lies (again? - no, still; Turnbull vs. troglodytes)

.. IF someone lies ...

  .. THEN no credibility ...

    .. it's the old cry "Wolf!" story

-=*=-

IF JWHoward was in his grave (not actually wishing), THEN he'd most likely be rotating like a (bent!) Sunbeam Mixmaster beater. As it is, Howard's got little hair left to tear out - but he *must* be watching (suffer, you dog!) Ghost of Latham: "Disunity is death!" Latham was 'aping' Howard - as, we suppose, Rudd is now.

It looks to me, as if Lab(Rudd/Gillard) has wedged Lib(Turnbull/Bishop) in such an extreme way, that the Libs can't even cry "Wedge!" - because they're so red-misted, just so utterly consumed, that they're attacking each other mercilessly (may we say "Thoughtlessly?")

On the surface, it's a fight about Lab's ETS (emissions trading scheme - or whatever it's called this week. Rhyming 'week' with 'weak,' whatever it is or might do, it's *guaranteed* not to be effective - because both Lib AND Lab are BOTH totally in the carbon-extractor/burners' pockets; no CO2-remedial scheme (Lib OR Lab) could ever come into existence WITHOUT 'big-end-of-town' permission. (A guffaw may be triggered by the thought that Rudd's ETS may have been conceived some little while ago, in part if not wholly under Howard's direction.) Slightly under the surface (as in 'down a mine,' say, or perhaps better, 'stuck deep in a cave' (Plato's?)) - are the massed Lib-voting troglodytes, agitating their so-called 'representatives' to such an extent that the Libs appear to have been 'perfectly' panicked.

A highly significant bit here (some would say extremely unique), is this; Q: IF the sheople in general were to be sooo pissed off (vis-à-vis Rudd's ETS), THEN they'd likely attack Rudd&Co, and seek to sink Labor; and such a trend would clearly be indicated by polling - say. BUT: That's not even hinted at; Oh, no! From this, we can conclude: that the overwhelming majority of so-called 'climate-change sceptics' are - ta-ra! - troglodyte *Lib* voters. Not just rusted on, but irrevocably welded-on; a simmering, stinking pile of (climate-change) discontent. It means that Labor knows that it can't lose a single vote from this cohort; *these* troglodytes are already irrevocably lost - to any and all rational thinking, say; the ice is *known to be, seen to be, melting.* And (Milligan), troglodytes (or any other such idée fixe idiots) just can't argue with facts like that. (Evidence tending to overwhelming; scientists saying 'change quicker than expected,' Arctic ice going, latest is Russian permafrost melting - could be a 'killer' if methane 'goes ballistic...') My point? IF (this group) can't see the greed-house - err, greenhouse coming, THEN they're not open for *any* argument at all.

Prediction: Turnbull's a 'goner.' Grounds: The troglodytes are simply 'unturnable.' (Haw!)

Caveat: That Labor has calculated correctly (currently looks like it.)

End of on-the-surface bit.

-=*=-

Discussion:

An acquaintance used to maintain that Aus politics (vis-à-vis the sheople) had great similarities with religion, aka thoughtless beliefs, irrationally held. Then we got the detested Ameri-speak (spit!): in addition, the sheople are now considered to have been 'dumbed-down.' Voter-corruption is indicated as well; anyone recall Fraser/Howard's $5 election? One is still and often likely to hear "What's in it for me?"

In the political arena, we have the putative 'prime' actors, the politicians - who may be more or less puppets; controlled, cashed-up and/or coerced by forces largely invisible. Examples are 'big money,' who must try to be invisible since bribery is criminal, and some sort of mafia(s) similarly seeking invisibility, since coercion is also criminal. (Q: Who are far-and-away the worst coercers? Tip: Think "Z.") Note that any/all invisibility is both anti- and non-democratic. After 'prime' comes 2ndary; those who unduly influence. Then tertiary; an 'active' media can neither be independent nor fair. The 4th estate as 5th column reared its ugly head when Murdoch's theAus attacked possibly the last independent Aus PM (i.e. one who attempted to operate independent of the US, that is), namely EGWhitlam.

"All politicians lie!" gained wide currency during Howard's reign, although he can hardly claim precedence. The 4th estate is clearly not merely the messenger; they actively mix-in and so the MSM-messengers have made themselves 'legitimate' targets - although there's nothing 'legitimate' about lying to the sheople/voters. All such lying is both anti- and non-democratic; by all means now, shoot the eff'n messengers (ready, aim, FIRE!) Lying via and by the AusBC (Barker, say) has been well-documented in these pages.

So far, not so good. Obviously, the sheople/voters are key (of, by, for etc.); although some smart-arses might say "There's a fool born every minute," it's neither nice nor fair to mis-educate, mis-inform, let alone outright lie to voters. Bad as all the above is, it is mainly in the public domain; all one needs to do is look (closely enough) and think (more than enough - for some). Q: Is there anything else? Anything even slightly new, say? A: Yes.

Covert psyops[1]:

Almost nothing 'just happens;' agents are always at work, some that we can see (sadly, most of these turn out to be malignant), and some that we *cannot* see (almost all guaranteed to be *totally* malignant).

Before we even start on this, let's consider 'covert' (—adj. secret or disguised [POD]). There *could* be things that have to be secret - but I can't imagine much, if any at all. After all, good deeds bring acclaim, bad deeds bring prison (if/when the system works); anything good hardly needs to be hidden. Further, secrets, by their nature, can't be known by voters, let alone be voted upon - so secrets must be, by definition, both anti- and non-democratic. Examples abound in the negative, like the current UK enquiry into Iraq, only just starting but already yielding alarming evidence of filthy, lying perfidy.

-=-

Sigmund Freud's nephew Bernays wrote a book, "Propaganda." Before that, Bernays was employed by Wilson, in reference to WW1. Bernays saw that propaganda worked in the war-frame, and set out to employ propaganda in peace-time, as a 'tool' of industry. He morphed the name/concept into PR (public relations), since 'propaganda' had and still has very negative connotations (and not only 'connotations.') And so a disguised concept has endured to this moment - and beyond (unless we stamp on it; stamp it out!)

One of Freud's concepts was (still is - I assume), that "evil lurks in the hearts of men" (quoting the intro to a long-ago radio show.) This 'unconscious evil' was - it was asserted - at 'the heart' of war, and had to be controlled, suppressed or otherwise negated. These concepts among other similar assaults are described in a 4-hr series of videos by Adam Curtis/BBC, 1st brought to my notice by ICH/The Century of the Self, and lately by Aetius Romulous/Freud's Bastards. So far, I have no better source. (Sorry; me sorrier than you.)

-=-

*Because* we (me, 'n a few of my mates) are seekers of justice via truth, AND because "All politicians (and the MSM+AusBC) lie!" - we need to develop systems for sorting the few shining nuggets of truth out of the ocean of BS-dross that we are being inundated with. Sooo, we put info to the 'reality' test: we *look* (i.e. don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see - say.) We self-query: "Can this be true?" Most of the content in Curtis' videos "The Century of the Self" has the 'flavour' of truth. (You don't have to take me 'on faith' (Haw!); go see for yourself.)

Short summary here: we, the voting sheople, are being propagandised; with at least these *three* objectives:

1) the most obvious, the manufacture of *demand*; to sell us things we most likely would not otherwise buy. This powers the economy (so they say); it turns us into consumers, who in turn buy the gee-gaws (worst: gi-normous SUVs(spit!) - aka 4WDs) that keep the economy hummer - err, humming along.

2) pretty bloody sinister, the manufacture of *consent*; the sheople essentially being tricked into acquiescing to our so-called 'leaders' (better 'rulers,' best (actually, of course, worst): 'tyrants') - but whatever you call them; their malignant plans (i.e. illegal invasion of Iraq; Iran next?)

3) the double-edged sword, the suppression of the sheople's (supposed!) subconscious destructive drives.

-=-

OK; Q1: Why "double-edged," and Q2: Why "supposed?"

A2 (deliberate reverse-order:) "Supposed," because by definition, the sub-conscious is - err, well: sub-conscious. Who could possibly know what is - or is not - in the sub-conscious? Yes, this is circular; yes, it's going nowhere - *except* ... the BS (violent impulses) supposedly in the mass-sub-consciousness have been blamed for wars(?) - and then covert actions based on the same BS have led to us, we the sheople, being psychologically manipulated.

According to the videos, some manipulations work; *something* is being fiddled with; some results are provable (the sheople buy largely as directed, say). But (there's almost always an applicable but:) the most obvious manipulations we see are the inculcation of fears; fear of 'the other' (refugees, Islamofascists), fear of terrorism (often instigated by 3rd parties, see Pape's "Dying to Win.") Q: Are *you* (sub-consciously) violent? Q: Do *you* wish to be (covertly) manipulated?

A1: "Double-edged" means that it cuts two ways; (1) It gives the tyrants their excuse to *suppress* us, we the sheople-voters, and (2) It gives the tyrants their justification for doing so.

In case the penny has not yet dropped, there is an *extreme* contradiction here ...

  .. we, the sheople do not start wars ...

    .. actually, quite the contrary.

-=*end*=-

PS Nevertheless, I saw this coming. No, not the wedging, but the irrationality of the (lying) pushed propaganda paradigm. Easy, really; the more lies, a) the farther from reality, and b) the harder to keep all the lies agreeing, i.e. avoiding logical conflicts. Nature doesn't have this problem; it's perfectly self-consistent. Turnbull's troglodytes (of course, they're not all his), but who ever they 'belong' to, they've been carefully 'cultivated' - another ta ra! - the mushroom club! *Not* odd in this case, is that they seem to be exclusively *Liberal* mushroom-troglodytes. Haw again! And these 'climate-change sceptic' troglodytes are not the only ones...

Far more seriously, one simply *cannot* have a proper democracy, while the voters are not fully and fairly informed. We the sheople try hard to be good; to be (blatantly!) lied to or (covertly!) manipulated, in our sad reality both, means that our so-called 'democracy' is abso-bloody-lutely null and void. Lying, deceiving is not 'just' immoral, not 'merely' criminal, it's total cowardice; the 'people in control' - causing such mayhem - can't even admit up-front as to what they're doing.

Contempt. Sheer and utter contempt.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] Psychological Operations (PSYOP, PSYOPS) ...

  «The word is commonly used by governments who do not wish to use the term propaganda or brainwashing to refer to their own work. The word propaganda has very negative connotations, and by calling it psychological operations instead, more sophisticated methods of psychological manipulation are accurately incorporated by the terminology. This euphemism for mind control is ironically an example of psychological operations -- i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade [manipulate] a large number of people to support something that they wouldn't normally support.» 

Q1: Would it be fair or unfair, for the Aus govt. or 'our' AusBC or both, to propagandise us? Knowing that propaganda is a form of psyop; a mind-control technique even?

Q2: Exactly how unfair? How utterly criminal?
 

Q: Is the Pope a catholic (B, B & H; non-operational democracy)

.. IF the democratic covenant is being violated (it is) ...

  .. THEN there can be no valid law-making ...

    .. for the entire, rotten duration

-=*=-

Thesis: No properly functioning democracy means no valid law.

Argument: SINCE our so-called 'leaders' lie to us outright - and have those lies transmitted and augmented by publicly financed broadcasters (AusBC, say) AND they are failing to properly represent us; WORSE, are engaging in criminal behaviour (and that on the Nuremberg scale), THEN a) we have no proper democracy, so b) any and all laws that they make cannot be considered binding on us, we the sheople-voters.

-=*=-

Trigger article:

Oliver Miles: The key question – is Blair a war criminal?
The terms of reference for the new Iraq inquiry allow for the big unknowns to be tackled. And we might just get to the truth
Sunday, 22 November 2009
  «We've had umpteen Iraq inquiries already, but this one should be different. Its terms of reference are open. Previous inquiries concentrated on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the misuse of intelligence to make the case for war, the "dodgy dossier" and so on. But there are plenty of other questions, starting with the big one: was this a war of aggression and therefore a war crime? There were two views about its legality, and the then attorney general seems to have held both of them.» 
[antiwar/independent,uk/Miles]

-=*=-

Interlude:

1. It's primarily a matter of fairness[1] (just, equitable; in accordance with the rules) - obviously, since lying[2] is only done to deceive, we the sheople-voters can never decide how to vote unless properly informed - so deliberate deception of voters is wholly anti- and non-democratic.

2. It's secondarily a matter of propriety[3] (fitness; rightness) - the sheople-voters (one assumes) would overwhelmingly prefer to be represented by honest types, especially if the sheople-voters were fully and honestly informed (which, criminally, they're not) - so dishonest representatives are also wholly anti- and non-democratic.

3. Thirdly, the representatives we are getting do *not* properly represent us. Consider the 'extractive' industries (mining, oil, gas, forestry etc.). The trees of the forest, the riches under the ground, all these "nature's bounties" belong to the sovereign owners, aka we the sheople-voters. As such, we have the right to demand that we get adequate recompense when any of these 'bounties' are 'harvested;' and most especially so, when the 'bounties' are non-renewable. Non-renewable also means non-replaceable; when they go, they're gone for ever, and at the very least, we the sheople-voters are entitled to a fair price. In a nutshell, we are *not* getting that fair price but far from it; we are getting massively ripped-off (keywords: resource-rent, see below) - and the gate-keepers supposedly guarding our, we the sovereign-owner/sheople-voters' interests are those crooked politicians from (2) above. Note that there's that word again, 'fair;' we've come full-circle.

Comment: given the above 'three strikes' against democracy, it is erroneous to term our (the Anglo/Judaic US, UK, Aus & Z-land) situation as 'democratic,' since democracy simply cannot exist under such crippled conditions. Ergo, any so-called 'leaders' are *not* democratically elected: they are swindlers, aka usurpers.

4. As well as the above disastrous situation - which only with massive cynicism could be termed 'business as usual,' we have the corruption[4] highlighted most recently by B, B & H, whereby they sent us to war on totally false, criminally contrived and misleading pretences; all cited 'justifications' were spurious (WMDs, Al-Qaeda etc.) - as we maintained then, *and now know*. The wars they sent us on are illegal; the true reasons were a) oil, then b) pipelines, c) general US empire-building and d) the Israel Lobby, as in instigated by/on behalf of Zs, to attack 'perceived threats' to those Zs. (Aside but hardly irrelevant, recall that Israel illegally occupies land stolen from the hapless Palestinians.) These disasters horribly summarised as murder for spoil.

5. To end this interlude, there's a final point. IF some bunch of crooks blackmails wider society into 'enduring' some criminality, IF some minority (psychopathic criminals) forces their will on the majority, IF some out-of-control undemocratic 'usurper-rulers' force any law on us (with no right to do so), THEN that's called tyranny[5]. That's exactly what the normal, honest majorities in the Anglo/Judaic populations (US, UK, Aus & Z-land) are suffering under: tyranny.

-=*=-

Discussion:

Including proof of my 'interlude' points may make this post impractically long, but a few comments are in order. Ample illustration of the AusBC's perfidy has recently been noted 'in here,' with special reference to one Anne Barker. Almost every report she bylines on Iran includes some allegation about A-bombs (Web Results 1 - 50 of about 344 for iran west nuclear weapon "Anne Barker". (0.38 secs))

Q: Why does she/the AusBC do this?

A: Because it's part of the (lying!) pushed propaganda paradigm.

Once more in a nutshell, accusing Iran of covert A-bomb building (or map-wiping, or holocaust-denying) is a) outright warmongering and b) 'softening up' the sheople for a Nuremberg-class aggressive attack on Iran, just as they've already done to Iraq - all excercises in propaganda.

IMHO, it is *not* the taxpayer-financed AusBC's job to propagandise us, we the sheople-voters; IF the AusBC were to claim that they include such A-bomb lies in the name of 'accurate stenography,' or offering some sort of (fake!) 'balance,' THEN all AusBC reports on Israel should include the indisputable *facts*, that Israel brutally occupies vast tracts of land stolen from Palestinians, while simultaneously using largely US-provided arms to viciously inflict genocide on those same hapless Palestinians. A further indisputable fact is that the AusBC's reporting over the last 61+ years has almost totally omitted such damning information about Israel. The following article (a shocker!) most probably explains some part of 'why' (the article should also be read with (5) above in mind):

Zionist Control of Britain’s Government: 1940-2009
By William A. Cook
November 20, 2009
  «“After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they (Zionists) are used to being untouchable.” (Gilad Atzmon, “Britain Must de-Zionist Itself Immediately,” Nov. 17, 2009, MWC News).
...
This week the British people listened to the Daily Mall’s Peter Oborne present, on Channel 4, his devastating account of the Jewish lobby’s control of their government. Now we know that virtually all the principal politicians in the UK of both parties, like their brothers across the lake in our House and Senate, take “contributions” from the Israeli lobby machine ensuring that the Anglo-American mid-east policies follow the dictates of the Israeli government.» 
[ICH/Cook]

Comment: (As usual, one should read the lot.) The AusBC partly models itself on the BBC (as Aus 'apes' the UK(&US)); my own *direct* experience is that I acquired my 'education' about Israel almost exclusively from the AusBC - only discovering the awful truth of the utter injustices inflicted by Israel after reassessing my world-view, that triggered when B, B & H began their lying run-up to the disgusting war crime that the illegal invasion of Iraq was/is.

At this point, one should review this (previously cited): The US War against Iraq; The Destruction of a Civilization.

Comment: Basically, no comment; it must be read in it's entirety. Suffice it to say however, that no appreciation of just what criminally bad things have been done to Iraq will be achieved by a continuous monitoring of the AusBC's output. Recall that only fully & honestly informed voters would be able to make the vital decisions our once jewel-like planet requires.

-=*=-

Why it might matter:

On a general level, one could consider that IF one is being lied to (we are; via and by the AusBC) AND lies are deployed to deceive (they certainly are), THEN Q: Is one likely to be better off by being deceived? As to the still-current war in Afghanistan, say, the original objective (US after 9/11: full-tilt tantrum; hit someone, anyone) has looong been achieved (Afghani-sand nicely re-arranged), and the Taliban (carpet of gold or bombs) were deposed. The war in Afghanistan is now being pursued to 'pacify' the local defenders of freedom, so that a) the US can beat its Vietnam-wounded chest and b) the US can build its pipelines, meanwhile c) the CIA may continue its drugs trade (that's one of the things (other than torture, say) that they're strongly rumoured to do.) Once more to Afghanistan; Rudd has continued Howard's filthy policies. That's called bi-partisanship, and since that offers us, we the voters abso-bloody-lutely *no* choice, it's another 'lovely' anti- and non-democratic 'feature' of our Anglo/Judaic world.

One other thing (certainly not so simple.) Some people say that "We never had it so good!" - which reminds me of the old joke about the fellow falling off a sky-scraper; 10 floors to go he says "So far so good!" IF we really are in the 'best of all worlds' THEN we could justifiably say "More of the same!" - and set out to enjoy every minute. (We have to do the latter anyway); but I maintain that we are tending to the 'worst of all possible worlds.' As the democratic covenant is being violated, so the social contract; both capital and labour must share the returns, it's not just equity but obvious - it's a symbiosis. But (mostly US) capitalism/globalisation has broken the capital/labour nexus. As previously stated, no proof will be offered, but a note on economic rent and the fat-cat trend. One of the lying-troll arguments is that to object to the already obscenely rich getting ever filthily-richer is merely sour-grapes, or "wealth envy." However, a balance *must* be maintained, whereby the workers can at least feed, house, clothe and educate themselves, not to mention equitably access health services. Under the current model, better than that is practically required; the sheople need a bit extra to 'conspicuously consume.' The situation, especially now extant in the "home of the free" is direly illustrative - lots are getting unemployed or going broke or both; social contract? What social contract?

The principle of 'economic rent' is illustrated in Iraq. Say it costs something in the order of $US1 to 'dig up' a barrel of Iraqi oil; consider the difference between this 'production cost' and the achieved 'market price' ($US81 - $US1 = $US80, say). IF (when!) the greatest proportion, (vastly!) over and above a fair mark-up (cost+10%, say) is snatched up by the extracting entity, THEN it is termed 'economic rent.' That was/still is the objective of the US in Iraq; the US aims to control & skim the entire sand-to-sea process. Royalties (to the sovereign owners) are depressed to the absolute minimum - likewise taxes are made ridiculously low - if not zero, thanks, but "No, thanks!" to CPA/Bremer et al.. The same situation, to a greater or lesser degree, exists in most 'resource extracting,' and that world-wide (specifically, wherever the rip-off US-model is implemented.) Q1: Do you know the exact net return to Aus' sheople/voters coming from the resource boom? Q2: Why not? Q3: Who withholds this info? No prizes for guessing, or as to why. (Tip: Look to see how the top wealth-group, particularly the top 1% are exponentially increasing their 'cut.')

We can see (process of direct inspection) that many things, critical things, are not as depicted in the pushed propaganda paradigm, as presented to us by the (corrupt & venal) MSM, including publicly-financed broadcasters like the AusBC. Nowhere more so than in, around and about Israel, a true and totally malignant cancer on the planet. It goes back to telling us lies; they lie by commission AND omission; what they don't tell us is also damaging us, we the sheople/voters.

-=*=-

Fazit: The violation of the social contract would be bad enough (many are literally starving in the US, and more are dying for lack of medical attention; the numbers are alarming.) The world-trend of those who follow the rip-off, US-inspired neoliberal model cannot be any different. We see it in the Aus 'debate' over climate change; having deliberately brought the workers down (down-sizing, out-sourcing, off-shoring etc.), the sheople are then threatened with perhaps *no* jobs at all, if CO2 were to be reduced, say. And so, following such shonky arguments, no effective measures are likely to be taken, since the sheople-voters cave in to the threats, and the danger of catastrophic climate-collapse only ever grows.

It gets worse; The violation of the democratic covenant means that even if the sheople ever woke up, there is no properly functioning remedial democratic mechanism available. However, our once jewel-like planet desperately needs saving: it leaves only you'n me, mate. We've got to stop the AusBC's lies, make the politicians perform (and stop the marauding US & Zs dead in their tracks) - or it's curtains (actually, the world will likely burn up, as all the ice melts).

-=*end*=-

PS From the intro: IF no democracy, THEN no valid law.

This does not constitute any incitement to 'lawless' conduct, rather it's a *demand* for just law.

Consider this (previously cited):

Drug adviser rolled over cannabis claims
By Europe correspondent Philip Williams for AM
Posted November 2, 2009 10:14:00
  «A row has broken out in Britain, after the chief drugs adviser to the government was sacked when he said alcohol and cigarettes were more dangerous than cannabis.
Other scientists on the drugs advisory council have resigned in protest, complaining the government is ignoring science in favour of popular myths.
When Professor David Nutt made his statements on marijuana, he thought he was simply telling the truth.
He said the drug was reclassified from class C to the more dangerous category B against scientific evidence, simply on the whim of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The reaction from the government was swift and unforgiving. Home Secretary Alan Johnson sacked him by email.» 
[AusBC/justin]

Comment: In the absence of reliable data, cannabis(marijuana) should *not* be used as an 'excuse' to oppress the sheople/voters, let alone destroy lives by throwing people into gaol or otherwise perpetrating draconian injustices. The above snip/article demonstrates that they (our so-called 'leaders') have no such data - and yet they use cannabis to persecute the sheople/voters. Q1: Why? Q2: Is this not a rather 'perfect' example of tyranny? 

What we really, really need, is wisdom, as opposed to greed.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] fair1 —adj. 1 just, equitable; in accordance with the rules. 2 blond; light or pale. 3 a moderate in quality or amount. b satisfactory. 4 (of weather) fine; (of the wind) favourable. 5 clean, clear (fair copy). 6 archaic beautiful. —adv. 1 in a just manner. 2 exactly, completely.  in a fair way to likely to.  fairness n. [Old English] [POD]

[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] [ibid.]

[3] propriety n. (pl. -ies) 1 fitness; rightness. 2 correctness of behaviour or morals. 3 (in pl.) details or rules of correct conduct. [French: related to *property] [ibid.]

[4] corrupt —adj. 1 dishonest, esp. using bribery. 2 immoral; wicked. 3 (of a text etc.) made unreliable by errors or alterations. —v. make or become corrupt.  corruptible adj. corruptibility n. corruption n. corruptive adj. corruptly adv. corruptness n. [Latin rumpo rupt- break] [ibid.]

[5] tyranny n. (pl. -ies) 1 cruel and arbitrary use of authority. 2 a rule by a tyrant. b period of this. c State ruled by a tyrant.  tyrannous adj. [Greek: related to *tyrant] [ibid.]

-=*=-

PPS - a last, few quiet words: IMHO, the world is *not* filled by bad people; most are law-abiding citizens merely wishing for a normal life. We know from Newton that any force creates its own resistance; surely this means that IF the US & Zs ceased killing people to steal their resources, THEN no one would try to reciprocate. IF the US & Zs started competing fairly, THEN so would all others (a properly functioning UN could see to it). Doesn't it appear odd, that the US & Zs have to maintain their dominance by deploying murdering force? One could think that any valid system would stand on its merits; succeed by reasoned debate instead of immoral bullets and bombs?

Just musing on how nice life could be ...
 

of course it was the oil (stupid!)

.. we knew it all along ...

  .. but we had to battle the (lying!) trolls ...

    .. Q: Why? A: Their strategy - but worse: their dishonesty

-=*=-

Subtitle: This is what 'victory' in Iraq looks like.

-=*=-

Musing: We should have known; Q: Why didn't we? A: (Hindsight etc.); for all those prepared to murder for spoil, lying is a mere bagatelle. We should simply have confronted them: "Liars!" - Oh, well; for those paying close attention: "We won't get fooled again!" 

I have a friend who has advised me "It's not so simple," and I'm willing to go along with a certain degree of nuance - but at the same time, I'm not going to get so complicated that the plot gets lost.

The US *always* wants to make a profit (well; who doesn't?) But instead of being happy with costs + 10% (say), they want a 10* multiplier - if not *even more piggy*. That, in turn, can only ever work in an open-ended, unlimited resource environment (that we just don't now, and never did have). We also knew all along (the same 'we;' justice-via-truth seekers), that 'sustainability or bust' was the name of the game, with the pigs going for 'bust' being the thoughtless, as good as brainless, destroyers - of almost everything good. "So? Everybody does it!" - I hear some try - but (there're always *lots* of 'buts':) as soon as one party starts 'dirty tricks' (US, the Zs) then others have to 'match' them - or lose on the spot. In other words, it's a race to the bottom; it wasn't always so. Enlightenment? What eff'n enlightenment?

Those who practice *bad* morals have no morals at all.

-=*=-

Trigger article (very brief 'snip'):

Did Big Oil Win the War in Iraq?
By Antonia Juhasz
Alternet
November 17, 2009
  «Back in 2003 Britain and the US were shut out from the oil-producing contracts Saddam Hussein's government was negotiating. The contracts BP and ExxonMobil negotiated last week reflect the extent to which British and US "big oil" companies have gained from the war.» 
[globalpolicy/Juhasz]

Comment: As in my headline, of course it was oil. So to nuance a bit then; oil, plus. As in my musing, the US is always out for ever more $s; in this case all the other reasons 'lined up' behind the oil: that's how the whole show was to be financed; some cronies to get rich(er), as well as putting potential competitors 'under the gun' - so's to speak. And always, the power-swagger. (The article hints that "big oil" may have had prior misgivings - but they want the crooked oil law imposed on Iraq more than anyone else.)

Key article (what really happened - warning; sickening):

The US War against Iraq
The Destruction of a Civilization
By James Petras
August 21, 2009
  «A mere ‘regime change’ could not extirpate this deeply embedded and advanced secular republican culture in Iraq. The US war planners and their Israeli advisers were well aware that colonial occupation would increase Iraqi nationalist consciousness unless the secular nation was destroyed and hence, the imperial imperative to uproot and destroy the carriers of nationalist consciousness by physically eliminating the educated, the talented, the scientific, indeed the most secular elements of Iraqi society. Retrogression became the principal instrument for the US to impose its colonial puppets, with their primitive, ‘pre-national’ loyalties, in power in a culturally purged Baghdad stripped of its most sophisticated and nationalistic social strata.» 
[ICH/Petras] (previously cited)

Comment: The above article is an absolute 'shocker.' Talk about psychopaths; all that we ever feared and/or forecast, then exponentially, dreadfully worse - stupefyingly depthless depravity - and they dare deploy the term 'Evil Empire.' Whatever summary I make cannot approach the dark reality. But IF one reads it THEN one sees who the truly evil ones are. It's no overstatement to say that the identified perpetrators pose the greatest risk to our once jewel-like planet.

Read it all - then consider the question Q: Why are such hideous crooks in control? Where, exactly, is justice?

-=*=-

Fazit: Coming full-circle; there is a simplification; US & Zs both 'murder for spoil.' 

-=*end*=-

PS From my headline; 'lying trolls.' Who are they? *Why* are they? They know they are crooked, supporting crooks, and making our lives, we the justice via truth seekers, far more difficult than ever need be. Why do these lying trolls oppose truth and justice anyway? Are they paid? They can't have functioning consciences; as the perpetrators themselves, they're all pure evil. Then, in the discussion-space; why did/do some gatekeepers favour the filthy lying trolls / idiots / crooks?

Of course we can guess at what happened 'over there:'

  «Intimidation campaigns have long been a key tool for organized crime and for those whose undisclosed agenda can succeed only when shielded from public scrutiny. Those complicit in such “psy-ops” know their agenda could not prevail in an open debate. They also know that if their treachery is detected they face charges of treason, a capital crime.» 
[Jeff Gates]

In no small way, any/all who *do not* resist the crooks, and that with all their strength, are aiding those criminals. (Listening, Aunty AusBC?)

Any who would deny justice must either be totally ignorant or implacably evil - actually of course, both.

We can usefully paraphrase GWBush: "... those agin' us are psychopathically evil." 

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] nuance n. subtle shade of meaning, feeling, colour, etc. [Latin nubes cloud] [POD]
 

lies, damned lies & absolute whoppers (AusBC/Barker et al.)

.. Q: Why lie[1]? ...

  .. A: Trying to deceive ...

    .. trying to obscure dastardly criminal acts - like Israel, say

-=*=-

Subtitle: 4th estate as 5th column[2].

Musing: There are at least two worlds 'out there;' one is the real one described by facts[3] (recall Harvie Krumpet and his "fakts") - and then there's the world of lies, what I call the 'pushed (propaganda) paradigm.' This latter is what is delivered to us by the MSM (main-stream media, aka the FCM: fawning corporate media), including big bits of the AusBC. Before B, B & H illegally invaded Iraq (now morphed into a puppet/client state via a brutal occupation: murder for oil), one of my main sources of information was the AusBC; I trusted them. Silly me! On re-examination, I now see that they've been lying to us all along; consider that the AusBC continually and immorally favours Israel - a criminal state which should never have been allowed to come into existence - or at the very least, should have been strangled at 'birth,' just as soon as they were seen to exceed their remit and started attacking their neighbours. No person or organization ever had the right to dispossess the original legal owner/occupiers of Palestine, and no peace will ever be established there until that original, ghastly wrong is as far as possible completely righted (i.e. return all illegally-acquired property = *all* of so-called 'modern' Israel), also including as full a compensation ('pain money') as is possible. The I/J/Z-plex could start this process by saying "Sorry!" - then vacating Palestine and returning post-haste to whence they (or their parents) came.

-=*=-

Q: Why does it matter? Why should one object to lies?

A: Consider that there are at least four sorts of people:

1. The originators of the lies - the (puppet) politicians ("All politicians lie!" - thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Howard), and their shadowy puppet-masters.

2. The transmitters (and amplifiers!) of the lies - the MSM/FCM, including big bits of the AusBC.

3. The 'defenders' of the lies - an example of whom are the filthily lying blog-trolls.

4. We the voters; we the sheople. In order to decide how to vote, we need to be properly informed. In the first place, lies obscure the issues, in the second place, we must consider what the lies are attempting to conceal - which, by the very nature of lying itself, is highly unlikely to be in ours, we the sheople's interest.

Then,

I include myself in the voter/sheople class, but it's not just voting that's at stake; it's the actions which proceed from many of the lies, like Israel itself and the depredations they continually inflict upon the original legal owner/occupiers of Palestine and their neighbours, then there are the 100s of 1000s of people killed or displaced by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and increasingly now in Pakistan, with Iran as next in their sights. There're some of the current, immoral & illegal war-parts; as if those were not bad enough, then come the largely ignored or avoided threats to our environment (pollution, excess-CO2 caused climate-change), which will extremely negatively impact pretty-well all humans on our once jewel-like planet.

Force (war; murder & theft) is deployed when all 'rational' argument would fail, as in ripping-off any sovereign people's 'patrimony,' i.e. oil (US), land (Zs) or other resources. But armed robbery is always illegal (not to say horribly immoral); Q: Why should the US & Zs ever get away with it? A: Only because of quivering, cowardly quislings - like Blair & Howard then (now Sarkozy, Merkel & Rudd), and traitors like those who lie to us in the AusBC.

Anne Barker of the AusBC provides us with a rich source of filthily lying propaganda; here is her latest:

Iran stands firm on nuclear plans
By Middle East Correspondent Anne Barker
Posted November 18, 2009 09:00:00
  «Iran has denounced a United Nations report questioning whether the Islamic regime may be hiding other nuclear facilities, as it initially did with its second nuclear plant at Qom.» 
[AusBC/justin]

I'm looking particularly at this bit: «hiding ... as it initially did...» - AFAIK, Iran is perfectly in the clear here; it was the Iranians themselves who revealed Qom, and they are perfectly within all applicable IAEA guidelines. IF Barker's statement is *not* an outright, filthy lie THEN I'd like to see her explanation.

Iran is in the US' sights because the Iranians dared to overthrow the US' puppet-shah, as well as possessing lots of oil.

Iran is in Israel's sights because Iran may hinder the further (illegal) expansion of (illegal and immoral) Israel.

Neither the US nor Israel has any *legal* or *moral* reason to attack Iran, yet they continually threaten to do so; such threats themselves being illegal under international law.

That Anne Barker of the AusBC dares to aid this filthy, illegal and immoral aggression is worse than a scandal; all those 'responsible' at the AusBC should be thrown directly into gaol. Traitors and criminal accessories, that's what they make themselves into.

All that, and on our tax-dough!

Boo! Hiss!

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] 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]

[2] A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group, such as a nation, from within, to the aid of an external enemy.

[3] fact n. 1 thing that is known to exist or to be true. 2 (usu. in pl.) item of verified information. 3 truth, reality. ... [POD]
 

there is no hope (US & Z extra-judicial assassination)

.. of ever stopping ...

  .. these foul murderers ...

    .. the immoral US and its illegitimate Z-state sprog

-=*=-

Updated, [1]

1. The warm-up.

2. The nitty-gritty.

One should read the lot; I decline to 'snip' - apart from this:

  «Seven years later, there is no longer any doubt that targeted killing has become official U.S. policy. “The things we were complaining about from Israel a few years ago we now embrace,” Solis says. Now, he notes, nobody in the government calls it assassination.» 

Comment: How convenient, that the so-called 'terrorist' targets are all in places coveted by the attackers; Palestine (Z-Lebensraum), Iraq (oil), Afghanistan (pipeline routes, opium/heroin) etc..

-=*=-

Q: Why doesn't 'our' AusBC carry reports like the two above?

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

US & Z extrajudicial killing = murder for spoil.

[1] Update:

The last bit of the Mayer article:

  «“It’s really all we’ve got to disrupt Al Qaeda. The reason the Administration continues to use it is obvious: it doesn’t really have anything else.”» 

Comment: 'Al Qaeda' didn't exist until the US(CIA) 'invented' it, to plague the Russkies. Now it, as 'Taliban,' is partly a 'catch-all' to describe any US 'enemy,' otherwise referred to as militants, insurgents or fanatic religious caliphatists; whatever (but not where-ever; all these US/Z 'enemies' are legal owner/occupants of the lands being so illegally, so brutally, invaded.) We've been through all this before with Reagan, say; one man's rebel is another's freedom fighter. It's always worth keeping in mind that the US aggressing anywhere *outside* the US is an invader, as are the Zs aggressing in Palestine. Then, it's worth recalling Nuremberg and aggressive war - and what *should* happen to all perpetrators. As well as 'not having anything else,' the US & Israel have no morality (apart from bad morality), no justification (except theft).

Q: Why can't they just buy what they covet?
 

the very fact that they lie (cannabis)

 .. proves their guilt ...

   .. democracy? ...

     .. what eff'n democracy?

-=*=-

It's easy to tell the truth; one needs invent nothing, and the truth 'hangs together' because it is by its nature already a seamless whole. Lies[1], on the hand, require (criminal) effort, and the more and more complicated the tissue of lies, the harder it is to make them 'mesh' - (therefore, be sure their sins will find them out! And so it comes to pass...)

-=*=-

Try this one:

Drug adviser rolled over cannabis claims
By Europe correspondent Philip Williams for AM
Posted November 2, 2009 10:14:00
  «A row has broken out in Britain, after the chief drugs adviser to the government was sacked when he said alcohol and cigarettes were more dangerous than cannabis.
Other scientists on the drugs advisory council have resigned in protest, complaining the government is ignoring science in favour of popular myths.
When Professor David Nutt made his statements on marijuana, he thought he was simply telling the truth.
He said the drug was reclassified from class C to the more dangerous category B against scientific evidence, simply on the whim of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The reaction from the government was swift and unforgiving. Home Secretary Alan Johnson sacked him by email.» 
[AusBC/justin]

-=*=-

Now, this is a bit more than just a bit serious. Drug offences can get people into gaol, if not ruin whole lives, and not even mentioning the associated, real criminality, namely those who purposely set out to profit from crime.

Enjoying marijuana in moderation and privacy is, as the scientists point out, less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes - both so-called 'legal' drugs. Also, there is *NO* basis for accusing marijuana as being a 'gateway' to heroin - etc. etc. & blah, blah. All this is known and accepted by rational actors almost everywhere. Most 'people out in the streets' (sheople) know this, as does almost everyone who has tried 'inhaling' marijuana.

So, the question must be asked (over and over) Q: Why does the government pursue and persecute marijuana use? It simply makes no sense whatsoever, and criminalizes people who just want to have a bit of at least relatively harmless fun.

-=*end*=-

PS Democracy = government of, by & for the people. Any government doing what the so-called 'democratic' UK, US & Aus governments do, here namely criminalizing relatively harmless marijuana use, is setting out to unjustly persecute their own electors - a clear violation of democratic fundamentals, and more specifically, violating the democratic covenant.

Only just law can be respected; as the UK, US & Aus governments go about so violating the rights of their citizenry, they bring all of democratic government, the law and themselves into disrepute.

These governments, the UK, US & Aus (and even more so, Israel) perform criminal acts like invading countries in order to steal (Palestine for people's land, water - and lives), Afghanistan (pipelines), and Iraq (oil). But they don't stop there, they stick their filthy, busy-body noses into people's sex-lives (anti-gay, say) - and into relatively harmless recreational pursuits.

Q1: Why? Q2: Who benefits?

A: To both, certainly not us, we the sheople.

Boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] 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]
 

monumental blunders (Rudd, Costello)

 .. no sense ...

   .. no justice ...

     .. no democracy

-=*=-

Rudd disloyal for Costello choice, says Keating
Posted November 1, 2009 16:02:00
  «Former prime minister Paul Keating has criticised Kevin Rudd's decision to appoint Peter Costello to the board of the Future Fund.
Mr Keating says the former treasurer squandered 11 years of economic growth and stood by as Australia's overseas debt sky-rocketed.
Mr Keating says Mr Rudd is a "goodie two-shoes" who has shown disloyalty to the Labor Party by not considering former MPs for the job.
He has described the former treasurer as a "policy bum of the first order" who squandered 11 years of economic opportunity.» 
[AusBC/justin]

'Squandered 11 years of economic opportunity' is one thing, crippling the great Aussie 'own your own home' dream is another. That Aus borrows overseas proves that we have no financial independence (the clever alternative is 'sovereign credit'), but Rudd appointing Costello is pure and utter treachery. Costello's greatest blunder was halving the CGT (Capital Gains Tax), an idiotic, sell-out action aimed (unfairly!) - but fair and square *against* the sheople, because that was the 'last stone' in the doubling of house-prices (lockout) wall. Low interest rates are largely imported (but always with an added 'local' surcharge), as was the ½CGT idea. Not even original, but done either with malice aforethought - or out of ignorance. In either case, no economic or any other sort of genius 'at work.'

Rudd appointing Costello shows deplorable economic- and equity[1]- insensitivity, complete ignorance if not outright anti-sheople hostility. (And in all cases, imbeciles both.)

Mind you, Keating has nothing (= SFA) to be proud of; if Aus ever had an independent voice it was Whitlam's - until he was viciously (CIA? Murdoch? Both &/ worse?) deposed. After Whitlam came the neoliberal deluge - from *both* 'sides' - bipartisan anything is *deeply* undemocratic.

Both the social and democratic covenants[2] have been well and truly 'trashed' (detested Ameri-speak; 'deployed' by Turnbull, quoted by the AusBC - traitors all.)

Boo! Hiss!

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] equity n. (pl. -ies) 1 fairness. 2 principles of justice used to correct or supplement the law. [POD]

[2] covenant —n. 1 agreement; contract. 2 Law sealed contract, esp. a deed of covenant. .. —v. agree, esp. by legal covenant. [French: related to *convene] [ibid.]