blowback vs. hypocrisy (US; UK perfidy, Libya, Lockerbie)

.. *nothing* is more irrational ...

  .. than a 'supernatural' religion ...

    .. so why not scare up a crusade?


In response to your latest on American Exceptionalism - to the rules, g'day Bob; and thanks for the reading-list. As you point out, in the early days of the US, they had at least two sorts of wars, one to invade and dispossess their own native peoples (setting up a prototype for the Zionists to ape from '47/8 to present in Palestine), then a war of 'liberation' to rid themselves of foreign domination. Apart from some minor skirmishing over who and how the country was to be run, the wars they then partook in were not in their own country, rather 'o/s.'

The US made 'heroes' of themselves by 'rescuing' the world in WW1 & WW2 (or so their propaganda goes); wars fought entirely *not in their own backyard* (i.e. NIMBY); finishing WW2 off with a magnificent 'fireworks display' (killing over ¼mio in two 'shots,' the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.)

The US says one thing - whilst doing an entirely different other; pretending to protect democracy (there's nothing to be protected; our democracies are *total sham*), whilst ripping the world off (with 5% of the world's pop, they 'consume' 25% of the world's resources.) In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what they said was "Ending WW2," what they did was "send a signal" that they had A-bombs, could and did use them - and to accent their vile immorality, on innocents.

Roughly half of their bloated, hugely deficit budget goes on 'defense' - but since they go to war by invasion, it's actually offence. For example, take the recent illegal invasion of Iraq, now morphed into a brutal occupation; some estimate the 'excess death-toll' (over what might have been, lacking US 'intervention') - as 1.3+mio, again the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians. They produce more weapons than the rest of the world combined - and deploy them 'with fatal effects.'

In general, in the 60-odd years since WW2, the US has been busy 'intervening' somewhere across the globe on a regular basis[1]. Some time during the 'cold war,' some of their clever 'strategists' foresaw the end of Russia being a believable bogeyman, and so it is entirely possible that they, needing a new enemy, cold-bloodedly invented one.

What could be a better (actually, of course, the worst) invention, than "the mad Mullahs are coming to get us?"


Sooo, we get - most likely thanks, but "No, thanks!" to CIA black-ops, and corrupt & venal MSM psy-ops; militant Islam, caliphates and terrorism, all designed to scare the sheople shitless.

And the propaganda never stops. Recall how many people, the overwhelming majority of whom were totally innocent civilians, the US has murdered over the years - almost entirely without a single shred of evidence of human compassion, yet how they squeal, when a few of their own 'get it?'

Like this, say:

Scotland defends Lockerbie bomber release
Posted August 21, 2009 20:39:00
  «Scotland defended its decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, despite US fury heightened by the Libyan's welcome back home in Tripoli.» 


According to the story, the person released is quite literally about to die, stage 4 = terminal cancer. The US whips up public sentiment, over a plane-load of innocents from 20 years ago - forgetting entirely, that the US itself is the cause of sooo much world-wide misery.

Misery they deliberately inflict with malice-aforethought: namely, mass-murder for spoil.


But that may not be all, try this:

Trade deal linked to Lockerbie bomber's release
Posted August 22, 2009 13:39:00
  «But Colonel Gaddafi's son, Seif al Islam, who travelled to Scotland to accompany Megrahi back to Libya, said his release was linked to trade deals.
"In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, [Megrahi] was always on the negotiating table," Mr Islam said in interview to Libyan TV channel Al Mutawassit taped on the flight back to Tripoli.
"All British interests were linked to the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi," he added.»

Q: Would we be surprised? A: Nope.



[1] Quote of a quote: «"From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."» 
[ICH/Emily Spence/Blum]


the so-called 'noble' lie

.. is not noble ...

  .. a lie is a lie is a lie ...

    .. all designed only to deceive


[Updated; see PS]


IF what 'they' are doing to us was the best for us THEN they would not need to deceive us - eh?

The only possible exception could be that their so-called 'noble' lie is deployed to hide a truth so horrendous, that simply to hear it would cause insufferable damage to the listener. The immediate thought is Q: "What stops the so-called 'noble' liars from being so damaged?"

Then a conjectured answer to that is that the so-called 'noble' are so much superior to us, we the 'normal' sheople, that they are immune to the 'malevolency' of the so-called 'noble' secret. (They, the so-called 'noble liars' are saving us from a fate worse than death? Haw!)

Still another obstacle; Q: How do the so-called 'noble liars' get selected, i.e. know in advance that they can 'handle' the Oh, so formidable danger?

Seems to me, that ever more lies are piled onto the 'original' lie.


More 'seems to me,' that this is the way of the current, US-dominated world. Once a boundary is crossed, it doesn't matter any more; tell one lie then go on to tell ever more, do some crime, go on to do ever more, kill one person, go on to kill ever more.

That is exactly our situation; surrounded and drowning in filthy, propagandistic lies, with our so-called 'noble' liars ripping us, we the sheople, off (resource-rent as one example, sovereign resource-owners being paid a miserable pittance; the already obscenely rich fat-cats grabbing ever, beyond avarice, more) - as well as going 'Nuremberg' by illegally invading and murdering for spoil - the US in Afghanistan (pipeline), Iraq (oil) with Iran possibly next (more oil); Zionists 61+ bloody years long now illegally invading Palestine (genocidally mass-murdering the hapless Palestinian legal owner/occupiers to steal ever more Palestinian land and water.)


Q: What's 'noble' about any of that?

A: SFA; only criminal.


PS This is an extension to my previous credibility zero ... , which cites Who is Leo Strauss? by TheraP. Now, if there *was* such a thing as a 'noble secret,' one assumes that it would be *very* secret indeed. IMHO, there ain't no such thing - but I'm always willing to be corrected - on 'matters of fact?' Haw again!


the British Army failed him

.. what facts? ...

  .. they don't 'do' facts ...

    .. all they want is to steal some resource


The only possibly 'acceptable' excuse for one person to kill another is in genuine self-defence. Note that in such a situation, one human is attacking another in a life-threatening manner; this already assumes malevolence of intent - i.e. criminal. Since we are taught in kindergarten not to attack anyone, any such attack is, as already noted, criminal - and most likely by a sicko. This story is of one such sicko:

Iraq guard's alleged killer 'a human time bomb'
By Stephanie Kennedy in London for AM
Posted August 17, 2009 07:00:00
  «The British security contractor accused of shooting Australian colleague Darren Hoare dead in Iraq's Green Zone earlier this month was a 'human time bomb' with a history of psychiatric illness, his family says.
Daniel Fitzsimons, 29, is facing the death penalty for allegedly shooting Mr Hoare and British colleague Paul McGuigan dead after a row. His lawyers want his trial to be moved from Iraq to Britan.
The former British paratrooper had seen action in Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan and was discharged from the army five years ago after he was diagnosed with a stress disorder.
Questions are now being asked about whether Fitzsimons should have been hired by security firms; his family and friends believe he was suffering from severe post traumatic stress, with flashbacks, nightmares and anxiety attacks.»


Since the only 'legal killing' could ever be in self-defence, what was the British paratrooper doing in Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan in the first place, now Iraq? None of the countries mentioned had attacked the UK, and clearly, any 'deployment' of the UK army to any and all of those countries must be as an invader - illegally, as Nuremberg showed.

Further, such paratroopers, as any army 'grunts,' are taught to kill - without question; they may be told it's "kill or be killed" - but that can only legally be, as always, in self defence.

Sooo, expeditionary forces (US, UK, Aus) as in the countries mentioned, the IDF anywhere in Palestine, are all illegal invaders, and any killing they do is quite plainly illegal and therefore murder, since it very definitely is a) not in self-defence and b) criminal times two, since the motive for the killing is itself criminal, namely to steal some resource; in Iraq it's the oil, in Palestine it's land and water.

The article concludes with:

  «He agrees Fitzsimons should never have been sent to Iraq: "He should have been given treatment when he was in the British Army - the British Army failed him."» 
[AusBC/justin, ibid.]
Q: What possible "treatment" could the British Army have withheld? They teach people to be illegal killers, that's what they do.

No, it wasn't the British Army who/which failed him, it is the so-called 'leaders' of the US, UK, Aus and Israel who are failing us, we the sheople, and that failing the whole world over.


PS Here we can see Anglo/Judaic hypocrisy in full flight. A few sicko professional murderers squabble amongst themselves, one ended up killing his 'mates.' The Anglos are up in arms, just as the Jewish do in Israel, when one or two of their number are killed. No one, not the relatives, nor the population as a whole, and especially not the AusBC, talks about what the alleged purpose of these killers was - which was and still is murder for spoil, nor the horrid depredations they cause, like 1.3mio+ dead Iraqis, a 61+ bloody-years long genocide in Palestine...


the goons, 1962 Bridge On The River Wye

{r-click} and select 'Save Target As'

moral pygmies (UN/Geneva conventions; US, Israel, more...)

.. Israel is a 'living' proof of failure ...

  .. as was Vietnam, Cambodia etc. ...

    .. as is Iraq, Afghanistan - Iran next (and 'living' in quotes - because of all the murdering)


Some people are making some noise about a 60-year anniversary of the establishment of the Geneva conventions, as if there was some positive involved.

Basically, all such 'celebrants' should be taken out and shot - but only after being exquisitely painfully tortured.

Sounds bad? I say it for effect, that should be perfectly clear - but there's a real and viable purpose. Namely, murdering Palestinians in order to steal their land is far worse - a vile criminal act and continued acts; all was enabled basically by the same types who set up the Geneva conventions. All a stupid sham: the UN whose job it is to stop any war happening actually 'allows' wars (by not effectively opposing them), from its inception down to today, and the so-called 'world-leader' tortures and mass-murders at will.

Look at Af-Pak, the drone murders. An expert freely admitted that the 'effectiveness' of drone attacks may be as low as 2% - in killing some nominated targets, not even allowing for the grisly, illegal fact that those targets are being summarily executed on suspicion, or even merely on someone's senseless say-so. Country or countries of laws? Sick, bad, worst of all 'jokes.'


The UN was set up to stop war - they should *honestly* admit their failures; fold their tents and disappear. As for the "Geneva conventions," imagine setting up rules for wars? Idiotic!!

What we need is *NO WAR!*


It may have been, that the idiots who allowed the 'establishment' of the so-called 'modern' state of Israel had somehow deluded themselves that ejecting the legal owner/occupants of Palestine was somehow justified - but as soon as the murders began (the Deir Yassin type massacres), that should have caused a massive re-think - and reversal. The Zionists and their running-dogs occupying now sadly mostly ex-Palestine were and still are alien and illegal invaders, and should be treated as such - as in Nuremberg/gallows.

Similar for the world's other major alien and illegal invaders, the US in Iraq and Afghanistan - or Iran really will be next.

The US + Israel 'get away with it' because of two significant factors, one is the propagandising of the people (telling lies to people turns them into, amongst other things, insensitive sheople; here's a story: "40pc think torturing enemy soldiers OK") - the other factor is the so-called 'do-gooders' who set up the UN and the Geneva conventions, those people are playing straight into the filthy, lying murderers' hands.

What those so-called 'do-gooders' should be doing is saying *NO WAR!* - and making it stick.

Which means all Zs *out* of Palestine, and all US to *go home*.

Otherwise the world will continue to suffer the depredations of these vicious criminals, as they mercilessly murder to steal.


credibility zero (US, Israel - murder for spoil)

.. criminality to the max ...

  .. the Enlightenment[1] ...

    .. what eff'n Enlightenment?


Subtitle: Convergence; and coding in the conditional (IF ... THEN).

Key question Q: What is the difference between people and monkeys?

A: People are considered capable of planning ahead.

Follow-on question Q: How well are we doing?

A: Pretty poorly - and criminally so.


First, the conditional. I could conceivably be wrong - but I don't think so. IF not wrong THEN:

Second (but almost foremost), we have been, are being lied to.

This should not be news to any paying proper attention. What is remarkable, though, is the extent of the lying; to deploy a suitable cliché, we've been lied to on a breathtaking scale.

Third, Q: What is foremost?

A: Exactly what they lie about, and it's a lot.

For example, our joint-narrative has it:

1. That we (Anglo/Judaic sheople) live in democracies - we do not.

2. That our so-called 'leaders' represent us - they do not.

3. That we live in a society of laws - we do not.

What we actually live in is a pretend, a fully sham democracy, where the real power is held by a self-titled élite which resembles nothing other than a vast criminal conspiracy - no wonder that c-theorists get such a bashing. But conspiracy[2] is certainly the correct word.

Note: By speaking of Anglo/Judaic, I speak for myself (Anglo origin), with the 'Judaic' attached by unfortunate circumstance; more metaphorically, attached as a possibly fatal parasite, or as a cancer on the whole world, say. Some real parasites are known to control their hosts - what better description of the illegitimate Zionist/Israeli tail wagging the rabidly mad US dog? IF any proof were still needed, THEN consider the longed-for "All Options!" attack plans for the hapless Iran.


Now, convergence: the lies have been 'projected' at us for a looong time; longer than I've been alive. We can nominate a significant cusp; the renaming of propaganda to 'public relations' (PR) by Bernays. Here something on Bernays plus extra info:

Books That Counter Our "Training" To Make War
By John Pilger
August 07, 2009
  «... also A Century of Spin by David Miller and William Dinan, who describe the rise of an “invisible government” invented by Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays. “Propaganda,” said Bernays, “got to be a bad word because of the Germans, so what I did was to try and find some other words.” The other words were “public relations”, which now consumes much of journalism.


... It is a gem from Pinter on everything from Shakespeare ... to murderous great power:

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless ... while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.»

My favourite 'proof' of the vicious lies that we've been subjected to is the case of so-called 'modern' Israel; truly a crime of vast proportions inflicted on the prior to '47/8 legal owner/occupiers of Palestine. It is such an obvious - as well as odious - crime (expelling those hapless Palestinians they didn't immediately kill outright (as in the multiples of Deir Yassin), stealing Palestinian land) - it is scarcely conceivable that it could have been disguised as anything other than the disastrous crime it is - yet that is what has occurred, and my main source of info (not 'merely' on Israel of course), was and sometimes still is the AusBC - which has singularly failed to report the real facts on Israeli criminal depredations, from '47/8 right down to today. QED.

The lies are more extensive than the cancer that is Israel (at about 0.1% of the world's population plus another 0.1% Diaspora, they are perhaps the ultimate (and most criminal) squeaky-wheel); for the US as 'senior' partner, their crimes are truly world-scale vast. With 5% of the world's population, they consume about 25% of the world's resources, which they often quite literally take at the point of a gun (see Iraq, illegal invasion morphed to brutal occupation) - after all other rackets - their crooked business practices, resource-rent, corruption, i.e. Perkins' Economic Hit Man progression - have failed.

Lying itself is easy (most kids learn how from their parents), but fitting the many lies into an integrated 'narrative' is the hard bit - and that's one way of detecting lies and liars. Here, consider 'mushroom-cloud' Rice, said to be 'a bad liar.'

The convergence is part serendipity (the internet) and part hubris (B, B & H) - the lies simply became too extreme, too blatant, too obvious.

The above is the who (our so-called leaders) and the why (murder for spoil); what we need is the how; as in Q: How do they do such rotten criminality - and avoid cognitive dissonance? To answer this, we need an Ah-Ha! - and here is one:

How to order mass-murder - and still sleep at night: call yourself an élite; say "Yes, it's hard work - but someone has to do it - and really daaarlings, we're only doing it - to be kind!"

IF that sounds a bit far-fetched THEN that is because it pretty-well has to be; such deep criminality needs either totally sick minds - or some utterly fantastic excuse. I think in fact that both sick and fantastic are 'in play,' and here then, is an explication:

Who is Leo Strauss? And why should we care? (National Disgrace Exposed!)
May 18, 2009, 12:20PM
  «Nothing is more threatening to Strauss and his acolytes than the truth in general and the truth about Strauss in particular. His admirers are determined to conceal the truth about his ideas.

[Canadian Professor and Strauss Expert, Shadia Drury]

Straussian/Neocon "Principles" 101 - (TheraP's cliff notes version):

1. Noble Lies (lies/secrecy as "virtue" - > 4, 10, 13)

2. Perpetual War (war as "virtue" -> 5, 6, 8, 13)

3. Fear of the masses and democracy (-> 4, 9)

4. Government by an elite (covert rule of "the wise" -> 1, 10)

5. Instilling a sense of superiority in a nation (-> 8, 13)

6. Stability/Unity via FEAR of an external threat (-> 13)

7. Exploiting moral issues/religion's hold on the people (-> 1, 13)

8. National survival - supersedes the well-being of others (-> 2, 5)

9. Contempt for dissenters (-> 10, 13)

10. Those in power make the rules and call it justice (-> 1, 13)

11. Combination of religion and nationalism (-> 7, 13)

12. Fear - greatest ally of tyranny (-> 1, 6, 13)

13. Manipulate the images (media, based on idea of Plato's cave)

[Synopsis above taken from the following sources: Shadia Drury, Brad deLong, Karen Kwiatkowski, Don Swift, Jeffrey Steinberg, and Danny Postel, who includes an extensive bibliography and interview with Shadia Drury, the Strauss expert. More below.]

The basic building blocks of this ideology are found in lying, the manipulation of fear, contempt for anyone outside the "inner circle" of devotees, and the feeling of being part of an elite, whose judgments substitute the "law". (It is an interesting side-note that one of Strauss's mentors was Carl Schmitt, the man who became a key legal advisor to Hitler.) If you take these building blocks, horrifying as they seem, you can decipher bushco. You can read the glyphs, so to speak.

By playing around with the "principles" above, you can see the outlines, the blueprint for the bushco spiderweb of deceit. You'll see cheney's machinations, the lies that led us into Iraq, the manipulation, propaganda, use of torture to gin up a war and keep it going. The Orwellian language and "selling" of every bad policy as "beneficial". The never ending obfuscations and denials, the use of Homeland, the contempt for human rights, for the poor & distressed, the secrecy and "So what?" attitude. It's all laid out, right in those so-called "principles" that are totally lacking in principle. (Naturally, given the principles of secrecy and lying, they'd deny every bit of what I've told you: All of this throws new light on one blog of mine about Systemic Deception and the Breakdown of Civic Trust.)

Not all members of the previous Badministration were straussians. But that's beside the point. For the non-straussians, like cheney and rice, were willing to sign on to the same principles, whether by personal character as sociopaths (cheney, rumsfeld), desire to be part of an elite (rice?), or perhaps as allies against a common foe. Those who did not share straussian "ideals" were cut off, like branches being pruned. Anyone who signed on was "willing to play."»

My comment: As the author of that quote points out, not all villains may be Straussian - or even heard of him. (And as usual, one should read the whole piece.) My big "but" here is simply this: the above fits so uncannily well to what we can see (WYSIWYG), that our ruling so-called élite (criminal, psychopathic) must be using exactly that sort of filthy 'philosophy' - or some very close parallel.

There is one more 'brick' for 'the wall' (also discussed in the citation), and it is "the noble lie." My paraphrase here; the theory is that the 'real' world is *so bad* that the truth must be kept from us, we the sheople - or (colloquially), we'd all 'freak out.' Thus the noble lie and all of the above charade - including the murdering-to-steal just happening to enrich the same lying élite. (Note that Freud/Bernays proposed an analogue; that people were subconsciously dangerous ("that deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears"), and had to be surreptitiously managed to avoid chaos and/or self-injury.)

Just what could be *so bad* - and another funny thing, that the self-enriching part is hardly mentioned, if at all?

Or could it be that "the noble lie" is to disguise the actual *ignoble secret*, which is the murdering criminality of our rulers?


Fazit: There is nothing élite about common criminals.


PS I thought of deploying the word 'gutted' as my reaction, better are: affronted, offended, outraged and distraught.

The conspiracy is real, just 'hidden in plain sight.' Hidden, by traitors like the AusBC, say.



[1] enlightenment n. 1 enlightening or being enlightened. 2 (the Enlightenment) 18th-c. philosophy of reason and individualism. [POD]

[2] conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire] [ibid.]