.. person, position - or policy? ...
.. Anne Barker is back ...
.. dare I say it: 'barking mad?'
Subtitle: The 3 Ps as above, then ¬P, ¬C & ¬R; let's see.
The 'Meister' MEP Anne Barker is back, apparently full of beans. Whether the beans are 'merely' metaphorical or of the musical-fruit variety is a question best answered on the evidence.
Another P and a C: so-called 'professionalism,' so-called 'credibility' as in gap; '¬' = not.
More (metaphorical!) map-wiping?
The trigger item:
Iran threatens to destroy Israel if attacked
By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker
Posted September 29, 2009 08:02:00
«But Iran's Defence Minister Ahmed Vahidi has warned of Israel's demise if it does, saying the result would be "the Zionist regime's last breath".»
More detailed item:
Iran's missile test a warning against Western interference
Anne Barker reported this story on
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 07:19:00
«AHMED VAHIDI (translated): Definitely, if that happens which of course we don't predict, the only result of it would be the acceleration of the final breaths of the Zionist regime and its transient life which is already numbered will come to an end very soon.»
Possible Barker (intermediate) source item:
Iran: Attacking us will expedite Israel's last breath
By Haaretz Service and Agencies
«Vahidi, a former commander in the elite Revolutionary Guards, said that in the event of an Israeli attack its "lifespan, which is today coming to an end, would be speeded up."
He added that the "Zionist regime", the term Iran uses for Israel, was on a "slope of destruction."»
Probably Barker's actual, or root-source item:
Israel, Saudi Arabia, US, UK Join Forces As Iran Fires Nuclear Capable Missiles
By Joel Leyden
Israel News Agency
«Jerusalem, Israel ---- September 28, 2009 ..... As Iran test fires missiles on the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur - nuclear missiles capable of hitting Israel, Saudi Arabia, Europe and US bases - Saudi Arabia has granted the use of their air space to Israel to take out Iran nuclear facilities.
Vahidi, a former Revolutionary Guards commander, said that in the event of an Israeli attack its "lifespan, which is today coming to an end, would be speeded up."
He added that the "Zionist regime", the term Iran uses for Israel, was on a "slope of destruction".»
[The Israel News Agency disseminates direct news feeds from the Israel Government Press Office, Prime Minister's Office, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel Ministry of Defense, the Israel Defense Forces, the Israel Ministry of Trade and the Israel Ministry of Tourism]
From Iran, possibly the true source item:
DM: Israel closing to its collapse
9/28/2009 4:46:49 PM
«IRI Defense Minister said the Zionist regime is closing to its collapse.
Gen. Ahmad Vahidi stated that Israeli officials threatening words of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is a sign of their growing terror.
Gen. Vahidi ruled out possibility of an attack by the Zionist regime and said if this happened that would hasten collapse of the regime.»
As for the musical-fruit, Barker's veracity is a question best answered on the evidence.
Fazit: Speaking of credibility brings another word into play: responsibility. The last word here: vis-à-vis the sheople, and IMHO as usual and of course, Barker demonstrates *none*.
PS My own partial analysis (all should do their own):
In writing any headline, there should be some basis in fact.
Q: Is Barker's headline "Iran threatens to destroy Israel if attacked" justified on the info she provided? On any of the info cited? On any info at all? Or only on someone's sick fantasy?
As in proving a lie, one must provide checkable, accessible quotes.
Q: Are either of Barker's quotes checkable?
A: No; at least, not by me at time of writing. Of course I tried - that's how I built my 'evidence trail.'
In writing any item, any single lie puts the whole into (terminal!) doubt.
Q: Is this statement "As Iran test fires missiles on the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur - nuclear missiles ..." - and here, we are looking especially at the last two words in their full context - true?
A: Absolutely not! Comment: This item comes direct from Z-propaganda central. As such, the info is not merely 'suspect,' as a 'default starting position,' any and all of it may be strongly suspected of being outright lies. That's exactly what the Zs do.
The 'best' one may say of any propaganda is that it is a distortion of the truth, when not outright lies. The only reason to lie or to deploy propaganda is to hide or distort some truth - inconvenient to or destructive towards some policy or action. It is only logical, that something hidden is not in the sheople's interest, otherwise why try to hide it? Ergo, both lies and propaganda are totally undemocratic. When the AusBC does so, they are being traitors to their remit – which is to honestly & completely inform us, we the voters.
The 'original' map-wiping, Holocaust-denying, the evil allegations made on or behalf of the so-called 'West,' via and/or by the corrupt & venal MSM, including publicly financed broadcasters like the AusBC, all have a similar modus operandi, being based as they are on deliberate falsification of the source materials or some crooked translation of same.
Q: Cui bono; who benefits?
 MEP = Middle East Propagandist.
 credibility n. 1 being credible. 2 reputation, status.
credibility gap n. apparent difference between what is said and what is true.
credible adj. believable or worthy of belief. [Latin: related to *credo]
Usage Credible is sometimes confused with credulous. [POD]
full of beans
1. Energetic; frisky: The children were too full of beans to sit still.
2. Badly mistaken: Don't believe him; he's full of beans.
.. who does this 'guy' ...
.. think he is, eh? ...
Warning! The following 'snip' contains wilful lies and dis-information!
Obama demands action on Iran's secret nuclear plant
Posted September 26, 2009 00:09:00
«United States President Barack Obama has accused Iran of building a secret nuclear fuel plant and demanded Tehran immediately halt what he calls a "direct challenge" to the international community.
Mr Obama went public with the charge in a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at a Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, sharpening a standoff with Iran over its disputed nuclear program.
"It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations," Mr Obama said, adding that Tehran had been building the plant in secret for years.
The United Nations nuclear watchdog said earlier on Friday that Iran had just told it of a second uranium enrichment plant under construction, a belated disclosure sure to heighten Western fears of an Iranian bid for nuclear weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran - which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes to generate electricity - had disclosed the existence of the plant to IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei on Monday.
Mr Obama has accused Iran of "breaking rules that all nations must follow" and called for international inspectors "to immediately investigate this disturbing information."»
1. There is no "challenge." Under the NPT, Iran is perfectly free - and fully entitled - to build whatever it likes, whenever it likes - yes, it is obliged to notify any nuclear work - but only before any radioactive materials are introduced. One assumes that Iran - put (unmercifully, unjustly) under a microscope, complies. Iran has timely declared; there is no "secret."
Let's face it: IF Iran was in non-compliance THEN they'd already be a smoking ruin - just like no-WMD Iraq is - Ooops!
That Ramb-O-bama 'hangs out' with the latest UK poodle and cheese-eating French gypsy only shows a common lack of taste & dignity.
2. Restoring any confidence by Iran is farcical; Iran has, as already pointed out, not put a foot wrong.
3. There is no evidence, nor has there been (specifically told to the world by US-intel itself (at least since 2003); see Iran NIE 2007) - no evidence whatsoever, that Iran is working towards an A-bomb.
4. As for "breaking rules," the US (and Z-rael) do it all the time, most recently the US in Afghanistan & then (their blood-lust un-slaked) Iraq; Z-rael 61+ bloody years long, both mass-murdering for spoil.
(IMHO, the article is mostly filthy, lying and war-mongering propaganda. IF a person tells a lie, THEN they *totally* destroy their own credibility. Same for the traitorous, lie-transmitting messenger. Boo! Hiss!)
Tell it to a judge, Ramb-O-bama.
Getting obnoxious, 'guy-O.'
.. IF the US goes down THEN sadly, others might too ...
.. but I will, with my very last breath, laugh (and that loudest) ...
.. I will laugh at crever-crever Chinese traders, fancy French lovers, grim German engineers, ruthless (actually near-toothless) Russian rationalists -
.. and I will laugh until I 'bust a gut;' as 'good' as laugh myself to death even, at the stupid, US-loving, US-collaborating or even merely US-tolerating everywhere, and especially at such Aussies - because all of those mentioned will have helped the US to kill our once jewel-like planet. Boo! Hiss!
(Unless one resists - to the best of their abilities, then one assists, even if only tacitly.)
We have all been sufficiently warned - but almost nobody listens.
Complete and utter eff-wit idiots, the lot.
Here is the reason for my apparent levity:
America Has Been Here Before
By Eric Margolis
September 20, 2009
The Toronto Sun
«"We should hang a huge neon sign over Afghanistan: "CAUTION: DEJA VU."
Afghanistan's much ballyhooed recent election staged by its foreign occupiers turned out to be a fraud wrapped up in a farce -- as this column predicted a month ago. It was as phony and meaningless as U.S.-run elections in Vietnam in the 1970s.
Meanwhile, American and NATO generals running the Afghan war amazingly warn they risk being beaten by Taliban tribesmen in spite of their 107,000 soldiers, B-1 heavy bombers, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, Apache and AC-130 gunships, heavy artillery, tanks, radars, killer drones, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, rockets, and space surveillance.
Washington has spent some $250 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Canada won't even reveal how many billions it has spent. Each time the U.S. sent more troops and bombed more villages, Afghan resistance sharply intensified and Taliban expanded its control, today over 55% of the country.
Now, U.S. commanders are begging for at least 40,000 more U.S. troops -- after President Barack Obama just tripled the number of American soldiers there. Shades of Vietnam-style "mission creep." Ghost of Gen. William Westmoreland, rattle your chains.
The director of U.S. national intelligence just revealed Washington spent $75 billion US last year on intelligence, employing 200,000 people. Embarrassingly, the U.S. still can't find Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar after hunting them for eight years.»
Does that have the 'ring of truth' to it, or what?
Q: What the bloody hell does the US want in Afghanistan anyway?
A: Apart from hubristic Empire (+ a pipeline), not much.
The hubristic US has tried to defeat Marx, by removing the sheople's 'buying power;' by off-shoring, out-sourcing, down-sizing etc. - and then came the house-price swindles (recall Costello's halving of the CGT - he imported the idea) - but more than anything else, by reducing the US sheople's wages, conditions - and survival chances (impossibly expensive medicine & unaffordable 'sickness insurance' for the 'lower' 1/6th = 50mio - say.) Australia largely apes the US, as in "Monkey see, monkey do." What the US has today, Aus gets tomorrow (the voters cannot 'decide' - we're not even asked - 'bipartisanship!')
Marx predicted this failure; he said that if (when!) capitalism gets too greedy, it will kill itself off. Took a long time - but due to so-called 'élite' hubris, it's now happening.
The hubristic US has also tried to defeat history, by attacking Afghanistan (known - with good reason - as the graveyard of Empires). They (the hubristic US regime) are bleeding - as history 'turns' on them - sorely provoked; those who do not learn from history, are condemned ...
.. observation vs. speculation ...
.. IF some 'black-ops they' really did do this ...
.. THEN we've got far less chance than I ever nightmared
Warning(1): The following discusses 9/11 'conspiracy theories,' often termed by the idle, the lazy and the (criminal!) apologists alike as 'crazy, non-reality based fantasies.' On the other hand, a few stalwarts have *not* (yet?) availed themselves of the pushed-paradigm Kool-aid panacea - i.e. acquiescence in the face of pure evil ...
Warning(2): I have largely avoided this topic, not 'merely' because of warning(1) & the insidiously implied intimidation, but on two other, more pressing grounds; (a) IF an inside job THEN there's nothing much we can realistically expect to happen to 'compensate' (i.e, catch & prosecute the crooks), let alone improve things (i.e. never again!) - but most 'pressing,' (b) the topic (mostly, watching the videos) gives me the willies and worse - vivid nightmares (just like last night; boo hoo). It hardly seems worth it (vis-à-vis the reduction in my quality-of-life); but nevertheless, as a seeker of justice via truth, sometimes needs must...
Warning(3): Think before <clicking>! - this .flv video from ae911truth is v.large (265.501Kb); if you can use such a thing at all, I recommend <r-clicking> and then selecting 'Save Target As.' (i.e. by typing the single letter 'a,' say). It took my set-up about 1h40m to download; I can't at this time say whether (IP?) bandwidth-strangulation was active or not.
I came across the video because/via this article:
September 14, 2009
Why Propaganda Trumps Truth
By Paul Craig Roberts
« ... There are, of course, some kooks. I have often wondered if these kooks are intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American. It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized. Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as "terrorist sympathizers" and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.
Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event. In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously. They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.»
Roberts names the 9/11 Truth Movement and the antiwar movement, I would extend some condemnation generally towards 'the Left.' I once shuddered at the rather comical "the UN is as useful as a chocolate tea-pot" - but the UN does turn out to be a useless sell-out; then was *enraged* by the charge that 'the Left' had too few if any ideas (or similar; I'm *not* digging that incident up.) The facts are that *any* opposing 'the establishment,' whether US, UK, Aus or the (ugly throw-back) Zs gets smeared by the so-called 'élite,' their puppet-politicians, the corrupt & venal MSM and running-dogs like the publicly-financed AusBC and last and certainly least, the sycophantic apologists and associated lying trolls. But (there's almost always a but): surrender to evil is not an option.
Here a c-f snip, followed by a reader comment:
The Spider's Egg
Written by Chris Floyd
Friday, 11 September 2009
«It's really quite simple and, to my mind, self-evident: the "official" story of what happened on September 11, 2001, is not a complete or accurate account. (We should of course speak of official stories, because there have been several shifting, contradictory scenarios offered by the great and the good in the six years since the attack. However, for clarity's sake, we'll stick with the singular for now, and will assume -- as the entire media and political establishment does -- that the report by the Hamilton-Kean 9/11 Commission is the final "official" version.)
To put it plainly, this official account is riddled with holes: unexplained inconsistencies, unprecedented occurrences, astounding coincidences, mysterious lacunae, and deliberate obfuscations. It is, in fact, a more improbable "conspiracy theory" than many of those suggested by the much-derided "9/11 truth movement."»
«agree with Gwilym
written by Sean O'Neil, September 12, 2009
Rhislart Gwilym --
I agree with every point you made. Especially the closing points on denialism among the supposedly objective investigative reporters you name (Cockburn, Monbiot) as well as others held in high esteem (Noam Chomsky, for example)»
[Chris Floyd commenter, ibid.]
To the above named; to 9/11 Truth, antiwar movements and 'the Left' generally, I would add a few names; Cole & Escobar have recently drawn my ire, and then to my point: IF intimidated (or gutless, or idiots) THEN (next to) useless.
Getting back to the 9/11 theme. I was from the beginning always (negatively, of course) impressed by WTC 7. Why that? I've recently read that WTC 7 may have been rigged for demolition exactly *on* 9/11, as a result of damage sustained; that would 'explain' why it fell at all, and that sooo much later. Utter bloody nonsense. IF, THEN: it appears to my eye, over looong consideration of the images broadcast, then later different perspectives turning up on the net, like this video which Damian cited here, that the collapse of towers 1 & 2 were so far from what may be expected in (undisturbed) nature, that even any *extended* credulity was right out there on the distant limit. Well, you know; two identical structures - why not fail in an identical way? (i.e. aircraft-struck, then jet-fuel (but not steel-melting) fires.) But then came WTC 7. About all I can say (extra to this comment, that is), is look at the videos. Watch as the twin towers spew steel *outwards*, dense debris *upwards*. Try to work out the vector-sums; what gives the side-kick? Did the steel-reinforceded concrete floors 'trampoline' to kick stuff up? All 3 collapses just are not natural, and the ae911truth .flv observes pyroclastic flows (hot, v.hot, just like in volcanoes), shows just how *identical* WTC 7 is to a 'real-world' CD (Controlled Demolition). Identical is, as identical does.
Now, nobody has to believe anything I say - mostly re-hashed info anyway; you can't make this stuff up, as a special case of finding anything on the net - it's a real-life caveat emptor. But let's assume (as is said "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable ..."), that WTC 7 really was pulled (their word; spontaneously said and duly reported, *before* WTC 7 Oh, so neatly 'fell down.') IF ... THEN, it would make no sense whatsoever, to rig WTC 7 for destruction - unless it was part of 'a set.'
I simply can't see any way past this - therefore, one supposes, my nightmares last night...
Fazit: It may well have been, that there really were 19 - (+ one little piggy stayed home - and the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing!)) - 19 box-cutter equipped 'towel-head' types, originally or mainly from Saudi Arabia. That could quite easily have been an inverse black-flag twist, designed both to entrap and impugn; since it is known that Al Qaeda was 'manufactured' by a certain group, that group's 'talents' are assumed to be well 'advanced,' also vis-à-vis subversion and incitement. The Arabs would act as convenient patsies. Then, as a pilot myself, I queried the putative hijackers' flying from day#1; the best answer I ever got (on the Q/T, i.e. not for attribution) was from a retired 747 Captain: the INS/GPS-autopilot could have done the flying. Type the coordinates in, press goto - full stop. The only question then remaining would be: was it a rogue project? If ... THEN: Why would the official enquiry be such a clumsy whitewash, instead of going all-out after such heinous traitors? Why was NORAD out-to-lunch? Why, why, why? Well, daaarlings; all silly questions: It was always for the oil. First Iraq (Afghanistan = pipeline(s) and key bases), next Iran.
Perhaps, with the sheople as dumbed down as they obviously are, the conspirators thought "Any excuse will do," and so far so good; the dumbos haven't twigged - yet.
Finally, returning from any speculation to 'real-life' observation;
Q: Who has benefited?
.. listen extremely carefully to Mossad; ...
.. to get it wrong could be *doubly* deadly: ...
.. mortally *embarrassing* for the CIA, *fatal* for some possible victim(s)
Preamble: *WE NOW KNOW* - as we long suspected, that Saddam did not have any WMDs, *NOT ONE SINGLE ONE*. (Nor did Iraq have a 9/11 connection, via Al Qaeda or via anyone else. Just saying.) AND we also now know, that a lot of Z-sympathisers (when not actually closet or otherwise Zs themselves), provided *lots* of the fake intel used by the perpetrators of the illegal invasion (now been morphed by the US into a brutal, oil-thieving occupation) of Iraq - fake intel, used primarily to 'convince' the sheople. But the sheople are 'easy;' they're (generally) not too smart, and anyway (also generally) are just too busy with other things (like TV; sport, celebrities & other Hollywood 'rubbish' etc... i.e. 'stuff' not normally called 'a life.') But (there's almost always a 'but'), that was yesterday, daaarlings - what of today, the 'here and now,' eh?
We have been listening to, quite literally now for *years*, allegations about Iran's *legitimate* efforts towards Uranium enrichment (for power generation), and almost every time (perhaps not on *all* 'channels,' but on & via the AusBC's *fur shure*) - the media reports say things like: "suspected by 'the West' of intending an A-bomb."
The above para *despite* the US intel's '07 Iran NIE, which (paraphrased) said that Iran had 'ceased working towards an A-bomb in 2003.' In actual fact, the preceding statement itself may well have been made by US intel intentionally in error; Iran at (or by) that time may not have had any practical intent on an A-bomb whatsoever; it may be that US intel had concluded by 2007, that Iran simply had no active A-bomb program at all, but they 'excused' any previous error on their own behalf by saying what they did as they did - as opposed, say, to saying what they actually knew; always a problem for so-called 'secret services.' And, of course, once a lie is 'out there' (One? Millions!) - they have to be made to sound consistent...
What then, of this report:
Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran
Secret updates to White House challenge European and Israeli assessments.
By Mark Hosenball | Newsweek Web Exclusive
September 17, 2009 "Newsweek" -- Sep 16, 2009
«According to the two officials, the latest update to policymakers has been that as of now - two years after the period covered by the 2007 NIE - U.S. intelligence agencies still believe Iran has not resumed nuclear-weapons development work.»
Oooh-Kay; Newsweek - not an insignificant player - relates absolutely no change in outlook of US intel - since their own '07 Iran NIE. What then, of all those warmongering arseholes (from AusBC to Z-rael, say) who have been pushing: "suspected by 'the West' of intending an A-bomb," eh?
On what info, and from whom, have 'they' (like the AusBC) - been basing their (filthy, lying) allegations?
Carried to one seemingly logical conclusion (aka "All options on the table!") - and following the Iraq model, with about three times the population, a similar attack on Iran could result in three times the innocent, 'collateral' casualties - three times 1.3mio = potentially 4mio to be slaughtered.
See what I mean about *fatal* for some possible victim(s)?
PS It is the job of publicly financed broadcasters like the AusBC to honestly (and fully) inform the electorate - *not* to relay a single lie, certainly not to amplify any lies, let alone add their very own lies. But (IMHO, as usual and of course), that's *exactly* what the AusBC does; it is a lie-conduit, a lie-amplifier, and an outright liar on its own behalf.
Boo the AusBC! Hiss! Traitorous, anti-democratic bastards.
.. do what you want! ...
.. (I know you will anyway)
subtitle: scare them s**tless; promise to 'save' them
Ask me no questions - I'll tell you no lies.
Q: Why would anyone lie?
A: ONLY to deceive; and IF also to rip the sheople off, THEN that's what I call crime. Big-time crime.
Rationalism: I was surprised when a correspondent blamed it all on 'rationalists,' since I had nominated rationalism as one of my own tenets, back in my 'formative' years. It turns out that there are a few different sorts of rationalism; cynical, thoughtless and/or criminal coming to mind as undesirable sorts. Perhaps I should have realised it when I heard the term "economic rationalism" being bandied about - but that was before the big B, B & H "Ah-ha!" experience. Recall that the "All politicians lie!" construct was deployed especially in a vile attempt to explain Howard's chicaneries.
It is not too difficult to see proof that things're crook. Our 'greatest treasurer' Costello presided over a doubling of house-prices; this is called an inflationary bubble. When I was preparing to leave high school I was told that I should be capable, in a few years after establishing myself in a reasonable career, of purchasing a house valued at a multiplier of about 2.5 times my salary. Now in Aus, the multiplier is somewhere around 6-9, depending on income and area. That's not progress - and recall that productivity is supposed to be (desired to be) always increasing, with new technology and better education. What only partially 'keeps the lid on' is the provision of 'cheap' electronic geegaws (plus the associated Hollywood film/TV programming rubbish) and the illusionary 'wealth effect' (borrowing to finance consumption must be the height of idiocy - another thing 'promoted' in the Costello era.)
The most significant thing Costello did vis-à-vis house-prices was to halve the CGT, basically giving already rich fat-cats an unearned bonus. Any interest rates set in Aus are largely determined externally, and 'freeing' the RBA is a nonsense; it removes a needed tool from (accountable) government (assuming that the Aus government actually is accountable; it's largely not.) So any bulls**t about Costello and 'greatest' is exactly and only that - bulls**t. Note that the preceding facts about Costello and bulls**t do not prevent the AusBC from endlessly regurgitating the "Costello the greatest" and other such lying canards.
There is a complaint being made by the Murdoch branch of the corrupt & venal MSM that the BBC publicly-funded broadcaster 'unfairly' competes with the fawning corporate media, this is nothing but (unjustified) special pleading, and the wrong argument anyway. Publicly-funded broadcasters have a vital role to play, and that is to keep the corrupt & venal MSM honest - a function they are failing miserably at - since most publicly-funded broadcasters (US, UK, Aus (& Israel too I suppose)) - namely, those in the crooked Anglo/Judaic block mostly repeat *and even amplify* the lies coming from their respective governments (and in turn, the lies coming from the politicians' puppet-masters.)
Another proof that things're crook is the charming situation backgrounding this: Street Swag goes global with design win. Fantastic! Fan-bloody-tastic progress! Global as in globalisation; privatisation, down-sizing, out-sourcing etc. - all the elements of "economic rationalism," of neo-liberalism, of the Washington Consensus – turned out to be nothing other than cleverly disguised systems for ripping us, we the sheople off, and disgustingly further enriching already rich-beyond-avarice fat-cats. Bah!
One would think that it'd be in all our interests, sheople and rulers alike, to be actively ensuring that we run a sustainable show; clearly not (think possible, going ever more probable excess-CO2 caused climate catastrophe, think excess-people caused resource depletion/pollution impending catastrophe). Fools. Utter and complete fools.
PS IF things were getting better, THEN we could have a relax.
They're not, and we can't.
 rationalism n. practice of treating reason as the basis of belief and knowledge. rationalist n. & adj. rationalistic adj.
rationalize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing) 1 (often foll. by away) offer a rational but specious explanation of (one's behaviour or attitude). 2 make logical and consistent. 3 make (a business etc.) more efficient by reorganizing it to reduce or eliminate waste. rationalization n. [POD]
 chicanery n. (pl. -ies) 1 clever but misleading talk. 2 trickery, deception. [French] [ibid.]
 canard n. unfounded rumour or story. [French, = duck] [ibid.]