for the rich
  service cuts for the sheople

.. fool me once ...

  .. shame on you[1] ...

    .. but fool the voters, over and over?


GWBush: "They hate us for our freedoms!"

Me: Err, what freedoms does he mean, exactly?

One absolutely vital freedom is to have some influence on your future, where 'some' is defined under an "of, by, for the people" democratic system as 'implementing the will of the majority whilst protecting any minorities.'

Q: How are we doing?

[update, 17:51, update, 27May'11, update, 13:11.]


Trigger article:

Abbott warns manufacturers of carbon tax 'death'
Posted May 26, 2011 06:51:00
  «Mr Abbott says he is confident there will be a manufacturing industry in the future because he does not believe there will be a carbon tax.» 

Comment: "Read my lips; no new taxes!"


Foreign article:

German Voters and the Virus of the Right
By Jakob Augstein
  «The FDP is now preparing for life without Guido Westerwelle, the current foreign minister who recently resigned as vice-chancellor in Merkel's cabinet and leader of the Free Democrats. The party needs a new identity; but it must beware of right-wing sentiment left over from its recent transformation from a classic European liberal party to a neo-liberal self-service shop.» 

Comment 1: A good question is what's behind this (sinister) drift to the so-called 'right?' One *big* thing is migration; people with some drive, living 'on the margins' somewhere, typically '3rd world,' will tend to go to where they think life might be better. Naturally, that 'impacts' the 'up-level' locals, since people starting from 'a low base' will work for less, taking job opportunities from those locals. An electorate in turmoil is an easier electorate to fool? What's never mentioned is that IF we're *forced* to have so-called 'free' markets, whereby jobs and production are 'off-shored,' THEN we must also have free migration, and this migration should *not* be a) seen as a threat by the locals, nor b) exploited by cynical, mostly r-wing politicians. In short, it should be a non-topic; "Suck it up!" - OR, if it is to be a topic, as in Aus, we should a) ban *all* immigration (equality before the 'law,') and b) could advocate machine-gunning the 'illegal immigrant' boats.

Remember Tampa!
(We will decide ...)
Remember SIEV-X!
 - 353 died.

Comment 2: It could be, that the German voters who took the FDP 'tax-cuts' bait have woken up to neo-liberalism and are now widely rejecting the FDP. If so, it's a *great* sign; pity Aus voters are apparently not so clever.


Idiocy article:

Carbon tax needs to leave out fuel: Oakeshott
By Jeremy Thompson
Updated May 18, 2011 11:41:00
  «Independent MP Rob Oakeshott says including petrol in the carbon tax would be unfair for rural Australia.» 

Comment 1: No further comment on Oakeshott's idiocy.

Comment 2: IF a carbon tax AND valid price-signals are desired (Q: What else?) THEN it must be uniformly applied across the economy, people (and world); one of the gravest failures of 'modern-day economics' is to ignore so-called 'externalities,' especially (or even only) when such externalities can be dumped somewhere, usually 'the commons' - at no immediate cost to the polluters. A carbon tax will only work to reduce CO2 pollution when the price of polluting gets high enough to a) be painful, causing b) a *significant* reduction, hopefully c) saving our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere.


General comment 1: That the so-called 'debate' is so poor, indicates one of two things, 1) they are not serious about CO2 reductions = save the planet, or 2) they are incompetent. In any case, a poor/incompetent debate dumbs the voters down; even if we the sheople had an effective choice (we don't; effectively Lib = Lab and bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic) - IF dumbed down (and lied to!) THEN no informed vote possible. Then, when elected, our so-called representatives may do what they want without further consultation. Sooo, where're our votes? Where's our freedom to decide our future?

General comment 2: That the same debate is occurring world-wide, with the same non-result, indicates a) a wide-spread malaise and b) collusion; our so-called 'rulers' are flying in close formation - better thought of as lemmings leading the pack over the (excess CO2 caused climate-change catastrophe) cliff.

Fazit: That the politicians almost everywhere are a) running the same foul, non-representative 'game' means that b) they are we the sheople's *enemy*.



[1] "There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me-- you can't get fooled again."
President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Comment: "There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity"--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


Update, 17:51; PS I got an offline question: "What would I do?" - and a 'tip' about a new Whitney.

Looking to my headline, the (neo-liberal) tax-cuts benefit mostly the already (obscenely) rich, and the service-cuts affect the country in general (rotting infrastructure not maintained/restored, say), and any dependent on welfare = the poorer in particular. There is a lag, it's easy to cut taxes but hard to reduce spending, so deficits quickly result. Along with welfare, deficits are a neoliberal sin, and so we come to the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece & Spain.) All are in deficit, all now have huge state-debts. Back to Whitney.

ICH has our 'tip' Whitney here, globalresearch has a later one here, similar themes; Greece & what the EU and IMF are planning.

Some things may be said:

1. Whitney reported/forecast an Iran switch to EUROs for oil, and an Iran oil exchange. Whether the failure to get either going was his or Iran's fault doesn't matter (much), but over the years Whitney has made a great deal of fuss and little if anything he forecast ever happened. Having said that, it *does not mean* that we don't read him, just 'with a pinch of salt.' It's still thnx for the tip.

2. However we can 'slight' Whitney for *2* other reasons:

2a) He tries to argue *within* the pushed-propaganda paradigm = PPP = lie-cloud, and

2b) His suggestions are of a sensible and/or Keynesian nature, not wanted by the world's tyrant, neo-liberal, rip-off rulers.

Others fall for (2a), like Chomsky & 9/11, say. It works like this: IF anyone tries to contradict even a minor part of the PPP THEN s/he is immediately 1) reprimanded with a mallet, and then 2) expelled from 'polite society.' Proof = best recent example; Obama: "... anyone who would question that ... needs to have their head examined." 

The problem for the PPP is that it's partly (self-serving) lies, partly pure fantasy - but approaching 100% divorced from reality *and*, therefore, all logic. Another quote: "You're either with us or against us!" Another thing about the PPP is that it is arranged around 'narratives;' these serve two purposes, 1) it keeps the lies all 'flying' in a coordinated fashion, thus reducing the chance of contradictions, and 2) it sets out their agendas, like 'neo-liberalism is good for you!' and 'bringing democracy to ignorant savages!' In this way they are 'creating their own reality.' (Sadly, to the world's people's cost.)

Looking at (2b), we assume Merkel&Co plus Lagarde are not idiots, but *are* quisling US-bots. They will have certain latitudes within their own countries, but will be fenced with US 'red lines' in all cases.

Neo-liberalism started out under a different name = 'economic rationalism' (ER) and has been embraced (more or less) by both 'sides' = Lib & Lab, but bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic *because* it offers the voter *no* choice. ER itself was pushed, say, by Thatcher crying "TINA!" = 'There Is No Alternative!' But the results, perhaps not immediately obvious, always obscured by the lying-PPP smoke-screen, are now more and more out in the open, still lied&denied but *are* awful (as we and others predicted; you and I discussed many such dirty-deeds as they were revealed/underway). Yet the ER = neo-liberal, rip-off *shit* 'conditionalities' are being pushed onto the PIIGS in broad daylight. You work it out; all documented in Perkins' "Hit Man."

Back to Merkel&Co not being idiots, they are unlikely to actually 'crash the system' - since that would get the German voters terminally pissed off. I think that they'll take it so far (see next) then back off a bit. Nevertheless, the end result will still be ruined PIIGS, but on some sort of draconian 'life support.' Like a 'service economy' = slaves = serfs, lots of hair-dressers, hamburger-flippers, house-cleaners, gardeners (for the rich estates) - thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward. Bastard.

What I keep hearing is "privatisation," hot on the heels of "austerity," both are neo-liberal keys. The 'drivers' of all this have their plans, quite possibly in 'exquisite' detail; the visible effects, everywhere you look, are a) rich getting obscenely richer, b) the rest abandoned to ever reducing 'terms and conditions.' Clearly, when most people are bankrupted down to the level of the simplest subsistence - even starving to death ('proof of concept' trial under way in Gaza) - they will have no more to be ripped off. At that point, the rich will own almost everything - to what imaginable purpose? They cannot drive more than one Porsche or Ferrari at any one time, and attempting to eat a metric tonne of oysters followed by the same of hot buttered lobster-tails a day ain't too flash on the digestion, not to mention the ½tonne of sweet-and-sour pickled/candied humming-bird tongues for desert. But nevertheless, grabbing *THE LOT* seems to be the plot.

It gets worse, because the same tyrants are actively mass-murdering for spoil; Zs soil & US oil.

Back once more to Whitney, arguing *within* the pushed-propaganda paradigm. He seems not to 'get it' - that our tyrant-rulers are doing what they are *deliberately,* with 'perfect' planning and dedicated, utterly *evil* intent. That the doing includes mass-murder (after Afgh, Iraq & Pak, Libya now under way, next?) means wide-spread *psychopathy*. As it was said of Bush, he may have sounded absolutely idiot-crazy but he (or his puppet-string pullers) actually achieved a lot - like the complete destruction of Iraq (100s of 1000s if not 1.4mio+ dead (ICH = "1,455,590")), followed by *full privatisation* - see? Obama is moving to the next 'level,' assuming that the sheople swallowed all the lies to date; the 'excuses' are getting weaker. The killing-to-steal is accelerating on the one hand, while the 'serfing' of the sheople proceeds on the other, and all the while, the obscenely rich fat-cats get ever more obscene.

Q: What would I suggest?

A: Create a proper, progressive tax structure; get those to pay who can *best* pay. Simpler - or better is not to be found.



Update, 27May'11; PPS Looking for help in all the wrong places ...

 .. I theorise but cannot prove (not a mind-reader), that everyone tries to "Do their best!"

I certainly expect you (hypothetical reader) to be one such 'everyone;' I don't have to offer you any 'benefit of the doubt.'

Similarly certainly with "we ... hold and spend currency and we also have savings (pension-plan)" in the real world; what else?

That is 'the real world' = so-called pragmatism; IF all was ok THEN we could have a relax.

IF I'm allowed a 'but' (or three), THEN these:

Preamble; but #1: We agree that things aren't all OK, so we can't have the relax; we *theorise* what might be. To be practical - again pragmatic - what we might offer, a) obviously has to work AND b) have some chance of 'getting up.' My opinion is that things have gone so inflexibly bad that even considering 'glass half full' (= Obama not sooo bad, say) just doesn't, *can't* help.

2. Whitney proposed fixes in the globalresearch article, which I commented on as I read the article, see below[2].

3. Obama is a "lesser of two evils" choice, a) any selection from a pool of evils is *still evil* and b) that evil is *putrid*, notwithstanding any cited items of 'progress.'

3a. The Egyptian 'revolution' is struggling against 'the accumulated evil' of decades of US-sponsored tyrant-dictatorship and may - repeat may - and *despite* Obama, get some success, but Obama&Co will throw *anyone* under a bus to prevent *any* country making itself independent of the vile US empire. Just remember that it is the (US-supported) miliary currently running the Egyptian show; if throwing a few crumbs (Mubarak = 80+ and just about finished anyway) to the sheople keeps Egypt on the US-line, the 'price is worth it.' Recall that Obama (Libya) = Bush (Iraq) = mass-murder for spoil. All their ducks in a single row.

3b. As for the Israel pre-'67-war border thing, we already have Netanyahu's response which was "Get lost!" - to multiple standing ovations from the US congress = cowardly quisling traitors. So the Obama gambit is 99% BS = all show and no go (for which he has 'form'), what one would actually expect from this so-called 'peace-process' = anything but. This Oh, so cynically so-termed 'peace-process,' also by AusBC = 63+ bloody years long and nothing to show for it but Israeli 'borders' expanding ever outwards, more cynically so-called 'facts on the ground.' As well as the single-digit salute, Netanyahu also totally gave the game away: Pre-'67-war borders would be "indefensible." Q: IF you made peace = end to war, THEN why would you need to 'defend' anything from your now peaceful neighbours?

A different perspective; Q: IF you had been 'ethnically cleansed by genocidal attacks' = Nakba = Deir Yassin-type attacks = booted out of your house & land at the point of a gun (assuming you'd survived the Zionist mass-murdering terrorist attacks), banished to living crammed into non-coveted land = effectively naked, sterile sand, THEN could you ever 'forgive & forget?'

Everyone 'does their best' (even criminals, but their aims are - well, criminal, so best = worst = 1984), and tries to 'enjoy every minute;' even me. But I can't ignore the realities - which are truly awful. Yes, Obama/Gillard may be preferable to some Repug/Lib - but given the way things are, it's not a matter of IF but only WHEN the badness is overwhelmingly thrust upon us. We see that trying to work *within* the system (Bob Brown, say) brings nothing at all significant. It's *the system* itself that has to go, not farting around within it. Because, quite frankly, the baddies look to have the current system sewn up. A final quote:

"First, we've asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week's G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs."

Comment: "IMF" says it all = the full neo-liberal rape. A final nail: On the radio this morning, a grim word for post-Mladic Serbia: "Privatise!" No let-up, no escape, nowhere, nohow.

Any not seeing where the wind is blowing "... needs to have their head examined." 

Q: Where are those who could save our planet?


[2] Whitney proposed fixes, my comments:

1--The EU needs to show that it's taking steps to become a viable political union with supra-national fiscal policymaking authority.

[me: not what neo-liberals want]

2--The ECB needs to be willing to spend whatever is needed to avert another meltdown.

[me: not what neo-liberals will allow]

3--Policies should be put in place for the orderly withdrawal of countries that don't fit within the EU's economic schema.

[me: = removing the EU's raison d'être?]

4--Regulations on shadow banking, derivatives, and repo transactions should be drawn up to avoid another market crash.

[me: no; neo-liberals 'believe' in status quo]

5--The EU should develop a strategy for providing long-term fiscal stimulus throughout the eurozone until unemployment falls, aggregate demand picks up, and household balance sheets show signs of improvement.

[me: Keynes = 'opposite' to neo-liberalism; despised & forbidden = never, no more (unless, of course, to rescue some big-$ mates ...)]



Update, 13:11; PPPS (and last.)

To call a spade a bloody shovel, one should never underestimate the shittiness of the situation, nor the evil = utmost wickedness of the criminal perpetrators in power (lies, cheating, theft & *mass-murder*; ho hum, just another day at the office.) As throwing Mubarak to the wolves clearly demonstrates, *no-one* is safe, not even faithful, long-serving, old men. It's not just the fear-factor, it's the vilest of terror, and it 'sends a message' to all the other quisling/collaborators: "IF stuff-up THEN watch out!" Gives a whole new perspective to "hire & fire;" perhaps 'play with predators, be prepared to pray?' Haw. To end:

Oderint dum metuant

To which the only possible rejoinder is:

Carthago delenda est (figuratively only, understand?)


No comments:

Post a Comment