the enemy of my enemy is my friend
 (enemies = US, Zs; liars, cheats & criminals)

.. getting censored by the AusBC ...

  .. proves that they are un- & anti-democratic ...

    .. but WTF when a so-called 'friend' censors my comments?

Thesis: One single event, i.e. a deliberate lie[1] (always bad) or action (worse->worst = cheat[2] or rip-off then theft, murder) - is enough to declare the perpetrator = enemy.

[update, 11:09]


Trigger event: Comment submitted to Damian Lataan's blog item "IF INTERVENTION IN LIBYA IS GOOD ..." was *not* published = was censored; grrr! My comment summarised: Western (US + sycophantic quisling hangers-on) intervention in Libya was/is *not* good; see the comment in fullhere. Damian may have a bearable 'excuse' so I'm not declaring him enemy (yet), and so to my wider topic = friends vs. enemies:

What sparked my comment to Damian's blog was amongst other things this: "the American desire for intervention was reflexively always likely to be viewed with suspicion by the Left anyway ..."

Specifically: "reflexive," by which I *assume* is meant "as an automatic response."

Q: Is/are there ground(s) to be 'automatically' against any particular US action?

A: Lots. They should not need enumeration, and let's face it, a full list would likely never end. Blum has documented much, for an example try here. Hardly a day goes by without some new proof 'surfacing,' but not usually via the corrupt & venal MSM. Think WikiLeaks, say.

The US 'has form,' and does *all* of what I term the 'basic crimes' of lying, cheating, theft & murder.

They even dare boast of it: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business," nothing at all 'tongue-in-cheek' about it, since that's *exactly* what they do.

No documentation of the Z's multifarious grave crimes need be given; suffice it to say that any project which began with a vast crime (= Deir Yassin type massacres, say) and continues the same criminal way for the last 62+ grisly years (latest outrage = the murdering high-seas attack on the 'peace-flotilla') - such a project is not only criminal but actually illegitimate to boot.

Quickly now and somewhat repetitively, the world faces *massive* problems, possibly the worst and getting the least remedial action being the becoming ever less-avoidable excess-CO2 caused climate catastrophe, then resource depletion, pollution and generally *unsustainable* consumption. We simply can't afford to continue down that idiotically destructive path, but any progress is a) blocked by the so-called 'world-leader' and b) our attention diverted partly by idiot entertainment - and Israel's continued ghastly crimes.

Going back to lies being a) deployed to decieve and b) leading on to crime, what's needed is a world-wide 'MiniTrue' authority to stamp out lies so the US&/Zs can't keep their filthy propaganda going, can't keep the real problems being obscured and ignored.

Stop and reverse:

The military domination by the US empire must be stopped and reversed - go home, bastards!

The economic depredation by the US empire must be stopped and reversed.

The criminal dispossession of the hapless Palestinians must be stopped and reversed.

The excess-CO2 polluting our life-supporting biosphere must be stopped and reversed.

Get that done; get the world back on track, restore "The Enlightenment" as our *correct* method and destination - then perhaps lots of us could stop suffering the inner terror which the US&Zs continuously inflict upon us all.


PS - An absolutely vital point:

We know - or by now bloody-well should know - that we're being lied to = propagandised, and that continuously. I 'monitor' the output of several state-supported broadcasters; they've *all* been sending the same 'tone' = demonising Gaddafi, reporting 'his' atrocities by attacking his own people etc.. Some of it is undoubtedly true, but the important 'hook' here is the 'some,' namely what proportion really is true (as opposed to mainly US-sourced propaganda), and how much/many of the atrocities are really being done by Gaddafi forces, as opposed to how much is being done by infiltrator/destabilisers?

The intervention itself was done with what appears to have been unseemly haste; one report held that the French aircraft were on the way before/during Sarkozy's Paris conference, a fact which was notified *only* at the end, another - equally hastily revised, perhaps, to say that Sarkozy'd advised the conference 'beforehand.' Hmmm. Haste was of course required everywhere, because it looked like the 'rebels' were headed for a loss or the exits, if not both.

The next and obvious question is Q: How much of the supposed 'revolution' was being instigated/done by 'ring-in' (CIA etc.) subversives?

Let me put that, another way: Recalling the known fact that the MSM conduits and *actively* assists lies being transmitted to us, so exactly how far have we been led down the garden path - this time?



[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] cheat -v. 1 a (often foll. by into, out of) deceive or trick. b (foll. by of) deprive of. 2 gain an unfair advantage by deception or breaking rules. -n. 1 person who cheats. 2 trick, deception. cheat on colloq. be sexually unfaithful to. [from *escheat] [ibid.]


Update, 11:09; Damian has explained (see his comment of 10:42 below) and all is OK.



Comment posted Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:47:00 PM 'blog-time:'
IDHolm said...
G'day Damian, may this 'lefty' dare to differ?

Vis-à-vis black vs. white, the US will *always* act only when there are $s in it, even when aiding the gruesomely criminal Zs.

The parallels between Saddam & Gaddafi are far more important than any differences, namely both tried to extract a 'fairer' return on their 'patrimony' (that word 'popularised' thanks, but "No, thanks!" to GWBush), and both returned more to their own people than is 'neoliberally' acceptable. These are similar/same parallels we see with Iran & Chavez, say.

All US 'enemies' suffer covert destabilisation attacks, we can only speculate how far this secret subversion aggravates or even actually creates any tendency towards tyranny = suppression of civil rights by Saddam, Gaddafi, Iran & Chavez, etc.. We know about the "El Salvador" option and how al-Qaida was created, and some of the US/CIA/Z/Mossad dirty tricks. How or why would we *not* suspect all the same dirty tricks to have been active against Gaddafi?

Any 'nuanced' analysis must acknowledge the realities, one of the starkest being the contempt of the people demonstrated by the US regimes = ruling 'élite' (nothing élite about crime) - over more than the last 100 years, and the interventions they have done, and the utter misery they inflict. See "Rogue State," see "Hit Man," see "Hegemony or Survival."

The neoCons are an extension, perhaps 'merely' a continuation, of the US erring ideology, typified by their utter negation of communism, socialism, or even mild 'welfare state' assistance to the 'lower' (= poorer = serf) classes. The lower classes are *deliberately* forced there, *deliberately* held there, and if at all possible, *deliberately* made to suffer ever more.

The current attacks on Libya already vastly exceed anything needed to 'protect' any civilians, and the end-result will be the same as Iraq; namely infrastructure widely if not completely destroyed (not 'merely' military but transport, utilities = water, sewage, power, phone, possibly hospitals and schools). The other and (for the US) most important of all end-result will be the 'harvesting' of the 'economic rent' by 'the West' (mainly US multinationals) of Libya's oil. Any other result would contradict the habitual, vast, criminal record of the US.


Proof of posting:


  1. G'day IDH

    I'm not sure at all why your comment was not published. I have been having troubles with the blog since I swithced over to the new format and I've got no idea what went wrong. You know me; I'm more than happy to have your comments on my blog, even if they don't agree with me, and can assure you there was absolutely no intention of censoring you.

    You might like to take a look at my following post which I hope will provide you with some of the answers embraced by your comments.

    Anyway, rest assured there was no ill intent and may I suggest you cut and paste your comment and try it again at my blog. There has been another comment since and that, for some reason, managed to show up, so I don't know what's going on in the dark recesses of blogspot.

    All the best

  2. Thanks for the response, Damian. Hiccups can happen and we did suspect a 'blogger-fault' as possible cause. No worries, anyone interested could follow the link I put up in my 2nd comment and thus 'land' here. I will repost the original to "IF INTERVENTION IN LIBYA IS GOOD ..." anyway.