Note: This was written and recorded last Wednesday, before DickiLeaks et alia, but due to other events I had to delay posting it until today.
The return of the podcast! First I was on e-holiday, which is not only recommended, but which should be mandatory, like fasting. Then I made the mistake of upgrading my 32-bit version of Kubuntu on my ancient laptop, which broke certain processes which I used to produce the broadcasts (obviously now fixed).
The equipment in use is scratch and bare, but it works, albeit producing a less-than-optimal sound. Pretend you’re listening to AM radio and all will be well.
I still predict, as I have from January, Trump will win. If he does, then we’ll have much to discuss, not forgetting poll accuracy and the behavior of the state media and politicians.
Incidentally, that is the term I think best to describe those people who, in collusion with the government, create and dispense the “news” meant to shape the opinion of the public. This includes “conservative” organs like Fox and WSJ. How much more honest were they when they called themselves ministers of propaganda!
That collusion is real, as was long known; but it is now a truth given concrete form with the Project Veritas exposé. On that, here is an Info Wars chicky asking some of the 300 or so people “streaming” out of a Hillary event if they had seen the videos.
PV tape
Now I edited that and there’s plenty more. This was before the third Donald Duck video.
Hillary barks
I said duck, not dog!
Don’t be harsh on the people who thought the PV videos were a lie or otherwise fraudulent. They were told to think that, just like they were told to think the Planned Parenthood baby chop shop videos were faked and frauds, just like they were told to ignore the Wikileaks revelations, which didn’t matter but which anyway were fakes and frauds. They were told to think these things, and they trusted those doing the telling. This trust in authorities is a good quality, with a bad effect.
There are two problems. These people—no people, left or right—in a country and form such as ours has any business directly electing their leader (the small adjustments due to the Electoral College are negligible). Whoever wins, these people aren’t going anywhere and the people lying to them will still be with us regardless who wins.
If Trump wins, state media hacks will be mollified and will duck and cover for, what, two weeks? And then they’ll be back to normal. Some will, as is natural to their breed, suck up to the new administration, seeking to do for the new power what they did for the old. But most will recognize Trump is naught but a respite. They’ll soon reorganize to restore the old elite, and themselves.
There will not be a wave of honesty among flacks, nor will there be a reduction in gullibility among the indigenous populants of this once United States. Unless Trump turns out to be an American Vladimir Putin, it will very soon be business as usual.
And if Hillary wins, look for a sort of reverse Anschluss. Here’s the headline, “Editor of Austria’s Largest Paper Charged with ‘Hate Speech’ over Migrant Article“.
Calling the majority of the migrants “testosterone-driven Syrians”, Mr. Biro recounted the multiple reports of migrants carrying out, in his words, “extremely aggressive sexual assaults”.
He also detailed Afghan men had slashed the seats of the trains that were transporting them to Germany because they refused to sit where Christians had previously sat…
The prosecutor in the Styrian capital of Graz has confirmed they will be seeking charges against Biro for his comments after the case was brought to them by left-wing SOS Mitmensch. The group released a guide for Austrians earlier this year on how to successfully get people tried for hate speech crimes.
It’s not hate speech against “migrants” over which Biro is being prosecuted, but for speech against the government. SOS Mitmensch is part of that government, albeit without portfolio. Or, rather, with it, but without official letterhead.
Horrors
Here are some items, each by themselves horrific, all of them seemingly disparate. Unless we can tie to a theory of doom, that’s all they are, individual stories.
Funeral ‘celebrants’ offer eulogies with a personal touch: “‘Many people are more spiritual and don’t want religion introduced into the service,’ said Simanoff, of Melville, LI.”
Washington Uses Homosex as a Weapon of Regime Change in Moldova: “Hillary Clinton makes a cameo in the video, which should come as little surprise to anyone familiar with the general unsavoriness of the Clintonista family.”
Why I Fear America Could Enslave Black People Again: Trump’s Make American Great Again triggers writer to say “To what specific period of American greatness are you wanting us to return? When black folk suffered segregation after slavery?” After his tirade, the writer, who moved on to say he thought blacks could become slaves again under Trump, insists, “I’m not an angry black man”. To the Left, the slippery slope is the only argument.
‘We can’t prove sex with children does them harm’ says Labour-linked NCCL: “EVIDENCE has emerged that the views of the Paedophile Information Exchange influenced policy-making at the National Council for Civil Liberties when it was run by former Labour Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt…Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.”
Norwegians now can change genders legally with a mouse click: “Norway, a wealthy, progressive nation of 5 million people, recently became the fifth country in the world to allow adults to legally change genders without a doctor’s agreement or intervention. Argentina, Ireland and Denmark have similar laws. But only Malta and Norway have extended the liberalized rules to children.” Progressive.
Iraqi refugee who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in a ‘sexual emergency’ has his conviction overturned because the Austrian court ‘didn’t prove he realised the boy was saying no’: “Amir A, 20, violently sexually assaulted the boy in the changing room of Theresienbad pool in Austria claiming it was a ‘sexual emergency’ because he had not had sex for four months. But an appeal court in the country accepted the defence lawyer’s claim that the lower court had not done enough to prove he knew the schoolboy was saying no and overturned the conviction.”
Rise of ‘predictable’ exam papers due to fears of social media backlash, expert argues: “Examiners are too scared to set hard questions for fear of being shamed on social media, an advisor to Ofqual, the exams regulator, has claimed. Professor Robert Coe, from Durham University, has also said papers have become too easy and predictable and that ‘low-level thinking’ is increasingly being rewarded in exams, the Times Educational Supplement reported.”
Peter Thiel Shows Us There’s a Difference Between Gay Sex and Gay: This is from the Advocate, now. “Since the Paleolithic Age, people have had sex with people of the same gender. But the notion that this made someone ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’ was a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. Beginning in the late 19th century, doctors, sexologists, and others began to argue that same-sex sex created the category of sexual orientation…By the logic of gay liberation, Thiel is an example of a man who has sex with other men, but not a gay man. Because he does not embrace the struggle of people to embrace their distinctive identity.”
No Christmas lights in the small towns of Advent.
‘Living here doesn’t make you one of us’ Danish Queen tells Muslims to adopt West’s values: “She said: ‘It’s not a law of nature that one becomes Danish by living in Denmark. It doesn’t necessarily happen. We thought that these things would take care of themselves. That if you walked through the streets of Copenhagen and drank the municipal water and rode the municipal bus, you’d soon become a Dane. It was so obvious to us, and therefore we thought that it must also be obvious for those who settled and lived here. It wasn’t.'”
Northwestern U. scholar: Christian fundamentalism ‘more dangerous’ than Islamic terrorism: “fundamentalist access to United States armaments is the number one threat to state security.”
Theory of doom
Now these examples could be multiplied with ease and endlessly; indeed, they are a cataract. What binds them together? Bad question. Here’s a better one: do they have a common cause?
Fellow at Zero Hedge is betting on a conspiracy, or something like it. The Elimination Of Reason. “Since the dumbing down has been so consistently prevalent over the decades, it’s clear that this is no accident, nor is it an experiment in ‘alternative education’ that hasn’t worked out as was intended. It’s clearly the result of a conscious effort to diminish the average person’s ability to think. As such, it’s had a long gestation period and was expected to require generations, but was nevertheless a conscious goal.”
I believe “Durden” is right and wrong. Although there are conspiracies, such as we met with Wikileaks, and there is collusion among elites in the leftwards fall of the West, our doom will not be the result of the actions of a mysterious cabal. Instead, what is happening is right out in the open, and is even desired by the majority.
The cause is liberal-democracy. This does not mean a liberal society, nor a democratic society: it means the combination, which is deadly. This is not an unknown thesis. It forms the subject matter of the book The Demon in Democracy by Ryszard Legutko, newly translated into English, and the true point of this podcast. For over the next five broadcasts, we’ll go through this book chapter by chapter, in an extended review which proves the thesis, and which demonstrate its consequences, and which will prove the prediction that we are doomed.
People tend to view presidential candidates as if they would wield power comparable to that of a king, or CEO. With the “checks & balances” of the U.S. republican system of government, there is some power in the office of the president, but nowhere near as much as a politician would have many believe. Here’s one sage’s observations & assessment; he’s got a pretty good track record so his forecast has much more merit than most:
*****
It’s an election year, and candidates can’t stop speaking about our country’s problems (which, of course, only they can solve). As a result of this negative drumbeat, many Americans now believe that their children will not live as well as they themselves do.
That view is dead wrong: The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.
American GDP per capita is now about $56,000. As I mentioned last year that – in real terms – is a staggering six times the amount in 1930, the year I was born, a leap far beyond the wildest dreams of my parents or their contemporaries. U.S. citizens are not intrinsically more intelligent today, nor do they work harder than did Americans in 1930. Rather, they work far more efficiently and thereby produce far more. This all-powerful trend is certain to continue: America’s economic magic remains alive and well.
Some commentators bemoan our current 2% per year growth in real GDP – and, yes, we would all like to see a higher rate. But let’s do some simple math using the much-lamented 2% figure. That rate, we will see, delivers astounding gains.
America’s population is growing about .8% per year (.5% from births minus deaths and .3% from net migration). Thus 2% of overall growth produces about 1.2% of per capita growth. That may not sound impressive. But in a single generation of, say, 25 years, that rate of growth leads to a gain of 34.4% in real GDP per capita. (Compounding’s effects produce the excess over the percentage that would result by simply multiplying 25 x 1.2%.) In turn, that 34.4% gain will produce a staggering $19,000 increase in real GDP per capita for the next generation. Were that to be distributed equally, the gain would be $76,000 annually for a family of four. Today’s politicians need not shed tears for tomorrow’s children.
Indeed, most of today’s children are doing well. All families in my upper middle-class neighborhood regularly enjoy a living standard better than that achieved by John D. Rockefeller Sr. at the time of my birth. His unparalleled fortune couldn’t buy what we now take for granted, whether the field is – to name just a few – transportation, entertainment, communication or medical services. Rockefeller certainly had power and fame; he could not, however, live as well as my neighbors now do.
Though the pie to be shared by the next generation will be far larger than today’s, how it will be divided will remain fiercely contentious. Just as is now the case, there will be struggles for the increased output of goods and services between those people in their productive years and retirees, between the healthy and the infirm, between the inheritors and the Horatio Algers, between investors and workers and, in particular, between those with talents that are valued highly by the marketplace and the equally decent hard-working Americans who lack the skills the market prizes. Clashes of that sort have forever been with us – and will forever continue. Congress will be the battlefield; money and votes will be the weapons. Lobbying will remain a growth industry.
The good news, however, is that even members of the “losing” sides will almost certainly enjoy – as they should – far more goods and services in the future than they have in the past. The quality of their increased bounty will also dramatically improve. Nothing rivals the market system in producing what people want – nor, even more so, in delivering what people don’t yet know they want. My parents, when young, could not envision a television set, nor did I, in my 50s, think I needed a personal computer. Both products, once people saw what they could do, quickly revolutionized their lives. I now spend ten hours a week playing bridge online. And, as I write this letter, “search” is invaluable to me. (I’m not ready for Tinder, however.)
For 240 years it’s been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. America’s golden goose of commerce and innovation will continue to lay more and larger eggs. America’s social security promises will be honored and perhaps made more generous. And, yes, America’s kids will live far better than their parents did.
SOURCE: Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Annual Report, 2015 (ending Dec 31, 2015); authored by Warren Buffet. The report is available on-line via the Berkshire Hathaway website: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2015ar/2015ar.pdf
Well, no substantive issues to see here.
If Hillary wins, then it’s the status quo for the next 4-8 years. If it’s Trump, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see him impeached in short order, otherwise just “sound and fury.” Doom? No. Just a dopey old empire in decline.
JMJ
Goodness, I’ve just read your comment JMJ.
1 America is not an empire, at least it hasn’t been revealed yet!
2 Your attitude is that of a foreigner! Isn’t it your own country you’re talking about? Are you pretending to carry guilt for something America did?
@@@@@@@
Glad the podcasts are back. There should be on every day. I recognise the gathering storm but I don’t share your doomsaying defeatism.
Information is power: We are bombarded with it and where the internet used to be for a while, open, fun and really free, it is no longer. What we’re seeing is the domain grab for power over the minds of people. That was Churchill’s prediction. I believe he was thinking of the ongoing Islamic threat. It’s so strange that so many in the US think it’s not comming to a cinema near them. Really weird.
Ken,
“People tend to view presidential candidates as if they would wield power comparable to that of a king,”
No they don’t but people keep saying they do. Ones of people might think it.
Not all Kings are equal
Not all democracies are the same.
@@@@@@@@@@
This quality of life argument, Ken, you have previously argued is quantifiable in material i.e. physical and monetary terms.
The quote from Warren is out of context, misplaced and appears tunnel visioned which I’m sure it wasn’t originally.
That society has been improving materially (monetarily) is not argued by anyone sensible. It’s a vacuous quote given the points raised.
America has huge debt……
‘Money talks’ as my Father says, and that is often the deciding factor and a limiting one. One that has to work for the good of everyone in the end but none of us want to wait that long.
Financial matters: global trade, deficits, taxation to a lesser degree, are a real and important factor in the world political situation. It should not be overlooked. Washington ‘hasn’t been overlooking this’ for years. Trump intends to alter this pattern and this is a real threat to what has become the status quo. The lazy rich politicians smug in their leafy suburbs won’t have to worry and know whatever transpires they’ll be rich enough to overcome what happens. Not if the pattern changes. It’s about perceptions of what is best for America. That is where the argument and the answer lies,
@@@@@@@@@@
If he wins, there will be revelations.
The answer lies in part, in the money trail and that is where Trump has a real chance of making changes outside of those always considered by commentators.
both on here and elsewhere. They think it’s only about what happens with the votes in government or the red tape.
Hearts and minds exist outside of the government. In the end, if there are enough people who disagree and the government and media learn this fact (which is a difficult thing to get across to them), they will fall in line with the new narrative, that is really the one which most normal people already think but daren’t say.
If Trump can continue in the sweet spots with his anti PC speech and globalisation theme he will do America and all of us proud. Just doing that alone enables other shyer and weaker commentators to come forward and the narrative to be altered. I’ve seen this effect with Nigel Farage and not many have had more of a public roasting than him. Another self made man, no boss to answer to, unsackable and unyielding in his resolve. The media doesn’t know how to cope with that. Their usual tools don’t work.
Think what that can do for the climate change debate. For media’s corruption and dishonesty., for the explosion of phoney science and arguments for feminism. For science being abused by politics or entangle itself with religion.
Trump will, like certain others, require a crew of helpers to soften some of the language. He can’t do it on his own and nobody said he could. Right now it’s looking like it will never happen in America without Trump. He is a catalyst. In that sense if he succeeds in aiding the search for truth he will have done that on his own and in spite of some Republicans. If Trump is in power and the UK, France and all the others allow more truthful views to surface in the media there will be a very real shift towards what we used to call normal. The effect is a real reversal of what created the situation. A dereliction of duty from politicians who really don’t care and I use that word in it’s emotional sense, about their nation and a media too powerful to be unchecked.
“Norwegians now can change genders”
Could somebody explain gender to me? Now sex is based on chromosomes and has a physical manifestation as male and female. What is gender based on and what is the physical manifestation?
Determining your gender identity is like determining which famous person you identify with. If you feel you are female, or if you feel you are Jesus the Christ – both are “reasonable” identity badges to wear. It’s cosplay, but without the costumes and makeup.
Just received my copy of Legutko’s book today, it hits from the beginning. A hard time reading this parallel with Uncertainty. Rewarding, too. Needs to have some time to digest both.
From Joy: “The quote from Warren is out of context, misplaced and appears tunnel visioned which I’m sure it wasn’t originally.”
Ah yes … the “argument from ignorance”:
The quote from Warren Buffet was/is presented in its entirety — the ENTIRE section from the 2015 Annual Report is presented above. 100 percent context – Joy is 100 percent wrong.
The link to the Annual Report is provided. Enough info was presented to find the source. Berkshire Hathaway is known for Buffet’s commentary & makes those reports particularly easy for anybody to find.
Joy obviously did not consult Berkshire’s 2015 Annual Report.
But, nevertheless, Joy is “sure” about her assertions about W. Buffet’s remarks, ALL of which are wrong, or, probably are:
Joy applied the term “vacuous” (having or showing a lack of thought or intelligence; mindless) to Warren Buffet’s (aka the “Oracle of Omaha’s”) remarks. Buffet has proven economic performance, sustained over decades, at analyzing finance & economics — for which he is world-renowned — and he confined his remarks to his proven area of expertise. Joy would have us believe Buffet doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid, than open it than remove all doubt.”
– Old maxim
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
– Forrest Gump (or, Forrest’s mother, or whoever she heard it from….)
Ray,
Gender, or gender theory, (like many other non-nonsensical academic or intellectual fads) is post-modern epistemology. By denying that objective reality or objective moral values exist, it emphasizes a socio-psychological and ideological/progressive world view over the physical/biological manifestation of male and female (chromosomes, male and female “naughty” parts), thus forcing on normal society the acceptance of what was once considered abnormal or deviant behavior as normal.
One question I have been pondering is, can i self-identify as female and start a woman-owned business without the Feds coming down on me. Also if I did, which bathroom would I have to use?
The quote from Warren Buffet was/is presented in its entirety — the ENTIRE section from the 2015 Annual Report is presented above. 100 percent context
Which only goes to show you can lift a large part of text with 100% accuracy and still not have the full context. In this case, the report has glowing support for Berkshire Hathaway but it is spin. From page 2, Berkshire’s performance in 2015 was dismal compared to other years albeit not the worst. The report also overlooks the decreasing annual growth of the U.S. GDP compared to previous economic recoveries.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12131216/theories-gdp-growth-slow All while the national debt is growing. The bottom of page 2 has Compounded Annual Gain – 1965-2015 with double digit values but, so what? Why did it omit the trend over the last 10 years? It’s right up there with plotting temperatures from 1970 to show Global Warming while ignoring the nearly flat rise from 1998.
Joe,
Oh Dear, Joe,
Read what I wrote to Ken who used Warrens words to make a point about the financial markets and material quality of life to counter the points raised in the podcast. Clearly the quote is misplaced outside of any considerations of it’s validity. Which if you read is actually what I said.
I am familiar with Warren B’s associations and am subjected to much talk from the financial markets whether Iike it or not.
Calling a person stupid is not an argument and it doesn’t make it true.
Reading annual reports and quotes from CEOs and thinking that they reflect reality displays a poor understanding of their function. The primary purpose of an annual report is to 1. satisfy regulatory requirements and 2. (and much more importantly) serve as a marketing brochure for both the corporation and the CEO. So the report is going to paint as glossy a picture as poetic license and GAAP standards will allow. If everything is so great, Ken, why are real wages falling?
Joy,
I quoted Buffet to offset the viewpoint that we’re all “doomed’ no matter who wins — from an economic standpoint we’re not doomed, overall, even if things keep muddling along as is. There is, in other words, a “silver lining” — regardless of who wins the presidential election, the U.S. economy is still robust enough to provide its citizens, overall, continued growth such that one’s children will be better off than their parents (or, could be…if their parents exercise prudent financial management).
The quote was presented in its entirety, and can stand alone. No contextual association between the quote & Brigg’s essay (or podcast) was overtly made nor implied.
Your twice [so far] recurring assertions that some such link between an economist’s quote and comments made in the podcast as specious — applying solely to associations confined to your mind. This is a recurring thought pattern you present here: You project values and beliefs on others based on their brief comments and observations, invariably when a point is raised you happen to disagree with, and then you attack the person, often by making unfounded assumptions about them or their beliefs and then attack them for the traits you’ve made up as well. That might not be “stupid” but it is neurotic.
Ken
Joe has certainly hit on something — comments made by people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Let’s look at DAV’s:
DAV: “…the [Annual] report has glowing support for Berkshire Hathaway but it is spin.”
Observation: A fundamental true-ism, often taught in first semester accounting & finance courses and early on in all such course work, is that company Annual Reports are marketing tools. Financial figures therein need to be viewed with extreme caution, if at all. If you want accurate financial data, consult the company’s 10-K Reports — this is common knowledge among accounting & finance undergraduates (and Berkshire Hathaway makes accessing the detailed reports very easy…no need to go to the SEC website). By indicating a company’s Annual Report should be expected to be objective you establish yourself as incompetent on such subject specialized subject matter.
DAV: “The report also overlooks the decreasing annual growth of the U.S. GDP compared to previous economic recoveries. [link omitted here] All while the national debt is growing.”
Observation: The company Annual Report is about the company, not the country/ies in which it operates. Asserting a company’s annual report omits discussion about something else entirely, and for that is to be condemned, is peculiar, to put it tactfully.
DAV: “The bottom of page 2 has Compounded Annual Gain – 1965-2015 with double digit values but, so what? Why did it omit the trend over the last 10 years?
It didn’t. The annual figures are presented, which included the annual figures for 2005 thru 2015. The table presents sufficient information for one to recompute the figures should a 2005 starting point be desired. Such tables are typical for company Annual Reports.
This remark also indicate’s an expectation that particular quantitative information of one’s specific interest simply ought to be presented outright. This is absurd — the various types of financial analyses are nearly endless, impossible for any firm to tally and provide. That’s why nations have reporting requirements, and, why people go to college and learn how to read such reports — to take the data presented and separately extract what specifics one is interested in. The content of 10-K and related reports are mandated by law (no so much with Annual Reports) — among countries, the U.S. has some of, if not the most, transparent reporting available.
The bottom line regarding that is simple — if you don’t see what you want, go figure it out (the information is invariably available). When you whine about a particular presentation not being there, you merely broadcast your ignorance of the subject matter.
DAV: “The bottom of page 2 has Compounded Annual Gain – 1965-2015 with double digit values but, so what? Why did it omit the trend over the last 10 years? It’s right up there with plotting temperatures from 1970 to show Global Warming while ignoring the nearly flat rise from 1998.”
The coup de gras: Asserting an omission that the past 10 years of data isn’t there while at the same time citing the presence of that same information is bizarre (note that, “page 2 has Compounded Annual Gain – 1965-2015” self-references the presence of data asserted in the very next sentence to be absent!). The financial trend cited for the past 10 years (2005 to the then present 2015) IS listed.
Nevertheless, DAV asserts that the inclusion of data for the past ten years (along with all the rest — full disclosure) in one case constitutes the same offense committed by others who omit the most recent data to hide a trend (willful deception) that doesn’t support their position on something!
The above, thru-out, is egregious. Whatever DAV’s analytical capabilities, motivation or intent, not good — puts into question everything he presents.
Clearly, something in Buffet’s quote struck a nerve with some…which itself is rather odd given the mildly optimistic outlook he conveyed.
Poor, KEN. And he wonders why he is often disregarded.
Asserting an omission that the past 10 years of data isn’t there while at the same time citing the presence of that same information is bizarre
No. The data points for obtaining the trend are there just as they are for the previous 40 years but the 40-year trend was emphasized by showing its value while the 10-year trend was not even mentioned. I leave it to others to surmise why that might be. KEN, however, is exempt as he has shown little skill in this department. For one example, he doesn’t know the difference between data trend and data.
Poor KEN.
Thanks to all those who tried to explain gender. The reason I asked the question is because the Fairfax, VA school board published a policy on student gender, whatever that is. They started the policy with definitions and I learned that the sex you are assigned at birth is what is written on you birth certificate. Now I always thought that sex was determined at conception by chromosomes, i.e. biology, but now I learned it is assigned at birth by whoever fills out the birth certificate. Well, you learn something new every day. I then looked for the definition of gender and couldn’t find it anywhere. This policy paper went on for six pages talking about the undefined. Since I couldn’t find the definition of gender in a government policy paper on gender, I hoped some of you could explain gender.
Why not respond to the comment and stop imbuing motive Ken.
Specious? No. In my head? No. Here’s how the simple logic goes: (but if only you’d just explained why you used the quote as that would have been more convincing than all the psychobabble.)
Most people appreciate that, materially speaking, mankind will likely continue the trend which has obtained since the stone age. Warren’s prosaic point is using historical events to predict future trends. I’m not blaming him because he didn’t respond to the podcast post but you did!
The kind of logic used to make predictions is innate in all human beings.
Those who best understand or handle complexity and uncertainty of the current state of things have more success in predicting. Information is power. You can’t do any of this without information and knowing which is good and bad.
If the word vacuous was too strong and you felt attacked then that is regrettable. I did not attack you Ken. I ‘attacked’ the point made which used the quote! and point out again that the quality of life of others was the theme which You and I clashed upon before.
I must have ‘hit on something’ back then. The comments which followed made guesses about my motives, my emotional state, pets or animals! which was more guessing. All of which were wrong. If you keep going and throw out a hundred ideas, you’ll still be wrong. It’s this kind of accusative argument which you have made a habit of and not just in my direction. If you’re going to make a claim you had better have some really good information or know some facts. Since you don’t know me from Adam you’d better give up trying. Intuition is n’t your strong point evidently.
Was the quote’s relative wealth prediction and positive report relevant to the podcast reckoning that ‘we’re all doomed whatever happens’? I don’t think so. It said nothing about the reasoning for the predicted doom and referred to money as some kind of ‘proxy’ or substitute. None of that is in my head in the sense that I made it up. It’s all true.
What do you have to say about any of the points raised in the podcast? Well you don’t have to say anything of course but if you offer a lengthy quote providing a different kind of future than that presented you can’t be surprised if it is considered non salient nor that the content of the quote appears off.
Ray,
Some babies are born with ambiguous sex. Of course they used to sign a sex before DNA was discovered and used to make the wrong assignation. Now they will no doubt do DNA tests if a baby is unfortunate enough to be born with such an affliction. As for all the talk of gender. It’s a storm n a teacup. Gender is another word for sex which was used for decency. Just as the stethoscope is only there for decency. The concept of more than two genders is incorrect. The idea that there are 37 or something which I read a few months ago is laughable.