Mixed Company

Kevin Trudeau :: Mixed Company

The Cato Institute :: a libertarian think tank {like a shark tank but with nerds} … was originally founded in 1974 as the Charles Koch Foundation. Charles Koch :: and his brother Joe Hardy … go around solving various mysteries down at the old lighthouse. No wait that’s wrong. Charles Koch :: and his brother David Koch … go around giving money to any mouth-breather willing to spout off about how the government is the root of all our problems.

The government is the root of all our problems. Or to put that another way :: in a style I hereby dub passé-hip … mo government mo problems.

I did it! I can haz my Koch monies now?

“But Droid” :: says some stupid baby … “you don’t even believe that shit.”

So! Neither does anybody else :: you just spew it out your dirty pigeon hole … and then you get your damn monies. Like Milton Friedman writing propaganda for the National Association of Real Estate Boards way back in the day. Rich and powerful types need to co-opt the eloquent :: and the intellectual … to keep the people dancing in their chains. That’s easy though :: cause the eloquent and the intellectual are very cheap whores … like Rick Calvert’s tacos cheap.

The cheap whores at the Cato Institute of Kochs filed this amicus brief in support of Kevin Trudeau’s right to do whatever Kevin Trudeau’s heart-of-a-car-salesman-lion-champion-patriot tells him to do :: basically … read it if you like not being interested in what you’re reading.

“Finally, the courts below did not consider the chilling effect the holdings would have on fully protected speech and the need to accord authors (and others) appropriate “breathing space” to promote their works…

It’s true :: America has a real problem with people not being self-promotional … I think I read about that on The Onion.

First Amendment principles long articulated by this Court have never countenanced, let alone permitted, government regulators to be cast in the role of censor. The marketplace of ideas should not be constricted out of fear of government censors.”

Your honor :: I strenuously object … this has never been countenanced … never I say! Why contenance something now which has previously not been countenanced? Absolute tomfoolery :: and I mean that … quite seriously.

Imagine a horrible draconian world in which you could only get away with str8 up lying your ass off in your advertisements for like two decades before the government tried limply to interfere. The Cato Institute can’t :: and couldn’t :: and wouldn’t ever countenance such a thing.

Matt Taibbi :: personal hero of wannabe asshole reporters everywhere … hates sellout shit like that. Says he on another matter Cato

I don’t know what Richard Rahn would call making your yearly bonus goal by robbing some janitor in Indiana out of his pension. As a flack for the Cato Institute, I’m sure he would call it good business. But in my mind, if that’s not greed, I don’t know what the hell is.

Sounds like greed to me … but there’s no need for the foul language.

Matt wrote one of the great articles about the financial crisis :: and then he went on Kevin Trudeau’s radio show to promote it … or whatever the fuck he was doing.

Why do that?

Why?

Maybe he should call the Cato Institute and let them know he’s feeling appropriate “breathing space” to promote his works … cause I know they’re really worried about that.

It takes a village to fuck the janitor.

>> bleep bloop

39 thoughts on “Mixed Company”


  1. First Amendment principles long articulated by this Court have never countenanced, let alone permitted, government regulators to be cast in the role of censor. The marketplace of ideas should not be constricted out of fear of government censors.”

    Really? I guess all those fines imposed by the FCC for saying naughty words on air were just a figment of my imagination. But maybe there’s some Supreme Court case vs. the FTC that I’m unaware of. That’s possible because I don’t always do as much research as I apparently ought. Then again, this is supposed to just be a comment. Then again, poorly researched words add little to the conversation.

    But about ye olde Free Speech: it seems to me the biggest barriers to Free Speech are 1) not having large piles of $$$ from which to build a huge TV-media soap box/megaphone thing and 2) people really not wanting to hear or believe what you have to tell them.

    The way the village gets away with screwing the janitor is they all take turns using coded signals, and they wear blindfolds thus allowing plausible deniability and easily eschewing personal responsibility.


    Furry cows moo and decompress.

  2. I’m almost embarrassed now about how excited I was about libertarianism in its modern, politicized form when I first “discovered” it years ago. I had some idea that the Libertarian Party in the U.S. represented the best of liberalism and conservatism. I continue to modify my views in that regard, though I still have friends whose libertarian views I respect.

    And while I still think there are some free speech issues that are not black and white where Trudeau is concerned, I am getting more and more disgusted with the ways he and his army of sycophants continue to exploit and spin the whole free-speech theme. And at the very least, the Cato Institute has missed the larger point — or, I am increasingly coming to believe, just didn’t give a crap about the larger point. In the end, it seems it’s all about the right to make money, and damn the ethical issues. Trudeau is a scammer, and virtually everything he says or writes is in the service of scamming more people out of more money.

  3. Here is my mature contribution to an intellectual dialogue:

    There once were two brothers named Kochs
    Who loved to be smothered in ______
    They would dance and play, as gay as a parade
    And wear nothing while hunting but socks

    What do you think?

  4. What the Catoites are suggesting is that people have the First Amendment right to lie about their products and services. And these alleged libertarians would also gut the ability for people tobring suits in tort. This is not a good thing at all.

    1. @Jack,

      A tax lawyer told the liberals at NPR that offshore tax havens are “‘a minefield of U.S. tax obligations,'” and they told me, so now I don’t think they are the best ever for middle-classed people.

  5. I’m not attacking the victims but I do wonder how such a person is able to scam so many people for such a long time.

    I first saw KT on Australian TV about 15 years ago. He was pitching a newsletter with Rene Rivkin (now deceased). I would’ve been about 14-15 years old at the time but I knew the moment I saw KT that he was a scammer.

    Has anyone done any research into the typical person that gets conned? Is it more than just a lack of critical thinking skills or a case of being caught out at the wrong time and a victim of circumstance; perhaps a combination?

    1. @Jon Trudeau is to you a con man. To many he is urbane and entertaining. It would be great to give people ‘reality check’ glasses so they can see the horror that is the man Trudeau – but such things do not exist (SD is the best alternative there is) and people are susceptible to persuasive manners and – I hate to say it – engaging techniques. Trudeau plays on people’s emotions to make them like him – emotions have a way of dispelling critical thought – and if a person’s fraud antenna are not on the large side anyway, then they have no hope.

      The typical person who gets conned is desperate, or greedy, or stupid (aka lacking or forgetting critical thought processes) – and we call all be stupid. Perhaps not now, but if we are tired, or if we are old, and vulnerable. And if we are stupid, we blame ourselves, and do not go for redress, and let the scammer keep our money. The scammer likes to get the victim loved up and happy and pursuaded, when the victim buys, and then later is really embarrassed, and feeling foolish… after the event: the scammer keeps his fraudulent money in his pocket, and no complaints go to the credit card company, the bank, or pay pal, andd he moves onto his next victim.

      Like SD – I am flummoxed by Matt Taibbi going on Kevin Trudeau. An intelligent man can leave his critical skills at home, and be an idiot – it would be great to find out what was going on in Matt Taibbi’s head. The answer, like the action of going on Trudeau, would anyway be a dissapointment.

      The above is again is an amazing post – I am not a conspiracy theorist – and am really surprised to learn that Milton Friedman lacked fundamental academic integrity. He was an early conspirator in the property scam – the long property con – which many of us are either conspirators in or victims of – i.e. we were stupid, and did not realise what was going on.

      1. @Random stuff, your post is SO Right On! I think you and The Salty Droid are representative of a minor few, truly informed writers who recognize and publicize bullshit when you encounter it.
        Much appreciation! Great Post! Looking forward to the next!!

        1. @Douglas, Thanks – but I don’t belong in the same category as SD – I am just human, and am entirely lacking in powerful robotic neurons.

          Being human I am also confused – your link is to a website selling IM services (!!!!!!!!!!) – and the ‘contact us’ page, gives the contact details of no one.

          You also are *maybe* human – but you have balls of brass providing a link to a website that most SD followers would see as an email harvester feeding the wreteched IM / MLM / boiler-room marketing machine. You might be looking to get those balls electrocuted by a robot.

          But what is worse is that the YouTube account is associated with http://www.vegasreputation.com/ – which is an ‘internet’ ‘reputation management’ company. Which is another area where the really scummiest of the scum cluster to scam and extort.

          For example have a read through these posts…

          http://saltydroid.info/?s=Ed+Magedson&x=15&y=9

          I might be being stupid and confused though… in which case I am ready to be scammed. Result? Or not.

  6. Utah = bad

    what do you think of when you think Utah?

    Who do you associate with that answer?

    I love this association stuff

    There is no Santa?

    Sad day indeed…very very sad

      1. @pigs trotters,

        Thank you.

        Good to know a bit of distilled truth about Libertarians:

        “The Libertarian Party platform called for the abolition of the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., as well as of federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Energy. The Party wanted to end Social Security, minimum-wage laws, gun control, and all personal and corporate income taxes; it proposed the legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. Government should be reduced to only one function: the protection of individual rights. William F. Buckley, Jr., a more traditional conservative, called the movement “Anarcho-Totalitarianism.”

        Quoted from
        http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

        Libertarians sound nuts.

        When you have the Koch brothers as leading Libertarians, who get away with very nasty polution and industrial accidents, and whose father worked for Stalin, loved Mussolini, hated communists (because Stalin purged a good number of his work colleages)… and a whole load more totally mad conflicting stuff, and David Koch who survived cancer, to join the National Cancer Advisory Board, and then uses it to stop carcenogenic formaldehyde from being categorised as a known carcinaogen, because Koch industries make spondoolies of cash from fromaldehyde… you understand how the Koch brothers are nuts.

        Nuts, and harmful to society at large, and democracy in particular.

        They almost got Romney in. Shit. America had one close call.

        1. @Random stuff,
          Personally I think America is screwed, and has been probably at the very least since 1963, but probably earlier than that. Most of these scammers originate in the US and if not they certainly “learned” most the techniques from a US LGAT machine (Tony Robbins anyone?).
          Sadly these parasites are a global event, but I do think the US is particularly infected with them at all levels of the social ladder.

  7. “The Libertarian Party platform called for the abolition of the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., as well as of federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Energy. The Party wanted to end Social Security, minimum-wage laws, gun control, and all personal and corporate income taxes; it proposed the legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. Government should be reduced to only one function: the protection of individual rights. William F. Buckley, Jr., a more traditional conservative, called the movement “Anarcho-Totalitarianism.”

    That quote lumps a bunch of shit together. What particular part sounds nuts … or phrased another way which of the things mentioned do you feel play essential roles in our lives?

    I’m not defending the Koch’s … I think they are ass hats.

    1. @RT, the legalization bit makes some sense, if it is done well. The things that the Libertarian Party plan to abolish and end sound like a one sided plan – if you ban all taxes, you can pay for, and have no government. Well, then you have anarchy. Not having anarchy plays an essential role in our lives. The more guns and weaponry around, the more people will use them to kill other people – so having fewer guns, and controling who has them, does play a sort of essential role in our lives. Trying to keep on top of organisations plotting further 9/11s does keep a sort of essential role in our lives.

      But I can see this opens up a whole can of worms – the CIA and the FBI have done significant bad stuff and stupid stuff over the years – but that does not mean that the concept of the organisations is wrong, and if they were lead better, and more competent – they would provide better results. You did need to keep Stalinist communists out in the 40s and 50s – it was not just paranoia – and the FBI and the CIA played a role there – it is a real pity that the main anti commmunist, Mcarthy was such a nasty piece of work.

      The irony is that the Libertarians seem to think up a whole load of poorly structured and poorly rationalised stuff – e.g. emotionalised sound bites that might appeal in the same way as a MacDonald’s hamburger – in order to solve a whole load problems that are significantly complex, and will only get worse if given the ‘simple’ solution treatment.

      Realise I have gone off topic here – but there is a sort of parallel – it seems like the Libertarians bundle a whole load of ‘sound bite’ good ideas, without any real implementation approach, together with some absolute rubbish, or order to get people to ‘buy’ the rubbish – just like IMers. And it’s no good. Just like IMers. Look at the Koch’s – they are using the Libertarian party as a tool to send out subtly brainwashing infomercials that are purely aligned with their commercial interests, and have no concern for the US populace as a whole – you don’t get fined $500 million over the years for behaving in a decent manner.

      1. @Random stuff,

        The irony is that the Libertarians seem to think up a whole load of poorly structured and poorly rationalised stuff – e.g. emotionalised sound bites that might appeal in the same way as a MacDonald’s hamburger – in order to solve a whole load problems that are significantly complex, and will only get worse if given the ‘simple’ solution treatment.

        “For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and wrong.”

        Yeah, they oversimplify. And they don’t seem either to understand or to care that they oversimplify. So that’s not good.

        1. @Wyrd, Agreed. H L Mencken’s quote – new to me – but pertinent here. Simple thinking, passionately emotionally feeling what is right… Libertarians seem to have a fair amount in common with Sheeple: going to conventions and getting all psyched up, but not realising they are perhaps being manipulated.

          1. @Random stuff,

            Re Mencken: That’s pretty cool. I didn’t actually know it was a quote from him. I’ve heard his name come up occasionally in discussions of rational thought and/or free thought. I think it’s about time I find one/some of his popular works and devour it/them.

            From Wikipedia
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken

            A keen cheerleader of scientific progress, he was very skeptical of economic theories and particularly critical of anti-intellectualism, bigotry, populism, Fundamentalist Christianity, creationism, organized religion, the existence of God, and osteopathic/chiropractic medicine.

            Sounds like my kind of guy.

            Back to the quote: you can tell that the form I was using has suffered a small amount of corruption as it’s no longer word-for-word. I once read it in someone’s slashdot signature and it stuck with me. I don’t think they attributed their source, but it occurred to me over the years that it surely must be a quote from someone “known” because, as much as I’d like to believe that random slashdotters (like myself, et. al.) are capable of just rattling off pithy statements that stay with you for years, it’s not terribly likely.

            Now, The Salty Droid OTOH… well I don’t want to inflate his robot ego too far, but he might be capable occasionally of writing something that sticks with you.

            You can’t make money online.

      2. @Wyrd ::

        “For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and wrong.”

        Yeah, they oversimplify. And they don’t seem either to understand or to care that they oversimplify. So that’s not good.

        Probably we are oversimplifying about the oversimplifying of “Libertarians” here a bit too.

        Most of the more visible public representatives of “Libertarianism” are basically “right-wing Conservative wing-nuts” (by today’s politico-speak) who are poorly informed (or willfully ignorant) on the core principles of what I would consider actual Libertarianism … which ironically would be classified as “Liberal” in the classical sense of that word.

        On the one hand, we have the best funded “Libertarian” {Double}think Tanks giving lip-service to deregulation on behalf of their “wealthy elite” financial backers who the deregulation would benefit most (i.e. – The Cato Institute). These people aren’t Libertarians, but Fascists / Corporatists who want to abolish all government that doesn’t serve their bottom line (and strengthen all government that does). On the other hand, we have things like the Tea Party movement, primarily bank-rolled by Rupert Murdoch and our favorite Cock :: er Koch Brothers… with ultimately the same agenda (surprise, surprise).

        A tragedy on all fronts, really… as “true” Libertarianism is basically the opposite of what these Propaganda Mills are churning out (and diametrically opposed to the use of / ability to use Capital to influence the State).

        To me, w/o going into the economic back-story (which is where Liberterianism’s roots truly lie), we could say its tl;dr maxims are approximately:

        “The Government is best which governs least.”
        and
        “Don’t steal, the Government hates competition.”
        and
        “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed … with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

        Of course, in practice these three maxims are nearly impossible to implement, because when there is a monopoly on force (i.e. – Government), as with any monopoly, there is an inevitable trend toward corruption & bureaucratization (i.e. – “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” and/ or “power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible.”)

        Even the Bill Of Rights, by my reading, is a great example of “traditional” Libertarian ideals … and we can see how popular that little document is among folks who fraudulently adopt the title of “Libertarian” for themselves in recent years :-(

        For an “easy” intro to “actual” Libertarianism, check out Murray Rothbard’s works… or even F.A. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom.”

        But the real juice, which still falls victim to some over-simplification in spite of its ~1000 pages of elucidation, is in Ludwig von Mises’ magnum opus “Human Action” … by my reading one of the best economic tomes ever written.

        A good example of real-world “Libertarianism” in practice would probably be the Native North American “self governance” systems (which most academics actually classify as anarchistic).

        I would consider myself a Libertarian in the sense that I believe “government is a hallucination in the minds of governors” and “a self-fulfilling prophecy” … words of my favorite fictional pirate, Hagbard Celine, and one of the best Libertarian (or perhaps – in his own words – “Anarcho-Capitalist”) examples from modern “literature.”

        Now, if only we could skip the small talk and just have Scamworld frauds like True-dough & his ilk walk the plank (rather than waiting around for the {supposedly non-}fictional FTC to do their job), perhaps things would be much more pleasant around here. Arrrr P-(

    2. @RT,

      The crisp air cut through the Lycra of Tanya’s minidress. She didn’t know the month, but she knew the year was 2005. She was too lucid to be working. “Those squatters at 11 Wall St. have the best price on smack,” she thought to herself while walking the opposite direction, toward the World Trade Center.

      Tanya entered the North Tower through the revolving door. She was glad to be out of the wind. The Blackwater guard motioned for her to step through the metal detector. She was afraid the jewelry hidden under her shrug or the Smith & Wesson in her purse might set off the detector, but she gingerly stepped through. No noise. “Have a nice day, miss,” said the guard.

      Tanya got onto a waiting elevator and selected her floor. She told herself she was coming here because she had plenty of money draped around her neck today and Roth had the best, cleanest heroin. The commie stuff from Kabul. She wondered how the U.S. could be in a Cold War with the USSR and still allow people like Roth to import opiates produced on the Soviets’ nationalized poppy farms. She thought about back when she first started using Soviet-grown opium, right after her mother died. She told herself these thoughts came from not enough heroin in her bloodstream, but when she cleared them away she was forced to confront the truth: She was buying from Roth because she wanted penicillin.

      The elevator door opened at the 79th floor. Tanya looked for the door that read “First Liberty Investment Group.” Roth had never changed the sign, a remnant from the time of paper and plastic money. He’d tried to explain to her that this was a place where people left their money so that more money could be made from it, but she didn’t understand.

      Roth spotted her as soon as she walked in. “Welcome! Welcome, Miss Tanya!” he said in his characteristically ebullient tone. “No, no, there’s no need for you to sign in, Miss Tanya. She doesn’t need to sign in, Jonathan. Miss Tanya is a friend of this establishment. Come into my office, young lady!”

      She followed him down the familiar hallway to his office. The view was dizzying. Roth pulled out the visitor’s chair in front of his desk and held it as Tanya sat down. He sat down and straightened his tie. “Now, tell me – oh, what is it they say – how’s tricks?” Roth inquired.

      “Just fine,” Tanya murmured.

      “And what can we get for you today, Miss Tanya? I’ll have Jonathan get it started for you.”

      “Heroin and -,” Tanya paused, unsure this was what she really wanted.

      “And?”

      “And penicillin.” Out on the street, it seemed like letting it take its course might be the best option. What did she have to live for, anyway? But something about Roth’s cheery attitude, his dapper attire and his luxurious office gave her hope for the future.

      “Ah, a young lady who takes care of herself – and her clients,” said Roth approvingly. Tanya thought about the men she’d been with since the sore appeared – 32 of them. She smiled and nodded. Roth’s approval felt good.

      “Miss Tanya, I have a client who needs a young lady to work as his assistant. Now, of course he’s heard from many applicants, but he’s looking for someone who can read. And, if I’m not mistaken, you, Miss Tanya, can read. Am I right?”

      “Yes. Whenever she was well enough – when we could afford her insulin – my mother would teach me. She learned in the government schools.”

      “Wonderful. Now, this would be a step down, pay-wise, for you. It’s only $2 an hour, but it’s the kind of work that you can do well into your 90s, and there’s none of the dangers of being out there on the street. Should I set up an interview for you?”

      “Oh, yes, please, Mr. Roth! Thank you!”

      “Perfect. I believe Jonathan should have your medications ready up front. Why don’t you wait in the lobby while I set up a time for you with Mr. Thompson?”

      “Oh, yes, Mr. Roth. Thank you!”

      Tanya practically leaped from her chair and ran down the hallway. She could hardly believe her luck. She lifted a couple strands of money from her neck and placed them on the scale. Jonathan nodded and handed her a silver tray with a readied syringe, a small bottle of pills, and a Dixie cup filled with clean water, imported from Europe.

      1. @Lanna,

        What is this from and why is it relevant? Is this an Ayn Rand thing? That’s the only guess I can make that makes any sense, but it still seems very non sequitur. Clearly I’m missing something or several somethings.

        1. @Wyrd,

          Its a really good illustration of the dystopia that would result if the Libertarians implemented their original demands.

          You obviously haven’t browsed any of Ayn Rand’s turgid prose, Lanna’s effort has oodles more literary merit, not to mention coherent content.

          1. @pigs trotters,

            Thanks.

            No I haven’t ever even browsed any of Ayn Rand’s prose. All I know of her and her philosophy is what others* have told me. *Notable Others: Michael Shermer, Joss Wheddon, Margot Adler, Matt Stone and Trey Parker (via Officer Barbrady), Wikipedia

            Other than Wikipedia, which strives for neutrality, those sources always painted Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy and followers as deeply naive at best.

            And it makes me sad to think that I might have to read Ayn Rand in order to keep up on the conversation. *frownie-face*

            Can’t Atlas stop shrugging already?

        2. @Wyrd,

          Pigs trotters is correct. It’s my own effort. It’s my answer to RT’s question about which part of the Libertarian’s 1980 platform sounds nuts. To me, it’s the legalization without regulation. But having gotten rid of the CIA in 1980 would have changed things in the Middle East, and in New York. I also added in a piece of their 2012 platform – privatizing education and making parents foot the bill. The vignette isn’t that nuts, but it’s not the world I’d like to live in.

          1. @Lanna,

            I see. I’m sorry I didn’t intuit that from what you wrote. I should have.

            I love “what if’s”. Couter-factuals are kinda neat, but since even the consequences of sometimes seemingly innocuous changes can produce unforeseen consequences in a kind of butterfly effect way, the notion that we have any idea what the world would look like if all those changes took place all at once that it can be hard for me to contemplate it. My brain just shuts down with an “I don’t know” error.

            Your scenario seems plausible. And I am sure that when I eventually get around to reading Rand I will feel still even more foolish to have ever confused your writing with hers.

            I agree legalization without regulation is where madness lies. And I believe JFK once said the CIA should be broken into a million pieces, and I think that’d probably be for the best. I’m not sure how I feel about the FBI.

            1. @Wyrd,

              I’d do a swerve around the ‘novels’ and go for the Cliff Notes if you are serious about reading Rand, my brain cells have never recovered.

Comments are closed.