PRICES ALLOCATE RESOURCES.

    HENCE THE SETTING UP OF PHANTOM SUPPLY IS AN ATTACK ON THE ENTIRE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES. PYRAMIDING SCHEMES SET UP PHANTOM SUPPLY.

    DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND IT NOW!!!!!!!!! YOU FUCKING SLOW-POKE?

  38. Look I admit it. I wouldn’t know my retained earnings from my royalties.

    This is significant?

  39. Yeah very significant. Because they could have reformed the mining industry, made it more amenable to the little guys, made it less offensive for foreigners to be taking up tenements, from a national interest point of view ….. They could have done all that AND INCREASED TAX REVENUE.

    But their advisors know nothing. The loyal opposition of their advisors are useless. And for all I know the bankers exert influence to keep the crap setup we have now.

    If you increase the royalties with some discrimination.

    1. You are guaranteeing that if the project goes ahead the public purse comes first.

    2. You reduce the initial investment needed to get a project started. The increased royalties, means the capital value of these remote natural resource properties falls close to zero.

    3. Since the upfront cost of getting started is close to zero, the little guy doesn’t need to go to the bank to get started. He can merely homestead some remote resource.

    4. It cuts out the bankers. In this context the deepest pockets can be seen as banker-bigshot rolled into one. Because the entity with the deepest pockets gets the bankers cut and the miners cut. And runs home with it.

    5. Extra royalties wipes out most of the bankers cut.

    6. The entity with the deepest pockets is Beijing. Leaving things as they are mean we will be robbed of our resources paternity.

    7. Ergo, they had a good idea, as far as thieving ideas are concerned ….. but somehow they lacked the advisors to make that idea work, and to actually make wealth-creating reform in the process.

    Andrew Forrest (I think his name is) was on TV. He said he’s got six more projects like the one demonstrated, that he could go ahead with. But he’s got no way to finance them under the Labour plan. But if you got rid of any taxes on retained earnings, and beefed up royalties, either he or someone else could go ahead with all these undertakings. The finance cost would actually be less. Because the capital value of acquiring the tenements would have collapsed.

  40. Well that voice was certainly not heard in the national debate either in the media or on line. But aren’t royalties a state thing?

    • Yeah I know it wasn’t heard. But I’ve talked about these principles, thousands of words at a time over at Catallaxy …. It would be nice if I had the teachers satisfaction of those buggers even showing me that they have a glimmer of understanding of what I’m talking about.

      If royalties were a state thing, then thats a pretty simple work-around. The Feds try to make the states borrow less. They give them less grants. But they twist their arm to increase the royalties, at the same time waiving company tax for the local blokes.

  41. The default position of our natural resources rules and practices appear to have been constructed under the following principle:

    All within the banks, nothing outside the banks, nothing against the banks.

    Good policy involves shifting most of the current bankers cut to the government, and reducing the governments cut, in favor of doing things like

    1. Getting rid of taxes on retained earnings
    2. raising the tax free threshold straight up from the ground.

  42. Graeme

    This is the program which I referred to earlier in the discussion about China and Australia in the future.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2010/2968064.htm

  43. Thanks for that. I’m listening to him now. I try to listen to Niall anytime I can. Actually I don’t see him as the top of the top in pure historians. I see him as a good (but not great) historian, but an excellent all-around intellectual and ideas-man.

  44. “It would be nice if I had the teachers satisfaction of those buggers even showing me that they have a glimmer of understanding of what I’m talking about.”

    But that’s never gonna happen because those dudes are ideologically committed to propagandising and advocating for and believing in crony capitalism.

    They’re ideologically compromised and nothing can be expected of them. A hard lesson, but you’re learning it.

  45. Right. I’m glad someone understands my grieving process.

  46. Barnaby Joyce is on ABC 9:30pm tonight with Greens, ALP etc. I have to watch this. I must admit the little I have seen of him I find him rather cute. He and Magda Szubanski really sparked off each other a few Q&As ago despite the ideological divide and I thought at the time I’m sure they would’ve both happily continued the lighthearted if pointed spanking of each other with a feather off screen.

  47. I was called away and was not in a position to rewrite my last post with a more precise and less clumsy choice of words.

  48. I’ve finally managed to listen to the entirety of that link you gave me. Excellent work for the ABC. Because every last speaker had the intellect and background to make a good contribution to the conversation.

  49. Mr Bird

    you are aware are you not, that Niall is married to the Negress Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

    How unfortunate that such a good Tory would be promoting miscegenation. Nonetheless for a Negress Ms Hirsi Ali at least is useful in our war against the Mahometans.

  50. and suffice to say, at least she is not Jewish

  51. Yeah I was going to point out what great taste in women he has.

  52. Not you too Mr Bird.

    I have nothing against the darkies generally even if they are somewhat rowdy. After all, they did not kill our Lord. Nonetheless, miscegenation is the death knell of civilisation.

    Just look at ancient Rome.

    From Julius Caesar to Joseph Cambria in how many generations?

  53. Rome didn’t die from miscegenation. More from relying on non-Romans to stock its army. All political correctness must go out the window when it comes to armed forces policy. But miscegenation is always and everywhere a fine thing. As long as its white guys going with a technicolor assorted smorgasbord of babes that is. If matters are the other way around some of the blokes can sometimes feel a bit uncomfortable about proceedings.

    Just joking. Miscegenation is good. But you want 3rd generation-PLUS country-boys to be mostly stocking your extended reservist force. And you want to have a country worth fighting for.

  54. Who defends the sacred olives groves,
    but foreigners from the north,
    Hearts that yearn for forests
    Not the mountains of their birth,
    Where are our boys those romans sons
    blood rich with roman toil.
    raised on wine, and civic due
    lovers of olive oil.
    They’ve vanished been taken,
    by corruption of the coin,
    Denarius next to worthless
    the silver all is gone.
    Debasement of the currency,
    Severus is to blame
    Debasement of the sacred duty,
    A blight upon his name.

    Philomenius 410 AD

    • Thats just bloody marvelous. And notice the date!!! The debasement of the currency comes first. Then the collapse of the country and the barbarian takeover.

      Alaric, and his Visigoths, sacked Rome, later that very same year. Great post.

      • Thanks Graeme!

        I’ve been reading Roman history both before and since my holiday. It was almost 800 years between the sack of Rome by the Gauls and that of Visigoths. An eternity in Modern times! Will Washington last so long, its almost 200 years since the British sacked it, can you imagine it lasting 600 more years, the corrupt capitalist state that it is?

      • Hey Bird,
        you do realise that this is the Fake-Mena not the real one.

      • Wow. The Gauls sacking Rome! How did I never here about that? Somehow that part of the history has been obscured.

        “It was almost 800 years between the sack of Rome by the Gauls and that of Visigoths.”

        Well I never. Isn’t it funny how we ignore the early Roman years. In doing so we ignore the reasons for her success, and potential lessons to be learned. One wonders, prior to checking up, if certain Greeks and Macedonians weren’t stealing all the thunder from this then small town somewhere on that boot-shaped area.

        Now please Philomena. Calling the current setup capitalist is being insensitive to me and flies in the face of everything I’ve tried to point out to you.

        The following phrases I would find acceptable.

        “crony-socialist”

        “crony-capitalist”

        “fascist-economics in see-through capitalist speedo’s”

        “Corporatism bordering on fascism.”

        You know this sort of thing.

        “Corrupt-capitalist” suffers as a phrase from lack of definitional precision. As well its an undeserved putdown on the ideal of the volunteer society and the contractual government. Now I’m certainly openminded in terms of peoples skepticism as to whether these sorts of societies can long exist. Thats a rational point of view.

        My own feeling is that the potential for their existence is hobbled from the starting-point. What I mean to say is, if you have (for example) the enclosure movement during Shakespeares time … such a movement will so skew in favor of the rich incumbency, such as it would take idealised capitalism 100 years at least to set things to rights. And the actual reality of ongoing subtle rich-slob influence, means that the consequences of the skewing in favor of the incumbent rich( that the enclosure movement represented) ……… That influence probably carried down through the ages, all the way to the mid-20th century, and is probably with us still to some extent.

        Life is Beta. We are always going to be fighting for or against the fairer society. It strikes me then, that while the George Reisman interpretation, is probably the most right, and sophisticated, from a pure economics point of view …….

        ….. From a broader perspective one ought see the wisdom of the GK Chesterton point of view. For the forseeable future we want something of a redistributionist agenda. But definitely in the context of smaller government. And in a setup which is skewed to make the average size of businesses smaller as well.

      • “Hey Bird,
        you do realise that this is the Fake-Mena not the real one.”

        I have to confess I was taken in for no good reason. So I’m going to blame the pills I’m using to suppress the symptoms of a cold. I ought not have been taken in. Since the quality of the poetry, as poetry wasn’t there, at least in the English translation. But it was a poem topical as to the subjects I usually talk about, which I thought was kind of neat. I’ll leave them up. Posts don’t get wiped just on the basis that they can make me look stupid, Whatever you people assume to the contrary-notwithstanding. I’ll probably relabel the posts as from “Fake-mena” in due course.

      • I thought it was obvious, as it was by the unlikely roman “Philomenius”.

      • They were good posts. And I tend to identify good posts with Philomena. You are right it was probably obvious that it wasn’t her. She goes in for poems so typically rich I have to gear myself up to give them the proper appreciation. Whereas that one was pretty straightforward, but on a topic that is pretty close to my ongoing concerns, and with a strong relevance even to the visiting Professor Niall Ferguson. Because it was Niall who recently pointed out that monetary instability was one factor, in just a few, that was correlated with mass-slaughter. So the posts seemed to have relevance to this blog and to the link to do with Niall Ferguson that she posted yesterday.

    • that Severus was obviously a dirty Jew bastard

  55. Hi Mr B

    It’s Ron here. (The real Ron, not a fake.)

    Have you seen this excellent website? It’s superb.

    deepcapture.com

    Apparently Jew Bankers are now make shorting gold and silver.

    Unbelievable debasement and degeneracy.

    • Thanks for the website Ron. Third parties note that the website is not racist, like Ron makes it out to be.

      Ron the Jewish people more generally, and especially the Israelis, will be likely under pressure in the coming period. The Israeli government, may prudently decide to set the Iranian nuclear program back a few years with a bombing raid. In theory this ought to involve minimal loss of life, but then again, these things may leave us all open to abuse by third parties with less legitimate agendas.

      It really does no good to blame Jews as opposed to (for want of a better phrase): INSIDERS. So lets not worry too much about the religion of the fractional reservist money-creators, or fractional reserve TEAM B. The problem is financial exploitation and rigged and dysfunctional capital markets. This made possible by fractional-fiat and any other monetary conditions except “growth-deflation. That Jews are probably disproportionately represented in the numbers of “INSIDERS” is really neither here nor there.

      We don’t want the sins of those Goldman Sachs vermin (just by way of example), to fall on the innocent heads of blessed little Israeli girls. We don’t want Israeli children damned by association, when there is no real association.

      You have to clean up your act.

  56. “It was almost 800 years between the sack of Rome by the Gauls and that of Visigoths. An eternity in Modern times! Will Washington last so long, its almost 200 years since the British sacked it, can you imagine it lasting 600 more years, the corrupt capitalist state that it is?”

    Unless there is a reversal of policy, so sudden, that it would give me the feeling I was running the US from my laptop, then we can rest assured that another sacking of Washington, will not be so long in the waiting as between those two mentioned sackings of Rome. It is more probable that such warlike actions, to be launched and to be successful, would arise from the former United States, rather than from more distant parties. An attack by more distant parties would serve to rally the splintered former US zzz’ parts, to eject the invader.

    So yes Washington will no doubt be sacked within the next six hundred years. But more probably from some other part of what is now the current US of A, (aka Barryland ….. aka Cook County and surrounding districts) than as a result of belligerent forces and motivations, cobbled together from more remote principalities.

  57. Marvelous post over at Catallaxy that seems to have been overlooked. Its always great to read a post that gives you the confidence, that the writer knows vastly more about the subject than oneself. A Catallaxian isn’t going to understand that feeling. Since such lax criterion would have them including most posts, and the reaction would be “hey what is the big deal.”

    Here is the post I’m referring too:

    “……..Defence is bloated, but that’s because it is run in exactly the way THR thinks a government department (or even a private company) should be run. Specifically, the fat cats are actually the middle management, full of an air of elitism from their arts degrees in Russian history and Beijing theatre, but with a very mediocre productive output. Those below them don’t necessarily need to do all that much; you can get by at that level through just attendance. And those above them are we constrained by political correctness and are keen to protect their positions by ensuring they say the right things and create the best photo opportunities. And of course, there’s plenty of unions, committees, equity and diversity training, welfare clubs, administrative actions and political correctness.

    So THR hates it because it’s Defence. If it was the Department of Soy Latte Appreciation he’d consider it a model organisation that others should emulate.

    Michael Sutcliffe
    1 Aug 10 at 10:29 am…”

    The Wrong Question: Are We Spending Enough On Defense, As A Percentage Of GDP?

    Michael you ought to try and get guest posts going at Catallaxy to help educate us all on defense matters. All policy ought to be holistically based around defense policy. We’ve got to get away from this knee-jerk reaction that constitutes being faux-strong on defense. Holisitic defense policy isn’t about stating some high percentage of GDP be dedicated to the defense budget. Holistic defense policy goes way beyond the crudeness of mere GDP ratios and budgets.

    Should Sutcliffe not be willing or able to do these guest-posts on Catallaxy, naturally he can get some guest-posts going over here. Defense policy IS the key policy that all other policies should revolve around. And so to be competent policy analysts, and innovators, we need to all be educated on defense matters.

  58. My stats page reveals that some malignant fellow is trying to sign me up at a dating agency. One that I have never heard about. Obviously this fellow is a cad who doesn’t mind trifling with the affections of a lady. Will it make you happier when they are all pining outside my shrubbery? Will you be any happier? Any happier?

  59. Mr B

    Look at what those Bastards are doing to Dr Taitz.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/birther_queen_tries_to_fight_20k_fine_at_supreme_c.php?ref=fpi

    Those bastards just hate Christian Women.

  60. Good to see that she didn’t actually pay such an unjust fine. Wonder who the evil and gutless creep was who imposed it in the first place.

  61. Here is the idiot. Perhaps we could go to him for all the evidence which will prove Obama’s eligibility. He must have all the answers. After all he seems to know things that no-one else is in the position to know. I suppose he’s expecting a promotion for this outrage.

  62. […] Submitted on 2010/08/02 at 7:15 am […]


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: