well, look what the cat dragged in!

[saved as draft, then republished]

DNP:Fiona:Racist and abusive Keep it up

Submitted by Ernest William ... on February 28, 2009 - 6:44pm.

Eliot Ramsey: "In every Muslim country surveyed, overwhelming or near unanimous majorities expressed negative views toward Jews. The figure reached 99 percent in Jordan, 98 percent in Egypt and 94 percent in Pakistan. Twenty-eight percent of Jordanians and 22 percent of Egyptians volunteered that "Jews" were to blame for bad relations between Muslims and the West, although Jews were not mentioned in the question."

The survey, according to you, was done on the population of those countries. What makes you think that they are all Muslims?

And in any case - how surprising. Why would the Jews be unpopular in the Middle East when they have considered themselves as different since the beginning of their religion - or is that a race?For some unknown reason to me, new Israel classifies itself as "western" and is so considered by the Arab nations of the middle east.Bearing in mind that the history of the nomadic tribes of the Arabian Desert who evolved into the Jews of today, I find that fascinating.The east is east and the west is west and never the twain shall meet.Just one more point Eliot, if I was Jewish I would never want you to defend me.NE OUBLIE.

DNP is their code for 'Do no publish.' That censoring from Reynolds comes on top of this sort of s**t editorialising from Tonkin:

Fair dinkum Alan. in Gaza Media Statement
by Ernest William ... on February 26, 2009 - 9:52pm


Richard: Ernest, your work that hasn't been published has been considered by editors to be racist, abusive, or containing-despite requests- unsourced extracts. Implications that anything more sinister is afoot do little for your perceived credibility.

Ethics? What ethics? Credibility? Whose credibility?


  1. Phil, to visit the old WD and see what it's become is depressing.

    Why Ernest and Marylin and a few others bother is beyond my comprehension. The Ramsey/Curran/Pahoff clique just stirs and the so-called moderators just expose their biases and poor judgment.

    There are too many good blogs around for people to continue to waste their time trying to bring back what used to be.

    WD's use-by date has long gone!

  2. If WD was "Accountable" and "Transparent" then Fiona Reynolds would fully account for her judgement and explain exactly what is, in her view, deemed to be "racist" or "abusive" in what Ernest William said.

    I see that he has said, by implication through his questions, that:

    1) "Eliot Ramsey" has attempted to demonise Muslims.

    Then, in statements, he essentially says:

    2) He doesn't understand why Israel classifies itself as "Western," nor why the nations in its neighbourhood do so as well, when many of its people have origins that are not "Western."

    3) He would never want "Eliot Ramsey" to speak in his defence if he (Ernest William) were a Jew.

    I'm told that I'm a reasonable, intelligent person and I cannot see any "racist" or "abusive" content in that comment by Ernest William.

    Can anyone else explain it? What could Fiona Reynolds have deemed "racist" and "abusive" in Ernest William's comment?

  3. G'day David and Orana. I can't see what Fiona could have deemed "racist" or "offensive" in Ernest's post, but as we learned from her response to my question about apparent inconsistencies in the treatment some people as opposed to others, she might have reasons. The public are not to be told what these reasons are, if they exist. I raised the matter of inconsistencies again last night - this time on what constitutes "off-topic". Fiona had decreed that Ernest's comments about the ancient history of Palestine were off-topic in a thread about Gaza yet we have seen others raise Australian domestic politics and matters pertaining to Cambodia without editorial comment. As yet my post has not been published let alone an explanation provided. Another example of how WD is accountable. Or not.

    RT writing about credibility is such a hoot.

  4. Indeed, Graeme. I did notice that incredible application of (double) editorial standards this past week.

    A person who will judge discussion of the history of relations between peoples in the Mid-East as "off-topic" in a conversation about the Israeli attacks on the people living in Gaza, and then also judge discussion of who did or didn't aid Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge as "on-topic" in that same conversation, is well described as an incredible judge.

  5. And not just this past week, Orana. But it is has been a week marked by notable examples. To target Ern for posting racist comments given the history of Alan Curran's quite vile comments about Palestinians is grotesque. Given that some of Curran's comments have seemed to support the wiping out the Palestinians, the latitude he is given is odd, to say the least.

  6. Yes. Though it should be noted that "Alan Curran" is a pseudonym used by a racist man too timid to put legal name to his racist and abusive commments.

    I've no issue with pseudonymity; it has its place and is not problematic per se. However, when used to enable lies and bigotry it certainly is problematic (for just about everyone other than the current un-ethical WD mgmt team).

  7. In the end, David G is entirely correct.

    In the WD community of days now long gone there was more than one who'd now be putting the challenging questions to the cowardly "Alan Curran" about sacking workers to feather his own nest. Alas, in the waste of space WD of today, no-one even mentions that 'Akka' is a gutless, heartless, greedy sacker, who killed the jobs of Australians so that he could lazily waste his days submitting his racist views for publication by WD's unethical mgmt.

  8. I went looking for the 3rd joke below, to check that I had it right and give a link. I found it a few times, variously attributed to Shaw or Wilde, but perhaps it really was Churchill, since I found two others that seem to belong together:

    Bessie Braddock
    "Sir, you're drunk!"
    Winston Churchill
    "Yes, Madam, I am. But in the morning, I will be sober and you will still be ugly."

    Lady Astor: "Winston, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee."
    Winston: "Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."

    Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
    Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
    Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
    Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
    Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

    Sooo, what we've got is ugly, poison and whores - a fair description of the management 'over there.'

    It should be pointed out that the DNP-ed comment was made available by a sharp-eyed reader, who saw it and had the presence of mind to get a copy before it disappeared - which it did, and quickly.

    It should also be pointed out that from what we have seen from Ernest over time is fair, decent and honest commentary - until the penny dropped for him about filthy Israeli state terrorism; murder to steal Palestinian land etc. - the whole ghastly 60+ year show. In writing his comments, he would have - as we can see by the DNP-ed sample - have tried to stay within the guidelines - that's just him, and then even more so, after the DNPs started coming at him. I can understand Ernest's reaction quite well, since I was myself duped by the constant stream of pro-Israel lying propaganda dribbled out to us - via the AusBC, say - traitors! The AusBC have violated the implicit trust placed in them by the Australian people.

    The DNP-ed comment came right at the end of the month, and if 'the great majority of those were from Ernest,' it could amount to an average of about one per day for the month. We saw evidence of Ern's frustration; he - like far too many others - is an addict, so he perseveres in trying to make his point and get it published. We can see that the DNP-ed post is not at all as Reynolds, Roffey & Tonkin have alleged: "racist, abusive, content-free or incomprehensible or over quota," so we have to consider some other motive for so cowardly smacking poor Ernest in the chops. That's what's known as an abuse of power, it's also pro-criminal, so is itself criminal via the accessory mechanism. Boo! Hiss! Ugly, poisonous web-whores!

    Move on; nothing to see; nothing new here.

  9. IDH, those lines are often attributed to Churchill but there's no confirmation I can find. Still, there are some rippers in there and in the same vein...

  10. Thanks D,

    had a quick look; lots in there so I didn't read it all, but two unsourced snips caught my eye:

      «It is the habit of the boa constrictor to besmear the body of his victim with a foul slime before he devours it; and there are many people in England, and perhaps elsewhere, who seem to be unable to contemplate military operations for clear political objects, unless they can cajole themselves into the belief that their enemy are utterly and hopelessly vile… This may be very comforting to philanthropic persons at home; but when an army in the field becomes imbued with the idea that the enemy are vermin who cumber the earth, instances of barbarity may very easily be the outcome. This unmeasured condemnation is moreover as unjust as it is dangerous and unnecessary. »

    My comment: Think 'Islamofascism,' 'radical' Hamas, 'extremist' Palestinians - the dark list of demonisations of US and Israeli intended victims, most often Muslims, is long and disgraceful. We get massacres, like Iraq (2003+, 1mio+ dead), or Gaza (2008/9, 1300+ slaughtered). Then:

      «If you are going through hell, keep going

    My comment: I was a bit surprised (but not very), to find out that Churchill has been quoted as having suggested using poison gas on the 'natives' in what we now know as Iraq. («I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.»; poor hapless buggers, who'd wish to be born over an oil-lake?) IMHO war/violence is invalid as a problem-solving method; our so-called 'leaders' should be just a bit smarter than that - eh? So a final quote:

      «To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.»

    Too bad that's far, far too often honoured - in the breach.

  11. Gee, Margo Kingston must no longer value interaction with the "community" over there at "Margo Kingston's" Webdiary.

    She's given first publication right on her latest piece of writing to ABC Unleashed instead of WD!

    No doubt that will draw over to ABC Unleashed that troll who has called himself Spinifex, C Parsons, Eliot Ramsey, and other names. Indeed, he'll probably be on ABC Unleashed with a couple of "sock puppets" handy in order to hijack the comments thread.

  12. Already happened:

    Web Results 1 - 30 of 64 English and German pages from abc.net.au/unleashed for
    "Eliot Ramsey". (0.39 secs)

  13. More to the point here - and who gives a s**t about lying blog-trolls anyway, but what idiot would care if Pauline bloody Hanson stood for and won Prime Miniscule of Aus? Politics is nothing but an obscene game; with the thoroughly, purposefully and even partly self- dumbed-down electorate, outright traitors as candidates, all immersed in filthy propaganda, also spread via and with active cooperation/assistance from the publicly financed broadcasters? Bah! MK herself is an intimate part of the problems.

  14. 3 in a row? ...

      .. ah well, why not ...

        .. 'sheep as a lamb' (figure of speech!)


    Title: grasping for relevance.

    Q: Who, 'our' Pauline?

    A: No, MK.

    2 March 2009, 09:30
    What does Pauline Hanson have to say?

      «And politics is a very serious business right now. The fate of many lives is up for grabs as world economic and environmental forces merge to seriously challenge everyone's way of living.»
    [AusBC/unleashed,Margo Kingston]


    1. See any of my listings of the failings of our current democracies which include a) dumbed-down voters who basically only ever ask "What's in it for me?", b) traitor representatives who largely represent the sheople's enemies and c) all that immersed in a veritable swamp of lies and propaganda, then -

    2. Even if someone wished to solve our 'world economic and environmental' problems, it would seriously seem like no-one knows how, and -

    3. The crises have largely been purposely built (see my latest item.)

    In a nutshell, politics as 'played' in Aus, US, UK and Israel (spit!) is totally unaffected by 'public opinion,' since that is manipulated, almost totally uninfluenced by politicians, since they only do what their own 'masters' allow/direct (what politicians contribute most is their general incompetence), and there is no 'different' solution possible anyway, since were on track (for disaster!) - as planned.

    Now do you see what I mean about MK grasping for relevance?

  15. Yes, IDH, I do see what you mean about MK's grasping for relevance.

  16. MK's grasping for relevance by trying to start a conversation about another woman from QLD grasping for relevance! And I'd decided that other woman is so utterly irrelevant that I'd not even uttered her name.

  17. look over there! ...

      .. a convenient distraction! ...

        .. young schoolgirls play it, Q: Why can't MK?


    A: Because MK claims to be a so-called 'profi,' from her 'own' website: "Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent" (and Milligan told us that one cannot argue with facts like that!)

    Well, yes one can. The real facts are as in my headline article; Reynolds censored what looks like a totally inoffensive comment, and gave the lies "Racist and abusive" as her risible 'excuse.'

    Normally, such lies, as the censored comment itself, would not appear, the comment would simply land in the bit-bucket. So much for "Ethical, Accountable and Transparent," leaving just "Independent."

    It was once admitted (proof available) that MK was threatened. In another attempt at self-justification, Reynolds has claimed unspecified reasons which she refuses to divulge, i.e. that she knows some secret. (How does that I, E, A & T go again?)

    Comment: Only criminal thugs threaten, and one goes to the cops - one doesn't just cowardly cave in.

    That the censorship demonstrated is clearly to the benefit of a certain group/ideology and that that group/ideology clearly gets a better run than it deserves 'over there' accounts for their so-called "Independence" - actually, of course, their almost complete and utter lack thereof. Note that the management's behaviour is not merely web-whoring, but they give active support to a certain group/ideology that many consider not just wrong but Nuremberg-class criminal.

    As well as grasping for relevance, MK could grasp for credibility - or at least remove her name from the gruesome parody which that site has long since become.

  18. Racism is it? Well, here's something about the situation in Israel.

    One of the more disturbing developments in the Middle East is a growing consensus among Israelis that it would acceptable to expel—in the words of advocates “transfer”—its Arab citizens to either a yet as unformed Palestinian state or the neighboring countries of Jordan and Egypt.

    Such sentiment is hardly new among Israeli extremists, and it has long been advocated by racist Jewish organizations like Kach, the party of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, as well as groups like the National Union, which doubled its Knesset representation in the last election.

    But “transfer” is no longer the exclusive policy of extremists, as it has increasingly become a part of mainstream political dialogue. “My solution for maintaining a Jewish and democratic state of Israel is to have two nation-states with certain concessions and with clear red lines,” Kadima leader and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told a group of Tel Aviv high school students last December, “and among other things, I will be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel, those whom we call Israeli Arabs, and tell them, ‘ your national solution lies elsewhere.’”

    "Akka" is not alone.

  19. Even post Gaza, the world has a problem.

    I have no doubt that the Zionists have no legal or moral right to the lands they have stolen from the Palestinians or to those that they will steal from if not stopped.
    I believe that the situation can only be fairly resolved by the government of the so-called state of Israel being handed over to the Palestinian authority and returned to the peaceful co-existence that previously existed.
    The Zionists would not allow a democratic vote and even if one was orchestrated, US style, the gun at the head of the voters would ensure a Zionist victory.
    So, voting is out of the question.
    The only resolution that I believe the Zionists want is total capitulation by the owners of those lands and peace on their terms. Remember Hitler's methods?
    I have repeatedly asked why Jews are generally disliked all over the world, and been ignored or censored.
    When that happens, one must reach one's own conclusions and these are mine.
    The teachings of the Zionists are brutal in the extreme to anyone of any other race or religion. Their belief in their right to rule is ingrained to a point where they can accept nothing less. Commonly called control freaks, people cannot be expected to ignore that the ordinary working Zionist Jew is almost impossible to find.
    Why - we can't ask why because it is still taboo - why?
    It is apparent that the ancient stories of Midas and Shylock must have had a strong influence on the "gentiles". Where there is wealth - where there is financial power - where there is big business CEO's - there are certainly Zionist Jews.
    Why are the Jewish people picked on? Is it because they have the wealth of the nations under their control? Why do some South American governments jail people who criticise the holocaust? Why does Webdiary disallow it? Where does this power come from and why?
    The world has to realise that it is obvious - if they are given an inch they will take a mile.
    Let's hope that the Palestinians are not going to be the scapegoats for the western countries who do not want Jews living there. Just a dumping ground with sufficient military might to invade, bomb or shell any nation in the immediate vicinity.
    Do I personally hate Jews? No I don't but, perhaps I would like them more if they were not under the extreme cult called Zionism.
    King David made an error when he captured Jebus and conciliated with the cult from Mount Zion. But that is history.

  20. G'day Ernest W,

    nice to 'see' you, and welcome.

  21. http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22108.htm
    This article was reprinted in the "Information Clearing House" February 26, 2009. The following is a Summary printed by myself.
    "As the Arabs See The Jews"
    His Majesty King Abdullah.
    The American Magazine November, 1947.
    "This fascinating essay, written by King Hussein's grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that the Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe. Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during Word War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe. King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine." End of quote.
    COMMENT. How prophetic this was. The entire text can be found on the web address above.

  22. And it's G'day Erm from me.

    It is not the Holocaust that is to be questioned but rather the use that has been made of it. King Abdullah raised very pertinent points about the Palestinians suffering for European crimes and of Jewish rights to Palestine. On the latter, the O T is not necessarily accurate as to the historical record, some consider that the texts, written centuries after the events they "described", gilded the lily. A complex area of of investigation.

  23. US Secretary of State criticises Israel.

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticised Israel's plans to demolish more than 80 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem as "unhelpful" and a violation of its international obligations.

    In the first public rebuke of a specific Israeli policy since the new US administration took office, Mrs Clinton indicated the plan contravened the provisions in the five-year-old internationally agreed "road-map" that calls for a halt to all settlement activity.

    "unhelpful" - too say the least but what will the US do about it? Anything?

    The story is part of the latest from Juan Cole to be found here.

    Vanunu doesn't want Nobel Prize ... but why not?

    Israel's nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu requested on Thursday for his name to be removed from a shortlist of candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize because President Shimon Peres had received the award.

    Vanunu said in a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee that he did not wish "to belong to a list of laureates that also includes [President] Shimon Peres, the man behind Israeli atomic policy."


    Vanunu added: "Peres established the reactor in Dimona and developed Israel's nuclear weapons program... In the same way as Pakistan's [nuclear scientist] Dr. Khan, Peres was the man behind the proliferation of nuclear weapons in South Africa and other states. He was also behind the nuclear test in South America in 1978."

    He might have mentioned Kissinger as well.

  24. Ern, congratulations. I've watched you struggling over at WD for some time and I've admired your determination in the face of great odds which not only included other 'commenters' but the 'management' as well.

    On Phil's blog you'll find things different. Very different.

  25. Did not take long to find a comment on Clinton's "unhelpful" - and other matters.

    It was almost dreamlike, watching Secretary of State Clinton make her visit to Israel, one that can be called the first of many trips pretending to encourage peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. It’s a dream I’ve had several times over; one needs only to simply fill in the names of the various U.S. Secretaries of State, say that they’ve met with the Israeli leadership and with Mahmoud Abbas, (who is about as popular with the Palestinians as Rush Limbaugh is with Democrats), and that no progress was made.

    Aside from saying that Abbas heads the only legitimate government of Palestine, Mrs. Clinton did say that the building of new settlements was, “unhelpful,” or maybe it was the demolition of several Palestinian apartment blocks in Jerusalem that was unhelpful. It’s hard to remember which one did not help. She did conveniently forget that Abbas’ term as President of the Palestinian Authority has expired, and she also forgot that Hamas won the Parliamentary elections big time. It’s not that the Parliament has been meeting regularly, mostly because Israel arrested most of the Hamas members of Parliament, all of them still behind bars. It was the kind of election that the U.S. did not believe iin. It was legal, and showed the preferences of the Palestinian public, something which the U.S. chose to ignore.

    Other matters dealt with are Syria - where the Crawford Caligula's approach was most unhelpful - arms supplies and other double standards.

    Stephen Zunes on US military aid to Israel- which is to continue.

    In the wake of Israel's massive assault on heavily populated civilian areas of the Gaza Strip earlier this year, Amnesty International called for the United States to suspend military aid to Israel on human rights grounds. Amnesty has also called for the United Nations to impose a mandatory arms embargo on both Hamas and the Israeli government. Unfortunately, it appears that President Barack Obama won't be heeding Amnesty's call.

    During the fighting in January, Amnesty documented Israeli forces engaging in "direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate." The leader of Amnesty International's fact-finding mission to the Gaza Strip and southern Israel noted how "Israeli forces used white phosphorus and other weapons supplied by the USA to carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes." Amnesty also reported finding fragments of U.S.-made munitions "littering school playgrounds, in hospitals and in people's homes."

    Malcolm Smart, who serves as Amnesty International's director for the Middle East, observed in a press release that "to a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with U.S. taxpayers' money." The release also noted how before the conflict, which raged for three weeks from late December into January, the United States had "been aware of the pattern of repeated misuse of [its] weapons."

    The response:

    Obama's refusal to accept Amnesty's call for the suspension of military assistance was a blow to human rights activists. The most Obama might do to express his displeasure toward controversial Israeli policies like the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories would be to reject a planned increase in military aid for the next fiscal year and slightly reduce economic aid and/or loan guarantees. However, in a notable departure from previous administrations, Obama made no mention of any military aid to Israel in his outline of the FY 2010 budget, announced last week. This notable absence may indicate that pressure from human rights activists and others concerned about massive U.S. military aid to Israel is now strong enough that the White House feels a need to downplay the assistance rather than emphasize it.

    We've seem Clinton express some displeasure, but read on.

    The usual suspects disapprove of the newly appointed chairman of the NIC.

    The NIC is the U.S. intelligence community's (IC) center for mid- and long-term strategic thinking and analysis on a range of issues facing the United States. Among other responsibilities, it produces National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) – the consensus judgments of all 16 intelligence agencies – regarding the likely course of future events.

    In Dec 2007, for example, it published an NIE that found that Iran had stopped work on one key component of nuclear-weapons development in 2003, a finding that frustrated efforts by Iran to rally public support for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities before Bush left office.

    Freeman has been an outspoken critic both of the Bush administration's "global war on terror" and of Israeli policies in the occupied territories. In a 2007 speech, he denounced U.S. support for "Israel's efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations (and) …seize ever more Arab land for its colonists," and warned that Israel would soon face "an unwelcome choice between a democratic society and a Jewish identity for their state."

    The campaign against Freeman began shortly after rumors of his appointment surfaced two weeks ago. It was initially confined to neoconservative media organs such as the Weekly Standard and Commentary magazines, as well as liberal but hawkishly pro-Israel figures such as Martin Peretz, editor of The New Republic.

    Steve Rosen, a former staffer at the powerful America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who is now facing trial for passing classified information to the Israeli government, played a leading role in denouncing Freeman's appointment, accusing him of "old-line Arabism" and of having "an extremely close relationship" with Saudi Arabia.

    Rosen obviously sees nothing wrong with a close relationship with Israel - others seem to consider his a little too close.

  26. Still learning.
    Thanks to all those who have welcomed me to this forum and for their understanding of my efforts.
    I like the comfort I feel when contributing here and also when I submit to Your Democracy.
    Is there any worry about duplication because both seem to be upholding the principles of freedom of speech?

  27. G'day Ernest W,

    I think any successful 'truth seeker' is always learning, especially since there's sooo much stuff they've lied to us about. It wasn't *just* the vile B, B & H - but they are the recent most wicked. It turns out that the lies go back to before WW2, try looking at this article which I cited recently in my "'little' financial bombshell ... "

    When it comes to the nasty 'little' business in and around Israel (aka murder for land and water), we now know that we've been lied to consistently for 60+ years - by the Zionists, their (corrupt) politician 'sock-puppets,' all via and actively assisted by the (venal) MSM, including, to their ever-lasting damnation, some publicly financed broadcasters - the AusBC being one, SBS the other just in Aus. Such publicly financed broadcaster chicanery is not restricted to Aus, one wonders how they have the bloody nerve - but that's our business to research such villainy then expose it.

    As to submitting in more than one forum, there's absolutely no reason why not to - except that you may not get an ideal run over at "Your Democracy" - since it's run by essentially the same crew as where you've had your recent tribulations.

    As for technical details, you may become an author to this blog if you wish and go on to write your own headline articles, just say so and I'll send you an invite via your eml@ - you know that I can access it if (but only if) you so decide. Apropos any blogging know-how, feel *totally free* to ask; it's what we are in here - libre = free. (Lying trolls may not find us quite so free.)

  28. G'day IDHolm,
    While we all have to accept that in a "free speech" society, the media can virtually do as they like, nevertheless I have always believed that their power of uncontrolled persuasion either elects governments or has them dismissed.
    A wise WD contributor once called voters "sheople"! Superb.
    How very true. I give as examples the demise of Gough Whitlam by Sir Frank Packer and the re-election of the faulty Howard mob by Murdoch in 1998.
    I have noted that when people are truly allowed to speak their minds, without biased censorship, a lot can be learned about what the public actually believes - not by what they are told to believe.
    I wonder ID how many wars and consequential murders could have been avoided if the people who were expected to die, no matter what the outcome was, actually knew the true facts?
    I know I am geting carried away, but the ancient vice of might is right is only an extension and a massive support for, extreme capitalism which will destroy us all.
    There is always an alternative to suicide?

  29. what 'progressives' just don't get ...

      .. and sadly perhaps never, ever will ...

        .. is that propagandists are not interested in 'the facts'


    1. Fact: Immoral might is *never* right, how could it possibly be? [On yer, Ern!]

    It might 'prevail' - enabling theft, pillage, looting, plunder and rapine - as we see in Iraq, and all around Israel for 60+ long and bloody years.

    2. Fact: All that 'conversing' with the likes of P. H. Dancer, S. J. Overseas and P. G. Norant (not to mention Eve L. & K. T. A. Ziothug) does, is to enable such liars to continue pushing their corrupt and bankrupt barrows.

    Proof: As good as no visible progress 'over there' over any timescale.

    Tip: (a) Identify propaganda, (b) point it out, thereafter (c) totally ignore.

    All this eternal, ineffective bickering with trolls is self-indulgent fiddling while Rome burns.


    PS Very prescient, Ern: "how many wars and consequential murders could have been avoided if ..." Of course, that is the idea behind pro-war propaganda, as in perhaps the most famous such quote: Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war... That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. - and carried forth Oh, so adroitly by B, B & H...

    [This comment based on the original impulse which became my new what you see ...]