Thanks to Marge O’Brien for bringing to our attention this video of Ron Paul being interviewed by the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph.  If you see no other Ron Paul video you must see this!

A little over a year ago, I wrote:

There is reason to believe the start of the hyperinflationary collapse of Western Civilization is imminent—as in within the next year.

To which the [insert sarcastic honorific here] John Jay Ray replied:

What a lot of rubbish!
Inflation has never been so well controlled as it is now

JR
Posted by john ray on Sunday, July 16, 2006 at 07:26 PM

To which I then replied

There is a minor distinction between “now” and “starting within a year from now” that JJR seems unable to comprehend.

To be more precise, now we have just enough inflationary pressure to cause a slight rise in interest rates—which is par for the course. This is likely to remain the status quo until the adjustable rate mortgages held by the landlords start driving large numbers of people out of their homes and/or landlords to default.  This hasn’t happened yet—but rents are creeping up.  The disparity between rents and new mortgage payments are high— rents remaining low mainly due to the inertia of all the children of boomers that weren’t born so landlords could have a few more dollars of real estate equity for their retirement.

I really wouldn’t want to be a landlord who relied heavily on real estate value for his retirement.  He might not have much left after his part in the collective genocide produces the much delayed reaction—not even his head.
Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, July 16, 2006 at 08:21 PM

The [insert yet another sarcastic honorific here] John Jay Ray then queried:

James
How much economics have you done?
Nil by the sound of it.

Tax receipts are booming in The USA and Australia so that is about as strong an indication of ANTI-inflationary pressure as you can get.  Even Britain is doing relatively well economically.

There would have to be a HUGE boost in govt spending to generate inflationary pressure and that is politically not on
Posted by jonjayray on Monday, July 17, 2006 at 03:13 AM

There is more but I don’t think it is even necessary for me to provide links to current economic conditions, is there?

What I should link to is an article describing the moral character of land barons—such as John Jay Ray—titled “Land Barons Committed Genocide Against Whites During the Peak of Boomer Fertility”.

Tonight, as the Environment Agency warns of a three-metre storm surge hitting the east coast, another unwelcome ingress is to be debated on a simultaneous BBC TV and radio broadcast.  The Big Immigration Debate, a Newsnight/Radio 5 Live production, is to begin at 22.30 hrs GMT.

Which is NOW, more or less!

Mainstream politicos and the inevitable panel of “experts”, including the steadfast Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch, will answer ... all the wrong questions.

The first question is: Is immigration threatening British identity?  A non-issue, since British identity does not exist.  But a Newsnight poll reported 62% saying yes.

The principal issues to be discussed in the Debate are: the government’s handling of immigration; the economic benefits; the impact on public services, and on social cohesion.

The incorrigible John Standing sent Newsnight an e-mail asking “What will be the condition of the English people at the start of the 22nd Century?”

You can hear the show live until midnight.

Along the road to the reclamation of homeland lies the reclamation of free-thinking and free speech.  A few days ago The Times put up a discussion topic titled, Do migrants make us or break us?  Despite the fact that this is, in mainstream terms, precisely the gateway question - the beginning of understanding - there have only been 24 comments at the time of posting this entry.  Compare that to the 205 that The Guardian musters for a piece titled The toxic Powell legacy, written by a sub-con named Sunder Katwala.

OK, the very fact that immigration is now dominating all the serious rags is a great advance on the conspiracy of silence of five years ago.  But really ... 24 comments on what is, after all, the choice between a prosperity predicated, supposedly, on racial egalitarianism and the Darwinian meaning of life itself!  When the circulation of The Times is 700,000 and The Guardian 375,000!

Well, I decided to conduct a (necessarily very small) experiment on The Times’ thread.  Since the headline question is the precurser to a proper political understanding of race and modernity, I’ve stretched it a little by submitting to The Times’ moderator a few rather more cogent questions.  Here they are:-

Questions to sleepers.

1) Is good business a good enough reason for English children to lose their birthright to England?

2) Is it fair or moral of the self-hating left and self-interested racial minorities to scream “racist” at those who seek the actual survival of the English people?

3) Do you believe that the English have a moral right to survive?

4) Do you understand that territory is the guarantor of genetic continuity?  Do you believe that the English have a moral right to assert their ownership of England?

5) If, in fact, the demographic trajectory for us is already one of continuing local displacement, national dispossession and genetic deracination, do you think it is better to repatriate immigrants wholesale or to acquiesce in an inevitable if long and slow extinction?

6) Will the hyper-moral return of tolerance mean anything if we do not survive?

7) If you are English, do you love your people?  Is there anything outside of your immediate family which you love more?

Now, these are the sort of questions that have twice got me banned at The Guardian, once as Guessedworker, once just the other day as this guy John Standing.  Will they survive the cut at The Times?  Has freedom of expression recovered to that point, or is it only permissable for mainstreamers to ask the questions?

And, of course, if the comment is published, will any readers answer?  Will they be Englishmen or opportunistic cryptos?

We shall, as the blind man said, see.

Five years ago Sepp Blatter, president of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) ...

... proposed limiting the number of foreign players at the top level of club football in Europe.

No, he wasn’t trying to finesse his way into the Madrid starting line-up.  He was, in his patrician way, concerned that Europe’s national teams did not have a sufficient pool of top-flight talent from which to draw.  Clubs had no incentive to gamble on identifying and nurturing home-grown talent when Africa and South America can and do produce the finished article in ample quantity and at low cost.  The result has been that some clubs such as Chelsea and Arsenal regularly field sides with only one or two players eligible to play for England - and it’s the same all across the European game, particularly in Spain.  England and Spain, it’s well understood, are serial low-achievers in the two big international competitions.

Blatter lost the argument.  He was out of step with the cool, cool image of the beautiful, anti-national game.  So cosmopolitan, so wildly popular with the white working-class male, it was just the ticket for a progressive, anti-racist political leader ...

... in search of street cred.

Besides, EU employment law was clear.  Blatter could not legally limit the clubs to a quota of non-EU players.

But that was then, and this is now.  Blatter claims to have won over the EU to his position:-

FIFA president Sepp Blatter is working with the European Union on plans to reduce the number of overseas players dominating teams in leagues across Europe.  Speaking to reporters in the Malaysian capital, where he is attending a regional award ceremony, Blatter said it was time for a change in Europe.

“The European Union does not cover this issue in its constitution at the moment but sport will be mentioned for the first time when they change their laws in December,” Blatter said.  “There are a number of processes coming together to stop the overwhelming presence of non-national players in club leagues.”

Blatter added that FIFA would like to set a limit of five foreigners in any starting line-up with the other six berths comprising players eligible to be selected for the national team of the country where the league was based.

Regarding the former difficulty of the free movement of professional footballers, he now says:-

The European Union has implemented the free circulation of workers, but football players are not employees in the conventional sense of the term. You need 11 of them on the pitch, and it is not at all the same thing as being an employee in a given company.

READ MORE...

The polls upon which editors rely are unscientific hence unethical in the sense of the press having an ethical responsibility to serve the public:

The Old Media is relying on name recognition in polls like Gallup and Harris, etc. to determine their priority in who they cover—but name recognition is driven in large measure by Old Media coverage.

The ethical thing for Old Media editors to do is demand polls from Gallup, Harris, etc. that, instead of, in effect, asking for name recognition, ask for position matching. Obvious questions should be asked, such as:

If a candidate had opposed the entry of the US into Iraq, would you tend to support or oppose him?

etc…

But since Old Media editors are not ethical, we get very angry reactions from very informed people of integrity—like military vets who set foot in Iraq.

These are not men you want very angry with you.

Now, this may well be one of those cases where “One should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.” but there comes a point where the distinction is irrelevant.

Now to the question of bias:

There are scientifically validated ways of constructing optimal questionnaires.

To construct such scientific questionnaires you start with an unscientific, but large, set of questions—large enough that you can reasonably expect it to touch on all of the critical dimensions of opinion. You then pick tolerably-small subsets of those questions to present to actual subjects. As you do so you start to construct a sparse matrix of questions vs answers—with many missing values—and run imputation algorithms such as Expectation Maximization or one of the many algorithms being developed to detect missing data in competitions like the Netflix Prize, which will tell you which questions provide you with the most predictive power over other questions. You then progressively bias the random selection of your questions toward those questions that you have evidence provide you with maximum information, continually retesting your model until you have a high degree of confidence you have a good subset. As a further refinement you can pursue conditional probability models involving Bayesian statistics so that you can dynamically customize the set of questions you ask of your subjects to extract the maximum predictive power from the set of questions you present to them.

None of this is particularly innovative and the methods are well established within statistics.

UPDATE:  USA Today’s Candidate Match Game shows that this concept isn’t foreign to Old Media.  Unfortunately, it does not appear to have affected their reporting priorities—probably in part due to the fact that it wasn’t conducted by Gallup or Harris in a scientific fashion.  It reflects poorly on USA Today that they recognize such a “Matching Game” would be a reader draw and yet not recognize that the reason it might be appealing is that it is more valid than the polls from Gallup and Harris upon which their editorial/marketing decisions erroneously rely.

On a whim, I grabbed some stats on sunburns by State and ran them through my ecological correlator at LaboratoryOfTheStates.com to see what popped out.  As one might predict, Nordic human ecologies are the top predictors of sunburn and black human ecologies are the top predictors of the absence of sunburns.  But, get this—among the highest attributes of human ecologies experiencing sunburns is high IQ.  Now, I’m sure the groveling James Watson will admonish me to abandon my fool-hardy quest for the data regarding IQ and SKIN COLOR as an indulgence in the shallow, pseudo-intellectual ecological fallacy, but it does say something that the inbred six-fingered bigots would have predicted this.

Joe Turner: Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?

Ed Higgins: Are you crazy?

Joe Turner: Am l?

Ed Higgins: Look, Turner ...

Joe Turner: Do we have plans?

Ed Higgins: No, absolutely not.  We have games, that’s all.  We play games ... what if?  How many men?  What would it take?  Is there a cheaper way to destabilize a regime?  That’s what we’re paid to do.

Joe Turner: Walk on ... go on.  So Atwood just took the games too seriously.  He was really going to do it, wasn’t he? 

Ed Higgins: A renegade operation.  Atwood knew 54/12 would never authorize it, not with the heat on the company.

Joe Turner: What if there hadn’t been any heat?  Suppose I hadn’t stumbled on their plan?  Say nobody had.

Ed Higgins: Different ballgame.  Fact is, there was nothing wrong with the plan.  No, the plan was all right.  The plan would’ve worked.

Joe Turner: Boy, what is it with you people?  You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?

Ed Higgins: No.  It’s simple economics.  Today it’s oil, right?  In 10 or 25 years food ... plutonium.  And maybe even sooner.  What do you think the people are going to want us to do then?

Joe Turner: Ask them

Ed Higgins: Now now. Then.  Ask them when they’re running out.  Ask them when there’s no heat and they’re cold.  Ask them when their engines stop.  Ask them when people who have never known hunger start going hungry.  Want to know something?  They won’t want us to ask them.  They’ll want us to get it for them.

Joe Turner: Boy, have you found a home.

This exchange between a renegade CIA employee, Joe Turner, and a senior agent named Ed Higgins is the denouement of the 1975 film, Three Days of the Condor.  Robert Redford played Turner - essentially an academic whose function was to analyse the content of novels in search of ideas and material of interest to his masters.  Cliff Robertson played Higgins, someone Turner is forced to trust until he learns that he can trust no one.

The film-script was based on James Grady’s 1974 novel, Six Days of the Condor.

Plainly, the background to Grady’s book was the oil crisis of the preceding year.  The crisis was triggered by the 20 days of fighting of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, which began on 6th October.  On the 16th, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which had been in open dispute over prices with its main Western consumers, took action to cut production and end the era of cheap oil.  The following day, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, with Egypt and Syria, announced a cessation of oil shipments to nations supporting Israel.

In point of fact, Western governments reacted to the crisis in a number of measured ways, the common purpose of which was to reduce dependence on OPEC.  There was never any outward sign of preparations for an American or Western invasion in support of Israel and secure oil.  The Israeli’s won in the air, on the battlefields and at sea, and achieved a stunning and complete but costly victory.  It was a victory for the industrial West, too.

The Arab appetite for war was over for the forseeable future.  The Camp David accords followed, at some considerable diplomatic distance.  To his personal cost, Anwar Sadat committed Egypt to peace with the Israelis.  On 6 October 1981, at Egypt’s annual parade marking the start of the war, Sadat was assassinated by Khalid Islambouli, a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (which, incidentally, merged with Al-Qaeda in 2001).

READ MORE...