what you see ...

  .. might be what you get ...

    .. but that may not be quite what you expected


Preamble: Addressed to our newest member, also any seeking truth & justice, etc. and how we might get them.

We now know that we the people - yes, some are sheople[1] - are being constantly propagandised. In fact, it's propaganda (a deliberate distortion of reality - when not outright lies) which is one of the main things turning people into sheople (another thing is the natural tendency to sloth, yet another the insidiously encouraged selfishness). Some laugh about (dumbed-down!) sheople, some of those laughing wickedly - the wicked ones are obviously either doing the lying, or benefiting from the lies, or both.

This theme (truth vs. lies) should never be trivialised - like when it became necessary (for the propagandists) to deploy "All politicians lie!" on account of Howard's filthy, in the worst case warmongering lies becoming Oh, so totally obvious - even to the most dumbed-down of sheople.

The theme of truth vs. lies is part of the larger tapestry of truth and justice vs. lies, theft and murder - at which point we have to deploy one of the expressions made infamous by the B, B & H troika's worst offender; Q: Are Xxx with us, or agin' us? - Where the 'Xxx' here are deliberate, premeditated liars.

Lies are deployed to deceive - it's one reason to cite the definition[2], so we all understand both the mechanics and the gravity.

An obvious 'worst case scenario' is when lies are deployed on the way to murdering theft - as in the illegal invasion of Iraq now morphed into an equally brutal occupation (murder for oil), and the 60+ year depredations of Israel against the now criminally dispossessed former legal owners of most of the land Israel occupies, Israel's neighbours or in fact just about anyone who resists Israeli-Zionist criminality (murder for land and water).

Now, Ern, we come to your "free speech" and the MSM (mainstream media.) Here we also come up against the hoary old idea of 'expectations,' and how realistic they are (or were, if revised - or sadly shattered.) My own expectations of the MSM *were* that they were "news agencies," i.e. their job was to inform us - as citizen-voters need to be. A special case of the MSM are the publicly financed broadcasters AusBC and latecomer SBS. Coming to my violated, realistic expectations; in plain text: I did *not* expect to be lied to (do you?)

Well, how silly, how utterly naïve! (Ah, ha ha ha!) Everybody lies - or at least those trying to cheat us, steal from us do ...

The MSM (plus publicly financed broadcasters) turn out to be corrupt and venal - their 'news' is sold to us, we the people-sheople, under false pretences; a lot of the 'news' we get has already been bought and paid for by (vested interest) villains, and equally obviously, many (most?) of these villains are of the Zionist persuasion.

Their 'news' is laced with lies and propaganda; in the case of publicly financed broadcasters, we the sheople are actually paying them via our taxes to lie to us. Now, just how "free speech" is that?

There's more to come of course (seemingly endless battle) and whereas you are (partly) correct with your idea that the MSM can make or break a government - the Whitlam tragedy still sears - it is not simple.


PS You pose a good question, Q: Is there "an alternative to suicide?"

A: One thing is perfectly clear, doing nothing is not a viable option.

The question then becomes, Q: How to become most effective?

A1: Ah! Start with insisting on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, perhaps?

A2: In blogging, endlessly arguing with any lying blog-troll once recognized is pretty pointless - but worse, continuing such a dialogue enables the troll to keep pressing his/her/its lying agenda - see Lakoff (Don't Think of an Elephant!) Another thing is that lying trolls, by nature, are simply not interested in facts - quite obviously, facts are just too inconvenient for trolls, since the acts (here murder for spoil) under consideration are mostly criminal. Always more of the same will only get you ever more same-old same-old, so: (1) identify any liar, (2) say so loudest, then (3) terminate all discussion with him/her/it.



[1] sheople = sheep + people. Some prefer 'sheeple,' but that's just a bit too animal - all as usual and of course IMHO.

[2] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]


  1. ID - I appreciate your understanding that I am just learning this system but - it impresses me.
    Regarding this item I see it as a blog which identifies the major problem in our society today - what we are informed and what we are not.
    Truth is no longer an obligation because the "powers that be" are in fact, the media itself. They elect or dismiss governments. The sheople (I have always loved that very apt expression) have to rely on what they are told by those powers.
    The campaign against Whitlam and Hawke in 1975 is a perfect case of lies, misinformation and blatantly invented stories.
    I realised then that the politicians who support this type of injustice are criminals in that they are removing our right to know.
    To know, especially in this much-smaller world - not only what is happening in our own land but generally in the international community.
    Without any higher education other than the Navy, I twigged to the fact that the media can report any incident, large or small, and still change the way it will influence, sometimes with just one word.
    I vaguely remember a Court case in W.A. which challenged the right of a newspaper to print biased political editorials - and the newspaper won. However, now editorials are the least of the bias and if any journalist dares to step outside the guidelines of the powers, they have a very short employment.
    I notice that SMH has considered Mike Carlton and Alan Ramsey unnecessary.
    The best example of the sheople having a chance to debate issues and to think and reason, is that technology is providing this type of avenue for thinkers to speak their truth.

  2. G'day Ern,

    You have given some good examples. The Whitlam case was one of the Opposition deciding just weeks after the 1972 election to do over the Labor government - more legislation was blocked in the Senate in the 3 years of the Whitlam governments than had been blocked from Federation to the election of 1972. Once the media magnates decided to get on board, Whitlam's fate was sealed.

    There is classic example of a media magnate using his power:

    During this time, Hearst in particular blatantly used his papers to promote his own causes and to viciously attack his enemies.

    He was even accused of starting a war to sell newspapers by pushing for U.S. involvement in what turned out to be the Spanish-American War. Hearst sent a reporter to the front to cover the rumored war. When the reporter cabled back that there was no war in progress and that he was ready to come home, Hearst reportedly wired back, "Please remain. You supply the pictures, and I'll supply the war."

    Not enough scepticism and checking and rechecking is done.

  3. G'day Ern,

    looks like you have a good eye for detecting the deceptions that we've been subjected to via and by the MSM, and your "powers that be" I call variously an oligarchy[1] or perhaps better, a kleptocracy. The latter, kleptocracy, is doubly apt; they help themselves (steal) the world's resources without adequately compensating the sovereign owners, and they have usurped (stolen) democratic political power. It gives us a new application of 'undemocratic swill' - and how!

    When the US went broke under Nixon, who then broke the $-gold nexus Oh so long ago now, he (figuratively; 'he' really means the regime of the time) - they then set-up the $-oil rip-off scam, and as part of that scam started work on setting up 'gatekeepers' to control oil and other resource-producing countries. I discussed this point in my political neophyte comment on the hypocrisy of the 'highest' order ... thread.

    The 'gatekeeper' concept can be applied to the MSM - usual qualifiers; corrupt and venal, also including the 'publicly financed' traitors. In addition and as you point out, the MSM wields dreadful power - essentially based on lying. Naturally, none of this much good for democracy, emphasising the utter hypocrisy of the so-called 'democracy spreaders:' "Accept our 'democracy' or we'll kill you!" - as currently underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MSM hides and/or muddies the truth, then adds a layer of disinformation; in this way I was infused with the lying "Poor little Israel vs. the ugly Arab(now Muslim) Goliath" myth.

    As you say, the new technology has freed us (we who choose to look), and so brick by brick we dig up and expose the truth - to break the previously monopolistic and lying MSM information tyranny.


    [1] oligarchy n. (pl. -ies) 1 government, or State governed, by a small group of people. 2 members of such a government.  oligarchic adj. oligarchical adj. [POD]

    Comment: I say so-called 'democracy,' because (generalising) we lack at least three totally necessary prerequisites; an informed and involved electorate, truthful and total information flows, and honest, responsible representatives.