Posted by: graemebird | October 14, 2011

Rentseeker: Don Argus, Bad Attitude.

Just a day or two ago, a stupid old bugger said something that reminded me of a scene early on in the movie “The Godfather Part II.”

After the fellow with the raspy voice leaves, Michael notes that the old man drank too much. Meaning that the fat wop shot off his mouth, and revealed too much to Michael. This fat bloke winds up killing himself by slicing his wrists in a warm bath, thanks to a kind, and helpful suggestion from Tom Hagen. Tom barely needed to say anything at all. Tom just asked a few questions and projected immense sympathy.

Tom Hagen.

Everyones best friend.


Now how could Don Argus have been so stupid? How could he have given the rort away? The reason is that Don has always been involved in rentseeking businesses. He started off in banking, and then moved onto resources. The four big banks of course, are the biggest rentseekers in the Southern Hemisphere, with their central bank to help them shovel wealth away from the public, and to themselves and cronytown ……. and their four bludgers policy ludicrously known as the “four pillars policy.” When you are involved in an unjustifiable cartel, distract the public with an wholly inappropriate visual image.

The resources industry involves many totally heroic smaller outfits, but is dominated by our big rentseekers, and Don Argus was Chairman of our biggest. That is to say BHP-BILLITON. So his entire experience near the top of big business has been all about life amongst the rent-seekers, and for him the sort of attitudes he gave voice to are all quite normal. A life of unearned wealth is corrupting to the individual. Here is what the stupid old cunt said:

“Former BHP Billiton Ltd chairman Don Argus has hit out at criticism of executive pay in Australia, telling shareholders that if the have an objection to a company’s remuneration package than they should sell their shares, according to The Australian Financial Review.

According to the report, Mr Argus said that if there were no quality executives on a board, the company would struggle to produce value.

“(Shareholders) have a right; they can sell the shares,” he said. “It’s as simple as that.”

“If they are worried about executive pay, they shouldn’t be in the equity market.” “



We’ve got to get away from this idea that the property rights of corporations are self-evident and do not need to be justified. In one sense corporations are just a few brochures, affecting to be legal documents, in a lawyers office somewhere, and duplicated somewhere else.  But for corporations to exist in the way we normally think about their existence, they need the government to enforce their alleged property rights, in a sort of mirror image of how, the government is supposed to be enforcing the property rights of individuals.

Why ought the government do this in the first place? What justifies this behavior?  A simple decision to stop using up resources defending the property rights of corporations, would see these corporations brought to an end very quickly.  What justifies NOT phasing corporations out, so that these enforcement resources, would soon not need to be expended?

Now catallaxians and other people not gifted or knowledgeable in the art and science of philosophy, will be at this point leaping forward to a presumptuous conclusion, and then working backwards tendentiously.  You can almost HEAR Mark Hill getting ready for a new batch of unrepentant lies that go something like this:

“Graeme believes we ought to get rid of all corporations” Or “Graeme believes that we ought cease to enforce attacks against the property of corporations”

or some such other lies.

It may be very hard to explain this to these anti-Aquinians.  But whether or not you believe AS A CONCLUSION that artificial entities ought to exist, you STILL need to justify these institutions, in order to have some idea how to regulate them, or to diagnose when and if they have slipped out of their rightful bounds.

The general principle that could justify the expenditure on enforcement of the alleged property rights of artificial persons is the principle of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

If we can show that that corporations are expressions of freedom of association, and that they seek to seamlessly (though not always perfectly) eliminate conflicts of interest between the parties involved, then and only then, can we justify their existence or the existence OF THEIR CURRENT REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT.

So supposing we can show that your typical corporation acts in such a way as to create massive conflicts of interest between participants, then we can also show, that the corporation, as currently formulated, cannot be an expression of freedom of association and that one of two things needs to happen………

1.  We phase out artificial persons in an orderly way, which does not fail grossly on utilitarian grounds.

2.  We radically reform corporate law, corporate regulations, and so forth, to bring them close to a situation wherein conflict of interest between participants is not eliminated, but nearly so.


Supposing we have a country gentleman who owns an estate. He pays his Georgist tax for owning such a large estate, and he has throughways that allow people to ride their hoss, mule or trailbike, through a curved path, to get past where he has fenced off some of the land.  His land is highly capitalised and produces 1000 times the usable and desired calories per acre that nature could .  So he has made great improvements as to what nature originally had to offer.  There is a substantial river running through his land, but he has not claimed the land ten metres either side of the river.  Even so he has built three bridges and lets passers-by use them for free. People can fish from the river that goes through his land.  Families have access to the waterfall and the swimming hole. Though he has aesthetically pleasing grounds, these grounds also double as a nature sanctuary for endangered local flora and fauna, some of which represents sentient beings, some of which are of value to sentient beings, and not just greenies.

So basically what I’m saying is that the estate owner has eliminated all conflict of interest between himself and the public. His fencing off of the land represents no downside to any hypothetical hunter-gatherer that may or may not be out there.

But what happens is this:  The estate owner goes out on crusade. He travels to the Northern Hemisphere with the plan of making banker billionaires, and shadow government insiders, an offer they cannot refuse.  But they almost always DO refuse.  So he eliminates them as a burden on the public, and a pustular boiling sore on the face of mankind.


Now meanwhile while the estate owner is on the far side of the world, doing GODS work ….. the gardeners, the landscapers, the animal husbandry manager, the cowhands, the tractor driver, the chief horticultural manager, the herd tester, and the inhouse vet get together.  Now all of these people have law degrees, though this doesn’t help them be productive in their various roles, its a goddamn help in terms of keeping your head above water in a rentseeking environment. Many of these people have accounting degrees, but have forgotten most of what they ought to have learned. Most of them are pretty sub-par at the gear they are supposed to be good at.  Some of them used to be banking executives who have reached such a level as to be in the “bonus pool.” heist.


On the other side of the world, the owner of the estate is carrying out a rampage of justice.

1. He couldn’t reach an agreement with Blankfein, who was overconfident in the reach of his REAL bosses, so the estate owner shot him through the heart.

2. He’s got Silverstein in a cellar somewhere, and is feeding him only peanut butter sandwiches, ahead of a consultation that may or may not involve waterboarding.

3.  On the strength of the carnage he’s left in his wake Juliani has agreed to come in from the cold and tell the estate owner everything he knows, with lie detectors, truth serum , Wild Turkey and reverse speech as part of the interrogation.

4. Henry Paulson is dead.

5. There was a meeting with John Paulson that lead to smiles and handshakes all around, and the only thing that soured it was a dire warning just before the estate owner slammed the door shut.

6. A dozen males with surnames Rockefeller, and Rothschilds have been killed in incredibly garish ways.

7. One woman with one of those surnames has been cream-pied, another has been pushed into a swimming pool.

8. Half of the absolute top executives of Lazars bank are missing.

9. The boss-man, of the bank for international settlements, was found cut cleanly in half, and no blood spilt, next to a fountain in Basel, with a knife made of stainless steal, too large for any homo-sapien in history to ever have lifted.


Meanwhile back in the land of OZ the servants have decided, by small increments, that it is THEY, who own the estate.  They have parties using up all the masters hard hooch from the wine cellars.  There is a rotating open door between them, the council, the law firms, and the top positions of the banks in town.  They borrow money to buy land to add to the estate, including the ten metres on either side of the river.  This allows the council to start three new bureaucracies, and a Somalia fund.  The borrowed money also helps them pump up their own salaries.  But to cover for the interest the endangered flora and fauna are forgotten and actually some of them are actively slaughtered for the purpose of people who have now taken on fashionable and exquisite tastes in cuisine


We don’t have a happy ending to our real-life story. Not yet anyway.  But I like to have happy endings to my fictional stories.  So in this tale the estate-owner has a long-lost son, who funnily enough, is named Telemachus.

Telecmachus shows up and sees the staff greedily rifling through the safe and they have established what they are calling a “BONUS POOL” and they are in heated, rentseeking debates as to how to split up the stolen funds, in this here BONUS-POOL.

Telemachus  clears his throat which produces a spontaneous evil eye from everyone in the room. He says “stop that”.  He says “I’m cutting your salaries in half” he says “put that money back in the safe. ”

In this story he says a lot of things.  But some stupid old cunt called Don Argus speaks for the other thieves in the room. Imperiously he manages to shout down Telemachus, and his key point is the following…….


Thats what Don Argus says.  In my story and in real life.


As I said I like happy endings to my stories and I don’t think many of you don’t know how this story ends.  The estate manager smuggles himself in, disguised as an old tramp and none of his former servants recognize him. A few trials of strength and aptitude ought to tip the rentseekers off but they are not tipped off and eventually TELEMACHUS and the estate owner lock these assholes in and proceed to slaughter them above the din of these rentseekers attempting to cut a last-minute deal.


But in the real world we don’t have our happy ending yet.  We are left with the full knowledge that corporate law needs to be radically reformed, and corporate management, and the corporations themselves, need to be put back in their place with extreme prejudice.


  1. And who are BHP-Billiton’s major shareholders?

    A dozen or so investment companies.

    What a rigged game.

  2. But this is all good. Statements like this are becoming all too frequent as class fear goads the super-rich beneficiaries and toadies of an exploitative, inefficient and ultimately doomed (at least in its current form) system to basically tell the majority to fuck off and die in a ditch for all they care.

    All of which, of course, is fuelling ever greater international social and political unrest, fast and furious questions from the grassroots, growing support for radical change and unending discussion about the fundamental corrupt and undemocratic nature of the whole system itself.

    Very interesting times.

  3. Yeah absolutely Philomena. Under natural law the owner is the owner. The managers are the hired help and the natural way of things is for them to be, if anything, underpaid and not overpaid. Now if having enough wealth to gain from the benefits of ownership, over-compensates those with such wealth, then the way government is financed, can rightly claw back a small proportion of that surmised over-compensation. But artificial persons do not deserve to exist at all, except that they serve, with great fidelity, their owners.

    Now as you imply, look how this dysfunctional system obscures their failure in this regard??? The owners themselves become corporations, who themselves serve their own homo-sapien owners, in somewhat less than optimal ways.

    Of course the whole thing is made worse by our resource allocation. Which has lease-fees, royalties, AND company tax, whereas the conflict of interest between the public and the company can only work if the only fee is the royalty alone. And very probably a lot higher than it is now, but, AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY, with the company tax eliminated.

    Now we might better rename royalties in my view. To get to the very heart of why we are charging this stipend, and why it is right to confer property rights on the basis of these royalties. I think we ought to rename royalties:

    “Non-renewable resources taxes”

    We may be able to think and talk clearly about a range of issues if we renamed royalties in this way.

  4. Probably this would be better still:

    “Non-renewable (CLOSE-TO-HAND) resources taxes.”

    This is an even better and more honest name for royalties. Because our natural resources are basically inexhaustible. But our close-to-hand natural resources are powerfully scarce. And should we renege on our duty to slow the depletion of these more close-to-hand resources, then sooner or later, ALL our luck will run out.

  5. An All-American Occupation
    The Street of Torments

    Occupy Wall Street, the ongoing demonstration-cum-sleep-in that began a month ago not far from the New York Stock Exchange and has since spread like wildfire to cities around the country, may be a game-changer. If so, it couldn’t be more appropriate or more in the American grain that, when the game changed, Wall Street was directly in the sights of the protesters.

    The fact is that the end of the world as we’ve known it has been taking place all around us for some time. Until recently, however, thickets of political verbiage about cutting this and taxing that, about the glories of “job creators” and the need to preserve “the American dream,” have obscured what was hiding in plain sight — that street of streets, known to generations of our ancestors as “the street of torments.”

    After an absence of well over half a century, Wall Street is back, center stage, as the preferred American icon of revulsion, a status it held for a fair share of our history. And we can thank a small bunch of campers in Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park for hooking us up to a venerable tradition of resistance and rebellion.

    The Street of Torments

    Peering back at a largely forgotten terrain of struggle against “the Street,” so full of sound and fury signifying quite a lot, it’s astonishing — to a historian of Wall Street, at least — that the present movement didn’t happen sooner. It’s already hard to remember that only weeks ago, three years into the near shutdown of the world financial system and the Great Recession, an eerie unprotesting silence still blanketed the country.

    Stories accumulated of Wall Street greed and arrogance, astonishing tales of incompetence and larceny. The economy slowed and stalled. People lost their homes and jobs. Poverty reached record levels. The political system proved as bankrupt as the big banks. Bipartisan consensus emerged — but only around the effort to save “too big to fail” financial goliaths, not the legions of victims their financial wilding had left in its wake.

    The political class then prescribed what people already had plenty of: yet another dose of austerity plus a faith-based belief in a “recovery” that, for 99% of Americans, was never much more than an optical illusion. In those years, the hopes of ordinary people for a chance at a decent future withered and bitterness set in.

    Strangely, however, popular resistance was hard to find. In the light of American history, this passivity was surpassingly odd. From decades before the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century through the Great Depression, again and again Wall Street found itself in the crosshairs of an outraged citizenry mobilized thanks to political parties, labor unions, or leagues of the unemployed. Such movements were filled with a polyglot mix of middle-class anti-trust reformers, bankrupted small businessmen, dispossessed farmers, tenants and sharecroppers, out-of-work laborers, and so many others.

    If Occupy Wall Street signals the end of our own, atypical period of acquiescence, could a return to a version of “class warfare” that would, once upon a time, have been familiar to so many Americans be on the horizon? Finally!

    What began as a relatively sparsely attended and impromptu affair has displayed a staying power and magnetic attractiveness that has taken the country, and above all the political class, by surprise. A recent rally of thousands in lower Manhattan, where demonstrators marched from the city’s government center to Zuccotti Park, the location of the “occupiers” encampment, was an extraordinarily diverse gathering by any measure of age, race, or class. Community organizations, housing advocates, environmentalists, and even official delegations of trade unionists not normally at ease hanging out with anarchists and hippies gave the whole affair a social muscularity and reach that was exhilarating to experience.

    Diversity, however, can cut both ways. Popular protest, to the degree that there’s been much during the recent past — and mainly over the war in Iraq — has sometimes been criticized for the chaotic way it assembled a grab-bag of issues and enemies, diffuse and without focus. Occupy Wall Street embraces diverse multitudes but this time in the interest of convergence. In its targeting of “the street of torments,” this protean uprising has, in fact, found common ground. To a historian’s ear this echoes loudly.

    Karl Marx described high finance as “the Vatican of capitalism,” its diktat to be obeyed without question. We’ve spent a long generation learning not to mention Marx in polite company, and not to use suspect and nasty phrases like “class warfare” or “the reserve army of labor,” among many others.

    In times past, however, such phrases and the ideas that went with them struck our forebears as useful, even sometimes as true depictions of reality. They used them regularly, along with words like “plutocracy,” “robber baron,” and “ruling class,” to identify the sources of economic exploitation and inequality that oppressed them, as well as to describe the political disenfranchisement they suffered and the subversion of democracy they experienced.

    Never before, however, has “the Vatican of capitalism” captured quite so perfectly the specific nature of the oligarchy that’s run the country for a generation and has now run it into the ground. Even political consultant and pundit James Carville, no Marxist he, confessed as much during the Clinton years when he said the bond market “intimidates everybody.”

    Perhaps that era of everyday intimidation is finally ending. Here are some of the signs of it — literally — from that march I attended: “Loan Sharks Ate My World” (illustrated with a reasonable facsimile of the Great White from Jaws), “End the Federal Reserve,” “Wall Street Sold Out, Let’s Not Bail-Out,” “Kill the Over the Counter Derivative Market,” “Wall Street Banks Madoff Well,” “The Middle Class is Too Big To Fail,” “Eat the Rich, Feed the Poor,” “Greed is Killing the Earth.” During the march, a pervasive chant — “We are the 99%” — resoundingly reminded the bond market just how isolated and vulnerable it might become.

    And it is in confronting this elemental, determining feature of our society’s predicament, in gathering together all the multifarious manifestations of our general dilemma right there on “the street of torments,” that Occupy Wall Street — even without a program or clear set of demands, as so many observers lament — has achieved a giant leap backward, summoning up a history of opposition we would do well to recall today.

    A Century of Our Streets and Wall Street

    One young woman at the demonstration held up a corrugated cardboard sign roughly magic-markered with one word written three times: “system,” “system,” “system.” That single word resonates historically, even if it sounds strange to our ears today. The indictment of presumptive elites, especially those housed on Wall Street, the conviction that the system over which they presided must be replaced by something more humane, was a robust feature of our country’s political and cultural life for a long century or more.

    When in the years following the American Revolution, Jeffersonian democrats raised alarms about the “moneycrats” and their counterrevolutionary intrigues — they meant Alexander Hamilton and his confederates in particular — they were worried about the installation in the New World of a British system of merchant capitalism that would undo the democratic and egalitarian promise of the Revolution.

    When followers of Andrew Jackson inveighed against the Second Bank of the United States — otherwise known as “the Monster Bank” — they were up in arms against what they feared was the systematic monopolizing of financial resources by a politically privileged elite. Just after the Civil War, the Farmer-Labor and Greenback political parties freed themselves of the two-party runaround, determined to mobilize independently to break the stranglehold on credit exercised by the big banks back East.

    Later in the nineteenth century, Populists decried the overweening power of the Wall Street “devil fish” (shades of Matt Taibbi’s “giant vampire squid” metaphor for Goldman Sachs). Its tentacles, they insisted, not only reached into every part of the economy, but also corrupted churches, the press, and institutions of higher learning, destroyed the family, and suborned public officials from the president on down. When, during his campaign for the presidency in 1896, the Populist-inspired “boy orator of the Platte” and Democratic Party candidate William Jennings Bryan vowed that mankind would not be “crucified on a cross of gold,” he meant Wall Street and everyone knew it.

    Around the turn of the century, the anti-trust movement captured the imagination of small businessmen, consumers, and working people in towns and cities across America. The trust they worried most about was “the Money Trust.” Captained by J.P. Morgan, “the financial Gorgon,” the Money Trust was skewered in court and in print by future Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis, subjected to withering Congressional investigations, excoriated in the exposés of “muckraking” journalists, and depicted by cartoonists as a cabal of prehensile Visigoths in death-heads.

    As the twentieth century began, progressive reformers in state houses and city halls, socialists in industrial cities and out on the prairies, strikebound workers from coast to coast, working-class feminists, antiwar activists, and numerous others were still vigorously condemning that same Money Trust for turning the whole country into a closely-held system of financial pillage, labor exploitation, and imperial adventuring abroad. As the movements made clear, everyone but Wall Street was suffering the consequences of a system of proliferating abuses perpetrated by “the Street.”

    The tradition the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators have tapped into is a long and vibrant one that culminated during the Great Depression. Then as now, there was no question in the minds of “the 99%” that Wall Street was principally to blame for the country’s crisis (however much that verdict has since been challenged by disputatious academics).

    Insurgencies by industrial workers, powerful third-party threats to replace capitalism with something else, rallies and marches of the unemployed, and, yes, occupations, even seizures of private property, foreclosures forestalled by infuriated neighbors, and a pervasive sense that the old order needed burying had their lasting effect. In response, the New Deal attempted to unhorse those President Franklin Roosevelt termed “economic royalists,” who were growing rich off “other people’s money” while the country suffered its worst trauma since the Civil War. “The Street” trembled.

    “System, System, System”: It would be foolish to make too much of a raggedy sign — or to leap to conclusions about just how lasting this Occupy Wall Street moment will be and just where (if anywhere) it’s heading. It would be crazily optimistic to proclaim our own pitiful age of acquiescence ended.

    Still, it would be equally foolish to dismiss the powerful American tradition the demonstrators of this moment have tapped into. In the past, Wall Street has functioned as an icon of revulsion, inciting anger, stoking up energies, and summoning visions of a new world that might save the New World.

    It is poised to play that role again. Remember this: in 1932, three years into the Great Depression, most Americans were more demoralized than mobilized. A few years later, all that had changed as “Our Street, Not Wall Street” came alive. The political class had to scurry to keep up. Occupy Wall Street may indeed prove the opening act in an unfolding drama of renewed resistance and rebellion against “the system.”

    Steve Fraser teaches history at Columbia University.

  6. NY Mayor Bloomberg blinked. Cleanup postponed. Ripper.

    With Goldman’s Foray Into Higher Education, A Predatory Pursuit of Students and Revenues
    Goldman Sachs For Profit Colleges

    Education Management Corp. was already a swiftly growing player in the lucrative world of for-profit higher education, with annual revenues topping $1 billion, but it had its sights set on industry domination. So, five years ago, the Pittsburgh company’s executives agreed to sell its portfolio of more than 70 colleges to a trio of investment partnerships for $3.4 billion, securing the needed capital for an aggressive national expansion.

    One of the new partners brought an outsized reputation for market savvy, deep pockets and a relentless pursuit of profits — the Wall Street goliath, Goldman Sachs.

    After the deal closed and Goldman became a partner, employees soon noticed a drastic shift in culture. Longtime admissions managers were replaced, ushering in an era in which recruiters were endlessly hounded by supervisors about hitting weekly enrollment targets. The admissions staff nearly tripled, requiring expanded floor space to accommodate a sales force of more than 2,600 across the country.

    Management handed down revamped telemarketing scripts designed to prey on poor and uneducated consumers, honing in on their past mistakes in life as a ploy to convince them that college would solve all their problems, according to conversations with more than a dozen current and former Education Management Corp. employees over the past two months.

    “You’d probe to find a weakness,” said Brian Klein, a former admissions employee who worked for three years at Argosy University Online, one of four major colleges operated by EDMC. “You basically take all that failure and all those bad decisions, and you spin it around and put it right back in their face as guilt, to go to this shitty university and run up all of this debt.”

  7. This is the kind of college that was bypassed by the 60s radicalisation. Something *really big* is going on.

  8. Time poll; Occupy Wall Street Has Majority Support of Americans,

  9. Time nominates OWS in its list of the Top 10 American protest movements,28804,2096654_2096653_2096692,00.html

    • Yeah interesting. I usually take TIME as being faithful to the shadow government position. For example they made Ben Bernanke man of the year, which is unforgivable. Its very hard to read these people. Maybe Rupert trades favors when it comes to making Ben man of the year and perhaps he understands Bernanke for the loser, and economics illiterate that he is. Maybe putting the OWS in the top ten is his more considered opinion. Of course its impossible to know how these things work. It seems though that the bigshots punished him a couple of months back for reporting the Bilderburg meetings. Because the news of the Bilderburg crowd being upset with the Murdoch papers leaked out from their meetings and next thing he’s being hauled over the coals. So he may occasionally attempt to be a man once in awhile and be actually backed against the wall.

      You may be aware of Catallaxy in Australia. I marvel how they always get everything so fucking wrong. At least they were tepidly in favor of the tea party. But they affect to be rightists and yet they are against Ron Paul. Almost to a man, they fell under the spell of Obama last election. And now here they are going against the wall street protests. Its like they can get nothing right at the time, and only about half of things right even in retrospect.

      Demon possession has to be up there in ones paradigms in parallel. Simply because it seems to explain so much.

      • “Demon possession has to be up there in ones paradigms in parallel. Simply because it seems to explain so much.”

        Only a deluded dipshit would say something like that.

      • I don’t believe in demon possession. But as a joke, or a dummy paradigm, I’ll have it there as a possibility, simply because it would seem to explain a great deal, and the scientific method always involves comparing three or more hypotheses, or paradigms, in parallel, even if one or more of them is a dummy-paradigm.

      • Sometimes dummy paradigms wind up getting elevated to the top. I never considered the idea of a shadow government, as being a serious outlook. Or rather I did when I was a kid but rejected it outright as a teenager. Now its come to the top, because of the total proof of their involvement in bringing three buildings down.

        You need the dummy paradigms there often, just to fill out the quota. But us puny humans aren’t given to automatic knowledge. So it can often be utterly surprising what the scientific method throws up to the top. I was slower than most and more surprised than anyone. Remembering that I was such a slowpoke that it took me seven years to see the obvious reality of the 9/11 false flag. One reason why science thrived under Christianity more than under any other cultural context, was the emphasis on humility. Here I was in a position where I had to own up to the fact that the people I’d been running down and dissing were right and I was wrong.

        The Christian values are so much more conducive to scientific enquiry than any other cultural norms that I truly despair for a new golden age of science.


  10. delicious voice

    • Yeah I know you have. Dinah’s voice aint so bad either.

    • Holy crap. That’s a bit forward isn’t it? For those days. Reminds me of that song, “Mama loves shortening shortening shortening, Mama loves shortening shortening bread”.

      Are you telling me you have some spare time on your hands?

    • Thanks for that Philomena. I could have gone to my grave and never known about that song but for you.


  12. I just found out this fellow is a distant cousin of mine:

    Pem Bird. President of the Maori party. My dad was talking about “a great uncle of his who married the chiefs daughter” so this fellow has exceptional pedigree.

    Still it does not provide me with evidence, much less proof, that I have any maori ancestors. Only the genetic tests can solve this mystery. I want to get a positive test, so I can go to New Zealand, team up with couzie-bro Pem, and start finding various sacred sites. Or at least start looking for land-good-land, and declaring it a sacred site, after the fact.

  13. In preparation for my sacred site tour I’ve been checking out youtubes from my hometown. Here are two people dancing in my hometown. I have simply no clue who they are. And I’d have a hard time recognising anyone under 40.


    Menzies House is an astroturf op. Well, who knew.

    Catallaxy has been astroturfed too, But the flip side is it makes the blogs unreadable.

  15. Its not like the Bilderburgers are doing it. Or even a billionaire like Soros. There is nothing too dubious about a single activist MP, attempting to do the right thing.


  17. Yeah as likable as Herman is, he’s an unacceptable candidate, in that he’s somehow oblivious to the bank scandal. So he cannot be part of the ticket. There seems to be this inability of people to own up to the fact that Ron Paul is the candidate of choice to support. When people say “he cannot win” all they are saying is what we know already ….. that the shadow government will be running against Ron Paul.

    Really its Ron Paul against the banker elite. Thats stage one of the American election. Then we have stage two if Ron Paul is defeated by the shadow government. And stage two is tedium to those who understand what is going on. By the time stage two rolls around I will barely have enough motivation to read the papers.

  18. All our hard work has paid off. Yours and mine. Ours.

    Being anti-big bank scams and corporate cronyism is now MAINSTREAM. In America lol. Actually, it must have been so for a long time just that it was hidden. No longer.

    The Catallaxy crew, dotty, wall street trader scum like JC, Sinclair Davidson are officially politically marginalised and discredited. No one will listen to them now as they die in a ditch to defend their corrupt masters.

    We have won.

    • Yeah righteous. Isn’t it about time for some mild self-congratulations here. I was on the hard right and anti-crony, you on the hard left and anti-crony, and we getting on the wrong side of everyone. And now things are swinging around a little bit on both wings. Very good point.

      See the ground has really shifted. In 2007 Herman Cain would have been on of the most attractive rightist candidates you could have. But he’s insensitive to this cronyist disaster. So he’s beginning to look like yesterdays man, because the ground has shifted. The banker elite may yet make him win by backing him to the elite. But I see what you are saying in that the ground has really shifted.

  19. Graeme

    I’ve been meaning to do the DNA ancestry test myself.

    These are the two recommended sites for this.

    It costs a few hundred bucks, you get mailed a kit, take your own saliva swab, post it back and get the results in about two weeks.

    We’ll have to compare notes.

  20. Wow. Good stuff. Give me about two months. I’ve got a few things that I pathologically put off that really need to get done. But my Mum died without knowing for sure whether she had any maori ancestors. She assumed she didn’t but she did not know for sure. Neither do any of us. So yeah I would like to solve this mystery for sure.

  21. I note that your home town is one of the oldest European settlements in NZ and that it also has an interesting mix of Maori and Dalmatian immigrants’ descendants.

    I wonder if the test will show up Neanderthal and Denisovan heritage.

    What I want to know for sure is if I have Viking heritage which I probably do.

  22. Here I am



  24. Definitely its got to be 7 billion plus gentiles against 20 million Jews. The Jews have such a massive advantage. Its something of a hopeless quest. Fisky said as much last night. But you’ve got to do the right thing no matter what. So talk to your Muslim, Christian and Buddhist brothers and sisters. Its very clear that our natural enemy is fractional reserve banking, the usury-unchained VERSION!!!!! of Capitalism …… and Judaism.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: