facts don't matter! (propaganda; dumbing down - Abbott, Barker)

.. Abbott is not a liar ...

  .. as AusBC's Barker also is not ...

    .. so much, as dumbing-down propagandists, aka charlatans[1]


Preamble: It's a matter of breaching an initial resistance; if a person can be persuaded to believe in something totally lacking any factual basis, that same person can be persuaded to believe *anything*. And so it is, for far too many sheople: exactly when they are at their most vulnerable, i.e. before 'the age of reason,' when they are incapable of analysing, let alone resisting, they get an injection of impossibility direct from their own most immediate mentor(s), i.e. parent(s) or 'primary carer(s);' either of something trivially stupid like Santa, say, or Oh, so cynically sinister, some g*d (and associated physically impossible 'eternal life' fantasy) - but irrespective of what utter *fiction*, after that hideously treacherous corrupting act: facts hardly matter at all.

(Q: Why 'hardly?'

 A: Well, ignoring some (critical!) fact may ruin your day/ ... /life.)

(Q: What sort of 'critical?'

 A: Well, impending run-away climate change, say. Ooops!)

[End preamble.]


Abbott article #1:

I'll turn boats back, says Abbott
Posted December 31, 2009 11:44:00
  «But former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser says it would not be appropriate to turn any boats back.
He says to do so would breach Australia's obligations under the refugee convention.
"I think it's a policy out of the past, appropriate to the 1930s, and the idea of turning boat people back out to sea is also a total denial of obligations under the refugee convention," he said.»

Comment: Convention? What convention? Abbott (recklessly? Or super-cynically deliberately?) - plays the 'race card,' the 'bigot card,' the 'jingoistic Aussie-slob card;' it's both an appeal to and strengthening of ugly, 'base-nature' prejudices. Abbott likely says to himself "Whatever (corruption) it takes!"

Abbott article #2:

Warmest decade proves Abbott 'got it wrong'
Posted January 5, 2010 15:27:00
  «"With these important Bureau of Meteorology figures out, Mr Abbott must face up to the facts," he said.
"[He should] either show us that in fact the experts have got it wrong or admit that he's got it wrong."
Mr Abbott says the weather bureau's new figures will not change his mind about the Government's climate change policy.
He says the Bureau is entitled to say what is happening with the weather, but that does not mean an emissions trading scheme is the best way to combat climate change.»

Comment 1: From a quote by Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE) "One swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day;" it's not any single event or even a group, it's the overall-trend: "Dr Jones also says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one." Sceptics here, denialists there: "Houston, we have a problem."

Comment 2: This is not to say that Lab has it right; not at all. The only effective action is to (significantly, i.e. greatly) reduce coal mining, oil pumping and gas drilling etc. - measures which neither Lib nor Lab are even contemplating.


Barker article #1:

Activists fall victim to Gaza blockade
Posted December 31, 2009 12:00:00
  «In the end though, no amount of protests or pressure is likely to bring an end to the Israeli blockade, which bans the movement of people from Gaza and the import of all but the most essential supplies.
The Israeli government imposed the blockade two years ago after Hamas came to power and says it was meant to target the Islamist regime and not Gaza's civilian population.»
[AusBC/Middle East correspondent Anne Barker]

Comment 1: "No amount of protests or pressure" indicates a three-way failure; (1) it illustrates the illegitimate nature of Israel, that they do not honour international law, the same law they claim enabled their founding, (2) it illustrates the utter gutless failure of the UN itself, and (3) indicts the world in general and the Diaspora in particular, for not effectively curbing the murdering-to-thieve Zionists.

Comment 2: Hamas didn't 'come to power' so much as they were elected. This illustrates Z (and US) hypocrisy, they support democracy only when it suits, and they support undemocratic dictator/despots whenever there're $s (or oil) in it.

Comment 3: Note the 'interesting' use of 'regime;' the attack on Gaza killed well over 1000 *totally innocent civilians*; the population at large was the target, all lying Israeli assertions notwithstanding. See below for more on 'regime.'

Barker article #2:

Iran threatens to destroy Israel if attacked (previously cited)
Posted September 29, 2009 08:02:00
  «Israel has repeatedly expressed fear at Iran's nuclear ambitions and refused to rule out a pre-emptive military strike.
But Iran's Defence Minister Ahmed Vahidi has warned of Israel's demise if it does, saying the result would be "the Zionist regime's last breath".»
[AusBC/Middle East correspondent Anne Barker]

Comment 1: IMHO, the title is a total lie 'hinged' on a deliberate misreading of the Vahidi quote. (Criminal) 'regime' is different from (illegitimate) 'country;' it's Barker once again evoking the (deliberately misinterpreted) 'map-wiping' meme.

Comment 2: In any case, "Israel [expressing] fear at Iran's nuclear ambitions," is nothing other than acknowledging the possibility of "live by the sword, die by the sword" - Israel may well anticipate that one day, the only single (immoral & illegal) thing preventing its own demise, namely the thieving, murdering violence that it perpetrates - and keeping in mind that anything that can happen eventually must, that repulsive Israeli-state violence, will, must one day fail - and Israel itself will be totally defeated (sow the whole place with salt?) - AND once more, IF Iran were to get the bomb, THEN it would purely be for self-defence ONLY, i.e. to deter an aggressive (Nuremberg!) US/Z attack; NO rational analysis does or can suggest otherwise.


Fazit: As was pointed out in my 'conceivable' lies, lies don't matter - much (except for us truth & justice seekers). Once a (purportedly) trusted figure or other (erring ideologue) authority asserts a lie wrapped in propagandistic emperor's clothing (i.e. 'deniable' disguise, say), once that lie is repeated until 'accepted' (actually, most resistance is worn-down = exhausted), so a lie can become part the pushed-paradigm. If the lie happens to be later exposed, no wuckin' furries, mateys - perversely, the sheople are then most likely to reject the truth.



[1] charlatan n. person falsely claiming knowledge or skill.  charlatanism n. [Italian, = babbler] [POD]


PS And all the while these people lie, obfuscate and propagandise, the impending run-away climate change gets ever closer, ever less avoidable.

Future Q: What did (or *didn't*) you do, to avoid the disaster?

Personal A: I told no lies.

No comments:

Post a Comment