Got no evidence? Can’t hold a rational discussion? Just call people names — smear them.
David Evans (my other half) pointed out that anyone who opposed the regulating class gets called a racist sooner or later (see those quotes at the end). Now it’s happened to him. Two weeks after getting a mention of climate “feedbacks” into The Age, he’s being called antisemitic. And on what basis? Wait for it… two years ago, on a different topic, Dr David Evans wrote the word “Rothschilds”. Then those who can’t think, but were keen to do a character assassination, leapt to use their psychic abilities, crack secret codes, and drew on their best kindergarten reasoning to call that “antisemitic”. The essay was about banking history and systematic flaws in our currency system, and there was no mention of any religion or any race. But no matter, it’s just another variation of the pathetic Holocaust denier meme. It’s what a smear-artist does — denigrate speakers to try to stop people hearing their message.
As usual, a lack of evidence doesn’t stop the rabid conspiracy-theory-spotters from writing reams of speculation about something that isn’t there and never was. David has never mentioned anything about a Jewish conspiracy, never even alluded to it, and of course, neither have I, nor would we.
Here’s the “chain of reasoning” (I’m using the term loosely):
Are the climate models exaggerating the feedbacks? –> David Evans said “Rothschild” once –> Other unrelated people who talk about the Rothschilds are nutters –> some nutters are anti-Semitic –> therefore, ergo, the models are right and Earth’s climate sensitivity is 3.3C with a feedback loop gain of 0.65!
Who knew? Anyone who writes about monetary history apparently can’t mention “Rothschild” without it neutralizing not only what they say on economics, but every word they utter on every other topic. Which is bad news for Niall Ferguson. He not only mentioned the Rothschilds, I’ve just discovered he wrote two whole books on them (Vol I and Vol II).
Not to state the bleeding obvious but you can’t discuss monetary history without the Rothschilds getting a mention.
Can we train a smear-merchant to think?
Who can say whether compulsory name-calling is deliberate or involuntary? Some people just don’t seem to be able to help themselves. For gullible followers of authority, everything in the world is assessed according to who they can “trust” to do their thinking for them — and given how badly they reason, it’s probably not such a bad strategy. You know: Is the climate warming? — Can I see your CV? But somewhere a minor mental handicap ends up being a modus operandi, and these activists become character-hackers. They spend hours hunting through biographies, looking for “reasons” to denigrate, smear or mock. Can they defame without achieving “defamation”, if you know what I mean?
We just wish they’d spend half the time looking at evidence that matters, satellites, radiosondes, stuff like that.
For the character-hacker, namecalling is a way to stop intelligent conversations. Did the Basel II accords increase monetary aggregates? Ooh Ooh they snort condescendingly — don’t listen to him — he’s a “&*$%&@!” (….insert evil flaw here).
Rhetorically, most of their argument (and there is only one) boils down to declarations of victory: “bwhahhahaha! LOL!”
No evidence or reason needed. It’s a bluff.
Can we train a smear-merchant to think? No. But we can help teach good people to ignore them.
Professors who think baseless smears are evidence?
What is unnerving is how far this simple strategy of audacious bluster goes in terms of impressing those high up in the pecking order. How could any school teacher be fooled by the teenage tactic? Well, lo and behold the marvel of higher education. What does being a “professor” mean when crude tricks are copied by people who ought not just to see through them, but to be able to train the next gen to figure them out too? People like, say “Professor” John Quiggin, member of Australia’s Climate Change Authority, and Prof of economics somewhere in Queensland. He was trying to have a discussion about climate science with a blogger (Sanjeev Sabhlok), and “thought” (I’m being generous) that an anonymous guy’s definition of a man with six degrees as a “certified conspiracy theorist/ antisemite/ tin foil hat/ nutter” neutralized the evidence from 3000 ARGO buoys and such like, and was worth emailing it as if it proves something about the climate.
Now neither of David nor I have had the pleasure of meeting Sanjeev, (we’d never heard of him just like he’d never heard of us). But we’d like to meet him now. His response to Quiggan says it all. Quiggan figures no one even needs to discuss the points David raised … because David is “a fraud and a liar” and “antisemitic” too.
Sanjeev bats it back on his blog:
“… if anyone knows who is this evil monster known as David Evans, please let me know. It may seem strange, but I’ve now got a feeling that anyone attacked by John (like Donna Laframboise) is likely to be an outstanding human being.
For instance, there is NO JOURNALIST in the world who has investigated IPCC more thoroughly than Donna. She is the world’s best investigative journalist. Or close to the world’s best. Yet, John called her a liar (before he then retracted but called her analysis amateurish).
Given John’s track record, it is quite possible that David Evans will turn out to be a brilliant nice man. I have no interest in David Evans, but given John’s charges, I might as well find out more. If he is anti-Semitic it won’t change his science (or my opinion of his science), but at least I’ll know that the science is being served to me by an evil man.”
Being a target of a smear-campaign is becoming something to brag about. ; -)
To answer your question Sanjeev, Dr David Evans is a world leading carbon modeler with six higher degrees in maths and stats, three from Stanford. He duxed Sydney Uni engineering, is doing maths research, spent 5 years at the Australian Greenhouse office and makes it possible for his wife to spend far too long on a computer in a quest to stop cheats and parasites from getting away with a rort. (Can’t everyone see the billions of dollars circling through this “crisis”?)
Does David’s stellar career make him right? No. But it means he’s worth listening to.
David predicted that they would do this, and the character-hackers performed exactly on cue:
“Annoy a member of this class sufficiently to strip away their veneer of politeness, and soon you will be called an “idiot” and eventually a “racist”.”
“If you oppose the regulating class, you will get called an “extremist”, a “nut”, a “conspiracy theorist”, “right wing”, and every variation of “stupid” and “ignorant”, irrespective of the merits of what you say. Say anything that mentions or might imply race and they will also call you a “racist”.”
The most cowardly defamation artists write anonymous blogs — presumably they aren’t proud of what they write, they know their reasoning is bogus, and their modus operandi is equivalent to the schoolyard bully. They don’t want their normal careers muddied with their transparent attempts to stop people having a reasonable conversation.
For the record, for what its worth (which is not much) one of my lifelong best friends is Jewish — I learned to cook Kosher, and how to keep Shabbat, and I’ve been a welcome guest in Jewish abodes in New York, London, Melbourne and Perth. And what has that got to do with anything?
Other posts about name-calling:
- “Conspiracy theorist” – just another form of namecalling from the class who want to be Global Rulers
- How arrogant art thy name-callers?
- Lomborg: uses irrational name-calling and denies the evidence
- The Branch Carbonian Cult
Well said and unfortunately so true.
From personal experience I too know that the first refuge of a scoundrel is abuse.
Can you train them to think? Not likely.
41
One thing is certain, Jo, is that by the time they tell you that you are ugglier than an octopus’ a$$#ole you can be quite certain that you have won the game, the set, and the match. They would never bother if you were not getting serious traction. So I would suggest that you and David need to start framing the best of these attacks for your display wall. They are, after all, your service medals in the fight for humanity itself.
It also helps to mention the fact that you are a registered gun owner. And like Winston Churchill, should let it be known that you take comfort in the fact that the only time you are actually allowed to shoot scumbags is in clear cases of self defence. Every cloud does, indeed, have a silver lining.
32
√
Well said, Motty!
21
Where you been Motty?
Good to see you’re still revving on 8 cyclinders!
31
Nothing personal and no offence intended Ian, and your first paragraph was fine. However, 2nd para very unhelpful IMHO and I’m very surprised you didn’t get snipped as it’s just the sort of comment Jo’s detractors would love to use against her.
[he didn;t get snipped because WC once said ““But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.” Mod oggi]
22
Thanks oggi. I can remember when WC said it and if that’s what Ian had written or pasted I would have applauded him. Perhaps it’s my age, but for the life of me, I still don’t get that message from Ian’s 2nd para. However, it’s Jo’s blog which you moderate well so I’m suitably chastened. On Winnie’s speeches, this one on the pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain still brings tears to my eyes. “In the field of human conflict, never have so many owed so much to so few”.
May I add that this blog and its posters have made a huge difference to my enjoyment of life and even at my age eexpanded my knowledge considerably. Cheers and thanks to all who have contributed.
22
The point of the second para, Keith, is that the next step for the serial abusers is the threat of violence. I have had them on a number of occasions, (in fact I was king hit on campus for my views back in 1976) and have tried a number of responses to them. The only one that ever made them pull their head in was the sentiments expressed in my second para.
And I always make a point of trying to find a positive aspect to all situations and when the situation involves threats to one’s person there are not a lot of options to choose from. Take your pleasures as they come and, as Brian sang, “always look on the bright side of death, before you draw your last terminal breath”.
And thanks Cohers and Geoff, my extensive network of spivs, pimps, informants and rehabilitated Stassi operatives are keeping me informed on your efforts. Well done.
20
Debate killers!
They are weak and they know it. The militant left has allways been the unproductive underdog in basic science and decelopment. For the first time they thought they had the upperhand that they so long wished for and they really dont know how to dicuss or debate sceince and think its done the sam way you discuss ideology, with its smearing and guilt by association.
They are just plain amateurs who use a statement from a journalists intepretaion of an alarmist headline as it was a Quote of karl marx. They really dont have a clue how to handle the scientific debate or its rules.
They are just simple wannabe “scientific” hangaround morons.
10
Slabadang
You got me. I went to the dictionary to look up decelopment.
00
Enjoyed your article greatly. Am totally in sympathy with its points.
Saul Alinsky began all this, at least in the horrific form that we experience it today, and was very programmatic about it. Alinskyites dominate academia in the US. “Robbo” was given a taste of it by Oreskes and her audience.
Sad times. Your courageous resistance is greatly appreciated.
10
These idiots are totally reliant on Authority. They cann’t think for themselves. They need trendy Journalists to tell them what’s the latest fashionable meme to latch on to.
What else can they do when the cann’t understand science ( which includes a lot of ‘science’ graduates) , but trust in the experts and indulge in cheap character aspersions..
They try to tell you what you should/must think, based on inferences from isolated words they’ve heard you’ve spoken.
But what else can you do, when you don’t have the use of your own brain and just seek emotional comfort in the likes consensus?
There are careers to be made in telling such people what to think.
10
And what has that got to do with anything?
brooksie? matty? tristy?
00
For myself, my several years of trying to get the message out on one particular site, have earned me at least a score of articles / ‘art,’ attempting to smear and ridicule me.
Slolwy but surely, those people are going down, and their articles are being deleted. They won’t learn a damned thing from it, but, there Is satisfaction to be had in knowing that the various ignoramuses (who have not been able to answer a single point I have made), are (so far) too cowardly to come after me in new accounts.
00
Don’t mention the war …
10
That links coming up
‘invalid Video ID’
in YouTube, Rereke.
Is it right ?
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3F%3D7xnNhzgcWTk&=7xnNhzgcWTk&gl=GB
00
Thanks Joe.
I use a secure search engine, that hides who I am (and where I am), and I forgot to adjust for that.
The link should be: here
00
Ah the Classics. Nothing beats a bit a Fawlty Towers.
And to the subject, we British just cann’t help ourselves.
00
I suppose this means we can’t write or talk about the history of wine, the wine industry, and the great wines of France? Can we still drink wine?
Okay, then, where’s the beer? The problem here is: Baron Robert Philippe de Rothschild married Nelly Beer, a great-grand-niece of Giacomo Meyerbeer [wikipedia].
00
When you read the bile that flows from warmists you sometimes wonder when they’re going to realise that they’re their own worst enemy. While I respect and favour the sceptic side, I suspect we’re not doing the damage to the AGW argument that all the fantastic hard work deserves. The real victories have been own goals by the other side.
Here we have a perfect example of an open minded guy who has been polarised by the words of a rabid warmist. He’s probably not alone, this sort of thing must be turning off the undecided in droves. I wonder when some of the decent scientists are going to realise they’re on the wrong side. No matter what the truth about AGW, warmists are going about the management of science and policy all wrong. Scepticism isn’t the enemy of climate science, it’s a necessary facet.
This clip always makes me think of how decent warmists might have a eureka moment and change sides.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY
01
🙂 Very good clip. I’d never seen that one before.
The warmists have belief in supposed moral superiority though, in that, in their own minds, they’re doing it for your own good, even if you don’t accept it. The National Socialists never had any such delusions about helping their victims.
00
Jo, that was a most wonderful spray, a pleasure to read. With you 100%, it’s time to demolish the left with facts and rational debate.
00
Agree. Prof. Quiggin is an economist at University of QLD. That makes him a climate expert in the mould of Stern or Garnaut. Neither of those gentlemen bothered asking the question about proof of AGW but simply accepted it and then built their crazy story from there. If an economists model is as flawed as the climate models they use as a base then whatever they say is going to be seriously wrong. Did Quiggin for example predict the GFC or the current slow down in China? Not that I read anywhere. Economists are like astrologers and mind readers; never seen one yet that predicts the winning lotto numbers. They are best left to tell us what happened not what will happen.
Quiggin is a great fit for the other alarmists on the climate commission. So far they have proved they don’t know history and have no concept of science and they all despise hard data. Just the crew we need to plan our future.
10
But mareeS, can you actually expect someone to engage in rational debate who believes:
a) that essential-for-all-life trace gas CO2 is a pollutant:
b) that the addition in volume terms of a fractional percentage more will result in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming:
c) that even if not true, we should turn lives, world industries and economies upside down based on “the precautionary principle”
(d) and doesn’t realise or care that to do so would deny millions of the world’s poverty-stricken people lacking basic human necessities like sufficient food, clean water, sanitation, basic health care etc., access to cheap reliable proven sources of energy, the absolute essential requirement to start helping them improve their lives.
Especially when in so many instances the very livelihood and reputation of those CAGW proponents hangs on them maintaining and promoting their “belief”?
00
They get to repeat all the worst excesses, deprivation and destruction of 3rd world nations (particularly in Africa), without a glimmer of conscience or even getting their hands dirty. Marvellous isn’t it, genocide without even lifting a finger- just like it on facebook instead.
00
Apologies to all about the vagueness of my comment above, talk about lost in translation, much of the thrust of my comment ended up on the cutting room floor. I was trying to suggest that “they” (meaning those who are pushing and advocating carbon trading and such atrocities as biofuels) are replicating the worst evils of colonialism, and whether it is intentionally or not is irrelevant. Because they are not physically causing harm that they can see with their own eyes and feel with their own hands, doesn’t make them any less culpable just because they were swept along in a tide of group think which so happens to lead to mass starvation or spirals already debt- ridden and technologically deprived nations into a deeper abyss of poverty.
We live in a world now where if it is not on the 6 o’clock news it never happened, and consequences of every action are whitewashed, disconnected or subverted in the spin cycle of social media. I would like to think people could start to analyse both the intended and unintended consequences of their ideology, and accept ownership honestly of it by looking at it dispassionately and with a modicum of objectivity. I dare to dream.
10
They have other ways of trying to shut you up, it’s all becoming quite sinister.
pickeringpost.com is still down.
00
Apparently the huge amount of traffic was causing major issues with other sites on the server, and PP has been “asked” to move to somewhere that can cope.
go here for now
00
Thanks for that, Andy – a few more threads to weave together.
Anyway, I got sore eyes reading text on the monitor so I took some time to watch The Bolt Report (first time ever!) on the larger screen a few minutes ago. This topic came up – as previously advised – but Bolt, Mundine and Kreuger were all extremely circumspect. A little nudge along the path, perhaps, but certainly nothing sensational. Pity.
00
Hi LevelGaze. If you haven’t already done so, get a copy of The Weekend Australian. National Chief Correspondent Hedley Thomas has the latest and has pulled it all together very well in a timeline of events. The dam wall is slowly crumbling and many more cracks are staring to appear!
00
Thanks AndyG55 got through and read episode 5 but now seems to be not working. Seems many are trying to shut Larry down. A commentator with possibly some knowledge of the law indicated that if Gillard sued for defamation everything would be open to discovery to confirm the extent of truth in the allegations. Larry has mentioned Shorten, Howes, Roxon, Ludwig, Arbib and others. (Must say I was not aware of a connection between Shorten & Roxon) That would be a pretty big can of worms that will damage the Labor party for a long time.
00
Hi cementafriend. After you link, click Facebook and all will be revealed. The Shorten and Roxon former relationship has been well known just as was the Gillard and Craig Emerson. Simple human chemistry on the face of it and no can of worms there.
Discovery of documents is the big killer for anyone on the Labor/Union side contemplating suing. That, and the fact so much is already on the public record, including sworn affidavits and Stat.Decs that attest to the likely truth of most of the basic issues. Discovery would open too many far-reaching cans of worms!
00
Me again LevelGaze re “it’s all becoming quite sinister.” Unfortunately The GWPF has found this out the hard way. Anthony Watts has some helpful suggestions for other sceptical blogs.
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/17/Meefing-up-security-on-skeptical-blogs/
00
Hi Keith:
Mistake in your link: beefing, not Meefing.
This might work.
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/17/beefing-up-security-on-skeptical-blogs/
00
Thanks Bob. I had checked and fixed it in “preview” but still managed to post the “wrong” one!
00
The road to personal and scientific erudition and enlightenment is long, tiresome, exciting, frustrating at times, rewarding when you go up another step, filled with long hours of learning at the feet of those who already know “it”, and filled with long hours of study and refining the knowledge and experience.
No doubt I have left stuff out.
Yes it is hard work demanding discipline to educate yourself.
And this is why so few actually do it.
This is why there are so many who want to stand by and wait for a Guru, in this case a Climate Change Guru or Archbishop, to draw them in to the warmth and comfort of having someone else:
THINK FOR YOU.
The “Name Callers” outnumber the few who bother to find the truth because it is very hard work. Does this mean that the
“Name Callers” are lazy?
Possibly; but I think it is just an expression of a society which wanted to make a more “inclusive” society and so took the
discipline out of our schools and public life.
In schools we now have science and maths courses affectionately known as “Maths in Space” and “Science in Space” where no discipline
or effort is required as the Scientific images are absorbed from the TV screen in the front of the classroom switched to a David
Suzuki program on how to fill up his bank account or an ABC program on Siense.
We have an enormous problem in that unlike 50 years ago, where everyone lived in the real world, we now have many. especially the Green tinged masses, who live in a virtual fantasy land which provides for all of their physical and emotional needs through the wonders of the modern “Caring Society”.
The only thing missing in their lives is “Self Determination”.
Their lives have only one measure.
That they have been led to understand how they should vote to be part of a group.
Their political puppet masters see them as little more than one forty thousandth of the total vote in a State of Federal Government
voting base somewhere in an electorate near you.
The walking dead.
KK
🙂
So much for the Lucky Country.
00
“In schools we now have science and maths courses affectionately known as “Maths in Space” and “Science in Space” where no discipline ”
been there, tried to teach that. 🙂
00
Hi Andy
Not sure why they were called that, my kids used to talk about those courses.
Possibly because you could get through them even if you were “Spaced Out”?
KK 🙂
00
“2 Unit Maths in Society” now called “General Mathematics”
Don’t know what the science one was called
00
Speaking of Mathematics, around 6 Months back now, I left a comment at one of the media outlets that allow commenting. The article had something to do with the imminent demise of coal fired power.
A couple of people fired back, flaming me, and here, they are flaming not me personally, because they don’t even know me, but they make that call based on what has been said, an important point pertaining to this Thread here at Joanne’s site.
They mentioned the old favourite stand by, that Concentrating Solar Plant in Spain, that on one occasion produced its full power for a full overnight period.
My reply was that, notwithstanding that single 24 hour period, the average yearly Capacity Factor was barely 65%, or around 16 hours of power each day.
The comeback was that Bayswater was not that much better than that (indicating to me that the person replying knew very little about power generation) and with those Capacity Factors being the same, (in his mind anyway) then a plant of this nature could feasibly replace Bayswater.
My reply was relatively simple, stating only the phrase that the Spanish Solar Plant had a Nameplate Capacity of 17MW, and that Bayswater had a Nameplate Capacity of 2640MW.
The further reply from this one Commenter consisted of 4 words:
I went back to the other things I was doing.
Tony.
00
I have concluded that this is purely due to the way these people think.
If they don’t have the brain cells to understand someones perspective, they recall the wrong scripts in their mind – probably linked to the “Evil doers” thought. From there they look for any keywords they can match to concepts around “Evil Doers” – if they find a keyword somewhere, then they use that label.
But this one is even worse – when recalling their script around “Evil Doers”, they couldn’t find any concept related to it with David, but they found he mentioned rothschild somewhere and then made the jump to antisemitism so their mental script could fit.
To put this in english – it’s kind of like concluding your hypothesis is correct and when the data doesn’t fit it, you just massage the data. Only in this case, the comparison would be that they couldn’t massage the data, so they made it up entirely.
Gee, they wouldn’t do something like that would they?
BTW -if youwant a clear example of how smart people can do evil things with data (and get away with it), Edwin Blacks book here)
00
There’s a Pavlovian aspect to the Greens and CAGW believers. I had this same conversation on another blog when David’s name came up recently. The CAGW-ers were right into the Rothschild thing.
Their problem is they cannot seem to Google. Or that they jump to conclusions. Or, if you are feeling uncharitable, they’re smearing on purpose (I’m not sure this is true, credulousness is a better explanation).
They shut up after I explained that Jo and David are goldbugs with a business. If you wish to stay in business you need to advertise. For Dr Evans’ type of business the writing and placement of knowledgeable articles on the history of gold would be usual. I read many such articles – for example the Cognis SX guys have this down to an artform (good articles too!).
And what do you find when you read up on the history of gold…? One name above all.
All this takes about a minute to find. That’s how long it took me.
Believers of the CAGW religion can play really dirty. While I don’t like the cold and while it will be harmful for many people, the cooling expected with the current solar grand minimum will have one great benefit: it will overturn the power of the CAGW econazi consensus.
00
Bruce, strange as it seems, we’re not goldbugs — goldnerds, yes. Gold is not always the best sector of the market to be in. There will be a time when we will move back to other asset classes.
00
The Rothschilds may have already beat you to it, or did they jump to soon 🙂
http://rense.com/general51/roth.htm
00
Jo – Sorry, I should be more careful! I meant as a positive term. Unfortunately though I suffer personally from overdose of gold, having worked in gold mines twice. Once in a gold room drilling bars of doré for samples. Tends to mentally turn it into just another metal, so I don’t class myself as a gold nerd (as nickel nerd sometimes yes, but on current LME Ni price no not right now).
00
Bruce
Nickel nerds are a lost cause – worse than gold nerds I’d say. But I must admit it’s nice when we get it right.
Ravey is doing nicely.
Cheers,
Speedy
00
Bruce — Your comments re the Rothschild issue shows what has been evident for sometime. The AGW believers are well organised behind the scenes probably with huge e-mail lists that fly into action when an article such as David’s is published. The “head office” digs up the dirt or counter argument
(which is usually done very quickly so is often very low quality) and sent out to the foot soliders who swallow it without thinking and spread it on. So that don’t “need” to do a Google search to check anything , by their way of thinking –“head office” has spoken so that’s enough.
I read recently a transcript of an interview with Richard Muller –the lady interviewing him said she had been trained by Al Gore –I think I recall Al Gore going around after his film was splashed about holding “training” sessions for the “foot soldiers”.
00
Is this the bloke … Sanjeev Sabhlok ? http://www.linkedin.com/in/sabhlok
He’s just a bureaucrat in the Department of Treasury and Finance, Government of Victoria (Australia) … if this is the bloke then maybe he should explain himself publicly.
00
Sanjeev doesn’t need to explain anything. Perhaps it’s harder to read his paragraphs out of their full context (which is quite a lot of blog posts on this topic). He’s obviously skeptical, and being sarcastic or satirical when he asks who the monster is?
00
Sorry, Jo … All good then, must’ve missed the /sarc in his tone 🙂
00
The classic ad hom technique is the ‘guilt by association’, which I notice Quiggin uses. Evans must be a nutter because he’s a confrere of Monckton and Nova. Monckton must be a nutter because he’s a confrere of Nova and Plimer. Plimer must be a nutter because he’s a confrere of Monckton and Evans. It’s irrefutable proof!
00
Yep. You hang around with idiots, people think you are an idiot. They could be wrong, but its a reasonable assumption.
10
I think that is very rude of you John. I’ve often thought you wrong, but rarely rude?
00
Often but not always, you come out with some inanity John.
DIFFERENTIATION; look it up. Hanging around with idiots, even a person of average intelligence can appear to be a genius.
So your ‘reasonable assumption’ is not reasonable at all.
Very much like your ‘reasonable belief’ in AGW.
00
I respectfully disagree, John. I am sure there is somebody on the planet who does not think that you are an idiot!
00
Well brooksie, seeing as you hang out with mann, schmidt et al….
00
John, I’ll reserve comment until and unless you provide a list of whom you “hang out” with.
00
On a facebook page called Tony Abbott will never be PM, Abbott is described as
I made a comment there and the reply from them was ‘typical of right wing nut jobs. attacking the man and not the message!
00
Hi Geoff,
Seems all you have to do to get elected so you can “save the world” is manage “perceptions” of Reality.
It is no longer necessary to actually deal in Reality itself.
Just the Perception.
Just long enough to get Elected.
Just long enough to “Sequester” $200 billion dollars with all those who helped get you there.
Just long enough so that all those trusting dupes don’t wake up to the Reality of the Loan of AUD $140 Billion you have left them to pay off.
Ah the joys of being able to live in the Perception of Reality.
It’s a great place and can be found in the ether somewhere between that Cathedral of Modern Learning, the ABC, and that bastion of
scientific inquiry, The Sydn$y Morning H$rald.
God Save Us All.
Because the Governor General Wont.
KK
Not Smiling.
00
Also in contrast to the facts, in this case that he is very supportive of his sister who he endorsed in her candidature for Sydney Mayor preselection.
Truth does not seem to mean anything to these people though.
00
Those of us who are critical of Israel get called “anti-semitic” all the time. We get used to it.
Interestingly, I saw a comment in an AGW sceptic blog which included Warmists in a grab bag of Marxists and anti-Zionists. (The writer clearly though Marxism was a bad thing, and Zionism was good.)
The idea is that if someone disagrees with you on issue X, they will also hold all the other views you find reprehensible. Childish and illogical, but very, very common.
00
Hi RoHa
Not sure why you are using Labels like Zionist.
If you are not anti-Semitic you could perhaps show it more clearly by saying what you find wrong about Israel.
It has its faults BUT.
No doubt you are aware that Israel is the most egalitarian, reasonable place in the mid east possibly apart from turkey.
They also have people who appear to be religious fanatics but on balance I’d feel safer living there than in the other places nearbye.
KK
00
That was the label used by the commenter, but I use it of myself as well. Anti-semites are bigoted against Jews. Anti-Zionists are people whothink that the Zionist ideology is evil. A lot of Jews are anti-Zionists.
This blog is for global warming, so I’m not going to discuss it here.
If you really want to find out what is wrong with Israel, go to
http://mondoweiss.net/
We can discuss it there.
00
Hi RoHa
The Global Warming scam that we are now exposing shows that we in the West have lost a great deal of control over our Governments.
In that we are not alone.
In some respects it may be that on occasion, elements of the Israeli government go too far, but I would suspect that the unpleasant side of Israel is not something that the bulk of Israelis would be happy about.
There are also in the middle East a number of countries where they would love to have the problems that we in the west and Israel have with their elected reps.
Most would never have experienced an election and would think that even our faulty systems to be an improvement on their present circumstances.
00
This matter was raised by a person on the catallaxy blog some weeks ago.
No economist, but it seems to me that the system of carbon (dioxide) trading operating in Europe and proposed here by the present government is similar to a new form of fiat currency (government created, of no fixed value and no intrinsic value) which is naturally highly attractive to bankers (and ‘banksters’) but otherwise unproductive and costly.
The tendency to see antisemitism in ‘code words’ and elsewhere is a form of psychological projection by people who have deep prejudice themselves which they are unable to acknowledge.
00
If you go here Jo, you will understand why Niall Ferguson can say what he likes about the Rothschilds without drawing any fire.
But as I’ve said before, the problem is not the Rothschilds or any other ‘financier’. The problem is government & its tendency to lean on the financiers to promulgate themselves, of course to the mutual advantage of the financiers. It’s called ‘legal tender’ or, they control our money.
Only if you understand the very special nature of money will you understand why you can’t expect not to have the ‘anti-semitic’ card pulled on you if you mention the name Rothschild. The link I gave is a good start.
00
I left out “If you go here & then click on the link The Ascent of Hooey, listed under Recent Commentaries.
00
The basic questions arising in my mind when you see such aggressive posturing and attempts to besmirch the opponents (or even just critics) of a doctrine, is –
“Do these economists, politicians, NGO’s, investment bankers/financial houses, renewable energy/ multinational manufacturing companies, government bureaucrats or even scientists even actually care whether CO2 actually causes global warming? Do they care whether renewables actually are workable or even feasible? Do they care what collateral damage will occur as a result of the policy decisions based on these beliefs? Does being thought to be in the “right” among a crowd of fellow acolytes outweigh actually being “right”? Does “the dream” outweigh the truth, the ideal trump the reality?”
If we want to talk about guilt by association, anybody associated with Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen or Paul Ehrlich should be aware of the old adage about glass houses and throwing stones.
00
Quiggin was a brilliant teacher then he started a blog and became just another polluting the interwebs. Sound familiar, Jo?
I think your blog’s run out of steam. A growing proportion of posts are on topics with very little to do with science and the rest are just repeats in drag. So what’s new?
00
So tell us oh wise one how much of the “climate debate” has been about science instead of regurgitated mantra and creative fantasies to try to scare the population?
00
Good point Bernd.
We have examined the “science” of CAGW and found the secret not to lie there, in the science.
Now we are following the money trail which will lead us to the reality of CAGW and the whole point of it.
Money, power and control.
KK
00
So, talk science Dylan; noone’s stopping you; unlike Quiggin; sound familiar Dylan?
00
Oh, this blog’s run out of steam, eh?
You’d be the first to throw some more coal and petrol on the fire then? 😀
1. Catastrophic:
1a) Which evidence shows even a single period in Earth’s history had a massive biodiversity loss immediately after a warming in climate? OR,
1b) Which evidence shows that any marine species critical to the human food chain is incapable of surviving a -0.15 pH drop in sea water?
2. Anthropogenic:
2a.) Which evidence shows that the majority of late 20th century warming was caused by human activity and NOT by a combination of UHI biased measurements, statistical fraud, and natural cycles? AND
2b.) How did the global warming rate of 1912 to 1942 equal the global warming rate of 1975 to 2005 before the majority of modern deforestation had occurred and before the majority of industrial CO2 has been emitted?
3. Global:
3a.) Which evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was isolated to Western Europe as opposed to being a global period 0.25°C warmer than today? AND
3b.) Which evidence shows that the Greenland Ice Sheet has ever completely melted in a climate of +0.3 above the 1980-2010 baseline in spite of the GISP2 ice cores showing a continuous uninterrupted ice formation record over the last 10,000 years that included periods 0.5°C warmer than today?
4. Warming:
4a.) Where is the IPCC-endorsed physical radiative mechanism to explain why there will be 2 degrees of warming from a doubling of CO2 in spite of there being no significant global warming in either land temperature or OHC measurements for 15 years during a time of record CO2 emissions? AND
4a.) Where is there a global circulation model which can closely hindcast the previous 50 years of global temperatures and also forecasts more than 0.3 degrees per decade from now until 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario?
You wouldn’t deny natural climate change would you? No pressure.
00
Poor Dylan,
You just keep telling yourself that mate – just like the Bligh government. There there, of course you can’t be wrong Dylan. Carry on.
This lot here is just getting started.
00
only pollution I can see around here, starts with D !!
you pusillanimous git !!
00
“Quiggin was a brilliant teacher”
not your teacher then. cos you sure ain’t leant nuffin’
00
“A growing proportion of posts are on topic ”
Yes they are.. 🙂
00
Feel better after the name calling guys? 🙂
00
As they say — if you want to know what a Leftist is thinking, just look at what they are accusing you of.
Because their deep internal rage and hate usually spills out as projecting their faults onto other people.
Why they carry so much rage and hate is a psychological question — it stems from an inability to look at one’s own faults and inadequacies, to acknowledge one’s own dark side, as it were.
They have to expend a great deal of psychic energy maintaining these defences; denial of their own faults, and projections of those faults onto other people. Anyone who criticises or challenges those defences thus automatically becomes a target for the inchoate rage which is stirred up.
Leftist politics provides a refuge for hate-filled people — they find a moral basis for their rage, confirmation that their hate is normal, and support for a policy of smashing things, which is the only action that makes them feel good.
00
I suspect that nutcases on both the left and the right are like that…
00
Against all reason my Unitarian friend “believes” the “science” of CAGW. When I hear believe and science in the same sentence I know I am dealing with a hopeless Jonestown cool aid groupie.
00
Hi Jo, Went to Sanjee site and read the post.He has a link to your site, I left a comment for him telling him about Dave and you. His post is good,he said he does not care what your views are as long as your science is right, and he does read like he is being satarical towards John. He writes with common sense like you do and wants the same from other people. I do not think he is in Australia i think he is in India.
00
That’s also a concern I had. Since he is Indian it is possible he can intend sarcasm without phrasing it in a way that a native English speaker would recognise as sarcasm. Satire and sarcasm can be subtle things, and at first I thought from the above excerpts Sanjeev was having a go at David. Only after reading his blog post in context did I understand that he was supportive of David’s efforts, at least out of concern for focusing on the Science.
00
Sorry, his link to you is in his useful links sidebar on the right about halh way down the page.
00
This intolerant dynamic is everywhere…..for example, Andrew Bolt seems to accuse any one who has a knowledge of monetary history as anti semitic as well. I see the urge on the left and the right to shut down alternative views (free speech) different from their own as identical. The urge to shut up a David Evans is no different to the urge to throw Bradley Manning in a dungeon to shut him up.
00
Not a good analogy there Nic, as Mr Manning broke an oath to his government as a serviceman as well as breaking local law. If I had done such a thing when I briefly served I’d’ve ended up in the clink too. Mr Manning made a choice, that is his right, but oathbreaking has legal consequences. Tt cannot be otherwise in a law based society.
Not sure I can recall Mr Bolt suggesting any monetary historians were or are antisemites either. I have been reading his blog a while and I notice such things. You got any links?
00
“Andrew Bolt seems to accuse any one who has a knowledge of monetary history”
well.. leaves you out… but please, show us where he made this accusation ?
00
Manning was a traitor his country.
Evans is just the opposite… he is part of the resistance.. Keep up the good work, David !!
Gillard and the ALP/Greens are the traitors.
00
Yeah, but Andrew Bolt is just a stirrer. He can’t actually believe the stuff he says.
00
“He can’t actually believe the stuff he says.”
says JB?
roflmao.. oh the ironing !!!!
00
I suspect he does. Therein lies the tragedy of it.
00
The AGW pushers have been very successful in the field of language and Doublespeak. To them, “Denier’ is a wonderful word they can spit out with venom and they believe it discredits all opposing aguments and anyone who dares to question their “settled science” “consensus”. Perish the thought they’d even consider engaging in rational debate!
To them it has become a one word “demolish all” answer to all opposition just as they seem to believe the words “climate change” say it all about the supposed impact of Man.
I still have not found anyone who explains this phenomenon better than Dr.Vincent Gray and he was truly prophetic in his article “The Triumph of Doublespeak – How UNIPCC Fools Most of the People All of the Time.”
“They have suddenly changed the meaning of “climate change” which had previously not involved any particular cause, to one restricted only to its being ”attributed” to direct or indirect human changes in atmospheric composition. This means that they do not have to prove that all changes in climate have this cause. All they need to do is to get people to use the term “climate change”, and they will suddenly discover that by saying these words they support the IPCC “attribution” whether they know it or not. There does not need to be any actual evidence. All that is needed is for somebody. such as an IPCC climate scientist, an environmental activist, a politician, or a journalist, to “attribute” it. The “attribution” does not even need to be “direct”. “Indirect” can be as obscure as they chose it to be.
This device has been an outstanding success. Any “climate change” which is disapproved of, be it a heat wave, cold spell, flood, drought, or hurricane, is today routinely “attributed” to human influence on the atmosphere.
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/index.php?option=com_search&searchword=nzclimate
Item 5 Envirotruth No.212
00
Jo
One of the more reliable gauges of an individual’s character is the type of enemy they make.
Unbeknownst to themselves, these guys have just paid David a very serious compliment!
Cheers,
Speedy
00
Read the original article in “Watching the Deniers”
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-protocols-of-the-elder-climate-scientists-and-banksters-is-the-media-is-twigging-to-just-how-extreme-some-sceptics-are/
I’m not sure if comments are closed.
00
I think the only comments allowed with that one are the jones’ who drank the kool aide.
00
The stupid thing about “anti-Semitism” or any use of the word “race” is that it so often has very little to do with the physical reality of race (which from DNA studies is virtually nothing), and much more to do with how the idea of race can be subverted as an excuse used by ignoramuses for why their own life isn’t as good as they’d like. It’s a mental projection; a convenient and simplistic target in a futile blame game.
Let us momentarily assume for the sake of argument that the Rothschilds latched onto the profit opportunities of environmental crises very early on and have assisted the CAGW scam from 1990 onwards via targeted investments.
If the carbon tax ever bankrupts our country, we are not going to care that the Rothschilds were Ashkenazi Jews. We are not going to be reassured that the consequences of their actions were for them nothing personal, it was just business. We are just going to want our freedom and prosperity back. When looking for theories that can actually help make our reality better, race is a non-starter.
We shouldn’t stop at blaming the people for the climate scam, rather find a fault in the society that produced it and fix it so that re-occurrences of such monumental futility can be prevented.
00
[…] He not only mentioned the Rothschilds, I’ve just discovered he wrote two whole books on them (Vol I and Vol […]
00
As alarmists are never prepared to debate the subject and science of CAGW with sceptics in public, then there is obviously little or no foundation to their arguments.
Hence the alarmists’ need for smears and abuse to compensate for their lack of credibility.
Of course, the alarmists’ counter argument is that it is beneath their dignity, or something equally lame, to discuss their ‘science’ with anyone who is not a ‘climate scientist’.
For me, the refusal to publicly debate the subject of CAGW is the Achilles Heel of the alarmists. At worst, it obviously means fraud, at best a collection of pompous super egos.
I never like to see comments about anti-semitism, communism etc here, as the core of the CAGW scam is almost 100% generated by government, or quasi-government, bureaucrats – a group of generously paid individuals motivated by the need to perpetuate their comfortable life styles, jobs, and/or fame, and not by their political beliefs. They, in turn, are supported by the pseudo-green ‘science’ of the greenie organisations, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, whose organisational structures and fund raising methods are almost identical to the extremist religious cults which infest parts of America’s Bible Belt.
00
This is the best take down I’ve seen so far on the abhorrent ‘racist’ tag that the left seems so fond of chucking about:
Kira Davis open letter to MSNBC
She nails it.
00
Some of you might enjoy reading as Quiggins economics are demolished:
http://brookesnews.com/091805abcquiggin.html
00
Jo & David, I know that you personally will shrug off the name calling, as you would any false accusation. However, there are two related developments growing in recent decades. One is arrogance of politicians and bureaucrats, with the “them and us” syndrome, by which they see us the citizens as an amorphous mass used to play games to refine methods for the taking of money and putting it in the pocket, to the extent of telling deliberate lies. This is ugly and I’ve never seen it so bad. The second development is the increasing bitterness and threatened reprisals now becoming more frequent & intense as losers realise the folly of thinking they were winners in the global warming phase of history. Often, offenders can be in both groups.
If there are going to be people hurt, unfortunately they might well be people who are young now and have to face more of this as they age. I think of a new grandchild of ours and wish that he will be exposed to people of kindness, not bitterness, as he develops.
Just as there was less ethnic tension when groups made jokes about each other (apart from some known exceptions), rather than the race hate legisation of today, one can turn name calling into a joke contest. For example (close your eyes, ladies) we had a boss who was called “The Count with the silent ‘o'”. Laugh at the ugly face and the arrogance decreases.
00
It can get very ugly too when religious ‘certainty’ is hooked up with political power. It took over 130 years from Luther’s 95 theses to the Peace of Westphalia before people eased off from killing each other. And the 30 Years War at the end of that period was one of the most vicious and bloody.
It looks unlikely we’ll see violence but the undercurrents may become nastier as the CAGW belief system is further frustrated.
00
– Frederich Nietzsche (“On the Genealogy of Morals” 1887)
00
‘Smearing’: the Defence Lawyers MO. If you can’t rebut the evidence, attack the credibility of the witness.
00
Criminality, denigration and dehumanization are not equivalent.
Given the benefit of the doubt (as to intent), denigration equals insult. Dehumanization is not insult.
() Stupid is a denigration: a stupid person needs adult supervision, but is still human, and opinions held are still valid – even if likely incorrect.
() Nutter, denier, is dehumanization: someone possessed of these qualities is devoid of essential humanity – either fanatically-dangerously blind, or evil (or both).
() Anti-Semitic is a thought crime: not an insult, rather an accusation of criminality.
Muslims have had these things codified and implemented in their religion+ideology+legal-system+political-system (via the conflation fallacy therefore NOT a religion [apple+pear ~= apple]), for the past one and a half thousand years.
Do get with the times.
00
cb, “nutter” just means that you hold beliefs against the evidence. I think “skeptics” are nutters, because I think the evidence in the other direction is rather overwhelming. There are, of course, “skeptics” who are not nutters. They know better, but for whatever reason, seek to mislead.
BTW, I like John Quiggin.
And I’m a bit anti-Jewish. I just object to anyone calling themselves the “chosen people”, as if they are better than everyone else. But of course most religions are like that…
00
If Evidence be with us, then who be against us?
It is one thing for competing religions to each claim they exclusively have the ear of the Almighty like it was some sort of Coke versus Pepsi war.
It is quite another for different sides of a scientific debate about an allegedly real problem to each claim they have the evidence on their side.
Either one side is deluded, or there is not actually enough evidence to decide one way or the other. It would not be the first time in Science that this has happened.
Take as just one example the conventional current definition for circuit diagrams which are designed with a positive current flowing from positive to negative. The reality is that electric current is carried by electrons which are negatively charged and flow from negative to positive.
Very early in the study and deployment of electrical systems it became clear that a consistent standard was needed, or else when different components made by people from different schools were connected together, sparks would literally fly. There was much argument about which way current really flowed because at that stage they had no way to tell the difference between negative particles flowing from left to right, or positive particles flowing from right to left, the result would be the same. Neither side actually had enough evidence to decide one way or the other. So what did they do? They got a panel of experts together and formed a consensus. (You might even call them the International Panel on Circuit Charge.) They left the batteries and microscopes at home and instead took a vote on it. Thus the “positive conventional current” fiction was born (only to be disproved just a few years later by Robert Millikan’s oil drop experiment.)
What if the “climate skeptics” of today were not entirely right? What if neither side actually has enough evidence to decide one way or the other whether CO2 is a powerful GHG? Unlike the fiction of conventional current we will notice a practical difference between predictions of warming and cooling. Well since the warmists are such ardent students of history, they would know that in the face of such uncertainty it would simply be folly to band together a bunch of “experts” to impose a “consensus” in order to “settle” the debate.
Oh! 😀
00
No John, clearly the evidence refutes CO2 warming. I think it was Newton that once said, no number of experiments would prove my hypothesis however it would take but one to refute it. In other words, CO2 warming cannot be taken as truthful until there is not one rebuttal left standing. From where I sit, every line of inquiry has standing rebuttals suggesting against the ridiculously large 0.67 loop gain feedback hypothesis inherent in the IPCCs view of CAGW. Science therefore would take the NULL Hypothesis as truthful, feedback is near zero or negative IE CAGW is a fairy tale.
I have tried to reason with you with mathematics before but you steadfastly refuse to do the math and retain your belief despite logic – This makes you a theologist – you just believe, because you think you aught to.
Bob
00
The IPCC ‘consensus’ is based on 6 major mistakes, aimed at creating the fake positive feedback. It’s easy to show there can be no SO2-AGW and the GHE is a fixed level set by the first ~900 ppmV water vapour. There is no direct thermalisation, a physical impossibility because of quantum exclusion. The IR absorption seen at TOA is self absorption of thermal IR.
This is the biggest scientific fraud in History and was started I suspect by the 1981 Hansen et. al. paper which claimed we have 33 K present GHE, 3.7 x too high because they neglected lapse rate warming, unprofessional behaviour by the reviewers in my view.
00
Kind of like:
Not all those who fraudulently manipulate data are ‘climate scientists’, but all ‘climate scientists’ fraudulently manipulate data.
In reality, a few ‘climate scientists’ do not routinely manipulate data to ‘prove’ the alarmist case and therefore are real climate scientists, but they are a rare breed.
The problem is:
1. ‘Climate scientists’ have been caught out manipulating data so often to try and prove the alarmist case, it has become an embarrassment even for sceptics.
2. How can you trust people who almost exclusively work for government or quasi-government organisations and who are very conscious of their job security, and who have been told by unscrupulous politicians: “Your jobs and/or grants are safe, as long as you keep spewing out the scary stuff, so we can keep on raising taxes for ‘a good cause’.
3. AGW probably does exist, but is a minor consideration when compared to the variation of natural climate cycles. In any event, the tiny impact of AGW is probably all beneficial.
4. The case for CAGW simply does not exist, there is absolutely no evidence it does. The case for positive feedback from clouds has been repeatedly shredded – without this, there is no possibility of CAGW. In addition, the geological record says “No!” to CAGW.
I would not call an alarmist a nutter, I would call them either gullible or someone with their own agenda, an agenda which only pays lip service to scientific truth.
00
You are wrong, again, John!
Okay, so I was wrong. Unlike you, John, I am man enough to admit it!
00
I think “CAGW bletheren” are nutters, because their is NO REAL scientific evidence in the their direction.
There are, of course, no “CAGW bletheren” who are not nutters.
You are just one of a large bag of moldy peanuts, JB.
00
John says:
“I’m a bit anti-Jewish” on the grounds that Jewish people call themselves the “chosen people”.
Time to brush up on your bible studies. “chosen” is referring to service not priveledge. That’s why Jews have 613 commandments to keep rather than 10.
In any case the fact that you feel this way on the grounds of what is stated in the bible is absurd.
Are you sure your anti-semitism isn’t derived from somewhere else?
00
Young Brookes, The big boys play a serious game that could be named “because I work to prove the evidence in the other direction…”. You confess you are still at the kiddy stage of “because I think the evidence in the other direction”.
There has been adequate discussion that evidence trumps belief. So, take your time before going near a Formula 1 car – it has no pedals of your inderstanding for locomotion.
00
I think Mr Brookes meant “Im NOT a bit anti-Jewish…
Well I hope he did for as it stands this is a textbook example of the kind of shallow, ill-informed comment that makes me shudder at times about the whole internet blog thingy (Don’t get me started about twits who Twitter!)
Still, the writer apparently works in academia so I cannot imagine that any enlightened Man of the Left would use the I’m not a [racist] but… intoduction before launching into a piece of village idiot level “wisdom” which reduces the history, religion and traditions of the Jewish people to calling themselves the “chosen people”, as if they are better than everyone else.
Thankfully, Speedy, in comments below, has succinctly dealt with this slander.
If being “chosen” is such a swell-headed concept then what the Jewish people have endured down through the millenia at the hands of other peoples – and also from the hand of their God – surely leads one who holds such a belief to the inevitable conclusion that the Holocaust was a just dessert for the Jews being, in colloquial terms, “up themselves”.
I sincerely doubt this is Mr Brookes position but he does need to clarify “just” what study and research he has undertaken into the meaning of being the “chosen people” in the Torah, Bible, etc. to inform his insight.
00
I don’t think you know John Brookes very well. I think he meant it as he typed it.
00
Too bad John, that you are apparently incapable of presenting this evidence you “think” is “overwhelming”. (Maybe it takes very little to overwhelm you?)
You’ve been around here long enough to know that, of course, we are ever willing to discuss factual evidence. You know better, but for whatever reason, refuse to participate in such discussion, instead only seek to promote your unsupported opinion.
Does that make you a nutter? I make no hypothesis.
00
Regarding a person that has been called names —
Richard Muller has an essay in the WSJ
[“The Panic Over Fukushima
Japan’s nuclear accident was a great human tragedy, but its long-term health effects have been exaggerated—and the virtues of nuclear power remain.”]
Adapted from a new book he has written.
The essay seems to be well done. We should encourage him to stick to nuclear power issues and abandon AGW.
This is aways off topic but of interest to readers, I hope.
00
I suppose this question was just rhetorical.
And yet it demands consideration…and I think we all know the answer. Just examine their history and you can say it is deliberate, an intentional tactic to intimidate.
Jo, David, do not ever let them intimidate you! I agree with Ian Mott.
Being called racist by such people has become a badge of honor.
00
Oh to Hell with beating around the bush!
Facts are just facts. They know nothing of race, ethnicity, religion or anything else. They simply state something that is true. And to ignore or deny the truth is to fail at basic critical thinking.
When 80% of the crime in a given area is committed by blacks, that is not racist but a simple statement of truth. When someone is an illegal alien, that is not racist but a simple statement of truth. Failure to acknowledge the truth simply compounds the problem you already have.
When someone whose position or opinion you disagree with happens to be a Jew, that is not racist but a simple fact with no relevance in the discussion. If you agree with a Jew, is that racist? If you disagree with a Jew is that racist? Both answers are the same resounding, “No!”
00
The problem with black related high crime rates, is due to the reality that it is the only jobs they can get!
A result of the living conditions in the inner cities the chronically unemployed end up living in.
00
And 45 years of Democrat policies holding them in those inner cities.
00
And 45 years of what passes for black leadership. You can easily come up with the names.
00
Good comment Roy.
The various labels that are in use to discuss “Global Warming” such as Zionist, Jew, Warmer, Denier, Democrat, Republican, Liberal,
Labour and so on, are a clear signal that we have taken our eyes off the ball and have fallen victim to those who are robbing us.
The use of these abbreviations for the description of groups of people doesn’t add to the Global Warming debate.
We must address the problem; and only that.
All of these labels cover loose agglomerations of people with different perspectives on their problems.
The point of focus must always be THE PROBLEM.
The problem is we don’t know what the issue is.
Is it the science, greedy people, idealists in power, grand-standers or what?
What complicates matters is that nearly always, “The Problem” is a politically endorsed scheme to get at the tax payers treasure store
and reality runs a poor second to getting the most out of the situation.
The longer you can confuse people by spreading disinformation to create doubt, the longer you have to empty the till.
We must zero in on the problem.
At the moment after much gnashing and grinding of teeth, we can say that our investigations show the problem to be that:
We Have No Control Over our Elected Representatives.
The problem is therefore:
How do we get to make them tell the truth and hold them to account?
Judging by our success in getting justice or restitution from the Bankers after their abuse of privilege during and since the GFC we
are powerless.
Its the same mob. Whether they are white, black, Canadian or English, they have screwed us.
KK
00
One of my facebook connections asked if anyone could think of a reason Obama SHOULD be reelected. Good question I thought. My response was ‘No, can’t think of one reason.’One man’s reaction to my answer to the question? Verbatim: ‘than perhaps your just an other dum ass republican,maybe you need an asshole like G W Bush, to screw up the country again. ‘ And so it goes.
00
Some must surely find stupidity to be rewarding. And so it goes.
00
Bush! A one word answer for why you should vote democrat.
00
obama- a one-word reason why the US ceased to exist in 2021 (from `The Decline and Fall of Western Civilization,` 2034)
00
As I said here…
00
If I could vote Democrat I might consider it. Unfortunately the “Democrats” running today are actually Communists……..
Brookes, why don’t you actually say what you think Bush did that was so bad? Be specific please.
00
Mark D.
Unfortunately our Mr. Brookes lacks the guts it takes to face even a simple question and answer debate. In that respect he’s the biggest coward I can think of out of all the trolls I can remember. You could call him a hit-and-run driver and be right on the money.
00
That is, when they are not actually confessed traitors running for President.
It’s definitely not the party of Scoop Jackson anymore. Most all of the Classic Liberals that used to make up a majority of the Democratic Party have joined the Republican Party and are now generically known as Neo-Conservatives.
The Democratic Party has become the Anti-American Party, and Barrak Obama is its perfect figurehead.
Of course, the Democratic Party’s brief fling with Liberalism was a short-lived aberration: 150 years ago, the Democratic Party was the Party of Slavery — the newly founded Republican Party stood for (and won) abolition of slavery. The Democrats have never given up on racism — 100 years ago the Ku Klux Klan was accurately described as the “terrorist wing of the Democratic Party”. The main opposition to Civil Rights for Blacks and other minorities in the 1960s was from the Democratic establishment, and they continue today as the main force behind the policies that keep Blacks dependent on (and hence subservient to) government.
The first Blacks elected to Congress (2 Senators and 21 members of the House of Representatives) were, of course, Republicans, and the Tea Party movement has elected many more.
During Franklin Roosevelt’s terms the Democratics became a penetration target of foreign agents. This was ridiculed at the time — much like AGW skepticism is today — but the partial opening of the Venona files and the KGB Archives, as well as intelligence coups such as the smuggling of the Mitrokhin Archive out of the USSR, proved that its existence and remarkable extent were not exaggerated. It was people like Ronald Reagan who managed to purge the Democratic Party of its traitors and (partially) its racists (yes, he used to be a Democrat) — but it has reverted to type w.r.t. racism and gained a now dominant anti-American wing as well.
Of course, where would the Democratic Party be without useful idiots like John Brookes who always vote Democratic because they are told it is the “morally superior” thing to do, but are unwilling (or incapable) of exerting the slightest intellectual effort to investigate the reality of their ‘happy-dust’ daydreams.
00
BobC wrote:-
Here in Oz, Bob, the first aboriginal elected to Federal Parliament was a Senator of the conservative coalition. His name was Neville Bonner and he became the perennial target of those of his race (and many whites) who believe it is the duty of all aboriginal people to live on welfare.
00
BobC
Great piece of back-ground.
This is the sort of information that helps people broaden perspective on why their part of the world is not as they would like it.
Change of voting habits is likely to occur if people have a clear picture of cause and effect.
KK
00
The Democrats are communists? Surely you jest?
But if you want a summary of what Bush did wrong, I can help.
September 11 happened under his administration. Maybe just bad luck, or was it bad management? (No 911 truthers please)
He decided to invade Iraq, for no good reason, and in doing so allowed the Taliban to re-establish in Afghanistan. He spent an awful lot of money on Iraq, which no doubt contributed mightily to the US budget deficit that “conservatives” are so worried about. But this was no surprise, as he had a history of being a businessman who created problems for others to solve.
He oversaw the lead up to the sub-prime financial crisis. There was a debacle going on under his nose, and he didn’t think it was worth worrying about. Everyone around him thought markets were perfect, why should he think any different?
He totally mismanaged the rescue efforts in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Oh it wasn’t him, it was someone he appointed, and he did sack them, but maybe if he’d appointed a competent person in the first place…
If you want to pick someone to defend, don’t pick Dubya. I’m sure he’s a really nice guy, but he sure as hell shouldn’t have been allowed to run the US.
00
Islam was at war with the USA since 1974, Kobar Towers. You take the threat of your carbon tax about as seriously as any president since ’74 took Islam. You will regret that just as we did on 9/11.
The Iraqi nuclear threat was solid intelligence until well after the invasion was over and Iraq was subdued. Only then was it apparent that the intelligence was wrong. The British agree with this opinion until this very day. If you intend to imply that Bush lied you won’t get it past me.
The Bush deficit is trivial compared to the Obama deficit. Why no criticism of Obama? You are a complete idiot who swallows 14 trillion and then strains at a few billion. Get a grip on the magnitude of numbers.
No such thing is true. The sub-prime disaster was begun under Bill Clinton and continued unabated, in fact accelerated through until the bubble burst. Members of Congress, Barney Frank in particular, participated in their own little cover-up of the brewing disaster. By comparison it’s provable that Bush saw the problem and tried to get Congress to act to stop it. The disastrous policy of loaning large sums of money to people who can’t show any real ability to pay it back continues to this day under Barack Obama. So don’t you dare to even think of blaming Bush for it.
This is another canard as far as I’m concerned. Yes, FEMA was not as ready as it should have been. On the other hand, authorities in New Orleans and the State of Louisiana had the first responder responsibility and they were AWOL (absent without leave) throughout the whole thing. The mayor of New Orleans hid in his office closet and waited for someone else to fix things for him. Leadership is where you find it. And it wasn’t in New Orleans and it isn’t in Obama either.
FEMA’s decay was well along before Bush took office. And the plain truth is that the Federal government is not able to take the whole responsibility. Local and state people are closer and simply must be prepared to get started and hold their own until FEMA can get there because otherwise there will be more Katrina’s. And I shudder to think of how bad off FEMA may be today after nearly 4 years of Obama’s neglect.
Now let’s look at Obama, who by implication you are defending. The only problem is, there isn’t enough time in my day to document his unconstitutional and illegal acts. He is responsible for a reign of lawlessness that puts to shame even Richard Nixon’s direct participation in the Watergate cover-up. But you never find out what’s really going on, not even in your own country because you don’t ever look. You just suck in every word from whatever source happens to suit your prejudices and then run with it.
For all his faults — and he had numerous — I would take back George Bush in a second. And frankly John, I would toss you out with yesterday’s newspaper just as quickly. You aren’t worth the space you use up on this blog. You are blatantly dishonest. There’s no other way to describe you. You pick and choose with no regard whatsoever for the facts. You not only do not impress me, you disgust me!
00
Very nice piece there Bite Back.
Agree also that Bill Clinton was at the heart of the larger portion of the GFC through encouraging (or worse) people to extend home lending to people who had no way of managing a loan.
Of course that doesn’t mean that a few of George Bush’s friends in the financial industry didn’t take advantage of the situation.
I prefer to discuss PROBLEMS as being linked to the individuals responsible for them rather than use the vacuous labels such as Liberal, Democrat, white, black, Muslim etc.
There are, and will continue to be, people of extraordinary capacity and good faith to be found in ALL “groups” and use of labels allows blame to be dumped over a wider area to avoid isolating the PROBLEM.
Result is; someone gets away with it.
A senior Bank Board Member who endorses the use of financial instruments such as the CFDs and other ridiculous pieces of paper that appeared in the GFC deserves to go to gaol. (jail for the US).
A Climate Scientists who distorts data to allow a political climate where wholesale theft of tax payer money, can and does occur, should go to gaol.
If any evidence of loss of free speech in Australia is needed the Article in today’s Australian about “speaking up” in the defense force is just the ticket.
We have been silenced by threat to promotion, to our job, to our continuing acceptance by our “peer” group and so on.
Bring back free speech and accountability.
KK
00
JB
What people say about themselves in terms of political image is not necessarily what they will be in office.
KK
00
Its OK John not everyone can see the wider truth like us.
I liked this statement
LMBFAO when i read that it was nothing but regime change which caused the senseless deaths of thousands of innocent lives. By the way re the Taliban Saudi Arabia are the masters of sharia law but we have not yet invaded them………….i wonder why?
By the way Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Stegal act which paved the way for the latest boom-bust cycle orchestrated by the federal reserve Bush merely kept it going. However when you consider the amount of money wated on nice new shiny bombs no wonder they went broke.
00
You’re right, KK. They did exactly that. My problem in all this is that they were given a very strong incentive to do it by the very government that now condemns them.
Consider this: You are the CEO of a large bank. You want your bank to be successful and you also want your bonus and incentive pay for that success. Along comes the US Government and forces you to make bad loans under threat of sanctions that will not only damage your bank but your bonus and incentives if you don’t do what the government wants. So what do you do? Well, you order your loan officers to make as many bad loans as they can; then, because you want your bonus, you get that bonus tied to the number of bad loans your bank makes. Success all around! You’re handed a lemon so you do the best thing you can and make lemonade.
I’m not saying they were right; they weren’t. But I wouldn’t want to be under that kind of pressure. And what bothers me is that putting the blame on “Wall Street” lets the real villains hide and get away with what they’ve done. The political heads need to be the ones that roll.
The best way to keep everything honest is to avoid giving people incentives to be dishonest. And the world unfortunately runs exactly the opposite way.
00
crakar24,
You and Brookes deserve each other.
00
Oh im sorry Bite Back, i disagree on a couple of points you raised and instead of debating me you simply wave your arms in the air and respond like a child.
One question, do you even know what the Glass-Steagall act is?………..no i did not think so.
So i now question who deserves whom
00
Crackar24
A lot of good people died in the Iraqi mess.
Any president who doesn’t think before bombing deserves a bad mark.
Was it Bin Laden who was removed from active duty by a relatively small group from the US. Authorized by Obama, at least he got that right whatever other financial misery he has overseen in his presidency.
KK
00
A lot of good people died in the Iraqi mess.
Yes thats true the total is in the hundreds of thousands
A lot of good people died in the Afghanistan mess
A lot of good people died in the Libya mess
A lot of good people are dying in the Syria mess
Dont forget Somalia and Palestine and the list goes on and on and on
Any president who doesn’t think before bombing deserves a bad mark.
There are a lot of them going back to at least 1945 i believe.
Financially the US are in a 16 trillion dollar hole, they sell government bonds to allow the federal reserve to print more money, the fed buys up 90% of those bonds, its called a ponzi scheme.
Look at US debt and it started going up with Nixon when he removed the gold standard, the total amount of dollars in circulation is about 2.7 trillion yet they owe 16 they cannot pay back that debt they can simply continue to print more money the people of the US are slaves to debt (we are not that far behind).
You cannot point the finger of blame at one president and if you did then blame WIlson as he was the one that allowed the fed reserve back in in 1913. Since then a number of laws were passed to free up the fed and now we have the situation we have.
Now if anyone does not agree with what i say then so be it, either respond with an alternative view or shut up, not smartass comments will be accepted (thats you BB)
00
If you want to disagree with someone it’s customary to address the one with whom you disagree, not someone else. I called out John Brookes for his slipshod thinking and in you jumped. So now you’re in — enjoy yourself. My argument is still with Brookes.
00
Well good luck with that BB (having a debate with Jb as you wont see nor hear from him for quite some time).
Oh did you google glass-steagall? Do you know what it is now? Do you know understand that i was agreeing with you when you said Clinton began the sub prime bubble?
Have a nice life BB.
00
Hi Bite back
Do agree that “The political heads need to be the ones that roll.”
At the moment politicians seem to have permanent immunity from accountability and as leaders with almost unlimited resources
for GETTING AT THE TRUTH of any situation they have no excuses if they screw up.
Chop.
At the other end there is a law of nature that says something like”
“He who is faithful in little, is also faithful in much”.
An example: Here in Australia “The Lucky (really) Country, we have a law that says you cannot operate a mobile phone while driving.
This law is not enforced.
You can see many examples every day of drivers who DO NOT FEAR BEING CAUGHT.
Many innocent lives have been lost because of this failure.
But most importantly, drivers using mobile phones signal that the law IS A JOKE.
By extension.
All law is a joke.
Then we have the mess we are currently in where Bankers are too important to prosecute and violent murder here of a police
officer is an eight year sentence?
Welcome to the dysfunctional society.
How do we fix it?
KK
ps. Maybe you were a bit hard on Crackar?
00
Hi Crackar
Have to agree with you: “You cannot point the finger of blame at one president”.
Also those wars were bad news but I wouldn’t want America to be painted as the prime mover in all of them.
It’s a mess and where is the UNITED BLOODY NATIONS in all this? The biggest multinational collection of government misfits
you could find anywhere.
Yep.
Living it up in New York City.
KK
00
Living it up in NY hey, must be nice its as black as a dead dogs guts here in Adelaide one week from Spring and its still winter……………
I dont point the finger at the US for all of course but when you go against the UN its called an act of war and yes the UN is dysfunctional but if they say “no you cannot bomb the crap out of that country” then you cant.
Iraq is a classic example now the drum beats of war are banging again the UN are saying NO but i will bet you all the tea in China that we (read the west) will bomb the crap out of some poor schmuck soon enough.
Cheers
PS Have you been to the strip club where KRudd lost his pants yet?
00
Hi Crackar
“Living it up in New York City.” relates to UN Representative like Gareth Gareth and whoever the most recent one is.
I live in Newcastle – where we have a perpetual alcohol problem but have just got our first taste of summer today.
We turfed out labor because they would not turn off the taps and now find that the libs are also beholden to the Alcohol industry.
On top of that it seems that our saviors, Barry and co, have taken a donation from AGL (what a pack of money hungry b$st$rds)
and now have to allow them to drill for CSG anywhere they like in NSW, including right over our local water supply.
I truly think that we should hire managers for our day to day needs and hang all politicians.
trouble is who will watch the managers?
KK.
00
Saddam Hussein was a great guy.
I rather enjoy it when people remember him so fondly.
00
crakar24 and KK,
After consideration of KK’s question, “Maybe you were a bit hard on Crackar?” I apologize for the hard line.
But I’ll also make it clear that I don’t care about distractions like Glass-Steagall. There are many opinions, mine included, that it made little or no difference in the matter. When a commercial lender is so exposed that there’s no wiggle room left, the result is inevitable.
The problem was started by a cold blooded policy decision to make bad loans, in fact to make the making of bad loans the official policy of the United States Government. As I said to KK, we’re not punishing the right people. And until we can understand and take care of the real problem we have no chance of getting out of trouble.
KK,
You ask, How will we fix it? “Who will watch the managers?” If not us, then who? I can’t imagine anyone else will.
John Brookes remains a hopeless case and (time permitting) I’ll call him out any time I can make a good rebuttal to what he says.
00
Ron Paul?
00
“Denier” is meant to be a humiliating, derogatory, insulting, denigrating, demeaning term used to describe somebody who does not believe in the ideology and dogma of the committed climate change / global warmer or convert. [ “convert”;as in to the global warming meme. They seem to be a very rare species ]
However much more is revealed about the “user” of the term, “denier” than what is supposedly revealed about the recipient.
–
Think about it a little;
–
A / The “user” of the extreme descriptive term “Denier” with it’s supposed underlying association with those who deny the “Holcaust”, quite openly reveals his / her total intolerance for other’s views.
B / The “users” of the term, “denier” are extremely self righteous and are often or are usually quite ignorant of the actual science so their standard refrain is to appeal to authority.
C / They are extremely hypocritical in that they want to be able to express their beliefs any time, anywhere but will do their utmost to prevent those who do not subscribe to their beliefs from doing likewise.
D / They are often / usually quite thuggish and bullying in their reactions to those who dare to differ from their own beliefs.
E / They often seem to have very few or no scruples in attempting to suppress any alternative views to their ideology and dogma.
–
Judith Curry, Climate Etc; had a post on this not so long ago.
There are five attributes of Ideologues
1 / Absence of doubt
2 / Intolerance of debate
3 / Appeal to authority
4 / A desire to convince others of the Ideological “truth”.
5 / A willingness to punish those who don’t concur.
And she notes; Note each of these characteristics is an anathema to science.
00
I knew it, a bloody Zionist!
/sarc
00
“Denier” could also just mean someone who habitually denies something. If the cap fits…
(They have to first explain what it is they “deny” before saying openly they denied something specific) CTS
00
Not in the context of AGW John………but a nice try all the same
00
Then alarmists who ignore the wealth of objective data that disproved CAGW (you know the data that has not been put through a government funded PR meat grinder) could aptly be labeled “deniers”.
However such a term is insulting, not because it invokes the thought crime of “holocaust denial” which is punnishable by imprisonment in Germany and other countries, but because the label “denier” is used to stifle and suppress debate and freedom of speech – probably in this case because those who use the word have something to hide. It’s really nothing more to me than the many other names thrown around “conspiracy theorists”, “nutters”, “anti-semites”, “contrarians”, “extremists”, “terrorists” etc.
00
when a Chihuahua yaps, so ====ing what.
and you, John, have not reach the chihuahua level yet.
I have worked in tough high schools dealing with low IQ 14 year olds….., so I don’t give a rat’s a*** what some moronic, self-egrandising, scientifically illiterate, CAGW lip-sync, d**s***, calls me. 🙂
Bring it on !!!
00
“Got no evidence? Can’t hold a rational discussion? Just call people names — smear them.”
I think the anger you feel at unjustified smearing of David’s (and your) name is understandable. But I do think it is a shame that you are happy support similar assertions when it comes to those you see as enemies. Most recent example:
OUR PRIME MINISTER IS A CROOK
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/allegations-about-our-pm-raging-across-the-internet-around-australia/
00
Let’s see how this all pans out shall we.. get the face cloth for the egg on your face though.
This current PM has the apps “auto bald-faced lie” and “auto evade, evade, spin” built into her very persona.
00
The whole AGW thing wouldn’t be so contentious if there was proof that it was real.
The fact is that AGW sets freedom loving free market conservatives against anti business, anti democratic controlling socialists and hence the debate is about politics rather than science. In politics any debating tool is acceptable in science only facts are relevant. Unfortunately there are some conservative politicians who are scientifically illiterate and , like Cameron, have bought into the AGW nonsense without realising that it is only about politics.
Loving our planet shouldn’t equate to hatred of humankind but in the eyes of the “progressives” it does.
00
“progressives”
Now I know you ARE NOT talking about the Lab/Greens.. They are totally REGRESSIVE in their policies.
Their policies are designed to bring Australia to an economic halt.. anti-freedom, anti-business, anti-commonsense, anti-science….
They are NOT progressive is any sense of the word. !!
00
“Unfortunately there are some conservative politicians who are scientifically illiterate ”
As opposed to ALL of the Lab/Greens.
00
Jo: ‘Think really hard about the sentence you are obsessed with. It’s neither central nor integral to anything David describes in the paper.’
I disagree. In order to make credible his claim of market manipulation occurring globally and across the generations, David Evans needs to posit the existence a group of close-knit, like-minded people with similar goals and who can stay atop the competitive world of banking, despite changing conditions and the likes of the recent rise of giant economies such as China and India.
The more prosaic reality is that the financial world – national and international – is large, complex and multfaceted, with the players having sometimes competing values and goals. But if so, Evans’ insinuations of a few leading players pulling the strings behind the scenes cannot hold.
You ask me to think hard about the sentence. I will return the favour and suggest you do some hard thinking of your own, specifically: if the conclusion to Evans’ article is merely unsubstantiated speculation and is redundant to his thesis, why has he included this section as a summing up of his essay?
———————–
Brendan – he included it to get readers to think about what happens when sovereign nations allow their currencies to be created by private organizations. He only needs to “posit the existence a group of close-knit, like-minded people with similar goals” to fulfill your wildest fantasy. That bears no relation to what he said, but I know you really really want him to say that. Sorry I can’t help. Your suggestion that no one can speculate on the consequences of policies without “naming names” is absurd. Your baiting is inane. – Jo
00
Quite apart from the unconscious irony inherent in this article, the proposition that kicks it off does pose some questions.
Is anybody here associated with the CEC?
Is the CEC not informed by LaRouchian dogma, inasmuch as the word “informed” can be loosely applied to their activities?
Need I go on…?
30
Jo: ‘…he included it to get readers to think about what happens when sovereign nations allow their currencies to be created by private organizations.’
By ‘it’ I assume you mean these sentences: ‘There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy.’
You seem to be suggesting that, 1) this situation has in fact occurred, and is perhaps even occurring now. Or you may simply mean, 2) that Evans is providing us with a cautionary tale about what could happen, not what in fact has happened.
I am assuming that both you and he are talking about (2), not (1). But in that case, Evans’ words are little more than ‘unsubstantiated rumors’, just alarmist speculation. In fact, the very the sort of doom-laden scenario a sceptic would cast a jaundiced eye on.
————-
Brendan, I told you to read the report. I told you what word to search on. You didn’t. Here it is: David Evans said– “There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have.” You’ve been wasting everyone’s time right from the start. – Jo
00
Jo: ‘“David Evans said — There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have.”’
I read that sentence before writing my first post. The bigger question is: why appeal to ‘unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories’?
Isn’t that somewhat, er, alarmist?
—
REPLY: Oh. “Read it in the first post” and thought you’d waste 7 questions asking Evans to do what he said was impossible. We believe you Brendan. Really.
As for “appeal”? What appeal? I realize you are really struggling with the comprehension part and I’m sorry but I can’t tutor you. David has a theory, backed it up with references, suggested obvious consequences, and acknowledged there were no easy answers and there was speculation “unsubstantiated” as to the extent of the consequences. Like I said, read the paper… I see no evidence you have. Jo
00
Jo: ‘And “explain?” No. He doesn’t. You mix cause and effect.’
You appear to be claiming that the ‘banking class’ is merely an effect of some other cause. But David Evans says otherwise:
‘This banking class started from humble beginnings as goldsmiths, grew rich by over-issuing paper that represented gold, eventually dispensed with gold and all its constraints, and have now graduated to rule the financial universe with a money system based entirely on paper.’
The claim here is that the ‘banking class’ caused the creation of ‘a money system based entirely on paper’.
So yes, Evans does use the theme of a manipulative, ‘paper aristocracy’ to explain the way the banking system works.
He also tells us: ‘The fluctuations of the business cycle are often deliberately caused by the banks themselves’, and asks, ‘How is it possible that the paper aristocracy is able to exploit the majority?’
Sure sounds like Evans is trying to tell the reader the way the banking system works.
————–
Brendan. No. You’re obsessed with trying to eke out some conspiracy in order to smear us. Give it up. There is no illuminati or Elders of Zion stuff in his paper. David defines the paper aristocracy as the people who “work the system”. Read the paper! QUOTE: /”The wider class of people who control and manufacture paper money in all its forms are referred to in this essay as the paper aristocracy: the banks, the government, and those who know how to work the system of paper money.”/ ie. There are thousands of people separately trying to make a profit. It’s the bleeding obvious. The system is the problem (the Fed, the legislation). As for conspiracy nutters, your friends claim all the time that Big-Oil funds sceptics as if there is a vast conspiracy. Go harrass them for evidence. – Jo
00
[…] See here, and this post on compulsive namecallers. […]
00
[…] See here, and this post on compulsive namecallers. […]
00
[…] See here, and this post on compulsive namecallers. […]
00
[…] It is possible I have misread or been misled by Mike Hubble-Marriott, and his practice of inferring motivations by using quotes made by other people entirely. See here, and this post on compulsive namecallers. […]
00