- (Nuremberg! Hang!)
.. there are *no* ...
.. harmless (i.e. 'white') lies ...
.. lies are only ever deployed to deceive
Thesis/Subtitle: Don't f**k with my mind, matey!
Preamble: The ability[1] of the human mind to believe in utter rubbish is proven by the take-up of religion(s) based on some supernatural g*d[2]; as 'supernatural[3]' is *defined* as being literally 'out of this world,' *no* evidence of any g*d is possible (according to the laws of conservation), OR some sort of 'evidence' is 'witnessed' in *direct* contravention of said conservation laws. It follows that either believers in some g*d are believing in the absence of evidence OR they 'believe' despite the conservation laws, i.e. they would assert that such laws can be *and are* violated. This article is not about religion, but rather about lies and their debilitating effects; this mini-religion-parable is a warning: Be careful what you let into / let happen inside - your head. End of preamble.
The US 'narrative[4]' goes on and on; they like to start with 'land of the free, home of the brave' and continue through 'American exceptionalism,' claims of democracy and then end with their current mantra[5]: 9/11 (bin Laden), 9/11 (bin Laden), 9/11 (bin Laden), 9/11 (bin Laden), ...
(Note: As I have recently written, *someone* pre-loaded the *3* towers with literally truck-loads of high-explosives, plus the required, coordinated & remote-controlled mini-delay detonator system, and that someone a) was *not* ObL&Co, because b) the CIA (or 'Homeland Security'), whose *job* it is to know such things, *must* have been aware of it (*and* IF the explosive-packers were 'enemy' THEN they would have been stopped??!) Imagine, if you will: *truck-loads* of explosives being delivered, at a location already once attacked - by truck-borne explosives?)
The meaning of 'narrative' has acquired a modern 'patina' = it has been 'nuanced;' it differs from history (past application) and from honest & open planning (future application) - by the deployment of lies. Two current/continuing events illustrate the point:
1. Obama: 'We brought him to justice!' = covert, sovereignty-violating, extrajudicial assassination of an unarmed 'target,' with no more than one 'actual combatant,' plus target and three hapless 'collaterals' dead. We have seen that they deployed multiple lies (i.e. firefight, woman/wife as human shield, target offered resistance); *no* worthwhile (i.e. non-criminal) 'project' needs nor ever should have a 'lie-screen' to 'hide' behind = propaganda-camouflage; one single lie is enough to 'switch off' = destroy all credibility - but the US-lie-list is looong and continually increasing. I shouldn't need to offer any proof, but here is some more anyway(see below).
Comment: There is nothing 'brave' about slaughtering unarmed people, nor is there anything 'élite' about criminality (and nothing 'free' about coercion). ObL (if it really was him - *still* not convincingly demonstrated), should have been, by all accounts *could* have been, captured and brought to trial. Perhaps the 'notional ObL' knew too much - for the perpetrators' = US regime's comfort?
2. Obama: 'We will attack Gaddafi to protect civilians!' = not so covert (as the infiltration, creation/corruption of so-called 'rebels' was/is) but still sovereignty-violating, aggressive attack, so far 'only' by manned warplanes & robot-missiles, in support of one side in a 'trumped-up' civil-war. We don’t 'do' coincidences and in any case here we can quite clearly see ulterior = $-motives; Afghanistan (pipeline routes), Iraq & Libya (oil, Iran next?), and all with regimes not concurrent with US (erring) ideology.
Comment: The US/EU/NATO attacks are nothing other than a naked colonialist pursuit of resources, their 'protect civilians' narrative is again convenient, untrue ( = lying) camouflage - had the US/EU/NATO intervention not taken place, Libya would have long ago returned to calm. And not so BTW, living standards in Libya are comparatively *very* high - what's to revolt about? Any supposed 'freedom' gained by these rebels (how much do we actually enjoy? Is it in our power, we the sheople, to stop any of 'our' wars, say?) - will be much more than offset by the punitively exploitative neoliberal regime which will result after a US/EU/NATO-sponsored 'regime-change.' You could bet your farm on it - better be quick, though, before you lose that to neoliberalism too.
[Pause - for reflection.]
Comment: We are obviously 'sinking' - being 'sunk' - by a barrage of lies, cui bono? Liars set out to deceive; anyone deceived is about to lose something, usually valuable - if they haven't already lost it. To eliminate that chance of loss, to eliminate deception, try eliminating lies.
-=*=-
Fazit: The US narrative on freedom and bravery is outright BS; it's called hypocrisy (also, not 'called' but *is* a lie). Coupled with resource-rip-offs via murdering force = AIMs4S, it's outright criminal. They 'camouflage' their criminality with lies, fed to us through and actively assisted by the corrupt & venal MSM, incl. big bits of taxpayer-funded national broadcasters like the AusBC.
There is no greater freedom than to think in the privacy of your own head. Lies, here deliberately deployed, as always only to deceive, can and do poison (by polluting one's internal 'database,' aka 'brainwashing') = damage, if not destroy that freedom.
-=*end*=-
PS
«But always--do not forget this, Winston--always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever.'»
[1984]
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] ability n. (pl. -ies) 1 (often foll. by to + infin.) capacity or power. 2 cleverness, talent. [French: related to *able] [POD]
[2] god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. [ibid.]
[3] supernatural -adj. not attributable to, or explicable by, the laws of nature; magical; mystical. -n. (prec. by the) supernatural forces, effects, etc. supernaturally adv. [ibid.]
[4] narrative -n. ordered account of connected events. —adj. of or by narration. [ibid.]
[5] mantra n. 1 Hindu or Buddhist devotional incantation. 2 Vedic hymn. [Sanskrit, = instrument of thought] [ibid.]
-=*=-
Appendix:
1. One 'story:'
US admits bin Laden unarmed when shot
«"We expected a great deal of resistance and were met with a great deal of resistance."
When a journalist insisted "He wasn't armed", Mr Carney replied: "But there were many other people who were armed in the compound. There was a firefight."
"But not in that room," the journalist pressed.
"It was a highly volatile firefight. I'll point you to the department of defence for more details about it," Mr Carney said.
The SEALs split into two: one team entering the bin Laden house ... while the other team cleared the second building.»
[AusBC, 4May'11]
2. Contradicted by:
Bin Laden's Protectors Got Off Relatively Few Shots, 'Times' Reports
«According to the Times, those officials say that:
"Bin Laden's trusted courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, opened fire from behind the door of the guesthouse adjacent to the house where Bin Laden was hiding. After the SEAL members shot and killed Mr. Kuwaiti and a woman in the guesthouse, the Americans were never fired upon again."
Bin Laden and two other men — one of them the al-Qaida leader's adult son — were also killed.»
[NPR(US), 5May'11]
Comment: Two attacking groups, one (reportedly) shot at, the other not. A "highly volatile firefight" (their words only) - but *NO* firefight in the ObL building *AT ALL* = absolute proof that they lie.
3. Confirmed (as if needed) by:
Al Qaeda confirms bin Laden's death
«Pakistani security officials say neither bin Laden nor his comrades offered any resistance during the raid.
"From the clues, evidence what we have got is they stormed in with firing shots and knocked them down," a security official said.
Another security official on Thursday said their killing was "cold-blooded".»
[AusBC, 6May'11]
Comment: Al Qaeda is a diffuse organization, even if an organization at all, and it seems hardly in such a posited organization's interest to make such an admission. As from the beginning, almost every report engenders more suspicion - why that?
Conclusion: Only one 'report' of a single event can be true; a contradiction *proves* at least one 'report' is a lie. Q: Who has motive, means and opportunity? A: Most if not all contradictory reports came directly and only from the US-regime.
4. Mini update 20:49, just found this:
White House Provides Official Account of Death of Osama bin Laden
«White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Tuesday read an official narrative ... They were engaged in a firefight throughout the operation, and Osama bin Laden was killed by the assaulting force.»
[The White House, 4May'11]
Note a) "Official Account" and b) that they dare deploy 'narrative,' and c) "a firefight throughout," although later 'reports' named just the one possible source of 'armed resistance,' quickly 'switched off' = killed (plus an unarmed woman) - and that from an 'outlying' building. Lies just don't get less naked - or more brazen.
[«back»]
-=*=-
5. Musing:
Lecture: Hellenistic Philosophy
«Thucydides gives a certain representation of what leading men among the ancient Greeks thought politics was about - competition, success and glory, in debate and in war. Like James Mill and Jeremy Bentham and many others, Thucydides assumes, or his characters do, that human beings are self-interested, that moral ideas have only a slight influence.
Plato provides a contrast with this view of Politics. Socrates is openly critical of Themistocles, Pericles, and Thucydides' other heroes. They did not make Athens powerful. Power is not ability to do whatever you fancy at the moment - the tyrant's power is useless because he does not know what to do with it. True power is the ability to achieve your most important goals. The goal is happiness, a worthwhile life; politics is cooperative action toward that goal. The statesman who really knows what politics is about does not seek his own fame and glory, but the true welfare of the citizens of the state. This requires knowledge of what a worthwhile life is like. Very few will achieve that knowledge, and only after long training and experience. The best state will be one ruled by a few genuine experts on the art of living well. Democratic politics [me: as we currently experience it] is the struggle for glory and the useless power to tyrannize.»
[Macquarie University
POL167: Introduction to Political Theory]
Fazit: Proper "of, by, for the people" democracy requires at least 1) an educated & engaged electorate - lies disable/degrade such, 2) a wide choice of *honest* candidates, who upon election 3) faithfully represent the will of the majority, whilst protecting any minorities. Current US & Aus democracies fail on all three counts.
The US & Aus 'narratives' screech 'democracy' but deliver lying, cheating and murdering-to-steal tyranny.
Where are the decent people? Are there simply none, or just not enough, to be an effective countervailing force (note that force will be required; the crims will *never* self-correct) - to stop this hideous tyranny?
No comments:
Post a Comment