Robert Wenzel Addresses The New York Fed, Lots Of Head-Scratching Ensues

Tyler Durden's picture

A month ago we had the pleasure of bringing you Jim Grant's must read address directly to employees of the Federal Reserve in one of the most epic rhetorical polemics ever release unmasking the hollow intellectual sophistry at the very core of modern monetary systems. Today, it is Robert Wenzel's turn. Just released in the Economic Policy Journal are his own prepared remarks from his address to the New York Fed. They are recreated below as, like Grant, Wenzel asks a series of burning questions. Not surprisingly, lots and lots of head scratching ensues...

From EPJ:

My Speech Delivered at the New York Federal Reserve Bank

At the invitation of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, I spoke and had lunch in the bank's Liberty Room. Below are my prepared remarks.

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak here at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Intellectual discourse is, of course, extraordinarily valuable in reaching truth. In this sense, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my views on the economy and monetary policy and how they may differ with those of you here at the Fed.

That said, I suspect my views are so different from those of you here today that my comments will be a complete failure in convincing you to do what I believe should be done, which is to close down the entire Federal Reserve System

My views, I suspect, differ from beginning to end. From the proper methodology to be used in the science of economics, to the manner in which the macro-economy functions, to the role of the Federal Reserve, and to the accomplishments of the Federal Reserve, I stand here confused as to how you see the world so differently than I do.

I simply do not understand most of the thinking that goes on here at the Fed and I do not understand how this thinking can go on when in my view it smacks up against reality.

Please allow me to begin with methodology, I hold the view developed by such great economic thinkers as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard that there are no constants in the science of economics similar to those in the  physical sciences.

In the science of physics, we know that ice freezes at 32 degrees. We can predict with immense accuracy exactly how far a rocket ship will travel filled with 500 gallons of fuel. There is preciseness because there are constants, which do not change and upon which equations can be constructed..

There are no such constants in the field of economics since the science of economics deals with human action, which can change at any time. If potato prices remain the same for 10 weeks, it does not mean they will be the same the following day. I defy anyone in this room to provide me with a constant in the field of economics that has the same unchanging constancy that exists in the fields of physics or chemistry.

And yet, in paper after paper here at the Federal Reserve, I see equations built as though constants do exist. It is as if one were to assume a constant relationship existed between interest rates here and in Russia and throughout the world, and create equations based on this belief and then attempt to trade based on these equations. That was tried and the result was the blow up of the fund Long Term Capital Management, a blow up that resulted in high level meetings in this very building.

It is as if traders assumed a given default rate was constant for subprime mortgage paper and traded on that belief. Only to see it blow up in their faces, as it did,  again, with intense meetings being held in this very building.

Yet, the equations, assuming constants, continue to be published in papers throughout the Fed system. I scratch my head.

I also find curious the general belief in the Keynesian model of the economy that somehow results in the belief that demand drives the economy, rather than production. I look out at the world and see iPhones, iPads, microwave ovens, flat screen televisions, which suggest to me that it is production that boosts an economy. Without production of these things and millions of other items, where would we be? Yet, the Keynesians in this room will reply, “But you need demand to buy these products.” And I will reply, “Do you not believe in supply and demand? Do you not believe that products once made will adjust to a market clearing price?”

Further, I will argue that the price of the factors of production will adjust to prices at the consumer level and that thus the markets at all levels will clear. Again do you believe in supply and demand or not?

I scratch my head that somehow most of you on some academic level believe in the theory of supply and demand and how market setting prices result, but yet you deny them in your macro thinking about the economy.

You will argue with me that prices are sticky on the downside, especially labor prices and therefore that you must pump money to get the economy going. And,  I will look on in amazement as your fellow Keynesian brethren in the government create an environment  of sticky non-downward bending wages.

The economist  Robert Murphy reports that President  Herbert Hoover continually pressured businessmen to not lower wages.[1]

He quoted Hoover in a speech delivered to a group of businessmen:

In this country there has been a concerted and determined effort  on the part of government and business... to prevent any reduction in wages.

He then reports that FDR actually outdid Hoover by seeking to “raise wages rates rather than merely put a floor under them.”

I ask you, with presidents actively conducting policies that attempt to defy supply and demand and prop up wages, are you really surprised that wages were sticky downward during the Great Depression?

In present day America, the government focus has changed a bit. In the new focus, the government  attempts much more to prop up the unemployed by extended payments for not working. Is it really a surprise that unemployment is so high when you pay people not to work.? The 2010 Nobel Prize was awarded to economists for their studies which showed that, and I quote from the Noble press release announcing the award:

One conclusion is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times.[2]

Don’t you think it would make more sense to stop these policies which are a direct factor in causing unemployment, than to add to the mess and devalue the currency by printing more money?

I scratch my head that somehow your conclusions about unemployment are so different than mine  and that you call for the printing of money to boost “demand”. A call, I add, that since the founding of the Federal Reserve has resulted in an increase of the money supply by 12,230%.

I also must scratch my head at the view that the Federal Reserve should maintain a stable price level. What is wrong with having falling prices across the economy, like we now have in the computer sector, the flat screen television sector and the cell phone sector? Why, I ask, do you want stable prices? And, oh by the way, how’s that stable price thing going for you here at the Fed?

Since the start of the Fed, prices have increased at the consumer level by 2,241% [3]. that’s not me misspeaking, I will repeat, since the start of the Fed, prices have increased at the consumer level by 2,241%.

So you then might tell me that stable prices are only a secondary goal of the Federal Reserve and that your real goal is to prevent serious declines in the economy but, since the start of the Fed, there have been 18 recessions including the Great Depression and the most recent Great Recession. These downturns  have resulted in stock market crashes, tens of  millions of unemployed and untold business bankruptcies.

I scratch my head and wonder how you think the Fed is any type of success when all this has occurred.

I am especially confused, since Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT), developed by Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, has warned about all these things. According to ABCT, it is central bank money printing that causes the business cycle and, again you here at the Fed have certainly done that by increasing the money supply. Can you imagine the distortions in the economy caused by the Fed by this massive money printing?

According to ABCT, if you print money those sectors where the money goes  will boom, stop printing and those sectors will crash. Fed printing tends to find its way to Wall Street and other capital goods sectors first, thus it is no surprise to Austrian school economists that the crashes are most dramatic in these sectors, such as the stock market and real estate sectors. The economist Murray Rothbard in his book America’s Great Depression [4] went into painstaking detail outlining how the changes in money supply growth resulted in the Great Depression.

On a more personal level, as the recent crisis was developing here, I warned throughout the summer of 2008 of the impending crisis. On July 11, 2008 at, I wrote[5]:

SUPER ALERT: Dramatic Slowdown In Money Supply Growth

After growing at near double digit rates for months, money growth has slowed dramatically. Annualized money growth over the last 3 months is only 5.2%. Over the last two months, there has been zero growth in the M2NSA money measure.

This is something that must be watched carefully. If such a dramatic slowdown continues, a severe recession is inevitable.

We have never seen such a dramatic change in money supply growth from a double digit climb to 5% growth. Does Bernanke have any clue as to what the hell he is doing?

On July 20, 2008, I wrote [6]:

I have previously noted that over the last two months money supply has been collapsing. M2NSA has gone from double digit growth to nearly zero growth .

A review of the credit situation appears worse. According to recent Fed data, for the 13 weeks ended June 25, bank credit (securities and loans) contracted at an annual rate of 7.9%.

There has been a minor blip up since June 25 in both credit growth and M2NSA, but the growth rates remain extremely slow.

If a dramatic turnaround in these numbers doesn't happen within the next few weeks, we are going to have to warn of a possible Great Depression style downturn.

Yet, just weeks before these warnings from me, Chairman Bernanke, while the money supply growth was crashing, had a decidedly much more optimistic outlook, In a speech on June 9, 2008, At the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s 53rd Annual Economic Conference [7], he said:

I would like to provide a brief update on the outlook for the economy and policy, beginning with the prospects for growth.  Despite the unwelcome rise in the unemployment rate that was reported last week, the recent incoming data, taken as a whole, have affected the outlook for economic activity and employment only modestly.  Indeed, although activity during the current quarter is likely to be weak, the risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so.  Over the remainder of 2008, the effects of monetary and fiscal stimulus, a gradual ebbing of the drag from residential construction, further progress in the repair of financial and credit markets, and still-solid demand from abroad should provide some offset to the headwinds that still face the economy.

I believe the Great Recession that followed is still fresh enough in our minds so it is not necessary to recount in detail as to whose forecast, mine or the chairman’s, was more accurate. 

I am also confused by many other policy making steps here at the Federal Reserve. There have been more changes in monetary policy direction during the Bernanke era then at any other time in the modern era of the Fed. Not under Arthur Burns, not under G. William Miller, not under Paul Volcker, not under Alan Greenspan  have there been so many dramatically shifting Fed monetary policy moves. Under Chairman Bernanke there have been significant changes in direction of the money supply growth FIVE different times. Thus, for me, I am not at all surprised at the current stop and go economy. The current erratic monetary policy makes it exceedingly difficult for businessmen to make any long term plans.  Indeed, in my own Daily Alert on the economy [8] I find it extremely difficult to give long term advice, when in short periods I have seen three month annualized M2 money growth go from near 20% to near zero, and then in another period see it go from 25% to 6% . [9]

I am also confused by many of the monetary programs instituted by Chairman Bernanke. For example, Operation Twist.

This is not the first time an Operation Twist was tried. an Operation Twist was tried in 1961, at the start of the Kennedy Administration [10] A paper [11] was written by three Federal Reserve economists in 2004 that, in part, examined the 1960's Operation Twist

Their conclusion (My bold):

A second well-known historical episode involving the attempted manipulation of the term structure was so-called Operation Twist.  Launched in early 1961 by the incoming Kennedy Administration, Operation Twist was intended to raise short-term rates (thereby promoting capital inflows and supporting the dollar) while lowering, or at least not raising, long-term rates. (Modigliani and Sutch 1966).... The two main actions of Operation Twist were the use of Federal Reserve open market operations and Treasury debt management operations..Operation Twist is widely viewed today as having been a failure, largely due to classic work by  Modigliani and Sutch....

However, Modigliani and Sutch also noted that Operation Twist was a relatively small operation, and, indeed, that over a slightly longer period the maturity of outstanding government debt rose significantly, rather than falling...Thus, Operation Twist does not seem to provide strong evidence in either direction as to the possible effects of changes in the composition of the central bank’s balance sheet....

We believe that our findings go some way to refuting the strong hypothesis that nonstandard policy actions, including quantitative easing and targeted asset purchases, cannot be successful in a modern industrial economy.  However, the effects of such policies remain quantitatively quite uncertain. 

One of the authors of this 2004 paper was Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke. Thus, I have to ask, what the hell is Chairman Bernanke doing implementing such a program, since it is his paper that states it was a failure according to Modigliani, and his paper implies that a larger test would be required to determine true performance.

I ask, is the Chairman using the United States economy as a lab with Americans as the lab rats to test his intellectual curiosity about such things as Operation Twist?

Further, I am very confused by the response of Chairman Bernanke to questioning by Congressman Ron Paul. To a seemingly near off the cuff question by Congressman Paul on Federal Reserve money provided to the Watergate burglars, Chairman Bernanke contacted the Inspector General’s Office of the Federal Reserve and requested an investigation [12]. Yet, the congressman has regularly asked about the gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve [13] and whether the gold at Fort Knox backing up the certificates will be audited. Yet there have been no requests by the Chairman  to the Treasury for an audit of the gold.This I find very odd. The Chairman calls for a major investigation of what can only be an historical point of interest but fails to seek out any confirmation on a point that would be of vital interest to many present day Americans.

In this very building, deep in the underground vaults, sits billions of dollars of gold, held by the Federal Reserve  for foreign governments. The Federal Reserve gives regular tours of these vaults, even to school children. [14] Yet, America’s gold is off limits to seemingly everyone and has never been properly audited. Doesn’t that seem odd to you? If nothing else, does anyone at the Fed know the quality and fineness of the gold at Fort Knox?

In conclusion, it is my belief  that from start to finish  the Fed is a failure. I believe faulty methodology is used, I believe that  the justification for the Fed, to bring price and economic stability, has never been a success. I repeat, prices since the start of the Fed have climbed by 2,241% and there have been over the same period 18 recessions. No one seems to care at the Fed about the gold supposedly backing up the gold certificates on the Fed balance sheet. The emperor has no clothes.  Austrian Business cycle theorists are regularly ignored by the Fed, yet they have the best records with regard to spotting overall downturns, and further they specifically recognized the developing housing bubble. Let it not be forgotten that in 2004, two economists here at the New York Fed wrote a paper [15] denying there was a housing bubble. I responded to the paper [16] and wrote:

The faulty analysis by [these] Federal Reserve economists... may go down in financial history as the greatest forecasting error since Irving Fisher declared in 1929, just prior to the stock market crash, that stocks prices looked to be at a permanently high plateau.

Data released just yesterday, now show housing prices have crashed to  2002 levels. [17]

I will now give you more warnings about the economy.

The noose is tightening on your organization, vast amounts of money printing are now required to keep your manipulated economy afloat. It will ultimately result in huge price inflation, or,  if you stop printing, another massive economic crash will occur. There is no other way out.

Again, thank you for inviting me. You have prepared food, so I will not be rude, I will stay and eat.

Let’s have one good meal here. Let’s make it a feast. Then I ask you, I plead with you, I beg you all, walk out of here with me, never to come back. It’s the moral and ethical thing to do. Nothing good goes on in this place. Let’s lock the doors and leave the building to the spiders, moths and four-legged rats.



















Special thanks to the following, who helped me research and collect data for this paper: Stephen Davis, Bob English, Jon Lyons, Ash Navabi, Joseph Nelson, Nick Nero,  Antony Zegers

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Gief Gold Plox's picture

Brilliant! Abso-fucking-lutely brilliant. Mr. Wenze I sir applaud you!

Hansel's picture

Regarding the gold certificates on the Fed balance sheet, that question has been thoroughly answered.  The gold certificates on the Fed's balance sheet are not backed by gold.  They are a paper asset whose value was fixed at the conversion price when the gold standard was suspended in 1934.  This was covered in a house hearing last year.

Respect to Wenzel for speaking truth to power, but it seems like he should have known this.

SeattleBruce's picture

So he made 50 brilliant points, with an incredible conclusion, and blew one detail.  I forgive him that.

RECISION's picture

I would quibble with this one too:

One conclusion is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times.[2]

Don’t you think it would make more sense to stop these policies which are a direct factor in causing unemployment. 


No - I don't believe unemployment benefits "cause" unemployment.  They may certainly prolong it, even encourage it, but the cause comes from elsewhere.

SeattleBruce's picture

Productivity (his points on 'supply and demand') spurs employment and such productivity pays attention to what the market's value is for its production (demand).  People on extended, and mega extended unemployment are incented to not be productive.  This lengthens and deepens unemployment, and prevents jobs from being created by productive people. 

Temporalist's picture

It seems you don't understand this "more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment" so I will bold it for you "more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment."  So unemployment benefits "cause" HIGHER unemployment.

Gazooks's picture

certain that a $2500.wk laid-off machinist or financial analyst w/family is raptured over his/her $400.wk comp. (NY)

rigid adherents to dogma of any/all behavioral/economic theory are asswipes of 1st order

Sabremesh's picture

Agreed. Any sort of benefit is anathema to a hardcore libertarian. For them the purity of their dogma is sacrosanct, and minor consequences like sprawling favelas, child starvation, cholera, rickets, no healthcare or education provision for the poor, is but a small price to pay to live in a "free" country. 


StychoKiller's picture

None of those problems are unique to any society, especially Libertarianism -- please to point out an example of a Libertarian society (and no, Somalia is by no stretch of the imagination, a Libertarian society -- more like a Libertine society [bordering on total chaos!]).

AnAnonymous's picture

Made me laugh.

Yes, pointing at a libertarian society, that is the deal.

If no change has brought in, why change?

Dont fix what is not broken. If indeed the stuff outlined in the other posts are common and can not be removed, why change?

Sean7k's picture

Benefits are not anathema to libertarians, State coercion that requires we pay for them, whether we want them or not is. It is about voluntary taxation ( not by representation). If I want a road and am willing to pay for it, then I agree to be taxed.

Government doesn't insure against any of the problems you have listed. In America, it doesn't pay for heathcare, the education is worth little, children still starve and we are not "free".

Why not try an alternative? What have you got to lose but our fascist state?

AnAnonymous's picture

Because it is not an alternative?

US citizens have big feet, you hear them coming.

Coercion is not the issue for US citizens. If so, they would be concerned by the heritage they have thanks to coercion.

The issue is that some US citizens feel they are falling on the wrong side of US citizens and that they might be victims of coercion.

Post theft economics thought or how to maintain the status quo and make sure what you have robbed is not robbed from you.

Doubleguns's picture

how to maintain the status quo and make sure what you have robbed is not robbed from you.

When the country goes broke those who have been living by robbery (entitilements) will find themsleves out in the cold with no massa to feed them, no massa to cloth them, no massa to house them and no massa to provide them with toys and transportation. They will be reduced to nothing, just a modern day financial slave kicked off the Fed plantation. 

Time they wake up to a reality that is just 2 exits down this highway to hell. 

StychoKiller's picture

So, can you agree with Nancy Pelosi's assertion that UE grows the Economy?

Sean7k's picture

Perhaps an accountant can explain the doublespeak then? If I have a gold certificate, it has zero value (the old dollars), but the FED has something that has value? It is priced at 42 dollars? What is pricing it? Where is the claim to an asset? It has sat on the books since 1934 at the same value? Why would they do that?

Perhaps it isn't as clear as we think?

Hansel's picture

When the Fed turned its gold over to Treasury in 1934, they got $42 dollars for the gold like everyone else.  Those certificates will always be worth $42/oz for as much as the Fed turned over.  They are the Treasury's payment to the Fed.  End of story.

Sean7k's picture

Everyone else got money, not certificates.  You did nothing to answer the question. Not the end of story.

evolutionx's picture

All about the Banking collapse:

Overview on Bank Credit Default Swaps

CDS on Banks are + 100% on yearly basis

GernB's picture

I wish I could wartch this, for the sheer entertainment value of seeing the look on the emporors face when it is pointed out he has no clothes.

SeattleBruce's picture

Clarion call to action that must have left them speechless.  I bet you could hear a pin drop in there.  Aaaack!  Smackdown of epic proportions for the Austrian school...IS ANYONE LISTENING...well, we are...

gwar5's picture

Bazinga, that was great! Thanks for posting the Wenzelator. Only at ZH.


....Wenzel's parting comment about the FRBNY leaving the building to four legged rats was priceless.

The Austrians are economists, the FED and the neo-Keynesians are playing a different game.



Dicite justitiam's picture

The head scratch heard 'round the world.

HankPaulson's picture

This is a wealth transfer, and it's working out very well. The rest is a narrative.

SeattleBruce's picture

Fine.  But calling them out on that, and in such graphic terms is what makes this scene so great.

ebworthen's picture


This is classic.

"There are no such constants in the field of economics since the science of economics deals with human action, which can change at any time."


"Nothing good goes on in this place. Let’s lock the doors and leave the building to the spiders, moths and four-legged rats."


OldPhart's picture

He got it wrong.  He should have said...

"I'm leaving, locking the doors, and setting fire to this shithole. Marines are outside to shoot anyone who exits."


jmcadg's picture

I think we've foundRon Paul's running mate.

The Proletariat's picture

He should of ended the speech with:  Now enjoy your feast and then go fuck yourselves.  And "Fuck off with your sofa units and strine green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may."  Tyler Durden ~ Fight Club


Oh and fuck Operation's now called Operation Mayhem

Snidley Whipsnae's picture

Robert Wenzel is an American Hero of the finest tradition. My hat is off to him.

"I ask, is the Chairman using the United States economy as a lab with Americans as the lab rats to test his intellectual curiosity about such things as Operation Twist?"

dognamedabu's picture

Let’s have one good meal here. Let’s make it a feast. Then I ask you, I plead with you, I beg you all, walk out of here with me, never to come back. It’s the moral and ethical thing to do. Nothing good goes on in this place. Let’s lock the doors and leave the building to the spiders, moths and four-legged rats.



But but then you'll miss the buffet! 

onebir's picture

WTF were they thinking of when they invited him to give a speech??? :D

Rudolph Steiner's picture

Fort Knox, July 2012,

will be the new Bastille.

Dress accordingly.

StychoKiller's picture

So, a silver-plated pitchfork would be too much, ya think?

Zola's picture

Politicians = Actors with looks envy

Fed economists= Science amateurs with brain envy

whoopsing's picture

" Lets lock the doors and leave this building to the four-legged rats" opposed to the current occupants, the two -legged rats ? I like this guys style!

Everybodys All American's picture

That was awesome. I feel the same about Barach Obama.

q99x2's picture

Tunnels connect the NYFED with the other buildings on the block.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

human nature is what it is, much like "mother nature"a real bitch mean and heartless to anything that does not go along with the actions taken (think dinosaurs got in the way).those sitting at the FED must think and act as if they were gods..the ego of those in power must be FED. if the little people's living standards go extinct it was their fault not that which consumes all wealth to keep the crown on the kings of the world.

WaEver's picture

After this speech I'm sure they pissed in his soup before serving and bernank took his dessert

spanish inquisition's picture

The FEDs dual mandate is crap. Its main goals are like any other private corporation, the continued survival and growth of the FED and its private owners.

It is doing exactly that. And if it doesn't work and debt is wiped off the books, fast track a war to get new debt back in the hands of the private owners again.

csmith's picture

There is ONE constant in economics, and it is the need for politicians to exert power over others via taxation. The Fed exists because government will always wish to impose taxes, and the Fed is the final bureaucratic bulwark against deflation, which in turn is the mortal enemy of government because it reduces the nominal tax base.


Downtoolong's picture

I’ve seen plenty of instances where those with social power either ignore or deny the laws of physics and science when they are in conflict with something they want us to believe. If Goldman Sachs comes out tomorrow and tells us the sky is red, you had better believe it.

Miss Expectations's picture

My very good friend, Miss Nomer, is happy to see that this exquisite speech took place in the Liberty Room at the Federal Reserve.  It's unfortunate that she doesn't get more attention.  She deserves more credit and goes largely unrecognized.

AnAnonymous's picture

Scratching head makes bald people.

akak's picture

Endlessly posting anti-American diatribes makes for a Chinese citizenism troll.

booboo's picture

So tell me this had a happy ending, all the bankers gave him a standing ovation, carried him off on thier shoulders and later that night all downed a jug of Round Up. No, you say? happy ending only happen in fairy tales and Saigon houses of ill repute? Got it.

AnAnonymous's picture

US citizens are duplicitous. They do not speak about what they do.

The troublesome consequence: most conversations rely on innuendos. Conversations make sense when the innuendos are accepted.

This give openings to these kind of weirdos, while not disagreeing with US citizen MO, have their fun denying the innuendos.

Debt is not the issue. The issue is consumption.

US citizen economics is based on consumption with the aim of consuming more and more. Debt is a powerful tool to perform well but a world with no debt would be on the same path due to US citizen economics.

riphowardkatz's picture

you got us and are exactly right US citizens need to consume things like food and gas and building materials as opposed to all the other countries citizens who live on air and sunshine.


TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous said:

US citizens are duplicitous.

Is this the why of your duplicitous duplicity? You now claiming self US citizen are? Funny speech making of Chinese citizenism trained monkey.

They do not speak about what they do.

Chinese citizenism trained monkey citizens only speak of US citizenism. The purpose of which being to divert attention from the guilt and shame of Chinese citizenism.

The troublesome consequence: Chinese citizenism conversations only make sense when the guilt and shame can be shifted to US citizenism.

This give openings to these kind of weirdos, while not disagreeing with US citizen MO, have their fun denying the innuendos.

This although these gives the Chinese citizenism weirdos of type to opening to blame shifting and saving of faces.

Can Chinese citizenism citizens admit they are the tap root, the main vein, of the current world situation, and not an unfamed Mongolian peasant mad thinker or a Tibetan worshiper of Yeti?

The impossibility to self indict in Chinese citizenism leads to the face saving mettle, the weirdest result.

Non sense, constant denial of facts. Lie over lie. Chinese citizenism citizens can not make sense of the guilt and shame within Chinese citizenism.

Chinese citizenism citizens do dance a masquerade. They create a US citizenism strawsman to hide their shame.

They deny.

They know.

Facts are facts, after all.


akak's picture

When to the discussing they evils of world, denialistic blobbing-up Chinese Citizenism, and its Siamese twin doctrine of running dog Long March Algebraic Coconutism, is the most of it.

Chinese citizenism trained monkey citizens only speak of US citizenism. The purpose of which being to divert attention from the guilt and shame of Chinese citizenism.

Game of Bingo!  You are striking the nail on his neck here!

Non sense, constant denial of facts. Lie over lie. Chinese citizenism citizens can not make sense of the guilt and shame within Chinese citizenism.

Denialism of Chinese citizenism being part and package of Chinese citizenism mode of thinking.

Chinese citizenism citizens do dance a masquerade. They create a US citizenism strawsman to hide their shame.

Suchlike is the Chinese citizenism way, to hide non-shame but should be great shame of constantly shitting in public parks and on sides of roads, hypocrisy being bed-mate of every Chinese Citizenism citizen.