.. 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.
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.»
1. It's primarily a matter of fairness (just, equitable; in accordance with the rules) - obviously, since lying 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 (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 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. That's exactly what the normal, honest majorities in the Anglo/Judaic populations (US, UK, Aus & Z-land) are suffering under: tyranny.
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.»
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).
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.»
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.
 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]
 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.]
 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.]
 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.]
 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 ...
Q: Is the Pope a catholic (B, B & H; non-operational democracy)
Posted by IDHolm at 10:29