Mangled Thoughts

The IPA has a kid as its editor, Chris Berg. The CIS has a kid to front its disgusting advocacy for a carbon tax, Humphreys. I’ve noted the seniors at the CIS, and in particular their boss, are hiding behind Humphreys. They are silent on their site. This is the same as when the IPA hid behind Chris Berg, who made a very lame attempt to justify his and Andrew “Andy Pandy” Kemp’s atrocious fabrication of the history of economics. The difference is, the CIS is pushing for the imposition of a tax that entails massive destruction of capital and immiseration of Australians.

As Berg and Kemp, there is no indication in Humphreys’ piffling responses of the seriousness of the matters on which they have blundered badly. In Humphreys’ case, no indication of the appalling implications of the Tax that the CIS and his boss, Greg Lindsay are pushing for. This is apart from the excuse for carbon taxes, and other criminal frauds such as ‘alternative energy schemes’.

Humphreys’ latest response, to “Centre of Independent Studies sticking to its demand for imposition of destructive carbon taxes”, indicative:

Nope… not enough words. Try again.

And I notice you’re too scared to answer my question. I’ll re-state it. Which do you prefer — a high fuel tax and no electricity tax… or a low fuel tax and a low electricity tax?

Answer the question, boy. It’s not difficult. Feel free to ask anybody for help. You can even ask old uncle Gerry if you like.

btw — i’ve given you boy-wonder jackson the slap-down he deserved. You god has been slain. You may begin your 3 weeks or mourning now.

btw, don’t forget to answer the question.

Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 4:18 pm

Unable to defend his rubbish, he’s reduced to a juvenile sticking the tongue out.

The CIS, is, as the IPA did, hiding behind a kid. The CIS, in pushing for a carbon tax, is deceiving the public. Caught out it is hiding behind Humphreys. There is a serious question of a conflict of interest involved. On whose behalf are they acting? Who is paying them to push for a highly destructive a carbon tax?

To recollect, in the exposure of the their pack of lies, “Islam and the free market”, co-author Andrew “Andy Pandy” Kemp hid behind his family connections. The IPA, out of cowardice too, left Berg to attempt to defend the indefensible, and it was a very bad attempt too. Thoroughly discredited, Berg abandoned the site he was defending their pack of lies on, his blog site, and not the IPA’s site, his blog site. Or else, unable to withstand any more punishment, his bosses at the IPA told him to shut up for a while.

Now what do we see? Exactly the same thing. Greg Lindsay and the CIS cowering behind Humphreys. They know their advocacy of Carbon taxes has been thoroughly demolished, they know the paper, written by Humphreys is indefensible. Like the IPA did, they are cowering, letting Humphreys take the full heat for what is their position.

Like the IPA, Humphreys is left to make what is a very bad effort at justifying that rubbish on any site but the CIS site. The CIS are cowards. They will not face up to those who have demolished what is nothing less than a paper pushing for a carbon tax. In fact, Humphreys himself has only made it plain in his vapid responses that the CIS is deceiving the public, that it is actually pushing for a carbon tax to be imposed.

Like Berg, Kemp, the IPA, on their lies on economic history, Humphreys and the CIS show no moral compunction. As Berg and Kemp, there is no indication in Humphreys’ piffling responses of the seriousness of the matters on which he and the CIS have blundered. The difference is the destructive force of the tax.

Humphreys and the CIS refuse to admit the fact that what they are pushing is unconscionable, wicked. That lot is not merely defending an indefensible argument; they are defending a measure worth that is horrendous in its impact. They are on this count alone deceiving the public.

Let’s remind that lot again: the claim man causes global warming is a lie resting on falsehoods and not science. On that lie, the CIS is pushing for a destructive carbon tax. This, from a self styled free market ‘think tank”. The CIS and Humphreys are thus deceiving the public on not only the force of the tax; they are lying to the public about the excuse for it. They are deliberately deceiving the public.

Humphreys insists on diverting attention from the substance of what he wrote, and what the CIS fully endorses. Despite, their economic fictions have been thoroughly demolished by solid, sound true economic analysis. Here is Humphreys again refusing to defend what he wrote, and what the CIS fully endorses:

It looks like the CIS might at last be embarrassed by the abuse and smears Humphreys has freely hurled against Jackson. This suggests they were not at first. That, perhaps they had fully endorsed that too but now have told the kid to stop it. Mind you, the sarcasm in Humphreys latest response is still a juvenile form of abuse. No Humphreys, Jackson is not my uncle, and I have never met the man.

Humphreys, it is you who has to defend what you wrote. Like Berg, Kemp and the CIS, I am now calling them liars. I now ask, why they are lying. Indeed, it is time for his seniors in the CIS and for his boss, Lindsay, to cease cowering behind a kid. It is time for them and not the delinquent kid to and explain and attempt defence of the indefensible. They are responsible for what is a rotten, vicious bit of advocacy.

We have a very good clue as to what the CIS is about in this disgusting act of public deception and propaganda. One of the CIS Directors stands to profit if Rudd imposes a carbon tax. The published facts, to repeat, show Mr. Peter Yates is also a Director of the China based Peony ‘company’, a pseudo business set up to make a killing out the tax of “carbon credits and trading”. As a director of that pseudo-business already profits, and stands to make much more.

Now, the question is; who is paying the CIS to run propaganda cover in the putsch to impose a carbon tax? This is a serious question and it must be answered. The conflict of interest is evident. They are not free market economists; they are working for interests out to destroy free markets, and immiserate millions of Australians.

In the meantime, like the IPA, the CIS has employed a kid, Humphreys, to write on what are grave, adult matters. This tells readers a great deal about Lindsay’s judgement.

I call for a thorough scrutiny of who is paying the CIS to write the propaganda material for a vicious measure. To also uncover what those parties stand to gain from the imposition of such a disgusting wicked measure. It is no secret what Peony and Yates stands to gain. We want to know who else and what they will screw millions of Australians into the dust for. Australians do have a right to know this. That is how serious the matter is.

That’s right, Humphreys, that is how bad it is, and how bad the CIS’ deception is.