Monday, July 1, 2013

Response to Professor Shakespeare, III: Shakespeare in His Own Words


As promised last Thursday, here is the full, unedited text of Professor Rodney Shakespeare’s comments on CESJ’s response to him that we sent out June 17, 2013.  This was cut and pasted directly from the e-mail as Professor Shakespeare sent it.  The only changes are the removal of some extraneous spaces Professor Shakespeare seems to have added in the heat of composition:


Dear All,
The Brethren’s  Response has eighty two pages!  

       I have economically  presented the specific issues  in about two pages.  Yet the Brethren require eighty two.  It’s weird.

        The first seven pages of the Response are irrelevant; page 8 claims that it untrue to say that they refuse to debate -- for heaven’s sake, they have refused to debate for six years and are still refusing; pages 9 and 10 deliberately distort what is said in Seven Steps to Justice (a book which N Kurland has never read because for years he has demanded that I publish his lengthy Prices paper – all of which is in the book); and pages 11-15 are twaddle.

        It is only at page 16 (page 16, for heaven’s sake) that the Brethren purport to address the issues.

        The word is ‘purport’ because they start by making complete fools of themselves over housing. Housing is settled Kelso policy.  The Brethren claim to be the most stalwart Kelso supporters but then they reject perhaps the biggest item of Kelso policy.    Worse, the Brethren had never read the Kelsos’ last, and most authoritative, book (which, in a full chapter, sets out the housing subject) until I pointed out to them what was in it. 

        However, at pages 22 and 23 of the Response , the Brethren admit the case for micro-credit, small businesses and farms.  Hooray!  At last!  Progress!

        Then they regress, again making fools of themselves, over environmental capital projects, clean electricity generation, student loans and public capital projects.
   
        With amazing stupidity the Brethren claim to know, from an internet search,  what broadcasting I do.   At the moment, it’s about eight TV and radio stations – for example, a ten minute radio broadcast tomorrow morning, Tuesday, and a one hour TV discussion on Thursday.  In the last accounting year, broadcasting fees were just under half of my income. I have just done six 45 minute pilot programmes for what will be – touch wood --  my own regular TV programme.

        And, yes, I have done programmes on binary economics and also given major conference presentations e.g.,  two years ago, at one of the biggest international technological conferences in the world, I had proposed the binary denationalisation of all of Iran’s many state industries -- I had been specifically  invited to make the proposal.          Then, a few weeks ago , in May, I again attended the same conference this time as opening main programme speaker AND summing-up speaker.  I was honoured in this way because, whether or not Iran does do binary denationalisation,  it certainly recognises my willingness to go to Iran and openly discuss things in a way of which the Brethren are constitutionally incapable.

          In February I had two weeks in Iran and did about forty interviews/programmes including some on binary economics.  A three-university lecture tour, in different parts of Iran,  was arranged for me to do more binary economics but it collapsed because of a snow-bound airport preventing landing for the first part of the journey.  However, I still managed to do b.e. for one Tehran university.  

            Also the Brethren, comfortably ensconced in Washington suburbs only viewing Fox TV and being remarkably ignorant of the wider world, will not know that the public capital issue is now widely understood (and is being propagated by others) because of the work I have done in the first place via Press TV and then through other stations.  

        Round about page 30 of the Response, I got fed up with reading twaddle, distortions and maliciousness.

        Yes, the gauntlet has been thrown down but – gutless cowards that they are —the Brethren are lily-liver scared of debating in the same forum as me.  So they make smears and malicious attacks in a way that I cannot directly answer.

        To the members of this thread
        I do think it is time that you demand that the two Kurlands and Greaney  either debate openly with me in a forum, or forever be accurately labelled as what they truly are – Exclusive Brethren.

Rodney Shakespeare.

#30#

4 comments:

Bernadette said...

Was that supposed to be a rebuttal?

Michael D. Greaney said...

No, merely a sample of Professor Shakespeare's debating style. The rebuttal is contained in the "Response to Shakespeare" listed under "CESJ Occasional Papers" to the right.

Bernadette said...

I'm sorry for not being more clear. I meant, did Dr. Shakespeare mean for that to be a rebuttal to your response? He was all over the place and merely dismissing pages as irrelevant and twaddle is uhm...not convincing.

Michael D. Greaney said...

D'oh. I see what you mean. My excuse is that I had just seen a flurry of additional e-mails from Professor Shakespeare that are even more incoherent than the one above, and I think it sprained my brain for a while.

I do note that since the posting of this e-mail, Professor Shakespeare has added a "confidentiality notice" to the bottom of his e-mails. I can understand this, since he doesn't need assisted mental suicide. He is doing quite well on his own.