« Grooming the Senate? For what or why? | Main | The French Intelligence Report of April 26, 2017 Contradicts the Allegations in the White House Intelligence Report of April 11, 2017 by Dr. Theodore Postol »

25 April 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


What is this supposed to mean?
Are you trying to beat Jorge Luis Borges at this game?

Animals are divided into:

1- those that belong to the Emperor,
2- embalmed ones,
3- those that are trained,
4- suckling pigs,
5- mermaids,
6- fabulous ones,
7- stray dogs,
8- those included in the present classification,
9- those that tremble as if they were mad,
10- innumerable ones,
11- those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
12- others,
13- those that have just broken a flower vase,
14- those that from a long way off look like flies.


""I do not think it is your place, an inhabitant of a Banana Republic, to make judgements about how a sovereign state should run its business."

I know, I have to work on the delivery; make it a bit more concise and more rhetorically insulting.

May be in Latin, it is more concise."

An optional track in the crude, rude and true art of insulting would be "In being a Banana Republic bitch*, the quality of your wisdom does not seem to be working in your own land."

* To be more civilly polite replace this word with a less insulting form such as buddy.


Valissa I see the argument that the NATO countries, outside of the US, don't pay their fair share of the bill for this 'protection' (usually from an American). However I do not think the 'social democratic' proles see it as protection merely a way of making enemies. I would ask who we are being protected from? Neither Russia or China seem to want to be our enemy and no one else seems to be a great threat - unless we are inflecting regime change upon them. If you take away all of US/NATO offensive foreign adventures and adopt a less threatening posture how much would it really cost to the Europeans to protect themselves from external forces. As a nuclear armed entity we are not a particularly soft target.
Dump NATO and form a EU alliance and let the Americans do their own thing then we will not be continuously be making enemies by association. Of course this is all impossible as long as our deep states are adjuncts of the Borg.

Babak Makkinejad

Thanks Thomas.

I will work on it.

Babak Makkinejad

How about this?

"Senex Scortum, minus praescribitur regem!"



You're selective misunderstanding of English got old long ago. You want enlightenment on genital mutilation occurring in the US then read the article linked above.


Yes, but the meaning of the'gods' meddling designs as requiring human agency should not be taken to imply a humans as generally being pawns In a game. Humans, by god, are free of will and so being, responsible in affairs. Nonetheless, we are offered prophesy, as according to an unfolding play; but this is really to point out divine intervention in hopeless times. Meanwhile, we root for peace, prosperity for all communities and back the good blokes or not, I suppose. Here, all seem to see Assad as the good guy, even if with (unnecessary) disclaim regarding his perfection. Victory for him and his supporters (most Syrians) is not a foregone conclusion, as Syrian army and others would attest, I imagine: each must fight. And it seems according to present opinion, given here, more resources are required, if not from Syrian army then Russian or Iranian, to conclude a victory, an end to rather disgusting human imposition of suffering upon others, suffering empowered by lesser gods or not.


Helpful reply. This line of argumentation re. the "dollar crisis" has driven me
crazy for a decade. It reminds me of the Engineer's joke about rocket launches: a thousand things can happen, only one of them good. In other words, there are a million ways to misunderstand macroeconomics and banking. My favorite clarifying notion is "real terms of trade." Hilariously we have it all backward. The purpose ultimately of all production is consumption. So it's about the pile of stuff you have after you add up all the stuff the world sends you plus all the stuff you produce domestically minus all the stuff you sell to the world. (Don't tell the Germans.)

That said I'm still kind of unsettled about where we are headed. In other words, I do think there is a problem here but can't quite define it. It's not debt per-se as I think we've got that messed up too. (Short version: if what we called "government debt" was eliminated we would find ourselves without a currency.) it's more like this...

My pedestrian pet-theory is that alll trade ultimately must be circular (obviously.) E.g. - If all the gold ended up in US after 2nd world war is US rich or poor. Is it rich if it has no-one to trade with? Of course not. So the US invests - vendor finances - the world's rebuilding. Yay!

But then in 73 (?) the dollar becomes de-linked from gold effectively meaning that we're playing tag without a safe tree.

What are the implications of this? It sounds profound but can't tell. It does seem to mean that US trade deficits are being financed by foreigners. Is that a problem? Is it just the mirror image of the Marshall plan - more vendor financing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad