Posted by: graemebird | September 24, 2011

Logical, Physical, And Technical Possibilities.

Professor Peikoff has made an argument against this sort of analysis. But whether he’s right or not, when it comes to absolutist bivalent, deductive logic ….. I still think that this sort of analysis is very useful.

Imagine three circles A, B and C. B is a subset of A. C is a subset of B. So its 3 concentric circles, B lies within A.  C lies within B. Here I would like to put in a plug for Venn diagrams as an excellent form of analysis more generally. If philosophers had of been required to display their ideas as much as possible in Venn diagrams, rather than merely words, this may have saved us a lot of grief.


Now in this story the biggest circle is LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES, then circle B is PHYSICAL POSSIBILITIES whereas the smallest circle is TECHNICAL POSSIBILITIES.

Now there ought not be too much in the way of controversy at the subset relationship between circles A and B.  But at any given time there can rightly be controversy as to the purist subset-superset relationship between circles B and C.

What we are saying here is that if something is not logically-possible it CANNOT be physically possible.  And if something is not physically possible, it cannot be technically possible.

You wouldn’t think that this insight would have real implications, being as it seems almost too obvious. But the twentieth century has specialized in physics that is logically impossible.

Is it possible to go back in time? To jump from our time to sometime in the past? Our physicists seem to be at two minds about this. But we see that this is not physically possible, and no matter how the science of physics develops we can anticipate with total confidence, that we will never need to back down to the taxeaters on this point. Because going back into the past in this way is clearly logically impossible. Supposing I decide to set my time machine for 1800 AD Paris?  But before I check the diesel tank is full,   jump in, put the seat-belt on, check the dials and turn the ignition …….. I verify to myself that the first time around I was not in Paris in 1800.

So I establish with total certitude prior to turning the key that the Paris of 1800 had to do without me the first time around!  Well then the second time around I’ll be in Paris in 1800, even though they got by without me being there the first time around. The problem is that the first time and the proposed second time ARE THE SAME TIME. And the idea that I can be there and not be there, at this one time and one place is a contradiction.  A contradiction that is always present when we go to contemplate time travel into the past.  So time travel into the past is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.  It therefore cannot be physically possible. And thats the end of the matter, with all due apologies to the taxeaters who waste so much of our money.

Well what about Special Relativity?  Well you see special relativity is a theory of velocity-absolutism. Where the speed of light is a sort of absolute velocity. But velocity is a relative concept.  Velocity cannot be both relative and absolute at the same time. You cannot pick any velocity, and say that this velocity is absolute, and all these other velocities are relative.  Albert is particularly deceptive in this matter as his whole introduction is a meditation on the relative nature of velocity, then the sly bugger slips in this implication that c is a divine and absolute speed.

We see that no amount of handwaving is going to save special relativity from logical impossibility.  An example of handwaving, in this context, would be employing the feeble trickery of Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations are merely a way of trying to make like the velocity absolutism can be phased in smoothly. Lorentz transformations don’t get rid of the logical impossibilty of special relativity.  They just create the illusion of understanding in the believer.

So what do we do? Luckily there were other theories around that purported to explain these “relativistic effects” we see in the data. Like Lorentz-relativity, or the doctrine of the partially-entrained aether.   These may well be wrong theories. But at least they are not logically impossible, so we could at least start with them and not waste time with special relativity, which we already know to be wrong and delusional.


How about the idea that we might be able to go from point A to point B without traversing the distance in between A and B?  Well no; this is logically impossible also. Because to go from one place to another, IS to traverse the distance in between.  So suppose you are sitting in your apartment in Sydney, and after rubbing your eyes you look up, and it seems that without any time passing, you are in your mates pad in New York?

Well when you start lining up possible explanations, make sure you find ten or more explanations before you start thinking that you may have been sucked into a “wormhole” and you therefore went from A to B without traversing the distance in between.  Because there will be many possible explanations, but wormholes can never be one of them.


I’m going to jump-cut this conversation and get to the point.  The point is that you have to apply this sort of hierarchy when it comes to analysing 9/11.  The official story cannot be technically possible because it is physically impossible.  The buildings could not have fallen that way, with that sort of acceleration profile, PHYSICALLY, on the basis of the government story. Therefore the buildings could not technically have come down this way and the government story still be true. So the buildings could not have come down that way IN REALITY and the Arabs-did-it story still be the reality. 

Now its hardly worth trying on the question “How could they get the explosions in the building without anyone noticing” because the government story is STILL physically impossible no matter how many stupid questions are asked.

Who said no-one noticed? People noticed the trucks showing up after the cleaners were through. People noticed that the Bush family were connected with the security company, implying the shadow government were setting up the Bush famly for blackmail (Hinckley all over again). People noticed that there was a huge lift upgrade in the months prior to the false flag.  And people noticed that the buildings were built by shadow government insiders the Rockefellers.

People noticed a lot of things. Like that Silverstein only took the lease a short time before and only had put up 135 million or so for the 99 year lease.  People noticed that Silverstein panicked and came up with a ludicrous story about bringing building 7 down when he must have thought he was entirely busted.  So people notice a lot of gear. But failing to investigate will never make the governments story possible in reality. Since the story can never be technically possible, because their story is not PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.

Now we’ve just got to stop being morons about this and attempting to invert the natural hierarchy of possibilities. You think that no secret can be kept if more than three people know it?  Well so what?  You can think that all you like. You can think that until the cows come home. It won’t make any difference. Your proven wrong veiw cannot make the governments story POSSIBLE-IN-REALITY because the governments story is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

So obviously the world doesn’t work like you thought it did. And the Nato countries are not run the way you thought they were run. And you better fucking get the message. Because the shadow government aint gonna fuck up this badly, on camera, ever again.

The reality of 9/11 is the only chance we have to know for sure that the shadow government is real. They dipped their fucking cards, just this one time, and they aint about to do it again.

Therefore UNDERSTANDING 9/11, is the only chance we have, to take these assholes down, confiscate their wealth, and get them the hell off our backs.


  1. Wonderful speech by Netanyahu. One of the top ten statesmen of the modern era, I would have thought. Certainly one of the few leaders that you know, is capable, both in peace and in war.

  2. Note that Netanyahu is more morally right in his general attitude then the Iranian frontman. Yet the Iranian titular head was correct from an engineering point of view, when it came to 9/11. And here the great statesman is looking the other way. But lets not let this minor point get in the way of the genius and righteousness of the Bibi speech.

  3. Free Gilad Shalit.

  4. We need to get to a cheap energy world again. Because a cheap energy world is a Julian Simon world. Whereas an expensive energy world is a Thomas Malthus world. Both of these fellows were serious thinkers. Its not the point to pick one or the other. Neither of these people were given over to moral degeneracy or intellectual dishonesty. That is not the point. The point is that, should we become skewed towards the Thomas Malthus world, then all sorts of moral outrages become easier and easier to justify. The idea of a rational secular ethics becomes next to impossible. We must find a safe nuclear energy and we have to get the Tesla Tower project underway. We have to increase the royalties on our coal, because we don’t know if we will get our act together in time.

  5. As often is the case I’m finding myself almost homocidally disgusted by that compulsive liar THR over at Catallaxy. THR is desperately angling for Israelis to be killed. Its just fucking incredible that we give these people a social pass for this sort of thing. There is fundamentally nothing that he’s saying that isn’t angling for the slaughter of Israelis. We see this sort of thing over at Prodeo too. This ought to be socially unacceptable.

    Its funny isn’t it? Here I was over the last fortnight or so bringing up some hypothetical and troubling ideas about certain tendencies of many Jewish intellectuals, and about the ethno-centricity (racialism) of most Jews generally, as opposed to what they tend to recommend for us Anglo-Saxon (Romano-Celts).

    We have to get serious about this child-killing viciousness that we see from THR, and from Prodeo. And at the same time we have to be more open to various speculative cultural critiques. I could feel the fear and loathing creeping over the net, when I linked Kevin MacDonald. To be fair people didn’t say too much. Jason Soon panicked a bit. And of course Mark Hill is crazy and we have to wait another 20 years to see how he’ll turn out.

    Not long ago there was this meme going around that you could be pro-Jew and anti-Israeli. This nastiness was all the trend JUST WHILE JEWISH KIDS WERE BEING SLAUGHTERED BY HUMAN MISSILES.

    I made it very fucking clear that I took the absolute opposite approach. I always emphasized that I would be “just as bigoted as I wanna be” when it came to Jews local and Jews around the place.

    But when it comes to Israel the fact is that Bibi and the others have one real duty and thats to look after Israeli women and children. And every dirty dirty Prodeo or THR type, who keeps acting as if the Israelis simply have no right to act like human beings or MEN in this regard …. Well frankly they make me sick. And angry at the others for tolerating them.

    • I find it insulting that you’d ever imply that I want Jewish civilians targeted by Palestinian or foreign militias.

      How is it the fault of Jewish intellectuals?

      I don’t think you’ve expressed yourself clearly here.

      • THR certanly does want that. I have no clue how you’ve gotten matters so jumbled up again. This is a matter for you and your disordered mind.

  6. Catallaxy will always be a crap website, because you have a group of people who are of a character that they will not (just for example) admit that Goldman Sachs are scum. This is the sort of mindset that they have. You have vermin like Joseph Cambria running around claiming that Goldman Sachs, is the greatest company in the world when objectively they are failures and human trash.

  7. This is a blatant misrepresentation of my position, Bird. In the long run, it is in the best interests of Israeli civilians to jettison the settler movement and establish a workable peace with Palestinian Arabs. You seem to imply that I am denying israelis the right to self-defence – nothing could be further from the truth. My point would be that it’s difficult to speak meaningfully of ‘self-defence’ as applied to an occupying force. And, what about ‘self-defence’ for Palestinians, whose civilians (and not Israel’s) have borne the greater brunt of this conflict?

  8. Every thing you are angling for at Catallaxy amounts to an attempt to get Israeli kids killed. You aren’t merely talking about settlements. You were angling for them to pull out of Gaza. Why the fuck do you think they went in in the first place? Just to get close to Palestinians? You are a liar. You are implying that pulling out would give them peace. Hows that going to work you bullshit artist? Did pulling out of Lebanon bring peace? No it just brought Hezbollah closer to their borders you murderous scumbag. You are a fake leftist anyway. A bank bailout supporter. The Heckyl to Catallaxies Jeckyl.

    Are you supporting the right of return? Jerusalem in Arab hands? You know over at Prodeo they support the right of return? Your amigos over there. Openly barraking for more killing under the cover of ‘right of return.’

  9. What’s wrong with Bantustans you hateful human scum? The most successful nation in the world is a Bantustan. Is your contempt for Bantustans a black thing? Leichtenstein is a Bantustan. The Bantustan idea is the only hope the Palestinians have, and you try to dismiss the idea of multiple territories by recourse to an attempted racial slur.

  10. No you are lying.

    I did not support bank bailouts, but I did see them as inevitable.
    Ending the settlements, as much as possible, is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of any future peace. As for Liechtenstein – if the Germans (for instance) built a wall in the middle of it, set up road blocks, and engaged in bloody incursions on a regular basis, you might have a valid analogy there, fella.

  11. There was nothing inevitable about stealing money and giving it to the banks. You are a bullshit artist. Unless you are admitting to the reality of the shadow government.

    Settlements aren’t anything to do with peace in Israel. The people who support the destruction of Israel aren’t going to be turned around on the basis of Israelis uprooting people from settlements. Thats ridiculous. And now you have confessed to being against the wall. A building that has saved lives on both sides of it. So here you are relentlessly angling for death.

  12. You are such a bullshit-artist you’ve evaded the issue of Bantustan’s. Again you complete cunt. What is wrong with Bantustans.? The most successful. country in the world is a Bantustan. So answer the question you cunt. What is wrong with Bantustans?

    Whats wrong with the idea in your books is you are after death. You want people killed. Or you would not be coming down on Bantustans when they are the most successful form of society we have. The Netherlands started off as a group of Bantustans.

  13. The most successful African country in the modern era was a Bantustan. Botswana in its first couple of decades was a very successful country. What say you you lying idiot? Bantustans just don’t do it for you right? Not enough killing in that story right?

    • I think the point is that if the banks were to be bailed out with our money then the state should have nationalised them on our behalf and for our benefit and put an end to their rorts, executive salaries and perks and restricted a lot of the useless gambling and speculation that makes up a lot of their activity and creates zero value or productive capacity and which serves to maintain the gross disparities in wealth that we see in most rich countries today.

      The African bantustans were rightly a byword in exploitation and forced settement and confinement of Black people by white people. They were racist to their core and not supported by Black Africans then or retropectively. They are completely indefensible and so are the Palestinian bantustans.

      The main point about bantustans is that they’re not really capable of being economically viable or can have genuinely healthy democratic governments presiding over territories that have a good possibility of meeting the needs of all their inhabitants on all material levels and in the provision of all social goods.

      At the very least too, surely, they fly in the face of modern liberalism and are a throwback to pre-modern times rather than representative of what any people today could rationally aspire to politically.

      • We didn’t want to save these people. This was the one chance to bankrupt this crowd, and then prosecute as many of these guys as you could. But the reality is that it wasn’t so much a matter of anyone having any policy choice. The bankers stole on their own behalf, because its the bankers running things.

        16 trillion is just the tip of the ice-berg. These guys have been fed subsidized credit every day for the last ten years. They are just bleeding the world dry. And since they are essentially running things they are the ones we can blame for the runaway government spending as well.

  14. Bird – you deal realise that Liechtenstein is filled with banksters? Is this your vision for the non-contiguous Palestinian territories? To call one bit ‘Goldman’ and the other bit ‘Sachs’?

  15. Look at that. Another pathetic dodge by the bullshit-artist who wants to see Palestinians and Israelis dead. You tell me what is wrong with the idea of a lot of small territories. Answer the question you dishonest cunt.

  16. “Get this firmly in your “mind”. They were and probably still are the best I-bank the world has ever seen populated by the best minds the best international universities can produce.”

    Compared to you Joseph Cambria, Hank Paulson may be a genius. But in objective reality he’s a moron. The worst treasury secretary ever. And he rose to the top of Goldman Sachs. So clearly you are wrong. They are just thieving scum. Thats the reality, whereas your moronic appraisal is just like everything else you come up with.

  17. 16 trillion dollars was given out to banks all over the world by the Federal Reserve. This is just a criminal operation and not evidence that the bankers are all geniuses. Also the fact of this as a Northern Hemisphere slush-fund, coming from an American Central bank, shows us that the shadow-government is basically a banker operation. We have morons in the Cambria mode running things. Which of course is the reason why matters have been going so horribly since 2008.

    • those slimy thieving Jews, hey Mr Bird?

      • Only a minority of these criminals are Jews. It would be better if they were all Italian, so we couldn’t fool ourselves as to the nature of what is going on.

  18. “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”

    These are not geniuses. These are criminals. Looting 16 trillion, without Congressional approval is obviously a criminal act. And the Federal Reserve staff could be arrested, but for the fact that they are locked into the real power in the US and Europe.

  19. Now this is an interesting theory.

    The fossil record of human evolution and genetic evidence show that humans started talking fairly recently. Homo sapiens evolved only in the last 150,000 years in Africa.

    But perhaps the proliferation of motor-mouth ratbags caused many H. sapiens to quit Africa for a bit of peace and quiet and so to spread out and displace earlier hominid animals like the Neanderthals who, while human-like, enjoyed neither the wit nor the volubility of the australopithecine.

    In fact, one might speculate, the Neanderthals’ inability to tell funny stories or even pronounce many short words, immediately set the Neanderthals and our ancestors at odds. Early Homo sapiens cave drawings in France are replete with uncharitable allusions to Neanderthals and contain numerous pictorial “Neanderthal jokes.” In one such drawing, an obvious Neanderthal is depicted guffawing fatuously while a circle of smug, unsmiling, australopithecine burghers stand off. Fact.

    Clearly, we can account for the extinction of the Neanderthals even if modern humans possessed only slight verbal advantages. For example, Neanderthal women ultimately must have grown dissatisfied with the mute, brutish beatings meted out by their husbands preferring the more interesting, talkative beatings on offer from the male Homo sapiens in the cave next door.

    Then, alienated from the affections of his wife, the dejected Neanderthal male enrolled in schools to improve his diction and overall vocabulary (set up by Homo sapiens, obviously). But failing this impossible task, our defeated Neanderthal sought activities (the nature of which really don’t bear too much thought) which had the unintended consequence of further weakening their evolutionary fitness.

    • Typical Sapien propaganda.
      In fact it was the Neanderthals that were the smart guys. We just got outnumbered by idiots as it got warmer.
      The alternate theory is that modern Aspies/Auties are descended from Neanderthal stock. It seems that nature is bringing us back, maybe there’s a reason.

      • Far be it for me to suggest the Neanderthals were brutish and primitive. We know they had fire and tools and they buried their dead, suggesting a form of religion or belief in an afterlife.

        But since they did appear to lack language, the killer advance developed by homo sapiens, they were incapable of long-term planning or strategic behaviour. This of course includes propaganda, a form of group manipulation, based on ideology. All of this remained unknown to these Middle Palaeolithic people.

  20. “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

    So sayeth David Rockefeller. So the world is now run by moronic welfare recipient-bankers, with the mentality of a Joseph Cambria. type. Utterly self-serving and creating chaos and poverty with every move they make.

  21. This amoral trader (yes, I know a contradiction in terms) revels in recessions because he can make $.

    And he agrees Goldman Sachs rules the world. And he compares the world economic crisis to a cancer that is not going to go away.

  22. Sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.

    • Also sounds like he is a sociopath.

      And he has dead eyes. Probably a scrubbed up, articulate version of old “JC” of Cataplexy.

      • We want to save and have high cash balances for a recession. But more than one type of cash. You would want gold, silver, Swiss francs, and other currencies. You’d want some property, so long as you had the means to hold onto it.

        Now this fellow is talking about more than that, I would suggest. I think he’s talking about short-selling, and having a range of derivatives that will allow him to make out like a bandit, when everyone else is hurting. Well good on him one supposes. But it must be noted, that if his recession strategy is based on derivatives, it relies on the government to keep bailing the derivatives providers out. Someone has to pay up on the other side of his bets.

        The big hero of the crash was the “other Paulson” who had bet on all these derivatives once he knew that the housing market was going to collapse. Hank Paulson had absolutely guaranteed the TIMING of the housing collapse with his stimulus package, which made the other Paulson’s betting a pretty dead sure thing. Knowing that the housing market will eventually collapse, isn’t enough to make a fortune on it, since derivatives, like futures generally, only apply to a specific time-frame.

        Anyway when that deal went down the other Paulson made the biggest gains in history on what was a certainty, given Hank Paulson’s stimulus package.

        But the other Paulson would have lost everything, if the derivative providers had not been bailed out.

        You could argue that the derivatives providers are locked into the shadow government and were always going to be bailed out.

        But the ultimate reality is that all of these people, winners and losers, are welfare recipients, and they all were destined to take a dive in 2008, if the market had been allowed to speak.

  23. Snap. Someone just emailed these two- referenced in your clip – today.

    Here they are. Awesome. I think they’re really doing the rounds.

  24. The Money Masters.

  25. I see it as the most important issue there is. If we cannot get rid of debt-based money we can never solve any of our problems. We have to start seeing the Northern Hemisphere bankers as a much more deadly enemy then the Soviet Union ever was.

  26. And google ‘JM Morgan and silver manipulation as agents of the US government’.

    My contact lurks on silver trading forums watching people with inside knowledge work. He said: “its fascinating because the ‘nutter conspiricy’ version test out as correct based on what ends up happening. The MSM is owned by these banking interests….its scary how asleep the sheeple are…

    He said: “kitco based around precious metals trading, which is manipulated to ensure the US $ remains the global reserve currency not , as in most of history, gold or silver. The US govt uses large banks as agennts to do the dirty work, and work the debt-based fiat currency ponzi scheme. So kitko discussions link all these elements, but mixed in is alsosimple stuff about buying silver/gold coins etc….”

  27. I look forward to watching this docos. As I say, I was just sent them today by someone who I had no idea was interested in economics! A bright fella though.

  28. There is no reason why we cannot aspire to the Guernsey island system.

  29. haha.

    Appetite for Destruction

    Naturally one can’t characterize the traders as deranged,” Noll told SPIEGEL. “But for example, they behaved more egotistically and were more willing to take risks than a group of psychopaths who took the same test.”
    Particularly shocking for Noll was the fact that the bankers weren’t aiming for higher winnings than their comparison group. Instead they were more interested in achieving a competitive advantage. Instead of taking a sober and businesslike approach to reaching the highest profit, “it was most important to the traders to get more than their opponents,” Noll explained. “And they spent a lot of energy trying to damage their opponents.”
    Using a metaphor to describe the behavior, Noll said the stockbrokers behaved as though their neighbor had the same car, “and they took after it with a baseball bat so they could look better themselves.”
    The researchers were unable to explain this penchant for destruction, they said.,1518,788462,00.html

  30. Andrew Bolt is a filthy racist. Yeah, we know. And stoopid. He’s finished.

    Bet the Cataleprosy suckers are going ape-sh*t. lol lol lol

    • Before learning too much about the specifics of the case, I’d still have to be pretty sure that Catallaxy is on the right side of this one. Bolt is a pretty careful character. Much more careful than me for example.

      I just have to assume for now that the speech-nazis have struck a blow against him.

      • Catallaxy’s mods in the person of Sinclair Davidson and his paymaster JC are opposed to freedom of speech in practice. You of all people have reason to know that is true.

        I’ve looked at the judgement and it’s fair. It made the interesting point that identity (and it was established in all nine cases that Aboriginal identity had not been adopted for reason of profit as adults, but was familial in origins and dated to each person’s earliest memories and experiences) is a component of freedom of expression, something which Bolt himself had in fact first explicitly attacked by his gutter “journalism”.

        I don’t take much notice of Bolt. I’d never heard of him until I started reading blogs a few years ago and I’m sure that’s the case with most people. He has the right to say what he likes in a personal capacity though there are always repercussions and one must be prepared for them. When lies are published in a newspaper that’s a different story. Even so the only penalty is that he has been directed to apologise for his “bad faith” in misrepresentation and untruths. And so has the newspaper.

        Most people in fact don’t have freedom of speech. Though I certainly support it for the most powerless especially. Bolt misused the principle of freedom of expression for base political reasons and to stir up racial hatred.

        It is for these reasons he has to be condemned.

      • Right but they can occasionally be on the better side of things. I’ve seen the thread, and JC isn’t really trying as usual. But some of the others, including Gab, are making some good points.

        One doesn’t want to be so down on a crowd, that one cannot change gears and recognise on those few occasions where they are being reasonable.

        Law is something I don’t have much of a clue about. Except perhaps in those jurisdictions where they are following the Roman Law since that appears to be a matter of logic. And also constitutional law, since that appears to be a matter of straight original intent, where the historians, and not the lawyers, ought to be considered to have the upper hand.

        I really have no idea as to how the judge could have reacted, given the law he has to interpret.

        But I would say either its a bad law or a bad judge if they are pulling Bolt in and laying big penalties on him. Some things ought to be sorted with a simple discussion.

      • The “speech Nazis” . very apt, Graeme.

        This issue today has little to do with Bolt. The big picture is that we are all being reined in very slowly by these Nazis. Conroy has already agreed that blogs will be under scrutiny in the media inquiry, not just online newspapers.

        As someone said:

        “Take away the right to say “fuck” and you take away the right to say “fuck the government.” ~Lenny Bruce

  31. Haha. Sticks and stones and all that.

    No, Bolt has been found guilty by the Federal Court not for expressing an opinion or calling people names but for inciting racial hatred by *lying*,, distorting known knowns (i.e. facts) about a group of well-known Aboriginal Australians and doing this in the press. Shame News Ltd shame. It’s time the media in Australia is held to account for its honesty and ethics.

    Bolt is a dog (opinion) and I am so happy he is publically humilated and the newspaper that published his lies must apologise to the nation. Justice, take a bow.

    Elements of the far right need to wake up to themselves and realise that with rights come responsibilities. The two are interdependent.

    Just ask Noel Pearson.

  32. I’ve only had a quick skim of the judgement and it’s quite nuanced on the issue of freedom of speech in a way I have no problem accepting. And I’m of left libertarian persuasion, unlike right pretenders to that nomenclature who themselves ooze totalitarian tendencies in their defence of the rule of capital and banks and their hostility to genuine economic and social freedom and democracy (among the most important things).

    As the judgement patiently explains, underpinning the bourgeois democratic notion of freedom of expression (e.g. Locke) are the notions of self-autonomy, democratic governance, and of relevance here, *honesty*, or truthfulness, i.e. the individual and especially *institutional* responsibility not to tell lies or suggest that something is other than it is for the purposes of – in this case – fomenting racial discrimination and racial disharmony, when the evidence, as in this case, in all instances, was always clearly otherwise. Or at least was easily ascertained by an honest journalist and media publisher, to be otherwise.

    • “I’ve only had a quick skim of the judgement and it’s quite nuanced on the issue of freedom of speech ….”

      Right. But thats liable to be in the excuse-making preamble to the actual judgement. The actual judgement is liable to be a hate-crime against Bolt personally. And this idea that he may have been mistaken, or jumped to conclusions about a number of people. He’s a seller of opinion. He’s not going to be right each and every time.

      I’d like to see judgments wherein the judge makes the case that the defendant jumped to conclusions, and ought to pay court costs and thats the end of it. Or ought to say sorry and pay the minimum legal fees, as a kind suggestion, and not by compulsion.

      Surely its not an outlandish thing to assume that people push their race credentials as a career move, when millions of dollars are being handed out on the basis of race? People have many motives for doing things, and they tend to have both good and bad motives. But when jobs that pay considerably more than minimum wage are being handed out left, right and centre, its not unreasonable to think that some people apply for such jobs, on the basis of the salary involved.

      If Bolt was beating up on the same people week in and week out, well you’d have to say it was vilification. But I cannot remember him being focused on such issues.

  33. “Right. But thats liable to be in the excuse-making preamble to the actual judgement.

    Incorrect. It’s deep in the content of the judgement. But don’t take my word for it. Or anyone elses. Read and think for yourself. Anything else is mental slavery.

    • Right. It may well be the best the judge could do, given the law he has to work with. Either way something is not right. The law or the judge.

      Bolts the fellow that has been vilified to an extreme extent because he set himself against the global warming racket. We have a problem with (easy-to-access) non-renewable resource usage. We don’t have a problem with CO2 emissions. So Bolt has copped it, but he’s not like me. He always keeps his cool and stays very measured. Whereas I try and get a punch to the throat early on before the bigshots close down the debate.

      He’s a reasonable man, and if he had really brought great hurt to other reasonable people he would surely want to rectify things. Its just untenable that if this is a good judgement, that it also could be a good law.

      If you are saying that the judgment is good, and I have no reason to not be swayed by that, then I’m saying for now that the law is bad, and we want to support anyone trying to do something about it.

      • Invoking Bolt’s stance on climate change (whatever it is, truly I don’t know) is irrelevant and a non sequitur.

        And unfortunately for and inadvertently for you, it demonstrates that you have a tendency to line up with others for tribal reasons rather than on a single issue at hand according to its merits or otherwise.

        That’s bad science. Among other things.

        I don’t think law is the be all or end all. Mostly it’s a crock. But it also reflects class struggle. I think the main principle here is not the democratic right of one lone shock jock who has got a gig with a tabloid newspaper to spew forth his anti-factual, low-brow, racist schtick. It’s about the defence of real people from those normally beyond defence or reach who seek to denigrate their families, their identity and their culture.

        I hope Bolt does challenge this. Because the more light shone on all these issues the better.

      • I try and work against that tribal tendency. If Bolt doesn’t have freedom of speech then I don’t either. So on that level its easy to have some sort of affinity with him and antipathy to his oppressors.

  34. Gab is a mindless shill for Bolt, from what I’ve seen. A complete intellectual lightweight.

    And he hates you.

    • Sheilas can be pretty flighty. She wasn’t exactly open-minded about the physics behind 9-11. Some things are a matter of time. At least one hopes.

      • He said you were a “piece of shit”.

        He hates you.

      • Yeah well. Women are flighty. If it bothered me all that much I wouldn’t be surrounding myself with them.

        If I upset my stepdaughter, she’s liable to not talk to me for months on end.

        This to me is normalcy.

    • She made a good point just then about Conroy. You may have missed Conroy in your estimations. He’s a symptom of something pretty damn sinister thats been going on lately.

      Conroy is still a big man in Labor. That he hasn’t been reined in tells us something about the fight against freedom of speech in some circles.

      You will see that I aired some suspicions I had about some tendencies amongst some Jewish intellectuals recently. I almost expect people to be shocked by this sort of thing because you cannot convey your tone of voice over the net. You cannot make some things sound non-malicious.

      I can try and explain myself over time, but what is very hard to imagine is trying to explain myself to some trumped up lawyer in court.

      Thats a tough gig.

      • Why would I “miss Conroy”? I’m not Labor. Nor Liberal. Nor anything party political.

      • Yeah I know. But that Conroy has such an exalted position is pretty scary, I would have thought. It may say something about the sort of climate we have here.

        Like the idea that Clive Hamilton used to be a big man about town. He seems to be more restrained now. But he was riding high there for awhile. Tried to take a shot at me even.

  35. “Some things ought to be sorted with a simple discussion.”

    Well, yes. But the complainants said that was attempted with Bolt and Murdoch’s mouthpiece, but to no avail.

    Of course you and I and most Joe and Julie Blow’s can’t get the right of reply in the MSM. Now why is that? Most of what we read there is designed to cover up and gloss over the facts of how our lives are ruled and manipulated and crushed by the powers that be who control and own the purse-strings.

    Of course, it’s been the left that has exposed this truth mainly and over such a long period of time.

    • I’d have to agree with most of that. But there is not much there that suggests that Bolt should take too hard a fall as the result of such structural one-sidedness.

      • I don’t give a rat’s about Bolt. He’s a cream puff. He’s had his 15minutes in the sun. And for what. To make all of Aboriginal Australia hate him? Way to go. What a legacy.

  36. “If Bolt doesn’t have freedom of speech then I don’t either. So on that level its easy to have some sort of affinity with him and antipathy to his oppressors”

    Bolt has plenty of freedom of speech. Much more than the vast majority of Australians. He currently has a weekly tv program and a column in a daily newspaper. C’mon, there’s no comparing his freedom of speech privilege with yours or mine or most peoples.

    The pathetic thing, and indicative of his shallowness, is that if he seriously wanted to challenge the “Aboriginal industry” in an at all meaningful or effective way, if he had any intelligence or nous to do so (which he demonstrably does not) he would have refrained from the personal and focussed rather on process. For, of course, as science knows, the latter is crucial, the former, peripheral.

  37. “Yeah well. Women are flighty. If it bothered me all that much I wouldn’t be surrounding myself with them. If I upset my stepdaughter, she’s liable to not talk to me for months on end. This to me is normalcy.”

    It’s pretty hard to nigh impossible for men who want to remain in any way sociable to avoid women. My condolences to you for the silences. It’s often said to be a female tactic, born out of powerlessness (the only weapon is silence). But then men wield it just as effectively and devastatingly too, as do political groupings and sects.

    My father, who was very voluble and charming to everyone, to from employees, to casual observers, acquaintances and close friends, was also a master of the silent treatment – to his six children – (can’t vouch for other relatives or friends).

    It’s a very effective form of abuse, and should be, even if understood and forgiven, recognised, and called for, what it is.

    • I wouldn’t want to avoid women. I’d want to gather them around me, even if many of them aren’t talking to me at any given time. I don’t want to slander my step-daughter. She has been very nice to me for a very long time.

      I used to ask my Dad what it was like to have three sisters. He considered his family to be Irish, whether or not that is technically correct. He said that they were “typically Irish”, in that, if you offended them they may not talk to you for six months. So I just consider my girl to be one of us.

      • It’s obvious that the women in your life care for you, and you for them. And that is good. And makes me glad.

      • The truth is I cannot get enough of them.

  38. “The truth is I cannot get enough of them.”

    Yeah, love is like that, especially for people of great appetite.

  39. Now what do you think. Advice please, since I suspect you are a nicer person than me.

    I have a very young niece who has been living with a dude for a couple of years and has even had a child with him. Anyhoo, now they’ve decided to get married and have planned the most elaborate affair and invited people to attend the ceremony which is in a very remote place and will entail great cost and inconvenience to all who decide to go.

    I don’t give a rat’s about marriage and think it an unromantic and conformist ceremony but I don’t want to hurt my niece’s feelings.

    What should I do?

    • I think you ought to show up. Sometime tell me where it is exactly.

    • Philomena,

      Show up. If I were to refuse invitations because of my beliefs there is bugger all I could show up at.

      • Good advice, Graeme and John. Thanks.

  40. I’ve feeling extraordinarily euphoric tonight.

    • Yeah these people really deliver. Whose Fosse?

  41. But I would say either its a bad law or a bad judge if they are pulling Bolt in and laying big penalties on him. Some things ought to be sorted with a simple discussion.

    It is a bad law Graeme. There are plenty of bad laws but breaking them doesn’t change them. Bolt stuffed up, he told lies, pure and simple. Changing laws by lying is hardly a good strategy. From my ethical perspective I don’t think Bolt should have been found guilty and do have a problem with this whole issue but Bolt’s strategy was fundamentally flawed.

  42. Who was Fosse?

    Bob Fosse was a mid 20th century American actor, dancer, musical theatre choreographer, screenwriter, and film director. He won a stack of awards for choreography and direction for musicals such as Sweet Charity, Cabaret and many others.

    He was a genius in the way he synthesized movement, music, and concept to create works of entertainment that were as much a joy for performers as they were for audiences.

    • Yeah I started watching a whole string of his vids when I was above my regular beer quota. Really amazing. Even an aspiring film director could be picking up tips from his use of light and shade, and his capacity to show off the human body.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: