conspiracy theories - TINA; democracy, lies

.. lies ...

  .. more lies ...

    .. filthy deceit[1,2]

Posit: IF lies THEN criminality


9/11 ... simply too convenient; we (now) know that the PNAC schemers were looking for a 'new Pearl Harbor' - and we (now) think that such 'convenient' coincidences most probably (99.999%) aren't.

9/11, though, did mark a great un-masking; on the day, on 1st view - actually, at the very latest on the 2nd, i.e. when the *2nd* tower fell, just as the 1st, oh so neatly collapsing into its own 'footprint,' I said: "That was not natural - just not possible." Later, a 3rd such unnatural occurrence: WTC7[5]. Of course, the idea of a conspiracy was (still is) so utterly outlandish, that all we did, all we could do at the time was say "Oh, well" - and felt v.unwell. But as time goes by, and the random reflections fester into darker suspicions - especially in the light of what followed (generally, rogue-regime blatant lawlessness) - then it becomes unavoidable: some agency prepared the three towers for 'controlled demolition.' There's a fashionable phrase floating around (Merkel the latest to deploy it, vis-à-vis Afghanistan): "There is no alternative" - TINA. (Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Thatcherites[4])


Merkel looks pretty shocking to me; she's either physically sick - or sickened by what she's doing, which is trying to fool her electors that fighting a war in Afghanistan is somehow Germany's business. That's a job rejected by Schröder vis-à-vis Iraq, but one accepted by Howard - and now Rudd, vis-à-vis Afghanistan. Merkel's TINA is possibly more accurate than she intends - as this paragraph *proves*. In plain text, we the electors are allowed no alternative - we get war from both 'sides' - bipartisanship being anti-democratic.

After 9/11, the rot set in. Two rogue regimes, the US and its illegitimate sprog IL abandoned all pretence of being legal or moral. We will never forget Howard's leitmotif "All politicians lie!" Worse, we now see that neither 'side' of the predominately two-party system is on the people's side. Rewinding a bit, the economic rot had set in in Aus with (if not before) Hawke-Keating, to my recall it was they who introduced Aus to the neo-liberal bulls**t (one aspect: privatisation, aka flogging off the country's silver), processes now totally discredited but *still* being forced onto the hapless people, see Qld & NSW, both Labor. I cannot recall if Fraser/Howard implemented any neo-liberal economics, having been distinctly disinterested in the Libs at the time, aka 101% pissed-off; but it matters little who started it or when, the disaster is now fully (and bipartisanly) upon us.

It wasn't only the politicians who exposed themselves as non-representative, the MSM showed itself to be corrupt and venal, by not 'merely' conduiting the politician's lies, but actively augmenting same, with - sadly, traitorously, most publicly-financed broadcasters I'm familiar with included. Some *proof* of the MSM's culpability was classically provided by Judith Miller of the NYT, and theAge's T.Parkinson (amongst *many* others).

On the whole, the filthily illegal invasion of Iraq, morphed into the subsequent brutal occupation (as many as 1.3mio+ 'prematurely,' 'collaterally' dead), the one thing that typified the criminality best was the lies. It's the ineluctable proof of undeniably criminal intentions; after that we do not believe a single word - unless we can see conclusive proof. Even the supporters still call the US into Iraq 'project' a failure - because the US has yet to gain its (real) objective, namely seizing effective control, also = major $-portion of Iraq's oil.

IF lies THEN criminality; QED.


But that's not all; once the seeds of suspicion germinated, and the scales fell from our eyes, *everything* came under the microscope. Things once said in apparent jest, now turn out to be painfully accurate, i.e. "the mushroom club - kept in the dark & fed on BS." We are constantly fed a diet of lies, admittedly a well-coordinated narrative, but lies nevertheless. The very fact that it is well-coordinated goes a long way to proving my 'conspiracy' title. I call the web of lies the pushed-propaganda paradigm. Rewind to WW1 and see Bernays propagandising for Wilson. Bernays quite literally wrote a book, if not the book, on propaganda. Post WW1 he developed - morphed - propaganda into 'public relations,' to sell us things we may not have wanted, let alone needed. Again, but not only: propaganda is a, if not the, mainstay of our so-called 'democratic' politics.

Finally for this section, the biggest democratic BUT: a proper democracy requires at least these three; a) an aware, engaged and educated electorate, therefore b) full and free info-flows and then c) honest politicians who properly represent their electors. IMHO, *none* of these conditions currently apply (if they ever did).


Now, to the US & Z rogue regimes.

Both the US & IL claim to be democracies, with the US boasting that its interventions are a) to make the world safe for democracy, and b) to bring democracy to the benighted currently without.

Both regimes are living drastic lies - easily proven to be lies. As shown above, *none* of the Anglo/Judaic US, UK, Aus or IL are properly functioning democracies. Further, IL occupies land-not-theirs, land procured immorally via the UN, and illegally via wars, wars with IL's neighbours exclusively provoked by IL.

That IL is neither democratic nor legitimate is easy to prove; a) legitimacy: all UN 'law' (that I'm aware of) vis-à-vis Palestine insists that the rights of the mostly Palestinian ELO/Os (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) were/are *not* to be injured nor abrogated by the establishment of IL - but since those rights are grievously violated, so IL is in breach of its covenant (no-one can claim legitimacy via some authority, and simultaneously violate the laws of that same authority; contradiction), then b) democracy: IF IL was a proper democracy THEN no ELO/O would ever have been dispossessed, let alone by murdering force. Further, the UN had no right to 'gift' any part of Palestine to the Zs, and the Z-claim of some 'g*d-promise' is simply risible.

Q: Why does not the entire world rise up in anger; to deplore the wretched Z-crimes, to condemn the criminal perpetrators and to call for immediate justice and restitution for the hapless, violently dispossessed ELO/Os? Are they all deaf, dumb & blind? Possibly the worst combined crime and injustice on the planet since the Nazis were defeated, and all say nothing?

It is trivially demonstrable that the US and IL wars are resource-wars, the US in Iraq, say, obviously for oil and IL for soil (& water) - collectively, murder for spoil.

After 9/11, the rogue regimes US and IL went more, and more openly psychopathic, no more dramatically illustrated than by their extra-judicial murdering - of *anyone* they care to nominate, now even including US citizens.

Intermezzo: All the above is drawn from publicly available materials; I have no other source. Also, I can't be everywhere, read everything, and there's the possible problem of self-selection, although by being aware of the latter, one seeks for a representative range of info/views. But a conspiracy[3] implies secrecy. So Q: Where to now? A: Conjecture - observe, think, create a balance of probabilities.


Conjecture: Recalling Occam's razor and Sherlock Holmes. Throughout my 'young' life, I depended, as good as exclusively, on a certain publicly-financed broadcaster for my democratic duty of self-informing. I got (was given) a false impression; that IL was a brave little David, being monstered by a vicious Arab (now Muslim) Goliath. Q: Why such a wickedly false impression? A: It was deliberately suggested to me (and of course all others) by the broadcaster 'pushing' lying propaganda. I trusted them and/but they misinformed me. In clear text, they take our taxes, then lie to us. Unforgivable, traitorous even; Q: Who gave them permission to lie? A: The government - who else? But the government is composed of those ostensibly representing us, we the people. Recall Gettysburg; of, by, for the people etc. - or any common-sense interpretation of democracy. We could paraphrase the Iranian-greens: "Where is our democracy??!"

Speaking of those hapless Iranians, we know (were specifically told) that the NED (and such) were budgeted $US400mio for (covert, what else?) subversion directed at Iran. We know that the US (mainly via the CIA) created Al-Qaeda, it's a sure bet that a) since the CIA got ~$US40bio p/a not so long ago, now getting more like ~$US60bio AND they run covert ops about as often as we have hot meals, THEN b) that's a definite place to look for conspiracies. While the CIA may not be the actual 'leaders,' they're certainly in on the plot.

Also, since it is the CIA's prime task to protect the US, one has to a) assume *massive* incompetence that the CIA failed to detect the 9/11 hijacks 'incoming' OR they, the CIA (and/or Mossad) b) knew all about it if not c) they were the actual perpetrators. *Note*: The hijackers, no matter who they were, or from where, being *incapable* of causing all three towers to collapse Oh, so neatly, cannot be, nor are they, the whole story. *Someone* pre-planted the demolition-charges, and the same or different someone pushed the button(s). Then, there were the dancing (Israeli) photographers...

Fazit: The ostensible Anglo/Judaic democracies of the US, UK, Aus & IL are not democracies in anything except name; they are all not merely un- but wholly anti-democratic. The antithesis of democracy may be fascism and/or tyrannical (who cares about what name); what *is* clear is that we just don't have properly functioning democracies. An alternative thesis, that democracy has been captured by special/vested interests doesn't really do it, although such lobbies (most villainous - AIPAC) are seen to exist. I present two distinct, mutually exclusive concepts; a) what I call 'birds of a feather,' otherwise coincidence, OR b) a conscious, coordinated conspiracy.

You, dear reader, may make up your own mind.


PS Anyone arguing *within* the ppp = pushed-propaganda paradigm, i.e. accepting the crooked assumptions, worse, trying to defend the indefensible crimes and/or criminals, i.e. the US & Zs in their mass-murdering resource-wars, is either a) pig-ignorant, aka as thick as two planks or b) themselves consciously criminal. Oh! Always, of course and as usual, IMHO.



[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. [POD]

[2] deceit n. 1 deception, esp. by concealing the truth. 2 dishonest trick. [Latin capio take] [ibid.]

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

[4] There is no alternative
  «This is the mantra chanted by 'dries' during the prime ministerial reign of Margaret Thatcher, by which they demonstrated their belief that free-market capitalism was the only possible economic theory. It was said so often amongst them that it was shortened to TINA. The hard-right Thatcherites called themselves 'dries' to demonstrate their opposition to the 'wets', i.e. the One-Nation Tories whom Thatcher despised. Wet was the public school nickname for any boy who showed any sign of caring for his fellow beings.» 

[5] Someone even gave the game away; something like: "We're going to have to pull it." But Q: Is there any evidence? A: Well, as a 'normal' citizen, I don't have access to everything 'out there' - it's the government's job anyway. That they are totally failing to do this job is 101% obvious, and the theme to this piece is, after all, "IF lies THEN criminality." Here is a youtube; they use the words "We're going to have to bring it down," and "The building is about to blow up." More obviously, *before* WTC7 collapsed - *was* collapsed.

Q: Who has the greatest incentive to hide the truth, aka tell lies?

A: Those who do bad deeds.

No comments:

Post a Comment