Posted by: graemebird | November 2, 2011

The Mysterious Explosion Of Hyper-Incompetent Jews.

But bird flaps. Seems to be thats about the only argument she has. If she had a proper argument I’d consider it, and not make like the stick figures are representative of her considered position.

Here’s the thing. If stealth-Jews lock in and vigorously enforce fantasy-finance and fantasy-physics, when you have a clear example of REAL PHYSICS making an hypothesis untenable, you are not going to see it. You are not going to see that force, mass and acceleration….. and the concept that forces always come in pairs, equal and opposite, make the Arab blood libel of 9/11 entirely untenable. If you think physics is all about this utter fantasy of “space-time” this make-believe of a light-speed limit, this embarrassment of the big bang theory, this maths-boy-101 bullshit of the singularity …. when an example of authentic physics comes along, you are not going to notice.

The saviour told us that we must forgive the children for the sins of the fathers. He also was zen cool when it came to tough situations, and one time he pulled out a coin and made a very clever distinction, under a scene of high intimidation.

Well you see that injunction, and that story of grace under pressure, got bundled up in the post-Aquinas world with the Aristotelian habit of taxonomy. Aristotle started off as a biologist and from that he gained the habit of making fine distinctions. The example of the saviour, the influence of Aristotle combined with the terrific Aquinian habit,  of looking at a problem from at least three angles in any given paragraph……….. it was THIS cultural integration that produced the best scientific climate and the best scientific mindsets that recorded history has seen.  In a way they were BETTER then Athenians, whose balance tipped too far towards the apriori reasoning.  ((((Actually the contemporary Jewish philosopher Nozick,  was particularly good at looking at matters from all angles in Aquinian fashion.))))

Anyhow; forgiving the sons for the sins of the fathers, translated into forgiving the fathers for working under the wrong paradigm. What it meant is that if you did an honest job, and followed logic and empirical evidence in science …. well you were cool, and there was no shame if you were eventually superseded.

Perhaps all this emphasis on redemption, forgiveness, letting prodigal sons off the hook and so forth, was bad for the late Roman era. Maybe Justinian was right in some ways, that the Christians were buggering things up, and undermining traditional Roman values. But what I’m talking about is the culture that was created post-Aquinas,  and right up until the end of the nineteenth century. Mayhaps right up until after the first Christmas of World War I.  Here we had an Aristotlean/Christian culture, that was conducive to the rise of science.

But are those Jews, those particular Jews,  who did not have to fight their way up,  and impress the Goyim …….. are this latest generation of Jews,  really fit to be carrying on science?

I am sad to say that it no longer seems so, if we take prominent Jews under 60 as our example. I say this even though, up until quite recently, it was Jews who appeared to be, in many ways,  the outstanding sub-culture within the intellectual world.

The God that Moses interpreted (or conjured) through his brother Aaron, said that he would punish the children to the 7th generation. This is in no way going to translate to the easy-going admission that ones ideas have been superseded. If brother-Nathaniel is right about the Talmud, then we may be seeing an insufficient humility,  when it comes to ones ideas, being utterly trounced by some passing non-Jew. I’m seeing it all the time and all over the English-Speaking, formerly-Anglo world.

Now that the net is here we can see, all over the world. stealth-Jews, holding onto fantasy-physics and fantasy-finance, like it was a one-ounce silver coin between their butt-cheeks. Is the culture of those brought up as Jews? …. or must this culture be? …….A SHAME CULTURE?

Would reformed-Jews feel personal shame if they admitted to themselves that special relativity is a load of rubbish? A foolish and really quite a childish fantasy?

What if the protocols of the elder of zion was shown not to be forged? The protocols of the elders of zion has not been shown TO BE forged, and without evidence we must return an open verdict. (I believe they are forged, but I don’t KNOW THIS for a fact). But what if these protocols were shown to be valid? Would that cast shame on your average Jew? The brilliance of Christianity is that an individualistic Christian would not need to deny such a scandal, since it would be other individuals, and if the taint even reached him in the first place, you have a culture of making good and forgiveness AND NOT DOUBLING DOWN ON YOUR WRONGDOING.

We have a problem here. Because we suddenly have all these hyper-incompetent Jews in our face, RIGHT in our face, and particularly on the American scene. They are scuttling the ship at a great rate of knots. But the networking and mentality of these people seems to be to lock the error and dysfunction in, DOUBLE DOWN,  and to never admit that one has been proven wrong.

This is a big problem, and no good can come of ignoring it.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I am a Jew. Hath
    not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
    dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
    the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
    to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
    warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
    a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
    if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
    us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
    revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
    resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
    what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
    wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
    Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
    teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
    will better the instruction

    • God that is beautiful. Sir you are a prose artist. To think that a Jew would have a soul so expansive as to have come up with something like that.

  2. http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=589858&p=1

    Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

    At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

    Bubble? Regulators Blew It

    The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

    It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower’s credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.

  3. A tiny part of the financial mismanagement. Its not possible to blame poor black people for banking incompetence. Why retail? Why did they not roll with the flow and do what they were fucking supposed to be doing, in the first place, and use funds to expand businesses.

    This feeble excuse is getting old.

  4. Hopefully the shock value has now gone, and a few adults may be able to get a grip with the very serious nature of this phenomenon. Bloody Robert Manne is making an absolute nuisance of himself, with his vicious name-calling and blackballing, over at the ABC Unleashed. I’ve lost my patience with this idiot.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3821618.html

  5. Graeme Bird :

    10 Feb 2012 4:00:35pm

    Robert Manne. You don’t understand climate science. You are not part of this argument. You are not welcome in this debate, because you are utterly clueless, when it comes to climate science. Don’t you get it? This is science for goodness sakes. This is not an argument for someone who is belligerently ignorant of the subject.

    Now if you have scientific evidence spit it out or apologize, retract, and go away. It cannot be more simple than this. You have NOTHING to offer this debate. What the hell do you think you are up to? Robert you are an irrational man. And this country desperately needs reason.

    Reply Alert moderator

  6. Graeme Bird :

    10 Feb 2012 4:12:15pm

    No its NOT an excellent article. Its a pathetic and ignorant article. Robert is just a dirty name-caller. His filthy name-calling is the sum total of this article.

    Reply Alert moderator

    • “Robert is just a dirty name-caller. His filthy name-calling is the sum total of this article.”

      Lol, where did Robert Manne call anyone names in that article?

      • You idiot. You tell me. Lets call that “homework.”

        Dope.

  7. You may note that I took the eternal youth article off-air. I thought I’d replace it with something much less scary, and dangerous-to-write. Make no mistake about it. You come up with a cancer cure, you are in big trouble. You come up with anything that looks like it could retard ageing, your days are probably numbered, and that number is likely to be small.

    • Does this mean that you are not going to publish the results of the clinical trials that you must have been conducting on your so called cancer cure?

      Maybe you could post the report here for a few days, then delete it.

  8. Eric Dollard’s off-the-cuff bibliography, for what it takes to learn about electricity:

  9. Steinmetz? Kennerley? (sounds like) Heavyside? Maxwell, Faraday, (sounds like) Beuly? A mathematician called McFarlane that worked out of Austin Texas

    “…. Takes about 14 or 15 years ….”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It really seems like even the study of electricity is just as fraught with 20th century ignorance and error, as a lot of other things that I’m somewhat more familiar with. I’d have to wonder should I commit to learning this stuff. Should I get a kindle. Got back to the old masters, and read them word for word, just like one ought to do with economics to learn the subject properly.

  10. What happened to the My-birthday, eternal-youth thread?

    • Its a dangerous thread. I said it would likely only last a few days. Saying the word “Jews” might set the sky up for a fall, but its nowhere near as scary as providing information that would save lives if applied.

      • IF YOU DIDN’T GET IT THE FIRST TIME YOU MISSED OUT. I WARNED IT WOULD BE A TEMPORARY THREAD.

  11. I don’t understand the animosity towards Robert Manne wherever it comes from.

    My impression is that he is a deep thinker, empathetic, a stupendous writer and highly effective communicator and political agitator.

    These are among the most important attributes of any effective human being.

  12. Promise me you will listen to parts 1 and 3.

    You will be in heaven. Promise.

    • Listening right now Becky.

  13. I used to feel exactly the same Becky. I’d see people giving him a hard time live on TV, and I’d want to defend him. But now I’m just sick of him. He comes into a debate LATE. He’s a latecomer. He doesn’t understand a damn thing, won’t ask any questions, and starts with the mindless name-calling. So he has to take a hit over it. If he’s going to be a mindless, black-balling, bastard he’s going to have to suffer for it. I’m not just going to sit still for idiots like this leading us down the path of unreason.

    Graeme Bird :

    10 Feb 2012 6:26:40pm

    Look we are going to have to get some evidence out of you Manne, or an admission that you HAVE no evidence. Now what is your claim exactly?

    Now that Europe is snowed in, and people are dying of the cold, every northern hemisphere winter, what is the argument that you have? What is this compelling data, this unassailable logic, that you think you are in possession of?

    We really need you to take time out from your black-balling, and your name-calling, and for you to stop being dishonest and to come up with the goods.

    Now I don’t think thats too much to ask. You might think that is too much to ask. But I don’t think that is too much to ask.

    Reply Alert moderator

    • Not sure what you are referring to in relation to Robert Manne, Mr Bird.

      But he has always stuck me as a very dignified and highly ethical character and political commenter. I’m all for treating people with dignity and he has landed a lot of righteous blows on the ideological right and who can chastise him for that if it is deserved.

      Manne is not an economist, but these days mainstream economists are equivalent to Stasi.

      So more power to people like him, I say.

      • I often found him to be quite likeable. But if he isn’t interested in the science, he has no place in the debate. He’s just getting in the way.

        What sort of pig comes into a debate, damning those who disagree with him as “denialists” when the fact is he don’t know shit-from-shinola, when it comes to the climate, and the logic that animates the scientific debate?

        I came down on Humphreys for this idiocy, and on the bootnigger, and on that shiny-headed Stalinist Hamilton. Manne ought not think he’s going to get a free kick except that sort of free kick that gets delivered from my steelcaps to his shins.

  14. Graeme Bird :

    10 Feb 2012 6:15:35pm

    No. Monkton has decided to try and come to grips with the LOGIC of the contending parties. But Robert Manne is not interested. So he ought to go away. Or learn something. Ask questions. He can ask me a question, anytime he likes. Supposing he proves that he’s even bloody interested.

    Reply Alert

  15. Birdflapz is supposed to be from the Chicago area. But I just caught him using the word “gormless” which I take to be a South Seas expression. Could this fellow be a certain BOOT-NIGGER that we are only TOO familiar with?

  16. I’ve decided my current two fave classical composers are Haydn and Schubert.

    I heard on Abc the other morn a wondrous tidbit about Haydn. That his wife disdained his composition and would use the paperwork to curl her hair or stoke the fire.

  17. Part 3

  18. Well I don’t know how to match that Becky. But I could note that if Robert does the good Christian thing and learns to abide. Just get out there and start abiding, then I’ll no longer be angry at him. So I’ll post my latest that got through at the ABC, and then I’ll post a song about abiding. This song about abiding happens to have particularly good arrangement, and studio recording:

    Graeme Bird :

    10 Feb 2012 7:25:22pm

    No Robert. YOU give it a rest. You either have to go away, or take an interest in the logic of the debate. Pretty simple.

    There is a pre-requisite, to you rightly being able to brand people DENIALISTS. And that pre-requisite is to understand the logic of the debate.

    Now supposing I ask your opinion on whether a black-body is a rotating object or a flat object? Supposing I were to ask you to what extent can we make generalisations to do with the surface temperature of flat objects, and relate that to the air temperature of rotating objects……

    Would you even have a clue what I was talking about?

    The important thing is not that you know about these things or whether you don’t know about these things. The important thing is not to run off at the mouth calling people “denialists” when you are not interested in any of this stuff.

    So go away Les, Robert, or whoever you are, and leave the debate to people who will discuss the logic of the science.

    Reply Alert moderator

  19. I just mentioned to my adopted niece that I used to have to sing the above in Church. But I figure its a pretty awesome melody just the same. Anyway. Here is another ABC post I got through:

    Graeme Bird :
    10 Feb 2012 7:28:00pm

    Well this psycho-babble is all very interesting. But the reality is that Robert Manne affects to be an intellectual, and wants to influence matters in this country, and yet he thinks he can pollute the debate, on a scientific matter, by simply assuming that the fraud side is the correct side, when he is absolutely clueless as to the science, and has no inclination to ask questions, and find out more about it.

    Reply Alert moderator

  20. Graeme Bird :

    10 Feb 2012 7:40:47pm

    Yeah very good stuff. Gibbon is good value, one page after another. But the reality is that EVIDENCE properly considered, is of the following nature ….. you need data, and logic and something else. The data and the logic can be of the widest possible type, and thats okay. But the third part of the tripod, prior to us calling something evidence, is to have a NARROW HYPOTHESIS.

    So you can have wide-ranging data, free-swinging reasoning (so long as its clear and valid) but these two factors must be related to a NARROW hypothesis.

    Now I happen to know, that while your data is good and valid, coming as it does from the historian Gibbon, I’m not seeing the clear reasoning, and the two aren’t being related to a narrow hypothesis, and I can guarantee you you don’t have a narrow hypothesis in mind, and if you ever did you quite forgot what it was.

    Reply Alert moderator

    • “The data and the logic can be of the widest possible type, and thats okay. But the third part of the tripod, prior to us calling something evidence, is to have a NARROW HYPOTHESIS.”

      Consider the hypothesis, “The ingestion of alkali water can prevent or cure cancer”. That’s a quite narrow hypothesis wouldn’t you agree?

      You may have some sort of wild logic associated with the claim, I’ll grant you this.

      Now where is the data? Have you done any clinical trials that yielded evidence supporting the hypothesis?

      Remember, we need 3 things, a hypothesis, logic and data before we can that the evidence can be properly considered. Your words, Graeme.

  21. There is not any collected data on this matter, since no-one is going to allow such a study to go ahead. We know how to cure cancer, but we don’t want to cure cancer.

    But there is plenty of reasoning that can go into such a thesis, and plenty of data that can go into that reasoning. Like for example, the fact that cancer cells die when they are subject to an high alkaline environment. Alkaline water itself is a high alkaline environment, but thats not total proof for the thesis that you mentioned.

    Alkaline water cured all my old cunt injuries. But then I got tennis elbow. The thing about tennis elbow is it occurs in a tendon, which connects to the bone, in a region of almost no blood flow. So we know we can cure the tennis elbow if we get enough blood flow, and if that blood flow is high alkaline. But there is no reason to believe that we can achieve this blood flow to the specific area, with alkaline water alone. So in the same way, we ought not be too confident with alkaline water ALONE killing all cancer, since the cancer would not be there unless there was diminished oxygen, blood flow, or electrical flow, in the affected area. So I cannot really take on that hypothesis, since I think that you may have a lot of trouble curing cancer with alkaline water ALONE, in the same way and for the same reasons that you would have a lot of trouble curing tennis elbow with alkaline water ALONE.

    I myself would never take on such an idiotic view of curing cancer as to fall for THE SINGLE CURE SYNDROME.

    I don’t know how many fucking times over and over and over a fucking gain, that I have to explain to you that curing cancer is about STRATEGY. Not about a single cure but a fucking STRATEGY.

    Now you aren’t going to get it this time either because you are dumb bootnigger cunt. But then you aren’t about to get it that comets aren’t snowballs either.

  22. What happened to my post about about the shadow government not allowing cancer studies? Don’t you want to answer the little conundrum about science actually working?

    Paradox: You say that conventional science doesn’t work, so if a “mainstream” scientific study found that your cancer strategy actually worked you’d have to dismiss their findings?

    If they found it didn’t work, then you’d still have to disagree with them to support your own position.

    You invent all these crazy conspiracies to avoid the paradox of your twisted logic.

    Now don’t be a coward, refute what I say, if you can.

  23. False accusations. But where is your alkaline water cancer study?

  24. Have you got the alkaline-water/cancer study or not? I never claimed that there wasn’t any cancer research. There is billions wasted on cancer research. Most cancer research is spent on things that can be calculated not to work. If you cure cancer, people live, and drug companies and banks, lose a huge source of revenue. It is not to be assumed that the most influential people in this scandal want this to happen.

    So where is that alkaline water/cancer study? There is bound to be some sort of study with alkaline water, tangential at least, to the subject of cancer. But I don’t know what your point is. Once again you’ve lost track of the SPECIFIC HYPOTHESIS.

  25. “In theory, the impact of fiscal stimulus spending will in part depend on the type of economy we are considering.”

    From one of two terrible and ignorant articles by Judith Sloan. Proving that neoclassicals are really just a stripe of Keynesian. A Keynesian heresy. A Keynesian tribal group.

  26. So where is that alkaline water/cancer study? There is bound to be some sort of study with alkaline water, tangential at least, to the subject of cancer. But I don’t know what your point is. Once again you’ve lost track of the SPECIFIC HYPOTHESIS.

    I have looked for that Graeme but can’t find any data on it. This year I’m putting aside some time to read some cancer studies. Beginning to think that was a bad idea …

    There are studies on tumours and alkalinity but these are conflicting. It is not true that tumours are always acidic, some tumours have high alkalinity. That is the problem with cancers – not a single entity disease.

  27. Come on John H. If its a cancer tumor, then its got to be acidic. In that the INDIVIDUAL CANCER CELL is acidic. Now are you saying that the TUMOR ENTIRE is alkaline, and the cancerous cells that make up a large minority are acidic? If so this is neither here nor there. But I find this story hard to believe in the first place.

    The reality is that all animal or plant cells are electrical contrivances. And each one has one polarity or the other. Cancer cells are acidic. Who knows why they could wrap themselves in alkaline cells to form a tumor if your story is true, but either way it does not matter.

    No cell is going to survive, too far outside its polarity, since this must drain it of electrical energy. Further to that an alkaline environment is high oxygen, and while the cancer cell, and most of our pathogens, need oxygen, they surely don’t like too much of it.

    This is NOT a difficult subject John. This is full spectrum, lamestream dysfunction, leading to mass slaughter, and tortured death. And clearly so and without controversy.

    • This is NOT a difficult subject John.

      It is very difficult to me so I won’t bother you anymore with my thoughts on the subject.

      • You’ve got to exercise more mental and MORAL STRENGTH then this John. This is a scam involving mass murder. You have the capacity to review the data. But I want to see if you can exceed you moral weaknesses, that lead you to serial error in the global warming fraud.

  28. I thought I had posted a stupid Cambria comment, but on further reading it turned out to be alright. Quite well-informed.

  29. Robert Manne is on Q&A tonight so we can have a guernsey and see how he shapes up.

    I caught up with last week’s program on the weekend after the ever reliable Mike Carlton wrote in the SMH that Penny Wong last week absolutely creamed Hockey and Judith Sleaze. Crikey, she did and I loathe and despise the ALP.

    Sloan is a shrill hag who lacks gravitas, humanity, fluency and an iota of creditibility.

    What a liability for the right.

    • Unfortunately for women in politics what you look like does count. That’s sexism for you. And fact is Sloan looks like she needs a major makeover. And a bath.

      Not much anyone can do about the joyless pinched look about the mouth and eyes.

      They say every one gets the face they deserve in middle aged. And her character is writ large on her visage.

  30. Well. I don’t know about that. But what I object to is the current lock-step neoclassical error.

  31. GOP strategist says that Ron Paul will be on the GOP ticket:

  32. National polls put Ron Paul as number 2. Local GOP elections may often be rigged and was definitely rigged in Iowa.

  33. Hey Bird, thought you’d like Irish journalist Vincent Brown slapping around some EU banker panhandlers. Check it out. He gives them a good blast at the end.

  34. Yeah that is great CL. Thanks. I’m glad you are at least acknowledging something of this scandal. But do you see even the beginning of the scope of it?

    Supposing the value of your money is depreciating at 10% per year, and so inevitably everyone is up to their eyeballs in hock. Now someone comes along, and offers me-just-me one million in credit at 0% interest. So I pay out my cards, and my house, buy another two houses at bargain basement prices, and buy shares, just when there is a crash on and the superannuation accounts have been carpet-bombed.

    The whole point of a contraction, is assets are bargain basement prices. If certain favored people can then get unlimited credit at zero or subsidised interest, and they can get the Cantillon gains, then this is a dictatorship of those who have such access.

    And if the exploitation of the situation isn’t obvious enough, just pretend it is me who gets a million dollars of cheap credit, at each collapse. And lets just pretend that everyone knows, that I have the further capacity to extend another million in credit to ten 19 year old girls of my choosing YEARLY…….

    How much does it take to wake up neoclassical-Catallaxians to anti-economics and ruthless exploitation?

    Do I need to corrupt and spoil a dozen new 19 year olds each year …. for 19 years …… just to drive this reality home?

  35. Holy shit. Its looking like the shadow government has kicked me off my own blog.

  36. Well at least I’m having to jump through hoops to get back on.

  37. We don’t need to toady to every culture in the world. We don’t need to deny that some aspects of the Western tradition have been appalling, whilst some other aspects have been the best in recorded history, or in recorded history outside little known epocs of China and India (and probably epochs prior to the 12th century).

    Now most people accept this. And they think to themselves that they don’t need to defer to cultures not currently successful. But since success, in a world of shit, is about NOT HAVING WEAKNESSES in preference to having great strengths …. since this is the case, we may be prejudiced against great cultural subsets that are not successful, not for the fact that they didn’t have great virtues to them, but for the fact that they had weaknesses that allowed these cultural subsets to be undermined.

    But this isn’t the topic I turn my keyboard to right now. While its possible to think unkindly on cultural traits of a group whose culture is now second-tier ….. there is also the other intellectual mistake of being overwhelmed and unthinkingly worshipful, of a community and a culture, the individuals within, being extra-ordinarily successful. Here we come to the Jews.

    Edward Luttwak is a Jew. I like Edward Luttwak. I have learned from Edward Luttwak. He is an authentically brilliant man. I’ve learned from him just as I learned from so many brilliant Jews of his age, or older. I’ve got no problem giving credit where credit is due, and I haven’t ever gone against my support of the Israelis taking action with extreme prejudice whenever their little girls are threatened.

    What is my purpose here? I certainly would never want your ten year old boy to pull the pigtails of an 8 year old Jewish girl. I can remember we were incited in this way at school against the English (“pommy-bastards”). But lets please fucking recognise the stupidity, incompetence, intellectual dishonesty, and mean-spirited WHOREDOM, of someone like Michael Mann …… Lets recognise these traits for what they are (for fucksakes.)

    And there is this other problem. We see it from PZ Myers. We see it from Paul Krugman. We see it from these Jewish bigshot “intellectuals” time after time. They fucking don’t have the capacity for Athenian REASON. They just don’t have it. And so many of the non-Jews in academia in 2012, actually DO have it, or WOULD have it, if it wasn’t that they were given over to the cult of personality, when it came to false gods like Keynes, Einstein, Bohr, or all these irrational Jews running around, and in our face, right at the moment. Professor Keen and Professor Hudson come to mind here.

    Fellas. Its okay. Don’t be intimidated by these Jewish alleged-intellectuals. Sure; The average-IQ, of the average reformed-Jew, may be about 10 points higher, then the general population. Sure; they probably work harder then most of us. Sure; they probably get up earlier, are never constipated, never take vacations (or only pretend to to catch you off-guard) and SURE; they have their beds made before 4.00 am …….. and so forth.

    But they are NOT to be taken as authorities. ((((((Except strangely enough their rabbis, who are usually good to listen too, except it will bring you down if you listen to them too much.))))))))) Jewish intellectuals are not superhuman gods of reason. They aren’t. They are just not right. A book came out with the title “I’m okay, You’re Okay.” In this subject this is simply not applicable. When it comes to prominent (PROMINENT) Jewish intellectuals at the moment we say:
    “I’m Okay ….
    But you are NOT Okay.
    Matter of fact you are far from fucking okay.
    Matter of fact you are pretty damn unforgivably rotten…”

    Even the over-achievers, who really are the cream of the crop …. they are not the mainstreamers giving us the drizzling shits right now. George Reisman is our greatest living economist but he was sidelined, and he is an unknown, who taught at a university that you probably never heard of. A university that sounds like a soft-drink. There are so many American Negroes who you were ignoring when your fauned over Obama, and so many truly brilliant Jews who you ignore when you give even one nano-iota of your respect to Michael Mann. The over-respect for a Jewish-mainstream bigshot is just another form of racism, in that you are casting aside people of all backgrounds, who are actually doing the hard yards.

    The main thing is that in 2012, mainstreamer-Jewish science workers and intellectuals are not to be taken on faith, or to be used within any argument-from-authority. The mainstreamer-Jewish crowd are PARTICULARLY a bunch of ass-clowns in 2012. Its usually decades later you find a great man whose been doing brilliant work under a tirade of abuse and ostracism.

    There seems to be something fucking wrong with maybe 90% of these mainstreamer Jewish-intellectuals.

  38. When you want to know about some outfit …. like the CIA for example, its important to listen to people who know. Rather then take the Catallaxy faith-based approach and say “Ho ho he thinks the CIA deals drugs…”

  39. “The Federal Government’s recent court action to constrain The Australian Financial Review reporting on subsidies to an unsustainable automotive industry is a violation of all our rights.”

    We ought never have subsidies but this guest poster doesn’t understand economics. There is nothing to say that our automotive industry is unsustainable. Subsidies always create lack of sustainability. To blame the current state of affairs on something mysterious that these guys think they know about comparative advantage …… (to a man these people misunderstand the notion of comparative advantage) is just ignorance. We have a monetary-banking imbalance that makes our exports and ownership situation untenable in a general sense. This is usually blamed on a lack of tariffs and in a perverse way the catallaxians agree with putting the blame on lack of tariffs, but they have learnt to love our failure.

    Subsidies are always wrong but if we want to have a sustainable car industry we can have it, quite contrary to the voodoo approach to comparative advantage that these guys have an unaccountable emotional relationship with.


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: