criminal is
 as criminal does -
  Murdoch and the corrupt&venal MSM

drafting - under review

.. democracy ...

  .. cannot live whilst ...

    .. being smothered by a lie-cloud


The Murdoch phone-bugging scandal is just the tip of a *very* dirty iceberg.

Examine this headline:

For Years, the Tabloids' Sting Kept British Politicians in Line
  «Fear of media harassment and political necessity have long underpinned the uneasy collusion between British politicians and the nation's tabloids.» 

Comment: NYT is itself corrupt, yet even they can't lie all the time.

That's not all. As well as running a 'political agenda,' Murdoch and the corrupt&venal MSM - including, to their ever-lasting shame & *damnation*, the AusBC - all together tell us outrageous lies.

The case should not need any further proof - only the totally brain-dead may still be unaware, but just in case:

1. That Murdoch's papers lie, proof = continuous malfeasance, from the current scandal all the way 'back' at least to the continuous, despicable and scurrilous '72-'75 campaign against the twice democratically elected PM Whitlam & his Labor party government.

2. That the corrupt&venal MSM lie, proof = Iraq's *non-existent* WMDs.

3. That the AusBC lies, proof = Israeli hasbara, conduited *and actively assisted* by the taxpayer-funded AusBC, including the un- & anti-democratic 'unleashed' moderators.


Now, always worth a repeat, "of, by, for the people etc." democracy *requires*, among a few other vital components, a fully and fairly informed electorate.

Smothering the people with a lie-cloud clearly falls more than just a bit short...

That's still not all. As we see with UK PM Cameron, there is a 'working relationship' between the corrupt&venal MSM and the government, as proved by Cameron hiring a Murdoch cast-off.

The 'full scoop' is that both 'opposing' parties in our predominately two-party system cooperate more or less fully with the MSM, the only exception being when some part or all of the MSM decides to attack one side or the other; in the case of Murdoch usually the 'nominally left' party = Labor in Aus, say.

One could say that being attacked is the fault of the party, since occasionally they are in power and could 'deal with' any rogue elements - yet they don't so deal; why not? See the nyt article, perhaps.

But that's still not all.

Our so-called 'leaders' are not leaders at all, they're *pushers*. They push 'the program' onto us, we the *supposedly* sovereign people, this pushing otherwise being known as 'engineering consent.' Here's another article (headline only):

Democratization Can't Save Europe
  «Despite the myriad problems currently facing the European Union, democratization is not the answer. Rather, the EU's elites need to improve -- and power has to be taken away from the periphery.» 

Comment: Clear; disenfranchise the people even further. A dis-informed, mal-informed, outright deceived electorate cannot make rational voting decisions (except possibly to rebel); no consent may be 'engineered' = procured, from a deliberately dumbed-down populace.

Here's another article (headline only):

Brown takes aim at papers' 'criminal links'
  «Former British prime minister Gordon Brown has accused Rupert Murdoch's media empire of using criminals to obtain his private documents.» 

Comment: Brown can now afford to snipe; he's a 'yesterday' person. Cameron has already ordered a public inquiry, but we all know that enquiries are *also* corrupt, and will only return 'pre-specified' results. Nevertheless, it's going to be 'touch and go' before some accommodation is found.

In a nutshell: The 'democratic covenant' is totally kaput; we the people are powerless passengers, and the so-called 'leaders' are leading us over several cliffs; economic (neoliberalism), war (murder for spoil) & environmental = excess-CO2 caused climate-catastrophe.


Fazit: Stop referring to our 'modus vivendi' as democracy; it ain't.

Where's my effective vote?


[more later - perhaps]

No comments:

Post a Comment