who will rid us of these meddlesome, quisling-traitors -
 meaning the US, UK, Aus & IL so-called 'leaders?'

Consider Gillard's shameful, 'illegal' treachery vis-à-vis Assange/Wikileaks. She didn't stop any wars either; see next.

Consider Rudd's continuation of Howard's foreign policy = illegal resource-wars = mass murder for spoil. Then Rudd's idiotic threats towards China.

Note: Bipartisan anything is un- and anti-democratic; when it comes to wars it would make us, we the sheople, accessories to murder - except that by lying = deceiving us (amongst other grave offences), the politicians have broken the 'democratic covenant.'

Consider Howard's many abuses, from GST via Serf-Choices to illegal invasions (etc. etc. - list faaar too long). Howard was not alone on neoliberalism; Keating wanted a GST too, he with Hawke began privatisations.

Neoliberalism was around in Fraser's time; he was accused of wasting time by not beginning. Fraser's biggest (un- and anti-democratic) crime was unseating Whitlam, although the CIA and Murdoch were co-conspirators.

I know of nothing sufficiently grave to charge Whitlam with; he may have over-reached, but his Medibank legacy survives as Medicare. Menzies was mostly 'before my time' but he got us into Vietnam.

That's enough of Aus for the current purpose; in UK Thatcher (TINA) & Blair (Iraq) primarily draw my ire. One for economics - Thatcher, but she went to war too, the other for outright Nuremberg-class war - Blair, but he continued with neoliberalism too. Both worse than the other.

In the US it's been almost continuously one bad-apple president after another; 'low'-lights starting with Wilson then Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton through to the Bush-Obama pug-ugly twins.

When it comes to un- and anti-democratic, there is no rogue-state quite like Israel; no matter who gets in it's all war, all the time.


War was supposed to have been eliminated post-WW2 by the UN, but even before the UN was chartered, the US had begun its next war with the double war crime A-bombings. Peace, basically, never got a chance. The UN permanently blotted its copybook no later than passing UNGA181.

Nevertheless, after WW2 there was a mini economic-boom roughly coinciding with the baby-boom; life looked pretty good for a while. Largely hidden from sight was the Nakba (the MSM of the time perhaps prototyping its corrupt venality), and other oddities (aka crimes) like the coups in Guatemala and against Mossadegh in '53. I wasn't paying too much attention at that time; get a fuller, looong list from Blum's "Killing Hope."


Wars have to be started by someone (evil), usually for some sort of purpose = mostly gain. There *may* be purely ideological ones (Korea, Vietnam), although one suspects that they too had a money-motive somewhere. Certainly in and around Palestine it's Lebensraum = land + water coveted by the alien invaders (aka Zs), in Afghanistan it's pipeline routes, poppies & pursuit of hegemony (hegemony itself = also to push for oil, land-theft in Palestine, threaten Iran, Russia & China), and in Iraq it's all oil, all the time as it is with the threatened attack on Iran. None of this should be news to the aware observer, but before 9/11 I was busy with other things and had only rather vague suspicions, and most sheople appear to not give a toss (busy with their wide-flat-screen amusements as they are).

On the economic side, pretty-well all positive progress was turned on its head starting some time mid-70s by neoliberalism (aspects globalisation, privatisation, deregulation, upturning progressive taxation etc. & etc.; it's not simple) - a deliberate, created disaster becoming more & more visible.


At least since Wilson's "Making the world safe for democracy," the leaders have progressively become more rogue & *less* democratic, assuming they ever were democratic, perhaps an unwarranted assumption.

But - and it's a *massive* BUT: The so-called leaders are *not* working for us, rather against us, as proven by these unwanted, aggressive wars and aggressive, rich-get-ever-richer economics at the expense of the vast majority of us, we the sheople.

Now, looks like there's one very clear reason for all this = greed, backed by wicked immorality.

But - and it's another *massive* BUT: the leaders were once more on our side, more inclined to spread it around a bit, and rhetorically they're all against wars - except as we see, when there's something in it for the rich (= most of the time).

Fazit: There *must* be many caring, clever people out there; specifically those caring and clever enough to *effectively* oppose those who currently lead us, namely our un- and anti-democratic quisling-traitor tyrants.

Q: Where (the bloody-hell!) are those caring and clever ones?


Open letter to the Aus' people, parliament & the AusBC:

 .. we knew (in our heart-of-hearts) that it was too good to last, and it didn't. Yesterday was a day of (relative) freedom on 'unleashed' (four out of four published), then CRASH! - Down came the censorship-shutters once again.

Demolishing democratic debate is par-for-the-course for brutal tyrants.

We know who (generally speaking) they are - namely the AusBC rats = traitors.

No person of sound mind would realistically expect a free discussion on a forum (plural: forums, *not* 'fora') run by the (corrupt & venal) MSM, but expectations for a publicly-financed broadcaster are somewhat higher. (For one thing, we the taxpayers are footing the bill.)

But Oh, no; it's been obvious to me for a looong time that the AusBC are *not* so-called 'honest brokers.'

Censoring democratic debate is just as cowardly, just as criminal as the US-armed & -armoured grunts murdering basically unarmed natives (AK47s vs. tanks, F-16s, helicopter gun-ships and/or remote hellfire-drones, etc.) - in some 3rd world hell, like Afghanistan (pipelines, poppies) or Iraq (oil) (Israel 1st and continuously for the last 62+ *bloody, land-thieving* years, Iran (more oil) next?); murdering grunts sent there to make theft of the natives' national treasures possible. The propaganda-arm and the killing-arm work together, both are equally guilty = guilty as sin - so burn in Hell.

No world that tolerates murder-for-spoil is a just world; the Enlightenment might as well have never happened.

No democracy can function if the voters are fed on lies - and/or censored. Thanks, but "No, thanks!" Aunty.

Personal note: By submitting this to unleashed, you the AusBC person reading this are the censor, or you know who it is who censors my inputs and presumably others' whose interests/aims are truth and justice. So it is you - or your 'mate(s)' - to whom this is *directly* addressed. Q: What's in it for *you/him/her*? A: *Not* the squillions being ripped-off with all the scams/crimes starting with economic rents and ending with mass-murder for spoil, Oh no! All *you/s/he* can ever expect is possibly a comfortable life-of-crime and (excluding sociopaths), a guilty conscience. Again, what's in it for (traitorous) *you*?

It gets worse. By blocking any/all progress on ending the rip-offs and Nuremberg-class resource-wars, the AusBC, their lies and censorship are hindering any possible progress on saving our once jewel-like planet's eco-systems from the excess-CO2 caused climate catastrophe. Such traitors make the AusBC an accessory to our doom.


squinting 'freely' through the lie-fog
 [lies, cheating, theft & war - nothing much 'new']

What one 'superficially' sees is *not* what one gets.

After the initial "Ah ha!" - possibly long delayed by naïve trust - it doesn't take too long to see how cynically we have been, many still are 'deceived.'

I heard a 'new' word this morning, on the radio show I just 'love to hate.' In actual fact I'm not a hater at all; I've come to realise that hate is the almost exclusive province of the murdering ME burglars, aka the J*ws. Anyway, the word new to me is "neo-jihadi," doubly interesting for its contrast to neo-liberal. Liberal is one of the most abused words; it is deployed as a positive [= free] but has almost only negative actions associated - examples Aus-Liberal party = mostly anti-liberal, and neo-liberal = rip-off economics.

There is a 'free' associated with neo-liberal economics, namely the 'free-lunch' of economic rent. Since Keynes proposed "euthanasia of the rentiers," a certain group has acquired a potent anti-Keynes allergy. Marx argued for a "victory of the proletariat," the same group acquired an equally potent anti-Marx allergy involving an absolute antagonism against communism and socialism - i.e. against all workers in general. The last significant 'free' here is the so-called 'freedom' not to *buy* resources so much as to acquire control via aggressive, invasive war (Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq - Iran next?) What this amounts to is a re-introduction of a neo-robber-baron class including murdering for spoil, and another neo, namely neo-serfdom - resulting in almost the worst of all possible worlds: neo-anti-Hobbes social contract aka anti-Enlightenment. And hardly as an afterthought, completely defeating democracies and disenfranchising the sheople, by a 3-pronged attack: 1) dumbing the voters down, 2) faux-representatives (who lie and only pretend to properly represent the voters' interests) and 3) bipartisan approaches to major topics including *demolishing* citizens' rights, *rip-off* economics and *aggressive* war; since anything bipartisan offers voters *no* effective choice, so bipartisan is totally un- and anti-democratic.

Q: Why does any of this matter? A: Pretty obvious; IF the citizens have lost all control (we have, supposing we ever had *any*), THEN we are only passive, powerless passengers at the mercy of the 'drivers' - who are driving us over a multi-dimensional cliff composed of the excess-CO2 climate-change threat (becoming unavoidable), Nuremberg-class resource-wars and economic + social ruin = worse than serfdom for the sheople.

Q: Who is (ir)responsible?

A1: In the 1st line, the corporations but more importantly, the banksters.

A2: In the 2nd line, the politicians but equally importantly their partners-in-lying, the corrupt & venal MSM.

A3: In the 3rd line, the supposed thinkers, the so-called 'intellectuals' primarily in universities but also in (corrupt!) think-tanks.

All collectively termed by me as 'leadership failure.'

For proof, one merely needs to - squint 'freely' through the lie-fog. A poignant-negative example of the corrupt & venal MSM is the publicly-financed AusBC; I relied on them (naïve trust) and 'accepted' one of their most egregious lies, namely the circa 1967 narrative of 'Israel as brave David.' See some of the real facts from Hart here at ICH. Once deception of this level becomes apparent - as it did for me (finally! - but better late than never) - in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, now morphed into a brutal occupation, *all* MSM, *all* politicians, *all* so-called 'leaders' come under suspicion. And what do you know, with insignificant exception(s), *all* turn out to be more or less *totally* corrupt.

Coming back to neo-jihadi; with the fall of the wall, one group in particular (unexpectedly = CIA incompetency) lost their 'enemy,' a new one was needed ASAP. Enter Muslims/Islam, a bit of radicalisation, a bit of subversion, a few false-flag 'terrorist' outrages and a new bogeyman arrives, complete with different skin-colour, culture and religion. A super, almost ideal 'other' - to be 1st feared then 2nd hated and finally 3rd attacked - how 'odd,' that it's mostly Muslims who inhabit the 'oil-heartlands of the planet?' Here a recent (submitted but not published = censored!) comment:

Patsy: "It is cheaper to buy oil directly than to go to war for it."

The 'natural' Q follows: Then why not just *buy* Iraq's oil, and other such coveted resources, like poppies, pipeline-routes, land & water? - But Oh, no; 'we, the West' (mostly US, UK, Aus + IL = Anglo/Judaic) seemingly love going to war. Proof: Simply look around.

I welcome the patsy's comments, because s/he simultaneously defines both the paradigm and the 'target' audience.

Just keep it simple; vilify the putative 'enemy' until the hate-level in a big enough sector clamours for the 'conflict' - then it's bombs away. Easy-peasy, and it didn't start post-9/11 (= *more* CIA incompetency - or *far* worse). Try wiki/Memo PPS23 by George Kennan - every now and then the curtain slips and we see villainy exposed in all its gruesome 'glory.' Down through the years and despite strenuous mass-denial, people let the cat out of the bag:

Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran
Robert Weissman
Posted: September 17, 2007 12:09 AM

The latest 'enemy' is radical-Islam, somehow those idiots have 'developed' the risible idea that they can force a caliphate onto 'we, the West,' largely by terrorism. I wonder where that ridiculous idea came from? But I don't wonder too hard, because we see that the idea has achieved wide acceptance - thanks again, patsy.

I also wonder how 'we, the West' can force radical-Islam into democracy using *state* terrorism. Especially since our own democracies lie in deliberately created ruin, but such are the fantasies we are force-fed via *and actively by* our 'news' gatekeepers. [end of non-published comment]

Musing; Q: Why non-publish = censor? A: Because on the principle of 'the truth hurts,' either some sponsor or the AusBC itself can't abide my facts/criticism. It again proves their perfidy, given their supposed function of (honestly, completely) informing the voters, it amounts to nothing less than the deepest, darkest treachery.

Q: How (the hell) did we get here? Where are the truly clever ones; how/why do they hold their tongues?

Dear reader, anyone 'landing' in this blog either knows or suspects all of the above s**t, so this article might seem like 'preaching to the converted.' Someone has to point all this out - in this case me, but someone else will have to fix it. Where is/are s/he/they, and what's keeping them?



[1] squint -v. 1 have eyes that do not move together but look in different directions. 2 (often foll. by at) look obliquely or with half-closed eyes. -n. 1 condition causing squinting. 2 stealthy or sidelong glance. 3 colloq. glance, look. 4 oblique opening in a church wall affording a view of the altar. [obsolete asquint, perhaps from Dutch schuinte slant] [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] fog -n. 1 thick cloud of water droplets or smoke suspended at or near the earth's surface. 2 cloudiness on a photographic negative etc. 3 uncertain or confused position or state. -v. (-gg-) 1 cover or become covered with or as with fog. 2 perplex. [perhaps a back-formation from *foggy] [ibid.]

[4] superficial adj. 1 of or on the surface; lacking depth. 2 swift or cursory (superficial examination). 3 apparent but not real (superficial resemblance). 4 (esp. of a person) shallow. superficiality n. superficially adv. [Latin: related to *face] [ibid.]

[5] naïve adj. (also naive) 1 innocent; unaffected. 2 foolishly credulous. 3 (of art) produced in a sophisticated society but lacking conventional expertise. naïvely adv. naïvety n. (also naïveté). [Latin nativus *native] [ibid.]

[6] liberal -adj. 1 abundant, ample. 2 giving freely, generous. 3 open-minded. 4 not strict or rigorous. 5 for the general broadening of the mind (liberal studies). 6 a favouring moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals. -n. 1 person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) supporter or member of a Liberal Party. liberalism n. liberality n. liberally adv. [Latin liber free] [ibid.]

Tip: Whenever you hear 'liberal,' run in the opposite direction.


a 'fair' manifesto - survival of the just


the Enlightenment; Gandhi & Marx vs. Rand; greed, plunder & rapine


"Into every life a little socialism must fall."

Cooperation trumps confrontation.

Morality [1]:

"Do unto others ..."

"Do no harm."


The 'basic' crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder.

Lying is an assault against integrity; lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives.[POD]

All cheating = rip-offs are theft; super/'windfall'-profits, crooked deals, depressed wages/conditions, etc..

War is murdering theft; violence is a resort of the IQ/morality/legality-challenged.

Status summary:

Starting possibly with Thatcher (Fraser was criticised for wasting time, so the theory must have been available '75+/-) we have been forced to endure a so-called 'free-market revolution,' comprised of neoliberalism + globalisation + resource-wars all foist upon us, often totally independent of the sheople's wishes. Proof: What the IMF *forced* upon so-called 'developing' economies was done to us apparently *voluntarily* by both political 'sides' i.e. in Aus by both Lib & Lab, more generally by so-called conservatives & progressives. More proof: Bipartisan *anything* = un- and anti-democratic; the voters even if fully & honestly informed (we're not) have/are offered *no* choice. Final proof: Thatcher's screech: "TINA!" = Totally, cruelly, maliciously wrong; of course there are alternatives.

Argument; what's needed:

'Correct' income distribution by a properly progressive income tax for individuals and an income/super-profit tax on corporations, an appropriate capital gains tax on all but the family home/farm & a gift/inheritance tax above a certain (not overly-generous) minimum. Where appropriate, reverse iniquitous privatisation(s).

Grounds: Thatcher's wily "There is no community, only individuals" means no dynasties either, let alone any 'free lunches'.

By all means, let the profit-motive rip (within reason, like not forcing anyone into deprivation), let the fat-cats keep their rather pointless scoring - but then recover all drastic excesses. Use the so-generated surplus to save our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere (it's only 101% critical for our collective survival). Gated communities just won't/can't save anyone, once the climate well & truly crashes (see melting Arctic ice, already happening).

Thatcher's "TINA!" is wrong; money creation to be by the commune, all interest flows to the commune, commune creates the bulk + interest & 'gives' that interest-portion to the government. The government's spending on *required* services & *shared* infrastructure provides the mechanism for paying the private-sector interest-component, thus avoiding the 'compound interest' paradox. Inflation target is to be 0% and population across the world should be encouraged to steadily fall towards (or below) the sustainable level. 'Sustainable' must imply *no* mining (sooner or later), that will anyway be *forced* latest when exhaustion is reached.

Possible theory sources:

1. Michael Hudson (tax property)

2. Ellen Brown (community banks)


So-called 'free-market' systems are failing; the *non-duplicable* 'required/normal' utilities (water, sewage, elec./energy, comms = road, rail & airports + phone, new = internet) + health. *For profit* privatisations are leading - you might have guessed - to more profit and less (egalitarian) service.

Another name for these vicious 'free-market' processes is financialization (note: "makes economic rents (= rip-offs) possible"); all possible income-streams are being purchased with borrowed money up to their full carrying capacity - less the grossly excessive management overheads (obscene CEO & lessers' 'remuneration' packages.)

Another term for this is 'misallocation of resources,' and in a world of *guaranteed* limited resources any 'wastage' amounts to a crime, not to mention higher prices = super-profits being ripped off the 'lower levels' to add ever more to the fat-cats' already obscenely over-full cash-coffers.

The 'free-marketeers' (Randians?) may have some point pushing their profit motive, but IMHO they've gone totally overboard. The priority *must* be directed to egalitarian delivery of required services at the fairest price. Obviously, extracting profits from health-care means higher prices and/or lower service = inhumane nonsense (inhuman adj. brutal; unfeeling; barbarous. [POD])

What is so outrageous is that one could see the resulting mess coming - for example, they trumpeted that we had/were getting a 'consumer-led' economy, whilst simultaneously *reducing* the sheople's incomes by off-shoring etc, and depressing conditions on remaining jobs - a guaranteed contradiction. Similarly, by a) flogging off the sheoples' utilities, govt. income-streams were ditched, b) by cutting taxes (mostly off the rich), govt. income was further reduced, forcing govts. into deficit = borrowing, all the while viciously cutting services = reducing lifestyles. Now we have govts. in debt almost everywhere; a spiral to the bankrupt-bottom. How clever was/is that? TINA, indeed!

Following the expression "Fair go, ya mug!" the profits of our collective efforts (workers + bosses, 'investors') must be equitably shared.

Following the expression "A fair exchange is no robbery," prices must be fair, not hide externalities, and profits must be reasonable - or taxed away if not.

Following the expression "There's nothing new under the Sun," there's probably adequate theory already available to solve our problems, restore humanity's track towards the Enlightenment and a well-earned relax for the currently fat-cat-oppressed. Brown & Hudson have given us some tips, where's the rest?


Musing; why does any of this matter?

Some accuse critics of financialization (-> rip-off profits & the rich getting ever-more obscenely richer), of the 'politics of envy.' IMHO incorrectly, but much more: the current system is deliberately, maliciously ignoring the biggest problem we face, namely the excess-CO2 climate-change catastrophe which, so far lacking effective countervailing action, is getting *less* avoidable thus *more* inevitable; something *must* be changed. Otherwise, the (irrevocable) end coming up?

How ignominious, to be shoved over a cliff and down the gurgler, all for ever-more profits to the ghastly mega-greedy.

Fazit: Freedom is fine and required;

  "... be free,
be whatever you are,
do whatever you want to do,
just so long as you don't hurt anyone."
[Haîr/my conviction]



[1] From my side-bar, musing; morals:

"Do unto others ... " is both necessary and sufficient; 'enlightened altruism' works in any size group, providing the members unite to 'enforce' it. Just as eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - when those (human) parts cooperate. "Me, me me!" is a recipe for eventual disaster; any and all rippers-off must be rejected. Truth is more beautiful than brutal; lies are deployed only to deceive - all liars must be identified, and immediately thereafter any communication with such liars terminated. Note Lakoff-framing and avoid the negatives; merely conversing with a propagandist will extend his/her/its platform - simply point 'em out, then turn 'em off. Our future depends on eliminating most/all error and becoming strictly sustainable.


in order to avoid unintentional offence -
 a few Qs:

(mini-Miranda: all responses will be recorded - but not passed on);

Do you wish to remain anonymous? (y/n)

If 'n,' real name? (in header to any comment.)

1(+). Are you awed by the approaching perfection of 'the Enlightenment,' as typified by "Liberté, égalité, fraternité, etc." (nowhere that I know of actually on current 'democratic' offer) OR

1(-). Are you blinded by a weird, irrational belief in some phantasmal, conjured 'deity(ies)?'

[phantasmal -> phantom -n. 1 ghost, apparition, spectre. 2 mental illusion. -attrib. adj. illusory. [Greek phantasma][POD]]

2(h-). Are you a tyrannical capitalist, ripping sheople off at every turn, an administrative/managerial lackey of such, oppressing any/all associates/employee/serfs, OR

2(h+). Are you a 'salt of the Earth' worker, without whom we'd have no flush-torlets, sealed roads or airports for the fat-cats to land their obscenely profligate executive-jets upon?

[profligate -adj. 1 recklessly extravagant. 2 licentious, dissolute. -n. profligate person. profligacy n. profligately adv. [Latin profligo ruin] [POD]] - also applicable to ever-more fossil-carbon burning causing an ever-less avoidable climate-change catastrophe.

3. Do you support a) 'red in tooth&claw' economic Darwinism, ruthlessly exploiting all resources viciously to exhaustion, OR b) considered sustainability with progressive taxes supporting universal-human-rights utilities (water, sewage etc.) & critical services, i.e. Medicare (aka socialised medicine), elec., roads & other communications? Note that this is not a 'political' question, since (3a) has almost universal 'bipartisan' support; kindly note that bipartisan = un- and anti-democratic, since it offers the electorate *zero* choice.

4. Pro- OR anti-peace, i.e. what of the current Anglo/Judaic (US+Z) illegal, invasive murder-for-spoil attacks morphing to brutal occupations in the ME?

5. Pro- OR anti-justice vis-à-vis hapless mainly Arab/Muslim ELO/Os (Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis...), say?

6. Pro- OR anti-truth? (*Nothing* worthwhile needs the attempted 'camouflage' of deceit.)

IF I survive the above asking, THEN we can probably chat...

(And as for me (if any doubt remains), I'm looking/agitating for 'the Enlightened' fair & just solution.)


2nd round: Most significant -ves since '65 = US&Z (continuing) depredations, democracy failure, corrupt & venal MSM/TV (propaganda/lies).

Intermediate: Fall-of-the-wall was not an unrelieved good; a) nice for so-called 'freedom' but sad that b) the commies failed, sadder still that c) 'the East' gave themselves up to capitalism (carpet-baggers plus neoliberalism), which then oh, so cynically stripped them bare. But Q: Did they learn? A: By their voting (still more for 'Westernisation'); so far not - more MSM info-failure.

What (if anything) has improved (significantly)? IMHO: 1) Medibank -> Medicare (but under continuous attack), 2) PCs/Internet and 3) (marginally) mobiles. Disclosure: I blog for truth and justice and I iPod (mostly skiing), but I do not smart-phone (only as far as qwerty), nor do I tweet or facebook(?) and I barely ever 'do' TV (video etc.) except for some 'news' (+ F1.)


Musing: I find it uncanny, that a) the electorate breaks about 50:50 on most Qs, even stranger that b) the 50:50 break can be quite different, depending on the actual Q. Implication: At the best after the above questionnaire, I could get along comfortably with perhaps *half* the target audience, at v.worst as low as a 1/64th!

Not so BTW: The *differing* 50:50 splits constitute *ultimate proof* that no two-party system can 'satisfy' an electorate; *only* (fair, fully-informed & de-dumbed-down) referendums ever could.


Fazit: I counsel enlightened altruism; see side-panel 'musing; morals.'


blacker than the filthiest black
 [Ahmadinejad & 9/11; US&Z murder-for-spoil]

.. *all* who do not ...

  .. resist, make themselves ...

    .. accessories, and therefore as guilty as *sin*

Subtitle: *Total* leadership failure - both perpetrators and 'bystanders'

The big Q: Are they *sooo* stupid, or *deliberately* (murderingly!) malevolent?


Trigger article:

US fury over Ahmadinejad's 9/11 tirade
Updated September 24, 2010 08:06:00
  «Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told the United Nations that most people believe the US government was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.» 

Comment 1: Note AusBC's language; the Oh, so negative and prejudicial 'tirade.' Another report: "Ahmadinejad's latest provocation." Q: Is this fair and unbiased reporting?

Comment 2: IMHO, the *only* explanation that fits the 9/11-facts is that all three - not 'just' the two hit by aeroplanes, but *three* towers were pre-loaded with explosives and pre-wired for controlled demolition.

*Proof*: One only needs to look carefully at a few videos. Worth putting in a bit time & effort to 'refresh' your recall, you can get some here, note especially 'NTowerExploding'.

Comment 3: Now, we can see what we can see, and that fully nine years down the track. What then, of the so-called 'intelligence' agencies? Surely *they* are smarter than I am; IF I can be convinced, THEN what of them? IF the intel agencies can see what we can, AND they 'fearlessly advise' their political masters, THEN what do our so-called 'leaders' know, and since when?

Review my above 'big Q.'

Comment 4: The same goes for the (corrupt & venal) MSM, including publicly-financed broadcasters like 'our' AusBC, whose actual *job* it is to unvestigate then report: What do they know, and when did they know it? Yet the fantasy lie-cloud continues to be pushed, misinforming any/all who wistfully 'trust' our news *gate-keepers*.

Comment 5; Q: Why the UN walk-out? A: Cowards, liars and *reality-deniers*, Aus 'representatives' amongst them - to our enduring great shame.

Comment 6: Recall that it was *after* 9/11 provided the 'excuse' that the US (& Zs) went *totally* berserk with their murder-to-steal attacks on hapless, innocent ELO/Os, some of those ELO/Os (Palestinians) possessing coveted land, some (Iraqis) oil and some (Afghanis) 'merely' pipeline routes and opium-producing potential.

For here a last Q: Just how 'convenient' was 9/11? A: IMHO, it was absolutely *no* coincidence.


At the time of writing this:

(google:) News for Ahmadinejad sept 23 2010 un
  «Ahmadinejad tells UN most blame US gov't for 9/11 - 6 hours ago
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the 65th United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York, September 23, 2010. ...
Reuters - 3451 related articles»

Refining the search to: Ahmadinejad sept 23 2010 UN Zionism "anti-Semitic" abhorrent delusional vile conspiracy


  About 8,050 results (0.10 secs) 

Comment: There was a time-lag between the searches (me composing); see the story-count exploding from 3451 through 8,050 as refined, and who knows what number by now...


Considering 'conspiracy theories':

1. The 'official' one: that a few cave-based Muslim / Arab / Al-Qaeda militant / extremist / insurgents planned and executed what must be judged as *the* most complex terrorist attack targeted at the world's greatest nukular power - and not only got away with the plan's execution essentially un-detected (the US did *nothing* effective to even hinder the operation), but the subsequent jet-fuel fires (diesel at WTC7) caused the into-the-footprint collapse of not two but three modern steel & concrete tower-buildings, one of which, WTC7, was not even struck, all in 'perfect' imitation of controlled-demolition, vs.

2. Ahmadinejad's report of theories he mentioned in the UN:

  «... One theory of what happened on that day, he said, was "the US government orchestrated the attack in order to save the Zionist regime in the Middle East".
... the president said there was evidence that the US government had at least supported the attacks, including passports in the rubble of the Twin Towers ...»

Summary (my paraphrasing):

1. The 'official' *all-and-only* terrorist success, however improbable & *Muslim/Arab* as a gratuitous bonus.

2. The US *regime* (CIA, possibly/probably with Mossad) 'orchestrated the attack.'

3. The US *regime* 'had at least supported the attacks.'

As at any crime scene, one has to ask who had the means, motive, and opportunity, and of course: Cui bono? Hijacking the airplanes may have been a relatively simple task - and the fantastic flying demonstrated could have been done by the planes' navi-system / auto-pilots - a snap, *if correctly programmed*. Some of the hijackers were alleged to have 'trained' in US flight-schools, where they were derided for their poor to non-existent piloting skills - of single-prop Cessna types.

I've said it before; IF the towers were pre-prepared (IMHO the only viable collapse-theory) THEN the hijackers were merely (paid/unpaid) assistants on a schedule, aka globalised, neo-liberally out-sourced sub-contractors.

Recall the astounding speed with which the 19 were identified - could it be that they were on someone's *pre-existing* list? And of the 19 dear-departed, some 7 or so are reported to be still around somewhere, living what must be assumed to be 'lives after death?' There you go, X-ian hopefuls: Proof at last!

Comment: Sooner or later, we'll get some applicable facts. Some *actual* conspiracist will spill the beans, even if (undoubtedly) under the threat of death for doing so. Imagine the fame!

Simply human nature to eventually blab. Why are we (still) waiting?


elementary, my [no so expensive] Watson!
 [the troubles foist upon us]

.. exposing ...

  .. the big lie ...

    .. for what it is = propaganda


Intent: To save our once jewel-like planet; mostly one-liners:

Preamble: Truth can only be brutal to those who cannot handle it[1].

"As a practitioner of ahimsa [= total non-violence], Gandhi swore to speak the truth and advocated that others do the same." Also see Swadeshi = local.

Feynman wrote: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other(s) ...”

For absolutes like 'no' or 'all' assume qualifier *almost*; always some 'technical' exception(s).


0. Cut CO2 *back* below 300ppm - or exeunt our life-as-we-like-it supporting ecosphere - possibly terminally.

1. We live in a forced lie-cloud = pushed-propaganda paradigm via corrupt/venal MSM + AusBC conduit; proof = Z- & US-regime's (false!) 'narratives' uncritically passed-on (often augmented!) to us ad nauseam, following Bernays' morphing of (lying!) propaganda into PR. Prime example: Barker's (brainless! Endless!) regurgitation of "the West suspects Iran ..."

1a. (For intending parents, unqualified) *never* lie to your children (loss of trust = irreparable trauma).

1b. Most religions are mostly lies (worst of all, ever = the Oh, so super-cynical life-after-death lie); to so corrupt utterly defenceless minds is the gravest possible child abuse. Possibly the 2nd-most egregious abuse of religion per se (after the referred-to child abuse) is priests 'blessing' about-to-murder troops (aka pig-higorant US&/Z 'grunts').

1c. TV is *bad* for *all*; propaganda (unfiltered) & *no*, it's *not* just a movie! The 'news' is slanted; whatever 'the West' does is OK (see casualties caused by the illegal invasion of Iraq, say) - but if some 'militant' should fire a home-made penny-rocket at Israel - Well! Then there's the 'entertainment;' all possible perversions (mature-age audience only - Ha!), typically lies, hate, infidelity and 'ticking-bomb' type scenarios. As incontrovertible proof, ask yourself: "How do the sheople get dumbed-down anyway?" A: All across the nation, most TVs run day & night. Altogether: "Der - they didn't think!" How else does Israel get away with illegal invasion, brutal occupation, genocide, ethnic cleansing and illegal settlements all stealing Palestinian ELO/Os' homeland[2], except that the slanted news gives the criminal Israelis a 'soft run?'

2. US & Z wars from/incl. '45 dual A-bomb war crimes & '47+ illegal invasions / subsequent brutal occupations, right down to today are mass-murdering-for-spoil (proof of premeditation = Jabotinsky, Kennan et al.). *No* project that attempts to 'hide' behind even a single lie can ever be worthwhile - the US/Z wars are *replete* with (filthy!) lies - worst possible example, hasbara. The Zs *deliberately, continuously* lie, futilely trying to obscure their attempted criminal theft of land-never-to-be-theirs.

2a. 9/11 was a pre-prepared false-flag black-op demolition; any Muslim/Al-Q component was a) instigated / incited / fomented / subverted / co-opted / coerced / corrupted (probably all of these & more) by CIA/Mossad & b) the faux-muslim 'hijackers' were on a pre-arranged schedule. Someone knew it was coming; proof = 5 filming, *dancing* Zs in Liberty State Park - not to mention collapse videos, note especially 'NTowerExploding'. It *must* be CIA, for no foreign power could operate inside the US without them knowing, and it *must* be Mossad, following cui bono. *Only* the combination of those two had the means, motive, and opportunity - and both, an utter lack of any human decency. A "New Pearl Harbor" indeed, *precisely* to the Z-neoCon-cabal's PNAC prescription.

3. Washington consensus / neo-liberal (voodoo!) economics / globalisation = deceiving / thieving rip-offs (and see "Hit Man" and IMF *forced* SAPs).

3a. 'Life-critical' aka required services *must* be delivered at intended minimum-cost, and *most* importantly in an egalitarian fashion - basic human rights so demand. *Anything* 'for profit' *obviously* contains an 'extra = surplus' component - namely profit, most dangerously so with medicine - as the US experience explicitly demonstrates; possibly the most expensive, yet one of the worst performers. I mean, how bleedingly obvious is it, yet how blatantly, immorally denied? Excepting (still) 'free air,' there's water, sewage, roads & rail, elec. & 'phone, most of which were, under "Enlightenment" principles, delivered by the state at (close to) basic cost, all now more or less 'privatised' - to our, we the sheople's enduring cost. 'They,' the exploiters, don't even realise that we the sheople are now nearing if not already at the extreme profit-extraction limit (see US mass-unemployment & housing-boom collapse).

3b. As part of 'neo-liberalism,' the rich have been 'untaxed,' compared to a just and progressive taxation policy (adding injury to insult, taxes have been *increased* on lower income groups, i.e. Howard's *regressive* GST - but essentially 'bipartisan,' see below). At the same time, as govt. revenues have been *deliberately* reduced ('low/no deficit' mantra) - something 'had to give,' namely benefits & services. No one should ever expect a 'free lunch,' but IF (when) benefits/services are cut THEN someone's life-style is being reduced at the same time. Ever since at least Fraser's "razor gang" of Lynch, Howard, et al. attempt to cut public services, so-called govt. 'waste' has been rigorously pursued. Are such razor-gangs having measurable effect? 35 years long? Think about it...

3c. Resource-exploitation should be approaching 100% super-profit taxed, as should *all* economic rents (Keynes suggested euthanasia of the rent-seekers, one assumes figuratively - but you never can tell...)

4. Our so-called democracy is "of, by, for"-inoperative - any lie destroys it (misinformed may *not* properly decide), little/no real choice of candidate (each of Lib/Lab worse than the other), few/no honest reps (they preferentially rep. the 'big end of town'), ++.

4a. The Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins should be gaoled for misleading & mal-representation (i.e. bipartisan neo-liberalism = *not* in we, the people's interests.)

4b. Bipartisan is un- & anti-democratic; it offers the electorate *no* choice. Absolutely critical when it come to (resource!) wars and mass-slaughter-for-profit, and forcing upon us an economics system which has *demonstratively* further enriched the already obscenely rich fat-cats. And now, having 'pumped' vast sums into - primarily - the banks which *caused* the GFC, they embark on 'austerity' - aimed squarely at cutting benefits & services. Q: Cui bono here? A: Obscenely rich fat-cats don't need govt. services - it's why they exhort "starve & strangle" government.


Fazit: Our so-called 'leaders,' be they political, economic or 'spiritual' [sic] are (almost!) without exception leading us astray, we're being 'aimed' at - to be flushed - down the gurgler.

Q: Just how clever is that?


Reprise; let me say that, another way:

title: the big (ugly!) picture

theme: lies, rip-offs; murdering, thieving wars-for-spoil

1) militarisation

2) neoliberalism/privatisation

3) globalisation (= exploit the weakest)

4) ecosphere-destruction (resource-rapine; excess-CO2)

These are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse; not so much a race-to-the-bottom as a lemming-like lurch down the gurgler.

Proof 1: The 63yr & continuing vicious, genocidal attacks on and ethnic cleansing of the hapless ELO/Os of Palestine.

Proof 2: The deliberate, criminal sacking-ruin of Iraq - It's the oil, stupid! (Perhaps 1.3mio+ dead, 2mio internally displaced plus 2mio more fully-fled.)

Proof 3: Hell-fire in Afghanistan & Pakistan; see 'carpet of gold/bombs' - now murdering violence wall to wall; mercilessly slaughtering the near-stone-age native peasants = more hapless ELO/Os.

Proof 4: The dire sheople-conditions in the US; possibly *worst* medical system - neoliberalism being 'aped' across the world (why??!) - 43.6mio US citizens in 'official' poverty, just under 51mio without health insurance, practically the whole country bankrupt (excepting the extreme fat-cat 'top' low-digit%; they're merely *morally* bankrupt).

Proof 5: Dire circumstances elsewhere; Africa say. Certainly anywhere the US covets resources.


Q: Which blighted 'geniuses' are bringing us the above disasters?

A: You know who they are; the ones with the most guns. Violence is the resort of the IQ-challenged!

Biggest Q of all: I can see all this coming, perhaps you too - so why can't 'they,' the smartest-of-the-smart so-called 'leaders?'

A: Beats me. But no one, not even 'they,' will avoid the inevitable consequences of failure to go totally sustainable.

Of course, it doesn't have to be like this; we could/should return to the Enlightenment-track (Liberté, égalité, fraternité, etc.); object: peace, sharing and sustainability - save the planet! Euthanase the rentiers! First, share survival and then any left-over prosperity fairly with us, we the sheople - before it's too late.

It's never too late to effectively combat injustices; confront and properly deal with the criminal perpetrators - think Nuremberg.



[1] "In The Face Of This Truth"
By Robert Jensen
20 September, 2010
  «This talk, in polite company, leads to being labeled hysterical, Chicken Little, apocalyptic. No matter that you are calm, aren’t predicting the sky falling, and have made no reference to rapture. Pointing out that we live in unsustainable systems, that unsustainable systems can’t be sustained [repetition for the slower ones], and that no person or institution with power in the dominant culture is talking about this - well, that’s obviously crazy.
But to many of us, these insights simply seem honest. To be fully alive today is to live with anguish, not for one’s own condition in the world but for the condition of the world, for a world that is in collapse. What to do when such honesty is unwelcome?»


[2] ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers. All innocent civilians are to be protected and their property is to be inalienable; i.e. no (trumped-up!) war may be used as an 'excuse' to plunder. US- & Z-regimes stand so indicted.


prima facie count-rigging
 and blatant pro-Lib AusBC bias

.. gobsmacking! ...

  .. right in the middle ...

    .. of the tightest election ever:

The AEC coolly says: "eight seats have now been temporarily removed from the count."


Trigger article:

Coalition snatches vote lead from Labor
By Sarah Collerton
Updated August 30, 2010 23:25:00
  «Julia Gillard had been using Labor's two-party preferred lead as a reason why the independents should back her party to form a minority government.
But that argument may have disintegrated, with the latest election figures showing the Coalition now holds a lead of more than 1900 votes on a two-party preferred basis.
A recalculation means eight seats have now been temporarily removed from the count.»

Comment 1: Impossible! The AEC needs reminding: One wo/man, one vote, and *all* go into the count. Nothing else makes sense, what the bloody hell are they playing at?

Comment 2: An outright lie! It is only possible to write ".. the Coalition now holds a lead" since the published figures have been fiddled; if the true figures were to be used, the statement is simply *untrue*. As such, this amounts to a lie from the AusBC. Not so BTW, the 'rolling count' at the bottom of each election-coverage article has never included the Greens seat in the ALP count, although that Green has indicated he is 'on board' with Labor. On the other hand, the new 'independent' National from WA is always included by the AusBC in the coalition tally, although that National has formally declared he does *not* wish to be included in the coalition. This is *more* evidence (adding to the veritable landslide) towards AusBC pro-Lib bias. Alleging pro-Lab bias simply doesn't pass the 'giggle test' - for reasonably intelligent observers; it's a filthy pro-Lib misleading propaganda ploy.

2nd article:

Vote count strips Labor's legitimacy: Bishop
By Sarah Collerton
Updated August 31, 2010 01:28:00
  «"It's hard to see what moral authority or legitimacy Julia Gillard can now claim."
Ms Bishop says the Coalition is now significantly ahead on Labor on "all counts".
"The primary vote, the two-party preferred, ...»

Comment 3: No. The "the two-party preferred" count - as now 'fiddled' - has absolutely *no* legitimacy.

Comment 4: Any fool can see that following (3), Ms Bishop is utterly incautious at best and possibly an outright liar for using 'fiddled' figures. She must know of the fiddle. She would rule us; do we really want such rulers?

Comment 5: Note the headline-language deployed by the AusBC: "snatches vote lead" & "strips Labor's legitimacy". Depraved and more; factually wrong. It's the AEC who's doing the counting, all the rest of us are witnesses and *no one* can *snatch* anything. As for 'legitimacy,' Howard ruled for a session based on a minority of the count - did he acknowledge that as illegitimate? The AusBC are supposed to be unbiased reporters, paid for by our (we the sheople's) taxes.

Latest article:

Labor back in front as election lead see-saws
Updated August 31, 2010 12:17:00
  «But this morning Greens leader Bob Brown says the figure is meaningless because eight seats have been taken out of the equation.
"If you look at the whole of Australia and you treat every seat equally, when you do that Labor's ahead and is likely to keep that lead right the way through to the finishing pole," he said.
Writing in his ABC blog this morning, Mr Green said the AEC's current count was incomplete without all 150 seats included.»

Comment 6: Some sanity; better be effective.


Fazit: What is this, Repug-style vote manipulation? Heads must roll - at both the AEC & the AusBC.

  Where is my vote??! 


tiresomely, repetitively - wrong
 [so-called 'leaders' & apologists]

There is a 'lie-cloud;' what I've termed the pushed-propaganda paradigm, swamping us in our natural search for 'news and understanding.' News because we feel we have to stay up-to-date, to know what's going on in the world (generically but also practically, to know how to vote - say). Understanding (speaking on my own behalf, but generalising 'from the part to the whole') - because 'what' on its own is not enough, some of us want to know 'why.'

One problem is that the news we get is not the 'unvarnished truth,' rather sometime-facts too often enveloped in misleading spin (= lies).

Example; fact: "Russia is fuelling Iran's nukular-reactor." Spin: "The West fears Iran is seeking an A-bomb." (A particular Anne Barker speciality.)

Once, there was only the MSM (main-stream media) and (optionally for some) publicly financed broadcasters. Since the MSM is privately owned & run, their 'profit motive' allows them to push their own opinions - so they say, but it should never extend to undermining politics by lying. Publicly financed broadcasters should tell us *exclusively* the truth; why else do we pay for them? (8¢ per day, or whatever: OUR, WE THE PEOPLE'S TAXES.)

Now we have the opportunity (thanks, internet) to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of the (lying) MSM info-gatekeepers, so those of us who care to look and take the time to do so may clearly see the (apparently planned! - or at least not planned against) catastrophe confronting us.

Our once jewel-like planet, upon which we 101% depend, is going down the gurgler (aka ecosphere tor-let) on at least these *five* levels:

1. Far too many people.

2. Dangerously excess CO2.

3. Increasing resource depletion.

4. A really stupid economics 'system.'

5. Last but by no means least, wars for spoil.

Only a small part of a pico-sec's reflection should be required for the reasonably-intelligent to realise that eternal expansion within finite limits is an absolute impossibility. Yet that's what's been allowed to happen (by trend) with population; *why* didn't anyone act while acting was still possible, i.e. at least as late as following 'The Limits to Growth' à la the Club of Rome, 1st brought to public attention in or around 1972? Not only has population growth *not* been contained and neutralised, but most 'opinion leaders' still speak of 'economic growth,' not just as possible but desirable to the point of 'must.' Eternal growths in population and production are both an utter nonsense, and are clearly *impossible*. Of course, warnings came much earlier, see wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe - Malthus (1766–1834). One effect of current economic practice[1] seems to be testing the Malthus-associated wiki/Iron_Law_of_Wages on the 'down' side, depressing wages *everywhere* (trending to *below* sustenance) - a true 'road to serfdom.'

[1] Current economic practice; keywords: Washington Consensus (hardly a 'consensus' when so obviously forced); World Bank, IMF, neoliberalism, globalisation, privatisation, downsizing, lean&mean, out-sourcing, off-shoring, sub-contracting, de-unionisation; any more dastardlies?

Once more to the reasonably-intelligent; what can we expect when they hand us medicine/health services, water, electricity, 'phone, post, sewage, garbage, all for-profit, except to have our lives squeezed - to death if so deemed - all for ever-more profit & reduced quality (lowest common denominator) services?

But, of course, it gets worse. The profit motive drives capitalism, so they like to crow, and all other -isms are gone (1st communism, now socialism - except for the socialisation of losses, see GFC & obscene bank bail-outs.) Buy low, sell high, they blithely exhort. Except again, it's not a *fair* profit they're after (cost plus a reasonable, motivating margin), but 'economic rent' in all its ugly infamy.

A special word on wars: *All* wars require at least one aggressor (cf. Nuremberg); and so all wars are wrong from inception. (Proof: Someone (aggressor) has to start shooting/invading; stopping/eliminating that aggression would eliminate all war.) With the establishment of the UN, one might have thought that wars were in fact banned, and with political will would be have been prevented/eliminated. Wrong. Went wrong almost literally within minutes; see Palestine, aggressor Zionist invasion thereof, subsequent brutal occupation - 62+ bloody years ago, continued down to today with no just end anywhere in sight. Another round of Nuremberg-style courts needed. Latest Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan by stealth & possibly next Iran. *All* wars of aggression, *all* wars for spoil - for land, water, oil/gas, pipeline routes, hegemony. Recall that force is the resort of the IQ-challenged, and murdering-theft about the worst crime imaginable.

A note on terrorism; yes, it exists. Car bombs were deployed (if not invented) by the Zionists invading Palestine, '47/8. Al-Qaeda was initially a CIA-construct. How to we know how much Islamo-strife is deliberately incited by external interference (read CIA, again?) One way of reducing the impetus to terrorism may well be to stop aggressively invading and theft-intentioned occupying (oil-bearing) Islamo-homelands.

We can easily see by the most casual inspection exactly who the villains are, namely the you-ass-eh regime and its illegitimate Z-sprog colonials-by-murdering-force (say 'Hello' to the collective 4th Reich.) I mentioned the 'why' - both for the wars and the idiotic neoliberal economic system, and the answer is for these tyrannical regimes (and their shadowy backers) to enrich themselves. Note that it's not meant to enrich the US sheople - proof: 40mio on food-stamps, same number with no medical insurance & no realistic hope of being treated in a medical emergency (Obama's new 'health program' notwithstanding, another 'gift' to the already obscenely 'profitable' FIRE sector).

Finally, a word on excess-CO2: It's a known green-house gas, a certain amount in the air is *required* to keep our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere in our comfort-zone. Too much - and we've crossed the too-much line of around 300ppm already - and our climate may, most probably will, change to make our lives far more difficult, if not outright impossible. The warnings are all there, going back at least as far as Malthus. So to the final two questions, (1) why don't we have systems being put in place to save our world, and (associated), (2) where are the truly smart people? Unless stopped and soonest, we're all going down the gurgler together, when we go.


turning voters into villains - and victims
 [lies = corruption, turpitude]

.. over-harsh or 'merely' unkind ...

  .. here one calls spades ...

    .. bloody shovels

Thesis: Without enlightened action (soonest!), things will not only never get better, they'll get ever uglier, faster.


Not too many things are truly simple, in fact very often the exact opposite. Take a modern digital photo; 4k*3k pixels, each pixel with say 32 bits = 402653104 bits. It's a lot - but the photo is essentially processed bit-by-bit - and bits are *very* simple things, each being only 0 or 1. This little allegory shows that even the most complex things can be broken down into simpler parts, single bits being the least complex of all. That's exactly what digital computers do - and if they can & do, why not sheople?

In other words, nothing one normal person can conceive of cannot be explained to others (esoterics like quantum-mechanics possibly excepted); that being so, why do some - all(?) politicians and most MSM - tell us lies? BIG problem.

One can get into trouble with absolutes; all, every, none etc.. It's why I put (?) after the 'all' above. Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward, we were told: "All politicians lie!" Vis-à-vis the pro-wars (on *both* 'sides;' bipartisanship = un- and antidemocratic) - and vis-à-vis the Iraq war '03+ (illegal invasion morphed into brutal occupation, same for Afghanistan '01+ & Israel '48+) - we were lied to, and that's a *provable* fact. (Proof omitted here, but can be confirmed by a non-superficial inspection. As Huxley's "Island" begins - attention!)


Q: Why does anyone lie?[1]

A: To deceive.

Q: Who wants to be deceived?

A: Only a tiny (bizarre!) few.

Q: So why do they[2] tell us lies?

A: Beats me.

Q: Why do the sheople accept lies?

A: Beats me even worse, and there's the rub: If only the sheople would stop accepting lies ... a mighty big IF! (First & most effective step: Turn off the TVs!)


Q: Would it be possible, to eliminate *all* lies?

A: IMHO yes, but before that come the quibblers. (What's in it for them?)

For example, some quibbler might say "What of some kid with terminal cancer - you gunna say Yore gunna die!!?"

Naturally, the quibbler has chosen a 'hard one.' No one 'enjoys' being confronted with his or her own imminent demise, one may suppose least of all a young child.

On the other hand, some *deliberately* confront children with their own imminent demise - then offer them the cynical religious hook: "Everyone dies; IF you believe in this g*d THEN get 'life after death.'"

Aside about 'belief:' All who 'believe' do so more or less in the absence of evidence. By the conservation laws, *no* information/message of *any* type may enter our universe, and so no (putative) g*d can signal its (alleged) existence, same for the 'life after death' swindle; proof *utterly* impossible. The reason why small children accept such indoctrination is that they are so constructed to have unquestioned trust in their 'primary carers' aka parents. Telling children lies is nothing other than permanent, doubly damaging *child abuse*. (Q: Why doubly damaging? A: By being deceived, it damages children directly, then a second time when they realise that they've been lied to = betrayal of trust.)

I wrote above: "First step, turn off the TVs!" Going one step further, for the little kiddies: Don't even turn the TV on! That's actually the 2nd step; the 1st is: Do not lie to your children, ever! After all, IF the aim is to eliminate lies (mine is), THEN that's one essential place to start stopping the lies; don't tell any yourself, and *never* to your kids.

Of course, we'll never get rid of TVs, but it *must* be noted, that that's the portal for most of the lies thrown at us, and not 'just' via the 'news.' It's never "just a movie!" - lots of so-called 'entertainment' and obviously many ads contain subversive content. Proof: How else have the sheople become so desensitised that they tolerate the mass-murder-for-spoil now commonplace - Israel (62+ bloody years, still no justice in sight), Afghanistan, Iraq, likewise?

Also of course, it's not 'just' wars (themselves unjust); some critical problems were recognised starting long ago, with the *anticipated* excess-population explosion (ignored, nothing done), and latest excess-CO2 induced climate-change (= climate crash, one way or another, possibly permanently crippling our once jewel-like planet's *life-support* systems), the excess-CO2 problem being ignored (if at all acknowledged) - and nothing done. The 'vehicle' for most of our troubles, foisted upon us partly if not entirely via lies and bipartisanship, is neoliberalism, its hand-maiden so-called 'free' markets and its running-dog companion globalisation.

That's not to say that neoliberalism et al. doesn't work (mostly negatively) or doesn't have *some* redeeming features (however few), but on the whole, as implemented, it is doing us (we the sheople), our economies and our (only!) world grave damage.

The proof of this damage is as obvious as ubiquitous; perhaps no more so than in the vicious, bipartisan = un- and anti-democratic privatisations of public utilities (phones, airports, roads, elec., water etc. in rising importance) - we can plainly see it is wrong, and ever was wrong. Yet the Qld & NSW *Labor* governments persist. Why? Idiots!


Fazit: We in Aus have just been through a Federal election, result not yet known but could end with a *totally* 'useless' result, whereby both major parties have the same number of lower-house seats: a 'perfect' stand-off.

In a way, it's a laugh; one could say that the sheople could not decide between one set of liars and the other.

As a result, some are calling for change.

My suggestion, as priority number one: Get rid of *all* lies - and liars.


PS From my headline, what's about: "Turning voters into villains?" Well, in the demos leading up to the illegal, Nuremberg-class attack on Iraq by B, B & H, some of us anti-wars cried "Not in our name!" Some quibblers (what's in it for them?) tried to argue that yes, it is in our (we the sheople's) names, because 'that's the system.'

News for the quibblers: No. Recall here "of, by, for."

Unless the sheople are fully and correctly informed, they are simply not able to make rational choices, assuming that there were enough honest candidates on offer, with a sufficiently wide palette of policy choice - including no war and no neoliberalism - available. Then, assuming that choice (of both candidates & policies currently, as then, *not* on offer), those elected *must* then properly represent the sheople - all else - and what we actually have - is tyranny.

IF the sheople are misinformed (we are!) THEN the sheople are *incapable* of reasoned voting, aka consenting even to being represented. The so-called 'leaders' are thus operating without informed consent, aka outside of democracy, let alone outside all decency and outside all 'acceptable' morality. As such, they do *nothing* 'in our name' and should be dragged before the courts as Nuremberg-class defendants. With penalties to be carried out as appropriate.



[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] Foremost politicians, and ever more in the (corrupt & venal) MSM, including publicly financed broadcasters like 'our' AusBC. It is theoretically possible - even likely, that these liars are not even lying on their own behalf, but rather on behalf of the 'hidden, true rulers.' (Yes, the dreaded & much maligned C-theory. Unfortunately, lots of observable facts support exactly and only such a C-thesis.) 


of, by, for
 [how to vote]

.. for the sheople ...

  .. not for some 'business' ...

    .. not for criminal murder for spoil, etc.

Subtitle: How to vote - not for whom, but the method.


Posit: Our current government (Federal, Labor) could only be by a single degree worse - it could be Liberal.

In the 'political' context, both 'Labor' and 'Liberal' are fully misleading as names; Lab no longer represents the workers (except often by mis-representing them), and the Libs are in no way liberal[1]. In fact I'd go so far as to say that both Lib & Lab are traitors to the sheople in particular & democracy in general.

Recall my "IF any contradiction is found THEN the related theorem is *disproved*" logic; a corollary is that any single (meaningful) act = privatisation (say; back then Commonwealth Bank, latest Lotteries in NSW, utilities in Qld) is sufficient to destroy any putative 'for the people' claim by Labor. The sins of the Liberals are a) quite possibly more (nature of the beast) and b) quite possibly more damaging, think GST (regressive) and halving the CGT (doubled house prices at a single stroke.) Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the universally acclaimed 'Aus best treasurer' Costello - the 'universal' meaning coming both via and with active assist from the corrupt & venal MSM incl. big bits of the AusBC.

Note that a GST was also previously on offer by Lab; that makes it bipartisan, as is the rest of the neoliberal erring ideology package. (How do they dare? Who asked 'em?) A moment's thought reveals bipartisanship to be un- and anti-democratic, since it offers the voters no choice. Boo! Hiss!

The single degree worse: Don't for the smallest part of a pico-sec think that Abbott will bring a micro-gram of improvement. Look instead to a) Lib 'form' and b) the UK Tories as the Aus Liberal Party preferred model; the Tories are currently embarking on idiotic, extreme austerity - right down Abbott's alley. Think: Rat up a drain-pipe.


Consider this:

An Empire, If You Can Keep It
By Justin Logan
March 01, 2010 Issue
  «An infantile polity that clamors for both tax cuts and increased welfare payments diminishes the prospect of solvency.» 

Comment 1: As usual, read it all, and interpret it carefully. For example, 'nation building' is not what the US does to its victims, rather the US endeavours to establish sub-branches of the US criminal rip-off economy, complete with local quisling/puppet viceroys to run them. They're not making anything "safe for democracy;" their target is the rip-off exploitation of the local sovereign owners' resources like oil in Iraq (Iran next) and minerals in Aus. The only thing that stops a US invasion of Aus is our government pre-emptively volunteering Aus to US rapine[2].

Comment 2: Any 'infantile polity' only clamours for what they are propagandised to. We've always (seems to me) had Q: "What's in it for me," at least since the 1st Fraser/Howard campaign. A: "$5!"


Fazit: Oh yeah; how to vote. Put Lib/Lab *last* in your own preferred order. If 50% + 1 of all voters did this everywhere, we'd get a parliament with absolutely *NO* Lib/Labs in it. Think about it.


PS What's about "of, by, for?" Oh yeah (again); A proper democracy requires, as a minimum, a fully aware and engaged electorate, full & free info flows (i.e. without a single lie), and a comprehensive range of honest representative-candidates. How many of these conditions obtain in Aus? Further, why not fully replace all (feckless, incompetent &/ corrupt) representatives with referendums? Vote specifically on each important issue, like the Swiss do? Think about that, too.

PPS The spruiked tax-cuts, of course and on the whole, benefit primarily the obscenely super-rich. A properly progressive taxation regime is *required,* even in the face of possibly wasteful government disbursements, in order to get all the filthy-rich $s back into circulation. The original Medibank, now Medicare, must remain & be made universal; only an idiot could expect "medicine for profit" to yield anything but less medicine and more profit - the runs are on the board, see the disgraceful US 'system.' Neoliberalism is a failed, erring ideology which has been foisted on the world under the cover of misleading info when not outright lies - neoliberalism must be ejected onto the rubbish-heap of history, soonest.



[1] liberal -adj. 1 abundant, ample. 2 giving freely, generous. 3 open-minded. 4 not strict or rigorous. 5 for the general broadening of the mind (liberal studies). 6 a favouring moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals. -n. 1 person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) supporter or member of a Liberal Party. liberalism n. liberality n. liberally adv. [Latin liber free] [POD]

[2] rapine n. rhet. plundering. [Latin: related to *rape1] [ibid.]


not 'just' dumbed-down, but *actively* corrupted
  [TV, erring ideology]

.. revolting ...

  .. troglodytic ...

    .. evil by stealth

[updated #1, #2]

Caution: This essay can neither be conclusive nor fully substantiated; some things are not fully known to the author and others cannot be known at all - specifically, proof of the (non!)existence of any reputed g*d is by definition impossible.

What one can say vis-à-vis alleged g*d(s), is that by the conservation laws[1], as *no* evidence of any 'outside' agent may ever be detected, any 'belief' in some alleged g*d *must* be utterly baseless - and therefore risibly ignorant; see the definition of fantasy[2].

Thesis: 'The Enlightenment' has been deliberately opposed and implemented bits are being successively dismantled.

Prologue: "To begin at the beginning: It is spring, moonless night in the small town, starless and bible-black, ..."

Q: What went wrong, when and by whom?


Tools: Consider the statement:

  "The exception proves the rule."

Me: No. Mathematically, IF any contradiction is found THEN the related theorem is *disproved*.

Consider Howard's statement (possibly paraphrased): "This (Aus) is a Christian country."

Me: So what? Apart from deliberately inflaming cross-cultural conflict for his own ugly purposes, any/all religions conflict with the entirely valid (and to be preferred) non-religious option, and so should, on simple fairness, egalitarian and equity grounds be excluded from all political discussion.

Then, *every* (sane) individual's #1 most precious possession is his/her life. To be killed is far-and-away the worst catastrophe that can befall any person, sane or in-. Following that, every religion I'm even vaguely aware of forbids killing as its #1 rule (possible exception, Buddhism; see comment about not knowing everything). Yet wicked people are wholesale slaughtering others across the planet. IF any g*d 'out there' was a) as powerful as alleged AND b) had any compassion at all, THEN c) it would intervene *to save all victims*. In fact, with the (perverse!) 'just war' doctrine, Christianity *allows* war -> industrial killing = murder. See Wikileaks revealed U-Doppelblitz-S in g*d we trust death squads, *announced* covert subversions running in 75 countries, appr. 1000 foreign bases, illegal invasions/brutal occupations Afghanistan & Iraq, Germany & Japan *still* occupied etc. Then see Judaism, and the vicious murder-for-spoil (land, water) and associated genocide and ethnic cleansing being performed in and around Palestine by the vile & criminal Zs. This (mass-killing of innocents) is not 'merely' some minor exception, it blasts all religions and their putative g*ds *TO HELL*. But it gets worse.

Once more at the beginning, consider religious instruction (= indoctrination) of minors. Before the 'age of reason' (brain capable of fully rational thought), the juvenile human transitions through a period of pure, unexamined trust. (A required survival mechanism: "Spiders can be deadly; don't touch!") This 'window of vulnerability' is the best (actually of course, the absolute worst) time to insinuate the g*d delusion, 1st by instilling the fear of death into the naïvely innocent, vulnerable and unprotected mind, then injecting the 'eternal-life' fiction & cynical hook. It's not 'merely' child abuse, it lays the foundation for a life compromised = damaged (almost) beyond any repair. Needless to say, such victims of irrational superstition are easily manipulated = controlled.

Now new (to me) and worse again:

How Disney Magic and the Corporate Media Shape Youth Identity in the Digital Age
Wednesday 04 August 2010
by: Henry Giroux and Grace Pollock
  «The mouse will no longer embody a childlike innocence and generosity, but will instead be "cantankerous and cunning" and will exhibit "selfish, destructive behavior."[47] With Mickey's popularity in decline in the United States, Disney's market-driven agenda is visible not only in its willingness to transform the hallowed icon upon which its corporate empire was built, but also in the very way it has transformed Mickey Mouse's character. Although Disney's representatives suggest that this reimagining of Mickey Mouse merely reflects what is currently popular among young people, it seems more aligned with the current ideology of a ruthless economic Darwinism (also evident in reality TV shows) that has little to do with the needs of children and a great deal to do with a survival-of-the-fittest view of the world perpetuated by market-centered culture.» 
[truth-out/Giroux & Pollock]

Comment: The article is long and rambling, which doesn't damage the key impact, just makes it harder to extract.


The concept of some g*d is bizarre, and may be termed 'primitive superstition[3].' Clearly, it arose from the twin questions "Where did we come from, and where are we going?" Occam's razor enjoins us to seek the simplest solution, and nature 'naturally' follows. The g*d concept is *not* simple, involves (non-scientific) 'magic' and in fact begs the Q: If some g*d is the universe-precursor, what then is the g*d-precursor? Only possible A: Magic; hardly satisfactory. Since there can be no proof of any g*d's existence (by definition excluded), we cannot tell - but must suspect - that it's all a pack of lies. People may claim to be free to believe in what they like, but it's a bit self-condemnatory to believe on the basis of a) no (possible) evidence but b) wishful thinking, mostly acquired *before* the age of reason. Religion long preceded marketing (aka a branch of PR) and marketing's close associate, propaganda.

Recall that Bernays wrote the book on propaganda, was associated with Wilson's WW1 slogan "Making the world safe for democracy" and then transitioned propaganda techniques into the commercial world, 're-branding' them to PR. One essence of propaganda is "The big lie" - a natural associate of marketing's 'exaggerated' (when not outright false), manipulative claims. Lies again, see 'religion' immediately above.

One could posit (and I do so posit), that no worthwhile project needs - or should acquire - a cloak of lies. See defining example = Iraq, illegal invasion thereof. Recalling my contradiction-tool, a corollary: IF any lie THEN not worthwhile (and possibly criminal, Iraq again.)

So far so standard (however distasteful), with the Disney corruption of juvenile minds noted. Thesis: it's not just Disney but any/all TV; the less TV the better for all, it's (blindingly) obvious that as the big new post-WW2 thing, it's mainly through TV that the sheople have been dumbed-down - it's Oh, so convenient, the sheople compete to buy the biggest/latest, and moving, coloured pictures are a) enchanting and (key) b) are sucked-up by the brain, essentially unedited, and TV as babysitter should be equated with religion as wicked, deliberate child-abuse. But as usual, very little is ever simple; examine the *art* of Disney's corrupting, specifically the bit we could term "neo-Darwinism."

There are a few other nasty neo-terms floating about: neo-liberalism & neo-Cons. Neo-liberalism is a part of Reagan's "voodoo economics" as is the "Washington Consensus," IMF conditionalities (see "Economic Hit Man,") and all the -ve aspects of globalisation, and the neocons are associated with PNAC, itself associated with the Z's vile, aggressive murder-to-steal strategy/tactics. And Oh, how convenient was 9/11 vis-à-vis the expressed wish of the neocons for a "new Pearl Harbor?"

Comment: Since coincidence is by definition unlikely, all these -ves are more likely than not to be organised (and since many of the -ves are criminal, that screams "Conspiracy!") The only alternative is what I call "birds of a feather," but such birds would need common inspiration, so it's almost the same thing as consciously organised anyway.


Returning now, to the Q: What went wrong, when and by whom? Here is a good summary:

Trends to Barbarism and Prospects for Socialism
By James Petras
July 30, 2010
  «Western societies and states are moving inexorably toward conditions resembling barbarism; structural changes are reversing decades of social welfare and subjecting labor, natural resources and the wealth of nations to raw exploitation, pillage and plunder, driving living standards downward and provoking unprecedented levels of discontent.» 

Comment 0: As usual, one should read the lot.

Comment 1: Some countries are forced into neoliberalism by the IMF; worse are those governments doing it 'voluntarily' (samples US, UK, Germany, Aus, CH; the list of such 'deviants' is long.)

Comment 2: There are no properly functioning democracies I'm aware of, proof is the immediately above mentioned, stupid implementation of neoliberalism (not honestly offered and often bipartisanly applied; bipartisan = un- and anti-democratic), and see my comments on lies.

Comment 3: Finally (for here), the proof of *coordinated* lies is offered by my AusBC experience; for years I 'accepted' the fiction of Z-David vs. a primitive Muslim/Arab Goliath; how wrong I was and how wicked of the AusBC to have implied such vicious lies. The AusBC couldn't be so bad without (bipartisan!) government permission.

Final Q (for here): Exactly *how* do they coordinate?


Fazit: What we can see is an apparently organised campaign against sheople across the world; sovereign resource owners being ripped-off (recall the attempted MRRT) and domestic populations being reduced to health-service starved, under- or actual un-employed penury. The rich may well always tend to get richer, but it's a) now gone critically obscene and b) for what conceivable purpose? Crashing the financial system, the 'sheople' system and our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere = human-life-support system all at the same time is not much of an achievement, especially so since the so-called 'élites' doing it claim to be on the neo-Darwinian winning side. Hard to see how. Oh, and there's nothing at all élite about crime.


Epilogue: "We are not wholly bad or good, who live our lives under Milk Wood ..."

Paraphrased: We the sheople mostly try to be good, our so-called 'leaders' are mostly, if not wholly bad. Where are the truly clever ones? They must be able to see the problems better than I ever will - yet there is no visible resistance, let alone effective countervailing power.

Most exasperating Q: Why not?



[1] Briefly, there is an equivalence between matter and energy (Einstein; e=mc²); the conservation laws propose that *nothing* may either be created or destroyed, so far *no* exception has been found (and none expected); any 'message' from 'outside' our physical universe (aka 'all there is and ever can be') would violate the conservation laws and is therefore scientifically impossible. A smugly-smirking counter is: "Well, that's what g*d(s) do!" - no *rational* argument possible with that. Having 'faith in g*d(s)' is what some people do in the total absence of evidence.

[2] fantasy n. (pl. -ies) 1 imagination, esp. when unrelated to reality (lives in the realm of fantasy). 2 mental image, day-dream. 3 fantastic invention or composition. [Greek phantasia appearance] [POD]

[3] superstition n. 1 belief in the supernatural; irrational fear of the unknown. 2 practice, belief, or religion based on this. superstitious adj. superstitiously adv. [Latin] [ibid.]


PS Yesterday was Hiroshima day +65 years, to be followed three days later by Nagasaki day (around a quarter of a million mostly innocent 'collaterals' instantly killed, more gruesomely expiring later) - the two most infamous single-act war crimes up until then, possibly for all time (unless the U-Doppelblitz-S &/ Zs nuke Iran.) Q: Why *two* bombs? One A: One was Uranium-based, the other Plutonium. They wanted the (kill)data from both. Good to see some queries being allowed in some MSM; too little too late perhaps, but no such vile injustice should ever be forgotten. The US A-bombing (obviously deliberate), along with 9/11 (impossible *not* to have been deliberate), tell us all we need to know about the US self-proclaimed world-ruling, so-called 'élite.'

Reprise: Why do the genuinely smart allow such criminals to dominate?


Update, 16:51; PPS

It's a WikiLeaks World, Get Used to It
Jim Harper is director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute.
  «Secrecy is sometimes necessary, and propaganda is a legitimate dimension of war, ... » 

Comment: One of the things they try to trick the sheople with (vis-à-vis government illegal, not to mention immoral spying on private communications, say), is: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about." How stupid do they think we the sheople are? One could respond to the WikiLeaks-provoked tantrums: "Stop doing things you can't bear to admit to in public, i.e. stop lying, cheating and murdering to steal."

But that would not do, eh? The so-called leading 'élite' being honest, decent & law abiding, I mean.



Update, 8Aug'10; PPPS

An illustration of what we've lost (aka had ripped-off), and by whom.

The Remarkable Model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Escaping the Sovereign Debt Trap
August 6 - 8, 2010
  «Eventually, the Commonwealth Bank had branches in every town and suburb; and in the bush, it had an agency in every post office or country store. As the largest bank in the country, it set the rates and set policy, which the others had to follow for fear of losing customers. The Commonwealth Bank was widely perceived to be an insurance policy against abuse by private banks, serving to ensure that everyone had access to equitable banking. It functioned as a wholly owned state bank until the 1990s, when it was privatized.» 
[antiwar/cato/Ellen Brown]

Comment 1: It was privatised by the so-called sheople's friends *Labor*. Says it all. Shame.

Comment 2: Not too unrelated: "The number of Americans who are receiving food stamps rose to a record 40.8 million in May as the jobless rate hovered near a 27-year high, the government reported yesterday." [ICH/Bloomberg]

Comment 3: Neoliberalsm has 'only' failed the sheople - but otherwise works, one thinks, as designed. Q: Did anyone ever clearly specify beforehand what the sheople have now lost (aka had taken away?) Were the sheople ever offered a proper, non-spun democratic choice? The limit appears to have been reached now with most governments going broke, the austerity programs, ever reducing government services, etc. etc.. If you've read the Brown article, you'll have seen that creating $s costs *nothing* = abso-bloody-lutely SFA. So why are these (private/privatised) bankers killing most economies of the world they can reach wholesale? What's in it for them?



so-called 'leadership' ABJECT FAILURE
 [neo-liberal = rent-rapine]

.. bad feelings ...

  .. arise from problems ...

    .. still in search of practical solutions

Subtitle: Emotions may act as stimuli; only actively doing is dynamic.


Trigger article:

The Anguish of the Age: Emotional Reactions to Collapse
June 22, 2010
  «To be fully alive today is to live with anguish, not for one's own condition in the world but for the condition of the world, for a world that is in collapse.» 
[commondreams/Robert Jensen]

Comment: Considering emotion is no path to any solution, but towards a possible coping strategy, to which the follow-on title attests. Both articles recommended - obviously.

Response article:

Coping With Collapse Emotionally
08 July, 2010
  «We need to transcend systems rooted in human arrogance and greed that lead us to believe that any individual is more valuable than another, that any group of people should dominate another group, or that people have a right to exploit the living world without regard for the consequences for the ecosystem.» 
[countercurrents/Robert Jensen]

Comment: The article includes only a few of the responses, but nevertheless provides food for thought. Of course we need to cope (alternative: useless, self-harming panic), but beyond coping, we (desperately) need to fix - alternative: over the (terminal) cliff.


Intermezzo: There are several enormous crimes underway, the 1st of which is '47/8+ Israel; the immoral invasion and dispossession of the Palestinian people and intended illegal occupation of the entire country of Palestine by the I/J/Z-plex, assisted by 3rd party so-called 'powers' (mainly US & UK then others, like D and, to our great shame, Aus.) The 2nd crime is 'political,' namely maintaining the pretence that we live in 'democracies.' I have previously pointed out at length that a) we the sheople are deliberately misinformed, b) we have no real choice of honest candidates, and c) those elected mostly abuse their mandate by often acting diametrically *against* we the voters' interests. The case in point here and simultaneous proof of (a-c) is the bipartisan imposition of neo-liberal economic policies. These deliberately harmful policies were and still are being 'smuggled' in under the (risible, lying) guise of "This will be good for you!" - one, Thatcher, going so far as to screech "TINA!" = There is no alternative. Well, an outright lie; the exact same one mouthed recently by the German treasurer; there *IS* and always has been a *viable* alternative - and it's called 'properly progressive taxation' - but that's the one alternative that these *traitorous* politicians avoid - in service to their real masters - and in defiance of us, we the putatively sovereign people. The 3rd and worst crime is the indiscriminate nature of the economic system so constructed, a) in the damaging over-exploitation of resources and b) the most destructive of all, polluting as if there were no tomorrow, a policy which if not reversed will *ensure* no tomorrow.

Note: The (illegal, murdering-to-thieve) wars inflicted on the world mostly by the US are massive problems in themselves, but I can't always get everything into every article.


Data: Here are two 'supporting' articles:

1. NeoLiberalism and the Counter-Enlightenment
May 27, 2010
  «Financial dominance of real estate and industry, government spending and personal wealth seeking has been achieved largely by ideological conquest based on deception. For starters, financial interests seek a cloak of invisibility when it comes to their own gains and those of their major clients.» 
[Michael Hudson]

Comment: Neo-liberalism in all its gruesome degeneracy.

2. The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order
The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom, Part 1
June 24, 2010
  «... not only is the awakening global in its reach, but in its nature; it creates within the individual, an awareness of the global condition. So it is a ‘global awakening’ both in the external environment, and in the internal psychology.
This new reality in the world, ... presents a challenge to elites seeking to dominate people all over the world who are aware and awakened to the realities of social inequality, war, poverty, exploitation, disrespect, imperialism and domination»
[globalresearch/Andrew Gavin Marshall]

Comment: Already cited; 'promises' some hope.


Theory (economic): It makes some sort of sense, to depress working conditions, reduce workers' incomes, make them fearful, unsure and insecure, to eliminate wherever possible 'permanent' jobs, say. See 'Serf Choices.' Lean-and-mean, down-sizing and off-shoring all belong to 'economic rationalisation;' IF we (anywhere) don't do it THEN others will, and the jobs will all migrate - a process otherwise termed 'race to the bottom.' Same with overheads - like taxation; reduce it everywhere (and add regressive bits like the GST.) Same with 'buy low, sell high;' 'perfectly' illustrated by Iraqi oil - $1 per barrel to dig it up, current selling price 71 or 81, the difference being - ta ra! - Economic rent, giving rise to - ta ra again! - Super profits. The result of all this 'economic genius' is to make corporations (and therefore CEOs & shareholders) - rich and richer, and workers ever poorer, going poorest.

BUT: As we can plainly see, it has all gone just the one way: *against* workers.

Our so-called 'leadership' has taken it too far and forgotten at least one supremely important point: we're *all* humans; prosperity is based on mutual action (managers *and* workers) but one section (GWBush's haves+have-mores) are mercilessly exploiting the other sections, *unfairly* so and in contradiction of the Enlightenment; see Hudson above.

What's needed is countervailing power, (non-corrupt) governments to capture and redistribute (un-earned!) income, à la Keynes' euthanasia of the rentier.

A fair exchange is no robbery.


Argument: It goes (almost) without saying, but in the face of the monumental deceptions and depredations deployed against us, it nevertheless *must* be said, that any policy inimical to the electorate-at-large's interests, deceptively 'smuggled' in by being obscured by lies is *not* within accepted democratic principles, whereby an informed electorate has free choice, and elected representatives carry out 'the will of the people.' See conspiracy[2]. Since neo-liberalism is being applied by both sides of our 'two-party' system, neither is to be trusted. Bipartisanship, by giving the electorate no choice, is both un- and anti-democratic.


Facit: The longer this so-called 'leadership' evil persists and nothing positive is accomplished, the worse it will get; the danger to us all gets less avoidable. The evil *must* be stopped, *before* it's too late.

Overthrowing an existing order calls for a revolution; a *totally* new, truly ethical political party 101% dedicated to "of, by, for the people" must be created and elected. Everywhere. Soonest.



[1] rapine n. rhet. plundering. [Latin: related to *rape1] [POD]

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


incontrovertible proof of their disgusting, criminal perfidy
 [politicians, economists, fat-cats]

. use ...

  .. your own ...

    .. senses = eyes + ears & brains

Thesis/Subtitle: We have a full-blown crisis; democracy failure.



1. Liberal: Far from free.

2. Propaganda: The lie is in.

3. Neo-liberal: The $-fix is in.

4. Democracy: Of, by, for is out.


1. Lib vs. Lab *used to be* the great ideological divide; since now in at least one v.important aspect (neo-liberalism) Lib = Lab, any 'competition' tends to be more cosmetic than on substance. Makes the recent MRRT stoush strange; it's as if Lab went back to their roots. The reaction of the fat-cat miners plus entourage was 'perfectly' standard. The miners and cohort/apologists maintain a "born to rip-off" attitude, as the Liberals maintain a "born to rule" one.

The 'best' (of course, the worst) illustration of Liberals, perhaps for all time, was given to us in whimsy; a cartoon of Fraser on a cricket-pitch, blocking the Senate (and therefore Whitlam) with a brick-wall bat.

Apropos the MRRT (RR = resource rent), temporarily termed MSPT (SP = super profit), they are the same thing, namely an attempt at returning *some* of the mining profits to the people. It was quoted that the $-return to the sheople (via government) had fallen from about 1/3rd to 1/7th, and I have a) no reason to doubt this and b) all reason to expect it - given the penetration of neo-liberal economics. The reaction of the rippers-off was also as to be expected: disgusting. A democracy that allows itself to be bought and/or bullied is also a failure.

Libs are the party of the fat-cats, always have been. Why any 'wo/man in the street' votes *for* Libs and therefore largely *against* their own interests is an enduring mystery. But see next topic (2).

It used to be that the party for honest workers was Lab (and only scabs would vote against); now that Lib = Lab = both sell-out workers by implementing erring neo-liberal policies, any division is reduced, perhaps permanently and to insignificance.

2. That propaganda is typified by lies can hardly be in dispute; for definitive proof see "The Big Lie." Also we learned, thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Howard, that "All politicians lie!" Such lies are now professionally managed (PR), co-ordinated and 'herded' into an all-encompassing 'lie-cloud,' what I like to call the pushed-propaganda paradigm. Most so-called 'debate' takes place within this lie-cloud = cloud-cuckoo-land. This is the field upon which the corrupt and venal MSM cavort, including to their eternal damnation, 'our' AusBC. It should be clear that no meaningful debate may include lies; no person (i.e. voters) may make informed decisions based on lies.

3a. Neo-liberalism: How do I detest thee? Let me count the ways. Neo-liberalism appeared sometime before Fraser, we know this because of criticism that Fraser wasted time by not introducing any. Then came Thatcher, Reagan and Hawke/Keating. At least Reagan got something right by terming neo-liberalism "voodoo economics." Lets see now; "user pays" means convert to a toll-booth economy, adding charging infrastructure, administrative overheads and new sinecures for fat-cat CEOs plus their entourages. This may be likened to "enclosing the commons," to which add "privatisation" aka flogging off the (egalitarian service providing, income producing) family silver - or the other even more cynical variation, reducing -> cancelling egalitarian services outright. At the same time as crippling the government services sector, government income is crippled by tax-cuts, affectively to the richest and least deserving. Ever more vicious reduction in government income is called "starving the beast."

3b. Then, there's the industry/jobs sector, keywords "lean and mean." A short list, hard to assign "most vicious:" off-shoring, down-sizing, out-sourcing, sub-contracting, part-timing (extend the list yourself.) Oh yeah, and "union busting," often carried out by corrupting the unions themselves, i.e. blackmail threats like: 'reduce conditions or we'll close the business,' see Opel recently in Europe. That threat made simultaneously to governments.

3c. So, having crippled governments, unions and workers, the big threat now is "Jobs!" See the current MRRT / MSPT imbroglio; the already obscenely rich fat-cat miners threaten that they'll cut investment and therefore work and therefore jobs, and the whole country then jumps through the miners' hoops. Upshot: Our non-renewable mineral resources will continue to leave the country, as will some/most/all of the profits, depending on how far we allow foreign-investment to further rip us off. Most likely result: A broke country full of empty holes.

3d. Don't forget the banking sector, and the deliberately impoverished governments which have 'bailed-out' all those banks' bad *bets* with trillions of *our* $s. (Imagine! Bankers betting, losing, then crying poor! Then the govts *gave* the failed gamblers bail-outs, based on *our tax money*!) Filthy swine, on both sides of those 'transactions.' So now to the latest; we are getting austerity programs [see update, 7Jul'10] almost everywhere, *guaranteed* to accelerate the downward, race to the dead-end-bottom spiral of rip-off idiocy.

4. Democracy: Of, by, for is out. The lies - detected by me only relatively recently - I *trusted* the AusBC, but in retrospect, the lies have been heaped upon us for all of my life. Proof: After getting *all* my news from the AusBC, I fell for the "Israel as brave David" lying propaganda. That was back in the 60s & 70s; never again. In actual fact, Israel is a criminal oppressor, has been since its year dot. Lies mean no informed voting is possible. That Lib = Lab on critical issues means we the voters have no meaningful choice. Then, consider the bipartisan implementation of neo-liberalism. This is a *massive* sell-out of we the sheople, and means that our so-called representatives are not doing their notional job, but the 180-degree exact opposite, they are (traitorously!) working *against* our interests.


Fazit: Neo-liberalism has been *undemocratically* forced upon us, seemingly by politicians (if they are actually in control, and not 'merely' doubly-traitorous puppets.) Proof of 'undemocratic:' No worthwhile project needs a 'cover' of lies; neo-liberalism is replete with 'em. The obvious: "Here, take this or that neo-liberalism item - it's going to be *good* for you!" Like hell. It was always fishy (notably, how can sheople of ever more depressed incomes, fewer, less-well paid jobs and fewer working hours - support a consumer-led economy?) neo-liberalism is now clearly seen to be failing everywhere, even the hapless US citizenry is suffering, perhaps a bit in advance of Aus - so we can see what's coming - and it's by no means pretty (*massive* understatement!) Q: Given the obvious failure, why is it still being rolled-out in places? Are the rollers-out so stupid? Or 'merely' criminal? Since we don't 'do' conspiracies, and do not give much if any credence to coincidence, we have to conclude that neo-liberalism was forced on us consciously - by outright traitors to us, we the sheople.



Update, 7Jul'10; PS Apropos 'austerity,' here four items, publ-time-ordered:

1. Hudson suggests taxing property:

Euro-Bankers Demand of Greece
The wealthy won’t pay their taxes, so labor must do so.
May 11, 2010
  «... And taxes on labor now are about to be jacked up to pay off the public debts resulting from the asset-price inflation and financial wreckage that property tax cuts have helped cause. This is the cause of national debts. Governments have run into debt as a result of un-taxing the wealthy in general, not just real estate.» 
[Michael Hudson]

Comment: Where taxes *should* be levied is not really too hard, and could probably be best determined by surveying successful tax-regimes. Simply un-taxing the rich à la neo-liberalism is obviously disastrous.

Comment: Hudson concentrates on taxes, another damaging 'leg' to neo-liberalism is the privatisation of govt. services; turning them into lean and mean down-sized profit-seeking fee-for-service rip-off entities. Like 'medicine for profit,' the so-called 'financial geniuses' put profit before all else, here good health-care, there good services. Makes sense, eh?

Comment: The fat-cats must feel themselves quite fat enough; look at the new (pro-fat-cat) govt. in England; they propose to work their way out of the GFC-hangover by cutting 25-40% off their govt. budget, and sacking perhaps 600k govt. workers - clearly pro-cyclic and guaranteed to make things *far, far* worse. That in the face of their fat-cat class, who must calculate that even on a contracting economy, they'll be able to remain fat.

2. Marshall offers some hope:

The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order
The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom, Part 1
June 24, 2010
  «... not only is the awakening global in its reach, but in its nature; it creates within the individual, an awareness of the global condition. So it is a ‘global awakening’ both in the external environment, and in the internal psychology.
This new reality in the world, ... presents a challenge to elites seeking to dominate people all over the world who are aware and awakened to the realities of social inequality, war, poverty, exploitation, disrespect, imperialism and domination»
[globalresearch/Andrew Gavin Marshall]

Comment: Looong, and little on the austerity theme. Important is that Marshall sees the masses awakening, and the ruling kleptocrats' lies, crimes & injustices coming under increasing pressure. Article strongly recommended.

Comment: By and large there is (or has been) enough for all. If shortages loom, we must accommodate; cooperation seems better than confrontation - but it looks like the existing 'rulers' have chosen a non-peaceful way. Q: Wonder why? A: Because they don't wish to surrender even one single sou of their ill-gotten plunder.

3. Pro-neo-liberal Ms Marcus spruiks status quo (via corrupt & venal MSM; what else?):

Pitfalls of Soaking the Rich
Jul 6, 2010
  «I’m all for a more progressive tax code. But consider: The Tax Policy Center examined what it would take to avoid raising taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year yet reduce the deficit to 3 percent of the economy by decade’s end. The top two rates would have to rise to 72.4 and 76.8 percent, more than double the current level. You don’t have to be anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist to think this would be insane.» 
[truthdig/Ruth Marcus(washpost)]

Comment: I doubt Marcus' complete sincerity, especially in her 1st sentence.

Comment: Setting the bar @ $US¼mio is too high. A friend used to maintain that what you couldn't get in your mouth was wasted. He wasn't directly addressing nutrition, but the fact that obesity is wide-spread in the lower income groups indicates no lack of available nutrition, down to food-stamp level, say. High top-end marginal tax rates are not unknown; the Beatles sang "There’s one for you, nineteen for" the taxman. At a rough guess, I would say that anyone in and over the humungous SUV/4WD bracket has some taxable excess.

Comment: *Someone* must pay. The poor, as ever, are getting poorer, and now at a faster rate. Q: Why do crims rob banks? A: That's where the $s are. Q: How long before the currently (insane?) taxman *rediscovers* the fat-cat super-rich?

4. Wolff connects the GFC to austerity via G-20 = collusion:

Austerity: Why and for Whom?
Tuesday 06 July 2010
  «A capitalist system that generates so massive a crisis, spreads it globally, and then proposes mass austerity to "overcome" it has lost the right to continue unchallenged.» 
[truthout|Op-Ed/Rick Wolff]

Comment: The stimulus packages deployed are obviously Keynesian, otherwise banished. Possibly Keynes' biggest 'mistake' was his 'euthanasia of the rentier' idea; but that's *exactly* what's needed.

Comment: The mainly US neo-liberals group Marx, unionism, socialism and communism + all compassion and call the grouping 'anti-business;' problem is that 'business-as-usual' has crashed. Everyone needs (deserves!) their *appropriate* (fair!) share, but the fat-cats have stripped the workers bare. Some reversal is now due - in fact, a big reversal! - Back to truth & justice etc. - aka back to the Enlightenment. Soonest!




[1] liberal -adj. 1 abundant, ample. 2 giving freely, generous. 3 open-minded. 4 not strict or rigorous. 5 for the general broadening of the mind (liberal studies). 6 a favouring moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals. —n. 1 person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) supporter or member of a Liberal Party.  liberalism n. liberality n. liberally adv. [Latin liber free] [POD]

[2] perfidy n. breach of faith; treachery. perfidious adj. [Latin perfidia from fides faith] [ibid.]

[3] sense -n. 1 a any of the five bodily faculties transmitting sensation. b sensitiveness of all or any of these (good sense of smell). 2 ability to perceive or feel. 3 (foll. by of) consciousness; awareness (sense of guilt). 4 quick or accurate appreciation, understanding, or instinct (sense of humour). 5 practical wisdom, common sense. [ibid.]