Thursday, November 11, 2010

Shillebrity Death Match #23 - Max Keiser vs. Alex Jones

Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the Truthiest of them all?

It's a heavyweight bout between Max and Alex

Jones won his previous challenge with a knock-out assertion that 'the Arabs own Hollywood!!!' but Max has got some special moves of his own


Place your bets and scroll forward 4 minutes in to see which of the these two duelling Infowarriors is going to leave his opponent speechless...





That's a knock-out @4.24

Well done Max!

The cheque's in the post and the negatives aren't

.

39 comments:

Venezuelan Bathing Beauties said...

this site isn't bad

paul said...

Dear max,
I think the us did get right behind the south Vietnamese, and in front of them, for 20 odd years.
Ps do you think Gold will go up in the near future and do you think these people should turn the tables by putting their hard earned into it?

paul said...

PPS I have no interest in these matters and I only think the world should know you are a cunt.

paul said...

I prefer this one

Stef said...

"I think the us did get right behind the south Vietnamese, and in front of them, for 20 odd years."

and not forgetting the South Koreans (6o years)

or even the Chagos Islanders (40 years)

etc etc

Stef said...

Max is, of course, a passionate ramper of both environmental causes and gold accumulation

Giving the huge amounts of energy and toxic chemistry required to dig up, concentrate and re-bury gold, mere mortals might think that there's a small ideological paradox there

but that would be because they are mere mortals

paul said...

Someone as shameless as max will have no trouble skating over that one. His earnest gold price followers are probably unaware of the brutal industrial process that presents the magic metal.

Got those strikes covered max? Could well be an opportunity for a smart man with lots of gold (adverts) to sell.

Anonymous said...

We are living in a lunatic asylum.
who needs Gold when you could be the proud owner of!
BBC News - Roy Lichtenstein painting fetches $42.6m at auction

Stef said...

"will have no trouble skating over that one"

It's just dawned on me that every dead gold miner is another one in the back of the net in our ceaseless battle against the Devil Gas

So, if you look at things from that PoV, the more brutal the extraction process the better

stef said...

Given that the US/ UK's current economic recovery masterplan seems to be...

Step 1 - Generate a shit load more bank credit

Step 2 - Use that credit to buy China

Step 3 - Live off the rent

...a soupçon of fiat inflation is to be expected as a small price to pay for eternal prosperity

Of course, goldbugs would argue that if the price of that Lichtenstein was re-indexed to gold-backed dollars it's real price would be nearer to something like $4.99 and everyone could afford one

wv = itdoesntmatterwhatyouuseitswhocontrolstheupply
or at least it should have been

Anonymous said...

meanwhile,,,

BBC News - Benefits system overhaul to 'make work pay'

my mate the one who had to work for Triage had a job offer.The job was for 8 hours a week cleaning in a "very dirty environment"needless to say he refused that post

stef said...

... an interesting issue to ponder is the talk in various parts of cyberspace about Fort Knox not having any gold in it and how it should be audited

personally, I have real trouble understanding why the question of whether there is or isn't a few hundred tons of a certain, not especially useful, metal buried in a hole in the ground somewhere should have any influence whatsoever, good or bad, on the economic behaviour and well-being of a continent filled with several hundred million people, or a world filled with several billion

one of the environmental conditions I assume at the start of my ponderings is that world isn't managed by psycopathic lunatics

stef said...

"needless to say he refused that post"

I've worked, when much younger, cleaning very dirty environments and as long as you've got a rope round you so that you can be hauled out when you pass out it's not so bad, especially when you consider how well it pays

Hubris said...

@ Steff
"one of the environmental conditions I assume at the start of my ponderings is that the world isn't managed by psycopathic lunatics"

See? Now there's yer problem right there!

This reminds me of a joke I heard recently:

Three castaways on a desert island find a crate of canned food.

The first, a theoretical physicist, comes up with a model of a machine that can open cans with astonishing efficiency, then realises there is no material to build the machine.

The second, an engineer, tries to open the cans with everything available – stone, stick, coconut – but all in vain.

The last one, an economist, steps in and starts: “Let’s assume that we have a can opener . . . ”

Stef said...

nicely put

and I do know how to spell psycopath, honestly

DvD said...

In other, other news does this qualify as the most pointless newspaper article of all time?

Dick Van Dyke 'saved by porpoises'

Stef said...

yes

Stef said...

presumably there can't be much else going on in the world

paul said...

The job was for 8 hours a week cleaning in a "very dirty environment"

Was it the daily sport offices?

Seriously folks, does 8 hours a week count as a job?

Stef said...

"Seriously folks, does 8 hours a week count as a job?"

Do you know any dentists?

Anonymous said...

He was offered 6.60an hour.He would have to have signed off thereby losing his benefits.

Stef said...

At some point, just possibly, a critical mass of people might start asking themselves why they have to do shitty jobs to earn a few electronic credits which some bastard is just tapping out by the billion on a keyboard

paul said...

6.60 * 8 = £52.80
At that rate he won't be paying NI, the employer won't be paying NI, he won't be paying tax, he'll be eligible for Housing Benefit and JSA/Income Support.

What is the point of this kind of job?

Anonymous said...

I don´t know for sure what the situation would be as regards his rent and council tax which at the moment is well over 100 quid a week.But the killer is that he would have to pay the bus fare because the job is in a town 10 miles away!(I´m not making this up)so he told those lovely folks at the benefit office to stuff their"job"

Anonymous said...

yep he would still have qualified for income support,,

To get Income Support, you must either not be working at all or work less than 16 hours a wee

really though!hey it least he would have had a foot in the employment ladder!

gyges said...

Check out Prof Rancourt's latest ...

Editor in Chief resigned over the Harrit et al. nanothermite paper

stef said...

as luck would have it I'm currently 1/2 way through playing the Barrett/ Rancourt/ Harrit discussion

I'll read his papers afterwards

One curious thing about Rancourt's position is the fact that he argues that WTC1 and WTC 2 could have collapsed as a result of the damage they received, with no need to invoke controlled demolition

but then he also concedes, without dispute, that WTC7 does look like it was brought down by a CD

which, if so, would be a little inconsistent of the terrorists, whoever they might be

having said that, there's no denying that the style of the collapses of WTC1&2 and the collapse of WTC7 were different

Stef said...

...this business with Rancourt is a nice illustration of what can happen to a group of Truthers if they are lured into throwing their all behind a single competing hypothesis

my own scepticism about 9/11, and 7/7, is based on a long list of issues I have with apparent flaws in the Official Narratives. Narratives which I would argue are unproven

other people argue for a different approach to these matters e.g.

http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2010/11/10/j7-as-totally-clueless-shock/

Stef said...

Kevin Barrett's signature is the first on this nanothermite-free declaration. So he should know better...

DECLARATION ON MUSLIMS AND 9/11

A. On the basis of the study “No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11″ by Elias Davidsson (2008), that we have carefully examined, and other similar studies, we undersigned are now convinced that the U.S. authorities did not prove [beyond reasonable doubt*] their account on the mass murder of September 11, 2001, in particular their claim that Muslims/Arabs committed this crime.

B. The presumption of innocence, as a civilised principle, is enshrined in Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which, every person “charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (…)” While the presumption of innocence was particularly drafted to protect the rights of persons already charged of a penal offence, it evidently applies to persons who have not even been formally accused of any offence...

Stef said...

C. On the basis of the above findings, we consider the publication and dissemination of the allegation that Muslim/Arabs committed the mass murder of 9/11, as a grievous and unconscionable form of character assassination. Such an allegation violates the principle of the presumption of innocence. It also violates Articles 1, 3, 5 and 8 of the Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists of the International Federation of Journalists, the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), and Resolution 1003 on the ethics of journalism, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1993.

D. We, therefore, call upon journalists to refrain henceforth from attributing, either directly or indirectly, the commission of the mass murder of 9/11 to Muslims or Arabs or to any Muslim or Islamic organisation; to publicise the unreported fact that the U.S. authorities did not produce any evidence of Muslim/Arab participation in the actual mass murder of 9/11; and to publish an apology to the families of those maligned, without foundation, for the mass murder of 9/11.

Pepe the Porpoise said...

this site is good

gyges said...

Stef@18:50 11-Nove said,

"as luck would have it I'm currently 1/2 way through playing the Barrett/ Rancourt/ Harrit discussion

I'll read his papers afterwards
"

I read the paper and intend to hear the discussion later.

"... that WTC1 and WTC 2 could have collapsed as a result of the damage they received,"

Craig Murray made an interesting comment a while back. He said that it was entirely possible that the WTC building, when built, had corners cut. He gave an example of half a block of flats collapsing in London after a gas explosion. This was after they were specifically designed to withstand this sort of thing. Enquiries and such found that the builders had cut corners etc.

"...my own scepticism about 9/11, and 7/7, is based on..."

My own scepticism isn't scepticism: it's epistemeology. How do we know what we know?

When these narratives are scrutinised, I find that we don't know what we think we know. All very fascinating.

Stef said...

"My own scepticism isn't scepticism: it's epistemeology. How do we know what we know?"

I can spell (and pronounce) scepticism. Aside from that I'm with you

which is why Rancourt's Some Big LIes of Science and his refusal to present scientists as a priest caste gets a big thumbs up from YT

Stef said...

...and whether he's right or wrong about the origins of the 'nanothermite' that's neither here nor there as far as his merciless demolition of Harrit's paper, in the 2nd 1/2 of the interview, goes

just by pointing out that the paper does not include any mention of the precautions taken to avoid sample contamination in the testing process he's blown the bottom right out of it

otoh it's dashed convenient that a prof specialising in nanoparticles is kicking his heels around the truth movement with time on his hands

and he does acknowledge that WTC7 does look like a CD

gregorio montalban said...

I enjoyed your post very much. This site is also good

Stef said...

I've got to the end of the Barrett/ Rancourt/ Harrit discussion

Rancourt unequivocally agrees that WTC7 was taken down by a CD

As for WTC1&2 I'm not sure that Barrett and Harrit fullly understood what Rancourt was saying

He was quite careful in the way he phrased his conclusions

He dismissed the existing evidence for a CD using nanothermite and argued that the potential energy of the standing structures was enough to power the collapses

In that respect he agrees with the Official Narrative

What he did not say was that the collapses were fully initiated by the plane strikes or the resulting fires. He left the window open for other potential collapse initiators

Stef said...

...the implication being that a clever demolition specialist may have found a way to initiate a gravity collapse without fully wiring the buildings up, with all the logistics that would've required

or that the buildings did collapse as the result of plane strikes

and it's unlikely that anyone will ever be able to establish which with further physical research

so why bother when there's so much other less debatable material out there, not least the demolition of WTC7

cognitive infiltrator or not, he does have a point

and I've experience this in my own life. I've been in arguments with non loons about the collapse of WTC1&2, pulled up a video of WTC7 going down and it's been game over

Tom said...

If you listen closely to Max in this clip you can actually hear the sound of a man vigorously straining his own credulity. Marvellous to capture that in the creature's natural environment.

david attenborough said...

$3-4bn a year in aid to a state with a GDP per capita somewhere between Italy and New Zealand armed with 200-400 nuclear weapons makes it quite a strain indeed