Originally Posted by Kinser79

In my case a whorehouse. Whores typically are not hypocrites.

Whore's are hypocrites too.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I encountered someone who is more into conspiracy theories than I. He laid out a framework for what the Mikebert Conspiracy might look like.

They get together physically, once a year, reserving a resort or hotel for their exclusive use for the duration of the meeting. Shortly after the meeting there is a period of transition as they go home and implement the year’s resolutions. Their membership is thus limited somewhat by the size of the selected hotel or resort, not to mention the clumsiness of having too many people present to get things done.

It is said that five people own the bulk of the world’s media. All five would be members, and have the ability to quash coverage of the event. Of course membership is not just media people. Similar magnitude elites from numerous fields would be members. If they all vanish at once to attend the meeting, this cannot be kept secret if one is looking for it. There are people watching the conspiracy. If one knows where to look on the internet, one can find out some things, but not a lot.

If one does start scanning the net for such news, do not be surprised if the ‘camera active’ light on your computer starts coming on at unexpected times. If you start watching them, they will watch you, and they will let you know they are watching you. If you see someone with a piece of tape covering the camera on his laptop, he might be part of the anti-conspiracy. Sort of like a tin foil hat.

Conspiracy theories. All nonsense. Right?

Right?

Powerful people who do nasty things do their dirty work secretly, typically with the aid of front groups. Once the front groups institutionalize the change that the powerful people want the system is expected to freeze. The common man is to accept the fait accompli as if it were the Will of God. Any effort to backtrack is seen as treasonable. Such is a right-wing version of "democratic centralism" of Marxist-Leninist parties.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

In my case a whorehouse. Whores typically are not hypocrites.

Prostitutes are often addicts. Of course, addicts often turn to prostitution.

...As far as that goes, I don't have much use for "genteel" strip clubs, either.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

A church as a neighbor wouldn't have as much of a negative impact on the market value of your home as a whorehouse. There wouldn't be much to think about as far as I'm concerned.

I was making a bit of a joke.

Originally Posted by TnT

I was making a bit of a joke.

I knew that.

I'm waiting to see a fierce debate break out to determine who is most familiar with whores and whoring, and is thus the most authoritative voice on whore hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Whore's are hypocrites too.

How so? I have yet to hear a whore preach about sexual purity.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Prostitutes are often addicts. Of course, addicts often turn to prostitution.

...As far as that goes, I don't have much use for "genteel" strip clubs, either.

I have no use for strip clubs at all. I got a man. That said I would say that most of the time prostitutes are driven into prostitution through economic circumstance or addiction to drugs. It is not a job I would choose, and I don't think that there are many who would choose it if they had other options.

Originally Posted by B Butler

While Mikebert hasn't invoked The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he seems to be suggesting a similar modern conspiracy of elites that believes a struggling economy is in the interests of the elites.

Where am I saying there is a conspiracy? I made no mention of coordinated action. There is absolutely no intent here, nobody is "behaving badly". What is present is people see the world in different ways. Kinser is a Marxist and that affects how he sees the world. For years I was a realist in foreign policy and that led me to see things about the Iraq war that simply were not there. Brian Rush could clearly see that the things I was seeing were a mirage, but I really couldn't. It's clear as day now that I was full of shit, but you know hindsight is 20-20. Having been burned on foreign policy I now have fled the whole thing and am essentially an isolationist. I have lost my faith in my ability to judge the wisdom of this versus that policy and simply wish to op out entirely.

A case could be made that some elites might well reasonably believe that a smaller economy and market but with lower wages will be more profitable personally to them.

I never said they believe a smaller economy is better. They would agree that lower wages are better, because it allow for businesses to cut prices so as to better compete. You are assuming that reducing wages will affect aggregate demand and so a low wage economy means a smaller economy. I agree with you. This way of seeing reality that we employ is a Keynesian-influenced worldview. But many people do not use a Keynesian worldview. As they see it if we ran a high wage economy the economy would be smaller than it is.

They believe what Adam Smith surmised, that the road to prosperity was peace (small government) easy (low) taxes and a tolerable administration of rights (strong property protections). If you look the world through Smith-influenced worldview, you see efforts to create a high wage and more equal economy as detrimental to prosperity.

They might believe that deficits don't matter anymore.

Why do they?

But you can't make it a plank in a convention party platform. "We must keep the People down in the interest of the profits of the Elite!" would not win a lot of votes.

I never said they did.

Thus, must one suppose an inner circle of in the know elites trying to sabotage the US economy?

No! Try looking outside of you own parochial worldview.

They'd be looking to manipulate both the sincere GOP trickle down Reagan believers in Voodoo and the sincere Democratic Keynes believers in balancing the budget?

What manipulation? They just cut taxes. This wasn't secret, it was done quite publicly. They got lots of support from the other side.

I'm generally not a conspiracy theory fanatic.

If so then why are you so good at imagining one where there are none.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No I meant progressive.

Perhaps it is a difference in perspective given the fact that a saeculum has passed since then. One century's progressives are the conservatives of the next and all that.

Not true. Hoover did about all he could operating under the ruling economic paradigm. Hoover was a Republican. Just as you, as a Marxist, look at economics in a certain way, so did he as a Republican. FDR stopped the economic collapse by taking the nation off a gold. He could do this because he belonged to a party that had taken the free silver position in 1896; promoting inflation by devaluation of the dollar was in his playbook.

It was not in the Republican playbook. All Republicans were stalwart gold standard supporters. As a Republican Hoover believed that creating government programs to address the problems of the Depression would rapidly lead cronyism and widespread banana-republic-style corruption and so was a very bad policy. He was not exactly wrong--look at our politics today.

What he did NOT do was administer the medicine conservatives recommended: "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

He employed (Republican) progressive policy: persuade big business to not cut wages except as a last resort. And he was successful, over the first two years of the depression wages only fell 6% compared to 24% in the previous depression. He thought by doing this they would keep aggregate demand stronger and prevent a more serious collapse. He was wrong and his party paid the price.

Point taken.

Men are more prone than women to deadly violence so I wouldn't expect women to be common amongst shooters. Your point about minorities is well taken, which is why I floated the other idea.

Perhaps, but even a woman will use deadly force when it is necessary. That being said, if rampage shootings are in fact general social unrest then we should see larger proportions of all groups involved in them instead of mostly white guys and a token Korean-American.

This was implied. By socially acceptable I mean tolerated by the Establishment, and their supporters.

I disagree. If this were true then there would more riots and more fatalities from riots. Most of these recent uprisings about police violence have been quite peaceful. I watched some of the Ferguson demonstrations. I saw armored vehicles rolling up the street and stopping a little distance from people walking with signs in a circle. It looked to me that if I were there I would not feel threatened by the walkers. The tank-like things were a different matter.

A lot of that has to do with the fact that Black and Latino leaders are attempting non-violence right now. It ultimately will not work unless there is a threat of violence. MLK succeeded because Malcolm X and Huey P. Newton existed.

Males are more prone to violence in all sort of societies. They are the ones who tend to fight wars, engage in feuds, fight over markets and reputation in urban gangs.

Quite true, I think that evolution plays a part in this. A female has to carry a single child for 9 months to reproduce the speices. A male merely needs to ejaculate once to get a female pregnant. As such the male is more expendable from an evolutionary standpoint.

This doesn't address the question. The ruling class has no interest in this. Heck anti-poverty programs are old-fashioned Bismarckian revolution-insurance. Surely you can see this as a Marxist.

No Reagan happened when he did because of two things. Milton provided a new economic paradigm that says debasing the currency is an acceptable way to deal with Depression (the GOP won't ever be a Hoover again) and Carter appointee Volcker removing the connection between deficits and inflation, which was the reason why Republicans had supported tax hikes in the past. Once this had happened, tax cuts became the solution to everything. "Shrinking the government" meant shrinking the portion that benefited Democrats, while growing the part that benefited Republicans. It's old fashioned political spoils.

Let us just say that your second paragraph here is true, do you not see that institutionalized racism also played a part?

I didn't say he did. I made the comparison with Dukakis because the image of him in the tank is iconic.


Of course.

As someone who voted for Dukakis in a mock election that year (I think I was like 10 at the time) I thought that the tank imagery with Dukakis was absolutely retarded. Everyone knew who was in WW2 and who wasn't even then. Remember there were a lot more GIs running around back in 1988.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Much more plausible than a true conspiracy theory, but I'm still not sure I believe there are enough of these uncoordinated Randians to truly impact government policy. Their own companies, sure.

it's not a conspiracy and its not even Randian (well some of it is). It's just that not every intelligent, well-meaning person believes what you or playwrite believe about how the world works.

It's seems to me that perhaps you may not have experienced being colossally wrong before. I have. "Nineties me" (90sMe) enthusiastically supported NAFTA and free trade in general, opposed Clinton's health reform, thought Rubin and Greenspan were great. 90sMe thought Bush had done a great job in the Gulf War. In foreign policy 2003Me was still on the same page as 80sMe and 90sMe, and I supported the Iraq war. 90sMe, like 80sMe, was very anti-deficit, but 2001Me decided deficits don't matter.

2015Me opposed TTP and is anti-free trade. I support a "Medicare for all" type of program, and strongly supported Obamacare as the best deal we can get. Interestingly, 90sMe supported gay marriage and so does 2015Me. I look at Bernie Sanders and I see, hmm this guy is pretty close to 2015Me. I read Obama's book and I said hmmm, this guy is pretty close to 90sMe. I can't blame Obama for failing to take as great a step to address income inequality as 2015Me would like, because 90sMe would agree with Obama. 2015Me isn't actually as foreign as you think, even though he is very different from 80sMe and 90sMe, because he is actually fairly close to 70sMe. Clearly I have tendency to drift one way or another, I am probably just an early adopter of the trend of where everybody else is going (I've never been very original).

What this tells me is intelligent people of good faith can believe things that turn out to be colossally wrong like the economic beliefs of 1920's Republicans. You don't have to conjure up some idea of a conspiracy, that Obama/Clinton are in bed with the rich, to explain what they do (or might do). They are just like 90sMe, whom I can hardly believe was some kind of bad guy in league with the rich. My research suggests that 1941FDR (the guy who oversaw the creation of the postwar world of prosperity for all) was a different guy than 1932FDR just like 2015Me is a different guy than 90sMe. He probably got shellacked by reality.

He learned what Vizzini never did, that the world doesn't mean what we think it does. But more elites are like Vizzini than not. And that I suspect is why the saeculum happens.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Where am I saying there is a conspiracy? I made no mention of coordinated action. There is absolutely no intent here, nobody is "behaving badly". What is present is people see the world in different ways. Kinser is a Marxist and that affects how he sees the world. For years I was a realist in foreign policy and that led me to see things about the Iraq war that simply were not there. Brian Rush could clearly see that the things I was seeing were a mirage, but I really couldn't. It's clear as day now that I was full of shit, but you know hindsight is 20-20. Having been burned on foreign policy I now have fled the whole thing and am essentially an isolationist. I have lost my faith in my ability to judge the wisdom of this versus that policy and simply wish to op out entirely.

Many of us could not believe that the successor of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR could ever lie to get the United States into a war for profits and resource grabs. We assumed that Dubya had knowledge about the 'threat' of a regime in Iraq that many of us despised and acted accordingly. We assumed wrong. Now many of us trust nobody.

If anything, one at least does not need be a reckless warmonger to be an effective wartime President. Being a reckless warmonger is one way to get enmeshed in pointless wars. If there is any lesson of WWII, then there it is. Reckless warmongers get nations into wars and have a poor record in them.

I never said they believe a smaller economy is better. They would agree that lower wages are better, because it allow for businesses to cut prices so as to better compete. You are assuming that reducing wages will affect aggregate demand and so a low wage economy means a smaller economy. I agree with you. This way of seeing reality that we employ is a Keynesian-influenced worldview. But many people do not use a Keynesian worldview. As they see it if we ran a high wage economy the economy would be smaller than it is.

A valid critique is that workers who have no stake in the system invariably goldbrick unless employers subject them to brutal management and are amenable to the appeals of revolutionary socialists. Cheap labor implies poverty as an absolute and undeniable certainty.

The real test may be in the valuation of currencies. Productive societies that make stuff that the rest of the world wants find that their currencies become more valuable hard currency and unproductive societies end up with currencies similarly valuable to board-game currencies. Would you rather be paid in North Korean or South Korean currency?

They believe what Adam Smith surmised, that the road to prosperity was peace (small government) easy (low) taxes and a tolerable administration of rights (strong property protections). If you look the world through Smith-influenced worldview, you see efforts to create a high wage and more equal economy as detrimental to prosperity.

A huge military establishment is fiscal trouble. States can lavish money upon the military to the neglect of social needs and the productivity of businesses not associated with war. Governments are wise to avoid show projects. The beautiful airport and the expressway full of statues lauding the dictator and the achievements of his clique leading to the capital of a country that has mass hunger could easily be seen as a perversion of public policy if one lives in that country. A modestly-built railroad that allows peasant farmers to get export revenue from cash crops may be unglamorous, but it could do much good.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

.. if rampage shootings are in fact general social unrest then we should see larger proportions of all groups involved in them instead of mostly white guys and a token Korean-American.

Quite right. I look at the trends with and without rampages, because I am unsure are what they mean, if anything.

A lot of that has to do with the fact that Black and Latino leaders are attempting non-violence right now. It ultimately will not work unless there is a threat of violence. MLK succeeded because Malcolm X and Huey P. Newton existed.

You have a valid point.

Let us just say that your second paragraph here is true, do you not see that institutionalized racism also played a part?

I think it played a major role in electoral strategy. What I was trying to explain was why Reagan's policies wrt deficits was so different from the Republicans that came before him.

As someone who voted for Dukakis in a mock election that year (I think I was like 10 at the time I thought that the tank imagery with Dukakis was absolutely retarded. Everyone knew who was in WW2 and who wasn't even then. Remember there were a lot more GIs running around back in 1988.

Well this supports the idea that even a kid would see this as lame. It was like the silly Kerry entrance to the 2004 Democratic convention, absolutely cringeworthy.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We assumed that Dubya had knowledge about the 'threat' of a regime in Iraq that many of us despised and acted accordingly.

I (that is, 2003Me) never believed that for a second. I knew it was merely a pretext. Yet 2003Me still supported the war, and was wrong, wrong, wrong. On this issue 2003Me was on the same page as 1990's me (90sMe) who also supported the Gulf War. Turns out I was so very wrong about that one too. 2015Me would not have supported the Gulf War either. 2014 me did not support the current war on ISIS, (2014 me is the same as 2015 me on this issue). 2015 me would not even support the Somali or Kosovo intervention, whereas 1990's me did. Playwrite and 1990's me are still on the same page as far as ISIS, so I can see and even agree with his pov using my memory of what I was. Or 2015Me and Kinser can have a productive discussion whereas if he engaged 1980's me or 1990's me we would be talking past each other.

A purge of the bureaucracy in DC and an overhauling of our governmental institutions is necessary if the country is to be put back on track. To this end, and in conjunction with the aforementioned purge several institutions should also be abolished: The electoral college and the supreme court both need to be abolished because these are undemocratic institutions whose sole purpose is to ensure that politics is dominated by "approved" candidates. We need vigorous government capable of thinking outside the box.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I encountered someone who is more into conspiracy theories than I. He laid out a framework for what the Mikebert Conspiracy might look like.

They get together physically, once a year, reserving a resort or hotel for their exclusive use for the duration of the meeting. Shortly after the meeting there is a period of transition as they go home and implement the year’s resolutions. Their membership is thus limited somewhat by the size of the selected hotel or resort, not to mention the clumsiness of having too many people present to get things done.

It is said that five people own the bulk of the world’s media. All five would be members, and have the ability to quash coverage of the event. Of course membership is not just media people. Similar magnitude elites from numerous fields would be members. If they all vanish at once to attend the meeting, this cannot be kept secret if one is looking for it. There are people watching the conspiracy. If one knows where to look on the internet, one can find out some things, but not a lot.

If one does start scanning the net for such news, do not be surprised if the ‘camera active’ light on your computer starts coming on at unexpected times. If you start watching them, they will watch you, and they will let you know they are watching you. If you see someone with a piece of tape covering the camera on his laptop, he might be part of the anti-conspiracy. Sort of like a tin foil hat.

Conspiracy theories. All nonsense. Right?

Right?

They hold these pow-wows at Davos every year, and no one seem to care. But if they get the mind-scanning thing down, I'll get one of those Tin Foil Hats.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Much more plausible than a true conspiracy theory, but I'm still not sure I believe there are enough of these uncoordinated Randians to truly impact government policy. Their own companies, sure.

I hope you're right. My hope is still enough to keep me in the game... and voting.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... It was like the silly Kerry entrance to the 2004 Democratic convention, absolutely cringeworthy.

I had to comment on this. It's amazing to me that Kerry threw himself under the bus by "reporting for duty". Really? REALLY? He had solid bono fides as a decorated war vet and as a noted anti-war activist. All he had to do was argue the merits of his positions, and he would have been immune to ad hominem attack.

Stupid.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I (that is, 2003Me) never believed that for a second. I knew it was merely a pretext. Yet 2003Me still supported the war, and was wrong, wrong, wrong. On this issue 2003Me was on the same page as 1990's me (90sMe) who also supported the Gulf War. Turns out I was so very wrong about that one too. 2015Me would not have supported the Gulf War either. 2014 me did not support the current war on ISIS, (2014 me is the same as 2015 me on this issue). 2015 me would not even support the Somali or Kosovo intervention, whereas 1990's me did. Playwrite and 1990's me are still on the same page as far as ISIS, so I can see and even agree with his pov using my memory of what I was. Or 2015Me and Kinser can have a productive discussion whereas if he engaged 1980's me or 1990's me we would be talking past each other.

I remember discussing some of these issues with you at the time (circa 2001-3), and I remember your positions as definitely in the pragmatist wing of the internationalist school. But I don't remember you being that fixated on fighting the war for any reasons other than your belief that it was important for the hegemon to be engaged in that way. I didn't see any of the flag waving from you. So have your opinions now excluded the need for the hegemon to engage, or is this just a lack of optimism about our ability to operate in that part of the world?

I was opposed from the beginning, but more as a practical matter: we weren't addressing the problem (Afghanistan) and fighting in Iraq was all about the oil patch. I haven't morphed far from there, though I'm now convinced that fighting in Afghanistan was a waste of lives and resources even before we decided to put the nation building model in place.

So what triggered your change of heart, or was it just the steady grind of contrary evidence?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I remember discussing some of these issues with you at the time (circa 2001-3), and I remember your positions as definitely in the pragmatist wing of the internationalist school.

Quite correct. I was a Scowcraftian realist.

But I don't remember you being that fixated on fighting the war for any reasons other than your belief that it was important for the hegemon to be engaged in that way. I didn't see any of the flag waving from you.

Quite correct. No flag-waving from me. I took pride in my clear-eyed, if somewhat cynical, view of how the world worked.

So have your opinions now excluded the need for the hegemon to engage,

The hegemon will always engage, its the definition of hegemon. I think the US should no longer be the hegemon. The fucking libertarians were right.

I was opposed from the beginning, but more as a practical matter: we weren't addressing the problem (Afghanistan) and fighting in Iraq was all about the oil patch. I haven't morphed far from there, though I'm now convinced that fighting in Afghanistan was a waste of lives and resources even before we decided to put the nation building model in place.

I was always of the opinion that there was no rational reason to go into Afghanistan. But there was an emotional reason. I supported Afghanistan even though I did not think it could work out, as Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires. I just wanted payback on those motherfuckers. After that I supported a surge in Afghanistan because if I was Obama I would build killing Bin Laden as part of this program. THe idea would be that the surge and OBL dead would insulate him from swiftboating. That was pure domestic politics.

Later still I came to realize that lives should not be sacrificed for domestic politics. To do that is evil. I resolved to support evil no more.

So what triggered your change of heart, or was it just the steady grind of contrary evidence?

Because I was wrong on Iraq. And what I said above. I just threw in the towel. Christ, nowadays I am channeling Buchanan. It's weird, but I don't think Bernie supported the Iraq war. Perhaps his instincts are better.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I (that is, 2003Me) never believed that for a second. I knew it was merely a pretext. Yet 2003Me still supported the war, and was wrong, wrong, wrong. On this issue 2003Me was on the same page as 1990's me (90sMe) who also supported the Gulf War. Turns out I was so very wrong about that one too. 2015Me would not have supported the Gulf War either. 2014 me did not support the current war on ISIS, (2014 me is the same as 2015 me on this issue). 2015 me would not even support the Somali or Kosovo intervention, whereas 1990's me did. Playwrite and 1990's me are still on the same page as far as ISIS, so I can see and even agree with his pov using my memory of what I was. Or 2015Me and Kinser can have a productive discussion whereas if he engaged 1980's me or 1990's me we would be talking past each other.

Once Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame... that was when I went from supporting the war on its merits to simply hoping that we would get away with it. At least, so I thought, the United States would conduct itself well, and Saddam Hussein had left enough dead bodies behind that if he were to be caught and executed such would be no loss.

My 180-degree turn on Dubya came rapidly on the Second Gulf War as one after another of my assumptions was disabused. Such included those obscene images of prisoner abuse. Under Dubya, America had taken on some of the characteristics of an Evil Empire. To be sure I distrusted him on the economy, not that such was important on foreign policy.


I accept that Dubya was the worst President in American history.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Once Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame... that was when I went from supporting the war on its merits to simply hoping that we would get away with it.

I turned against it in June 2003, when Garner was yanked, Bremer comes in and the media called him a fucking proconsul. Right then and there I realized I had been dead wrong and Brian had been right, these guys don't think that way. It took a few years to realized that I had been like Vizzini in this and started my journey to isolationism.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm waiting to see a fierce debate break out to determine who is most familiar with whores and whoring, and is thus the most authoritative voice on whore hypocrisy.

I doubt that whores and pimps pay appreciable attention to these Forums.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... I was always of the opinion that there was no rational reason to go into Afghanistan. But there was an emotional reason. I supported Afghanistan even though I did not think it could work out, as Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires. I just wanted payback on those motherfuckers. After that I supported a surge in Afghanistan because if I was Obama I would build killing Bin Laden as part of this program. THe idea would be that the surge and OBL dead would insulate him from swiftboating. That was pure domestic politics...

I actually had hopes that we would do a quick spin in Afghanistan: get al Qaeda and go home. After Tora Bora, I realized that a quick spin was never intended, and this was just an excuse for imperial adventuring.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I actually had hopes that we would do a quick spin in Afghanistan: get al Qaeda and go home. After Tora Bora, I realized that a quick spin was never intended, and this was just an excuse for imperial adventuring.

The problem that happened at Tora Bora was that the neocon and neo-liberal boomers who ran the country could not grasp the need for US troops to lead the attack on Tora Bora. The reason the administration failed to do this is because as baby boomer globalists and because they are extremely poor strategists, they could not comprehend concepts such as national honor and the need for US troops to lead the attack both to avenge 9/11 and to ensure that bin laden and his forces were fully trapped.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The problem that happened at Tora Bora was that the neocon and neo-liberal boomers who ran the country

Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are Silents.