it *is* simple - IF lie THEN stupid - AND it's all downhill from there [9/11 & US+Z murdering for spoil]

.. one 'proper' lie ...

  .. deliberately deployed ...

    .. demonstrates the liar's evil intent
 
[update; 1st & last]

Preamble: I often use single quotes (= '') either to draw attention OR to indicate that my meaning may differ from the definition, as 'proper[1]' above. Here, my intention is to separate lies[2] into at least two types, 1) any so-called 'white-lies' and 2) all definite untruths. Note that *no* lie is harmless, since the intention of all lies is to deceive some 'target' - who (among honest people, aka in their sane minds) needs to be deceived? I have a friend who told me "It is not simple," and he was (and still is) correct; this is one reason why some may demand 'nuanced' arguments. But complexity can be analysed, right down to the yes/no = single-bit level, which is what I try to do. The other 'non-normal' thing here is my deployment of 'stupid;' along with the 'nuance' demand comes so-called 'politeness in debate,' but times have looong been twisted to definitely not just non- but anti-normal, so we can (I will) proceed on the 'spade = shovel' basis.

-=*=-

Trigger article:

Chomsky's Follies
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, May 9, 2011, at 2:36 PM ET
  «The professor's pronouncements about Osama Bin Laden are stupid and ignorant.» 
[slate/via AusBC unleashed]

Comment: No more need be read nor written about the cited article, excepting the inference[3] I draw = both accuser and target are wrong, and more to come on that wrongness.

Lemma: I do not 'believe[4],' since belief is done by some, all in the absence of evidence. I also don't 'do' coincidences; although some definitely do occur, but when some coincidence happens to augment a crime, I do more than just go 'hmmm,' I say "Red light!" = Warning! We can see what we can see (beware lying camouflage); the rest must be deduced (see infer), we may call upon Sherlock Holmes' 'eliminate the impossible' & Occam's razor (keep it simple!) Apropos debate and see definition of proper; a 'left vs. right' paradigm is often invoked, most often by those assigning themselves to the 'right faction,' who accuse 'the left' of being wrong. IMHO, it is no coincidence that this 'left/right' terminology invokes a biased frame. Shows the deviousness of those r-whingers, yes? That those same r-whingers support the US/Z crimes almost finishes my case = QED; but we need more, specifically to point to a few more ugly, lying = criminal acts. End lemma.

Aside: None of this is 'rocket-science,' but all is needed for this 'ramble.'

-=*=-

Morality; The Age of Reason vs. the Age of Aquarius:

By 'Age of Reason' I don't mean 'Age of Enlightenment;' I'll come to that shortly. All young humans go through a phase of complete trust (in their 'primary carers'), for at least two reasons; a) they lack significant data (need time to learn) and more importantly, b) their brains = minds are still immature. This is 'evolution in action;' a good example is "Don't touch that Redback spider!" or "Do not run across the road!" Penalties for distrusting such 'advice' may be severe; hence the *unconscious* = unconditional trust, and (mostly) obedience. Then the child grows up a bit; they begin to exercise more 'mature' thought-processes, gain some scepticism and start to decide things for themselves. If lied to before this 'Age of Reason,' the ramifications for a child can be severe = shock, loss of trust, possibly deepening into permanent disillusionment. Not 'a good look,' psychopathy may be an extreme result - or a new 'believer' created, if a) the lie is of some supernatural 'narrative' (= proselytizing) and b) the lie is not (immediately) detected. I term this latter 'event' child abuse, here state-sponsored.

The Age of Aquarius (my conviction):

... make a speech to their
teenagers and say kids, be free,
be whatever you are, do whatever you
want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody.

The 'process' of child-rearing is to enable a viable life for the child; that means (earlier) hunting &/ gathering (more modern) 'earning' a living (= jobs, jobs, jobs!) - and interacting successfully with 'fellow' humans. This latter may be termed 'socialisation,' sub-topics morality & legality. Children *should* be taught such things as:

"Don't hit!"
"Don't take!" (i.e. Things not yours!)
"Don't lie!"

Recalling that things are not simple, we know there's more to this topic ...

And remember kids,
I am your friend."

The measure of success will be visible as the child's success itself (or not), and whether parents (= primary carers) achieve and hold 'friend' status. The most important 'non-event' will be not lying to children, ever. And not 'just' not to children.

Morality summary (good): It's easy a) Golden rule = "Do unto others, ..." and corollary b) Do no harm.

Legality follows as a formalisation of good morality, *except* where vested interests pervert the law; only just law may earn respect.

The converse to good morality is bad = immorality, the converse to legality is bad = illegal and/or illegitimate = criminal.

The 'Age of Enlightenment' is where I thought we were heading (but other influences have prevailed):

  «The Enlightenment advocated reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and even religion, which would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the whole of reality. Emboldened by the revolution in physics commenced by Newtonian kinematics, Enlightenment thinkers argued that reason could free humankind from superstition and religious authoritarianism that had brought suffering and death to millions in religious wars. Also, the wide availability of knowledge was made possible through the production of encyclopedias, serving the Enlightenment cause of educating the human race.» 
[newworldencyclopedia/Age of Enlightenment]

Comment 1: We've come full-circle, right back to: "Superstition and un- & anti-democratic authoritarianism that have brought suffering and death to millions in resource wars." Now, thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the US and Zs, we have the prospect of permanent wars for spoil; the Zs for soil, the US for oil (plus any other resource they think they can rip the economic rent off.)

Q: What went sooo wrong?

Comment 2: For those who would murder to steal, lying is their 'entry,' it's how they all start off, and none ever leave off.

-=*=-

[Sorry (but not too sorry) for the delay; priorities, then 'a little help' from Blogger. Resuming @ 16:51 Fri 13th, with brevity for speed:]

Along with Sherlock (eliminate the impossible) & Occam (no unnecessary complexity), we can add 'proof by result;' we needn't analyse each step but may go by observed end-effects.

Initial position statement:

1, Pro: Truth, justice, fairness; 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité.'

2, Anti: Lies, cheating, theft & murder; war. (Note: Eliminate aggressive attack = no war *possible*.)

3, Essentially, I'm a 'conservative' when it comes to our once jewel-like planet; I'd like to see it stay as undamaged as possible, i.e. *strictly* sustainably 'managed.' The obvious ideal is for as much as possible to remain pristine, as opposed to being ravaged & plundered. I'm a 'liberal' when it comes to people (leave your neighbours in peace!) - and for 'free speech' (say what you please, excepting 'hate-speech' (a Z-speciality)), and 'anti-neo-liberal' when it comes to business/economy; no cheating, no rent-extraction & a 'fair go' = any profit to be well-distributed between capital and labour, and any required 'tax burden' to be similarly well-distributed = progressive. Privatisation of 'the commons' = theft in the main, and rip-off profit seeking in the particular. All normal and common-sense, IMHO, and nothing at all controversial.

-=*=-

Prioritised problems:

1, Excess CO-2 caused climate-change catastrophe.

2, Murder for spoil wars.

3, The iniquitous economic system.

4, The lack of effective countermeasures for (1-3).

5, Corollary, that we are mis- and mal-informed, mis- and mal-ruled (as opposed to 'led') and generally mis- and mal-treated.

Recall that one deliberate lie exposes evil intent; only crooked = 'simple' rip-offs, through to murderingly criminal projects 'require' lies as camouflage. Since I don't 'do' coincidences, I'm assuming 1-5 form a 'cause and effect' relationship.

In reverse order from (5), it's trivial to prove that we are mis- and mal-informed; a definitive proof is given by the AusBC. The perennial 'left-bias' accusation is a r-whinger ploy; the AusBC 'supported' the US(+UK, Aus) Nuremberg-class AIMs4S[5] destruction of Iraq by transmitting *and augmenting* the US 'black' propaganda, as they did vis-à-vis Afghanistan, and do now v-à-v Libya (Iran next?) But if possible worse, the AusBC 'supports' the Zionist AIMs4S massive crimes against the hapless Palestinian ELO/Os[5], and has done so for longer than I've been paying attention = most of my life. Note here, that there are at least two ways of lying; direct, outright lies and lies-of-omission; the AusBC 'practises' both. Being mis- and mal-informed impairs deliberation = implications for voting.

Similarly, it's trivial to prove that we are mis- and mal-ruled; the bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic, *unforced* application of neo-liberal policies by governments across the so-called 'West' is *demonstrably* not in we, the sheople's interest. Yet they persist, even now in the face of proof-by-result = evil consequences. Together, mis-informed plus mal-ruled = fatally crippled democracies.

The mis- and mal-treatment is obvious to casual inspection; look no further than the growing poverty and pitifully miserable health-outcomes for the less well-off in the US, so-called 'world-leader' - which it is, when it's realised that what they are actually leading in, is evil in multifarious forms. Together, mal-ruled plus mal-treatment = cooperating tyrannies.

As to 4, the lack of effective countermeasures; it should be clear that such are *not* in our criminally evil tyrannies' interest, any/all attempts are aggressively opposed (but they are few, we the sheople are many).

Then 3, the iniquitous economic system *is* in our tyrannies' interest; the fat-cats are getting obscenely fatter.

So 2, Murder for spoil wars = par for the criminal course = making utter mockery of 'free' markets.

It follows that 1, the excess CO-2 caused climate-change catastrophe = the tyrannies' plot.

Not that they cause it; that they do nothing effective to stop it is proof-by-result = evil.

-=*=-

All of the above negativity could be combated by competent leadership, but not only is it not combated, the intention is clearly lacking - the alternative = attempting but failing would be an admission of massive incompetence. That nothing is said (corrupt&venal MSM, AusBC as example); that the so-called 'world-leaders' are not visibly reacting to what is painfully obvious to those of us who wish to see, means that they are proceeding in secrecy = conspiracy (n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire] [POD].

It only remains to 'guess' at our tyrannies' intentions here; the expected consequence of the CO-2 caused climate-change = massive damage to, if not outright destruction of - our one and only life-support system.

To the guess we all may make, prompted by Q: Which would leave us, we the sheople, exactly where?
 
[No more to come... see update. Here's something to read anyway.]

-=*=-

PS On 'that wrongness:'

AFAIK, Chomsky has never seriously contested that hijacked, crashing aircraft 'caused' 9/11. IF so THEN that's a *huge* failure = wrong, Chomsky.

Clearly, Hitchens puts *all* the 'blame' on ObL. IF so THEN that's a *huge* failure = wrong, Hitchens.

Yes, IF the videos (squillions!) were not faked (impossible!) THEN aircraft impacted *two* towers, and *something* happened at the Pentagon (insufficient wreckage (like, *no* wings) = *not* a civil airliner), similarly *something* made a large hole in a paddock (little to *no* visible wreckage, so what could it have been?) But the towers did not fall down due to jet-fuel fire; 1) impossible by physics (jet fuel fire temperatures (relatively low) vs. steel-melting temperatures (relatively = impossibly high). 2) The symmetrical, into the footprint collapse = carefully placed explosives and 3) WTC7 (not struck) = all *3* controlled demolitions. One thing ObL&Co *never* would be able to do (without being discovered, or having permission) - would be to have pre-loaded all *3* towers with high explosives plus the associated remote-controlled, mini-delay detonator network.

Backing-up to the hijacks, the FBI admits it had *no* evidence linking ObL to 9/11. That's about as official as it gets. But even if the alleged hijacking bastards were all ObL's bastards, the aircraft did *not* cause the towers to fall. The crashing aircraft were merely Hollywood-style 'special effects' = stunts. This will never change, cannot change. Even if it had been ObL's cameramen dancing in the park (instead of Israelis), the towers didn't collapse Oh, so neatly due to fire. Not the way nature operates, if one were to think about it.

Both Chomsky and Hitchens attempt to work 'inside the system,' neither can seriously contradict the 'official narrative.' Chomsky's fault for not doing so, Hitchens fault for supporting it - since that official narrative *cannot* be true.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] proper  adj. 1 a accurate, correct (gave him the proper amount). b fit, suitable, right (at the proper time). [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. [ibid.]

[3] infer  v. (-rr-) 1 deduce or conclude. 2 imply.  inferable adj. [Latin fero bring] [ibid.]

[4] believe  v. (-ving) 1 accept as true or as conveying the truth (I believe it; don't believe him). 2 think, suppose. 3 (foll. by in) a have faith in the existence of (believes in God). [ibid.]

[5] AIMs4S vs. ELO/Os; worst example Zionists vs. Palestinians:

  AIMs4S = aggressive/alien invader-murderers for spoil.

  ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers.

Comment: How the world tolerates such injustice is beyond me.

-=*=-
 
Update; 1st & last, 15May'11: This is taking too long, got too fiddly. Any taking notice should know most, if not all of it anyway; still I hope that some may have benefited, and my time wasn't wasted since I enjoyed the writing (as far as writing of the blackest negativity can be enjoyed). Here is a fair summary of what I've been trying to aim at:

Yes, They Lied; Yes, a Million Died; and Yes, They Want It To Go On
Written by Chris Floyd
Thursday, 12 May 2011 21:19
  «They did it for the oil. They did it for the dominance. And they are doing their damnedest to keep doing it. Anyone who supports and champions the elites who seek to perpetuate this abominable gorging on innocent blood -- including cool, progressive Peace Laureates -- is knowingly making themselves morally complicit in this ongoing atrocity.
Here there is no shuffling. The invasion [here Iraq, but others, starting with Palestine by alien/invader Zionists]-- and the occupation (or the "military presence") -- were and are based on arrant lies. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been murdered, slaughtered, ripped from life, sent down to darkness because of these lies. If you support those who will not call these crimes by their right name, and seek to extend them -- in whatever form -- then you too are a supporter of murder. If that's what you want to be, fine; but be sure you recognize yourself for what you are.» 
[chris-floyd]

Comment: It's what we (the antiwars) said at the time; "No murder for oil!" We could see it coming and it was so, but they didn't listen. Similar wars have been happening = instigated since at least the dual war crimes that are the A-bombings, and Perkins' "Hit Man" showed what happens before the wars = coercion, corruption & criminal resource rip-offs. One reason for the crimes 'slipping under the radar' is the propaganda-camouflage conduited, and often *actively assisted* by the corrupt & venal MSM, including taxpayer-funded broadcasters like the AusBC. Any regular readers may yawn perhaps; ho-hum, seen(read) it all before, but what Chris Floyd says is true; all those who do not do their best to resist the murdering to thieve criminals (mainly US&Z regimes = M/I/C/4-plex, but also quisling collaborator regimes like UK & Aus, now France) are part of the war-problems, then there's the excess-CO2 = climate-change catastrophe problem. These problems which, if not quickly 'resolved' (see Chomsky "something to read" above) - will kill most humans off, as our life-supporting ecosphere 'crashes' = is deliberately crashed.

'Good' morality is easy; "Live & let live," "Don't touch things not yours" and "Fair go, ya mug!" What I still don't understand is how it got so bad - where are the *good* people, those who should be our leaders? Who let the crims in, now completely taken over? The nightmare could hardly be worse - yet it will get ever worse, until the crims are stopped & removed.

[«back»]