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
[huffpo/Weissman]
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?
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[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.
