criminal negligence and breach of contract = divorce + punitive settlement!

.. democracy ...

  .. totally illegitimate ...

    .. without *informed* consent

Thesis: "Do what we say, and nobody gets hurt!" = Mafia stand-over methodology, *exactly* what our so-called 'leaders' mean when they say 'There is no alternative!' = "TINA!" This is deception, because there is not no but some alternatives, i.e. *better* ones; by deceiving us they are lying, by denying us a better alternative they are cheating us, this is breach of their contract = corruption. It means that they, our so-called 'leaders' make themselves illegitimate; no legitimacy = no valid laws. We the people need to 'roll-back' the results of this corruption to get to a better deal (at least as good as what we once had) - and not coincidentally, to save our once jewel-like planet from the rulers' depredations = excess-CO2 pollution caused climate-change habitat chaos/disaster.
 
[update, 20:20]

-=*=-

Consider "of, by, for the people" = so-called 'representative' democracy.

We the people agree to be ruled = surrender control over our own destiny, for which we are to receive 'protection' from the rulers against some threat (who knows what? But see Hobbes, below.)

The social contract:
  «Social contract theory played an important historical role in the emergence of the idea that political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.» 
[wiki/Social_contract]

Comment, note: "... consent of the governed." The only meaningful consent is fully & fairly informed.

Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil:
  « ... Hobbes argues for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. Hobbes wrote that chaos or civil war – situations identified with a state of nature and the famous motto Bellum omnium contra omnes ("the war of all against all") – could only be averted by strong central government.» 
[wiki/Leviathan_(book)]

Comment, note: "... absolute sovereign," also "the war of all against all."

Starting sometime before Thatcher, someone developed a 'new theory' = neoliberal economics, the names Friedman (monetarism, Chicago School) & Hayek ("Road to Serfdom") come to mind, then came Thatcher's "TINA!" Before Bush#41 allied himself with Reagan, he termed neoliberalism 'voodoo' economics; he was correct.

The Road to Serfdom:
  « ... the Austrian-born economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek (1899–1992) between 1940–1943, in which he ”warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning,”[1] and in which he argues that the abandonment of individualism, liberalism, and freedom inevitably leads to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual.» 
[wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom]

Comment, note: "... tyranny that inevitably results from government control... " etc..

Monetarism:
  « ... is a tendency in economic thought that emphasizes the role of governments in controlling the amount of money in circulation. It is the view within monetary economics that variation in the money supply has major influences on national output in the short run and the price level over longer periods and that objectives of monetary policy are best met by targeting the growth rate of the money supply.» 
[wiki/Monetarism]

Comment: Note that one of the neoliberal so-called 'reforms' (thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Costello), was to make the RBA 'independent' (of government), thus 'liberating' a lever of 'democratic' control (assuming it was ever democratic in the 1st place, IMHO an unwarranted assumption). But the upshot is that even the possibility of the control of money-creation is now totally beyond the hands of we, the (supposedly sovereign) people. Long-story short: Delegated power ditched; those who can't steer are (hapless) passengers; hope is a non-operative policy and controlling is infinitely better than trusting.

One more item for now:

Note that since Nixon 'crashed' the US$ (going off gold, Aug'71), the US$ is fiat = 'printed' - and this leads directly to the current shocking state of world finances, getting ever worse.

-=*=-

Bankers gone berserk: At least since the Weimar-wheelbarrows event, people have been aware of the printing = inflation danger; see Monetarism above. Under 'fractional-reserve' banking, money is 'printed' = created by key-stroke on banks' computers. Such control-mechanisms that exist (central bank, any remaining regulation) are *supposed* to ensure that printing does not depart from proper need - as measured by inflation, better the (desired) lack of it. In Aus, the RBA has an inflation-band target set at or under 3%. (Q: Why not 0% = *no* inflation? I am not aware of any valid reason; me at fault - or the fault of info we are 'allowed?')

That printing may be out of control is illustrated by inflation; in day-to-day living it is supposedly kept low (see 3% 'target'), but the figures are 'fiddled' by *not* including all factors (like house-rents, say), or substituting some falling priced item for a climbing one - a continually changed 'basket' makes comparison 'difficult...' Then, there're assets (stocks, housing, say.) The stock markets are *the* single indicator; funny how they continue to rise and rise - mostly, crashes excepted. (JMK, JKG & Co can explain/fix.) House prices in Aus doubled - coincidentally(??!) after Costello halved the CGT. Privatisation arose, in part, to supply more 'investment opportunities' - another part = "user to pay" = toll-booth the commons.

All money starts out as a loan; some entity borrows it, normally to start some business, the entity purchases things and services, the money paid out ends up back in the bank as deposits (however temporarily), and excepting here cash, which may (untraceably) wander a bit. But the borrowed money has a cost = interest, which accrues continuously. Another but, however much money is 'out there,' so interest is being paid by someone (from business profits, perhaps), and this interest is a) a drag on the system (usually at cost to the customer), and b) forms *unearned* profits for the banks (less overheads and the comparatively miserable pittance paid on deposits, i.e people 'in the black' - not too many of them, these days.)

Un-earned income is not the province of banks only; look to the resources sector (iron ore/coal mining, oil drilling etc.), say. Buy low/sell high is a capitalist principle which differs from 'cost-plus;' the difference over cost-plus is the unearned part = 'economic rent' and *might* be OK in the demand/supply frame, but is definitely *not* OK when the economic rent is being 'harvested' = ripped-off from we, the people - as it is with *our* minerals (we the sovereign owners), and the profits (often after extravagant = piggish deductions), going to shareholders (who by definition are not 'working' for the income), and especially when those shareholders are o/s = $s fleeing the country (83%!) Hence the correctness of economic rent taxes (RSPT or MRRT), which should be set at securing a fair 'share' for we the people - but typically are not - thanks, but "No, thanks!" to lobbyists & general political thuggery.

Un-earned income, equally if not more than earned income (what you and I get paid for doing something, call working or in modern-speak 'jobs, jobs, jobs!') - should be taxed, and that at a fair rate; it's part of the social contract, meaning the rulers are allowed to rule by us, on the understanding that they look after us - by providing *required* services (water, sewage, elec. etc.) - and especially health-services = Medibank, original '72-'75 version. Anything for-profit will preferentially generate profits - adding yet another drag on the people's cost of living, and egalitarian service-withdrawal = falling standard of living.

Now, to a *BIG BUT*, the so-called leaders are *un-taxing* income, *reducing* services, privatising = *flogging-off* 'the family silver' = govt. enterprises (water, sewage, elec. etc.), all the time screeching "TINA!" But it's not true = (mostly) lies. The non-lie part is 'tax-cuts,' the lie-part bit comes in when they preferentially un-tax the rich, whilst 'widening the tax-base' with *regressive* taxes = GST.

In other words and always worth a repeat, any idiot can cut or promise to cut taxes - what's *not* properly explained is that the cuts are heavily prejudiced against the people, to the advantage of the already-rich getting ever more obscenely richer - a demonstrable effect, as we can quite plainly see.

So far, I've described aspects of neoliberalism; adding to our woes is globalisation, and all the nasties which go with both, namely making the working person's life hell, and any unlucky to need 'welfare' services both poorer and sadder and those without sufficient $s for privatised medicine quicker and less comfortably dead - in the extreme case.

-=*=-

The facts are that neoliberalism/globalisation is by-and-large a swindle, see Perkins' "Economic Hit Man," IMF *forcing* their vile SAPs on mostly 3rd world countries, then so-called 'democracies' applying neoliberalism/globalisation bipartisanly = un- & anti-democratically, finally those countries which have so far resisted, now being forced by tax-cut deficits to SAP themselves - again by the so-called 'leaders,' *against* the interests of the people (increasing riots; what else to do but protest - then possibly cynically employed 'rent-a-mobs' to generate the (peaceful revolution destroying) violence?)

-=*=-

Fazit: We see that our so-called 'leaders' are leading us astray, the proof is before our eyes. "TINA" is a lie; most of the 'good bits' we once had are gone or being dismantled (see Ireland, Greece, Portugal, other PIIGS etc., plus; possible 'stand-out' = Iceland). The people most 'responsible' (actually, of course, irresponsible), are being traitors to us, we the people.

It used to be (Eureka Stockade, say) "No taxation without representation!" Well, we got representatives - who have betrayed us, very badly indeed.

Q: Where are the truly clever people, those who could provide effective countervailing force - to save us, and save our planet?

-=*end*=-

PS It is easy to see that democracy as we experience it is a total failure, one proof (of many) is the filthy lie-cloud = pushed-propaganda paradigm they mislead = dumb the people down with. What is hard to even contemplate is how sooo many can be sooo bad for sooo long; Q: What is their trick? What's their 'rationalisation?' What is their excuse, where did it come from, who maintains it?

Bah!

Then, there's the illegitimacy aspect; only *just* law may *earn* respect. A 'good' = bad example is anti-drugs laws; people may (more or less) poison themselves with tobacco, or drink themselves to stupefaction with alcohol, but even there the police are being given ever more power to harass. 'Recreational' drugs, some less harmful than T&A, should be an issue *only* for the user; heroin, even if taken as a known potential suicide-method, is no outside agent's business (apart from but especially so, in a deliberately maintained unemployment-plagued society). But whatever laws, IF the representatives are not working *for* us (my thesis), THEN they are working *against* us; *any/all* laws they may attempt are *invalid*.

One objective of neoliberalism is to 'downsize' government; tax cuts (mainly off the rich) = deficits and/or service-cuts and privatisations, *exactly* what they're forcing onto the Greeks this week. Ergo, government downsized, except for the tyranny.

This leads us back to Hobbes and Hayek; traitorous, un- & anti-democratic leaders are tyrants = Hobbes' absolute sovereigns, the neoliberalism/globalisation being forced on us = Hayek's serfdom. Hobbes' war against all others is the US+Zs resource wars against any/all substantial resource-owners = us, we the people. We are there = Hobbes' and Hayek's hell, also coinciding with Orwell's 1984, to boot:

  «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.'» 

We, the people's human face - under vicious tyrants' boots - for ever?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] consent  -v. (often foll. by to) express willingness, give permission, agree. -n. voluntary agreement, permission. [Latin sentio feel] [POD]

[2] sovereign  -n. 1 supreme ruler, esp. a monarch. 2 hist. British gold coin nominally worth £1. -adj. 1 supreme (sovereign power). 2 self-governing (sovereign State). 3 royal (our sovereign lord). 4 excellent; effective (sovereign remedy). 5 unmitigated (sovereign contempt). [French so(u)verain: -g- by association with reign] [ibid.]

[3] absurd  adj. wildly illogical or inappropriate; ridiculous.  absurdity n. (pl. -ies). absurdly adv. [Latin: related to *surd] [ibid.]

[4] abstruse  adj. hard to understand, profound. [Latin abstrudo -trus- conceal] [ibid.]

-=*=-
 
Update, 20:20; PPS (Warning; discriminatory framing): 'Moaning' about the rich getting richer is denigrated by the status quo apologist/trolls as 'wealth envy,' an absurd[3] debating tactic (close to abstruse[4], as zu Guttenberg (aka zu Googleberg, aka a proven liar) deployed). To make any argument personal is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, as unnecessary as it's distasteful (not to mention *wrong*). IF a) our world were infinite AND b) all else were equal, THEN c) the status of the obscenely rich would be less than a trivial curiosity. BUT our world is very definitely *finite* AND the rich are - basically, not all of course but *largely* - criminals; the latter *proven*, especially by their neoliberal modus operandi = ripping us, we the people off. In contrast to 'moaning,' I advocate for social justice, so I query the motivation and methodology of our rulers, along with their (by definition in mufti = dodgy) string pullers. By now, we should all know about the big lie; we know we're being lied to, and that the liars give themselves an excuse, namely some noble lie. (Whatever that might be; secrecy = enemy of democracy, here we see a BIG reason why; the definition actually contains the warning: 'if uncovered ... noble lies ... would cause discord.') IF some people put themselves above us, we the people (as our so-called 'leaders' obviously do), THEN we have to consider some 'noble lie' *excuse* vs. some expected 'noblesse oblige' [n. privilege entails responsibility. [French] [POD]]. The so-called 'leaders' clearly fail (by their *demonstrated* irresponsibility) - leaving us, we the people - right in the shit. Note that their lies are *not* helping; the world is on a downwards-spiral to disaster. There's nothing élite about crime or criminals; their lies don't work so well anymore (MSM now bypass-able), much less their supposed but totally absent noblesse. To the so-called 'leaders:' Kindly cease, desist & disappear - or *be* removed; we'd be better off *not* being led at all, rather than suffer such disastrous, lying ... (fill in your own descriptor(s).)

[«back»]

yes, there is an alternative and it's called 'social justice,' à la liberté, égalité, fraternité

.. simple really ...

  .. share all your toys ...

    .. don't touch things not yours

Thesis: Some learn such in kindergarten, others apparently never.

-=*=-
 
[update, 15:59.]

Possibly even earlier than Thatcher (TINA!) - right down through to today, the economic bandits are screeching "There is no alternative!" - as they set out to *force* privatisation and austerity onto Greece, say (as only one of the PIIGS; Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. Belgium & UK could be added.) Yes, Greece has borrowed, and yes, possibly over-borrowed, but the EU 'authorities' had every chance to stop them (chances possibly reduced by US-investment bank advice as to how to disguise/hide Greece's sins), and the banks or whoever, freely, willingly loaned them the money. Loaning money always carries some risk, but the risks are all being pushed onto the Greek people - who basically had nothing to do with the problems - except possibly by the so-called 'democracy' mechanism.

Note that democracy is defeated if the voters are deceived - as we continually and thoroughly are, thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the corrupt AusBC & the rest of the venal MSM.

The "Ah ha!" moment was made available latest with Perkins' "Economic Hit Man;" it turns out that the IMF is a vicious economic thug, pursuing policies which a) impoverish its targets whilst simultaneously b) enriching its patrons, namely the big banks, always 'led' by Wall St.

The IMF foist its policies 1stly onto under-developed nations by - ta ra! - *knowingly* making loans that the targets found hard to resist, then near-impossible to pay back. The IMF then imposed its SAPs, forcing government spending down and forcing governments to privatise things like electricity & water supply. Sound familiar? Now, when I heard Merkel include the IMF in the EU process, I *knew* what was coming.

One very odd thing is that some countries have implemented this shitty economic policy *voluntarily* - but not just, also bipartisanly - see Aus, D, many others. Note that bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic - since it offers the voters *no* effective choice.

Always worth a repeat: Any idiot can cut taxes, or even just promise to (look at Abbott - or perhaps better not); the dumbed-down and lied-to voters are seemingly too silly to realise that by encouraging the tax-cuts, they are actually cutting their own throats - as all can plainly see now, and some of us immediately anticipated back in the days - but see 'deceived' above.

Globalisation + neoliberalism = so-called economic 'rationalism' was deliberately constructed[1] to enable the mostly already rich to make themselves ever richer, and that to- and past- the point of obscenity, at the expense of rest of the world's people. The bi-product of these rip-offs now mortally threatens our life-supporting planet's ecosphere, via excess pollution, most importantly CO2 emissions and CH4 = methane release, triggered by global-warming (i.e. Arctic ice visibly reducing). They pushed economic 'rationalism' onto us, erring ideologists all; their "TINA!" was then, is now and always will be nothing but a lie.

Our world is spinning down into multiple catastrophes, as listed in my recent democracy, life & everything - just as easy as 1, 2, 3.

But contrary to what they screech, there *are* alternatives, and much better ones to boot:

1. Banking; nationalise them *all*, or at least the money-creation part. ALL money should be created ONLY by the government, and only sufficient for the economic-need, as precisely measured against a benchmark target of ZERO inflation. The interest raised would go to 'social-justice' type services, starting with single (government) payer medicine, à la the original '72-'75 Medibank, extending through fair welfare and including the natural, commons-based monopolies like water, sewage, elec., fixed-phone(NBN) & transport = mass-transit, roads, rail etc..

Note: Cooperation trumps confrontation, both Fordism (fairly sharing the fruits of labour) and Keynes (“euthanasia of the rentier”) were and remain correct.

2. Implement a properly-progressive, simplified taxation system. Mathematically easy; one merely graphs incomes by bracket, and distributes the remaining tax-needs (after the interest raised as in (1)) - in a fair way, namely those who can pay more, do.

3. All (modern) war is nothing more nor less than murdering-for-spoil; soil as in the improperly confiscated and occupied parts of Palestine (neither the UN nor anyone else had/has the authority to steal Palestinian land/property, *GIVE IT ALL BACK*!) - oil as in Iraq, pipeline routes as in Afghanistan, US+Z hegemony everywhere the US/NATO/Zs are attacking.

*All* military forces should be withdrawn to behind the owning-countries' borders, and the invading Zs (plus all dependents) should return whence they came.

-=*=-

.. simple really ...

  .. share all your toys ...

    .. don't touch things not yours

-=*=-

Each of the above 1, 2, 3 policies, or something very similar, would be chosen by a great majority of every 'wo/man in the street' - if properly informed & given a really free (= non-coerced, non-limited = wide-spectrum) choice - always, as usual and of course, IMHO. *That* would be true democracy in action; the great majority of we, the people are fair and decent - in stark contrast to our *oppressor/rulers*.

Then we could settle in to enjoy a just peace, whilst getting on with *not* burning ever-more fossil carbon, working towards a sustainable life on our once jewel-like planet; it's the only one we've got, bugger it and we're *all* up shit-creek in a barbed-wire canoe.

-=*end*=-
 
[1] Update, 15:59; PS "Deliberately constructed" not only implicates the so-called 'think tanks' built by 'sponsorship $s' as the probable 'inventors' of the wickedly erring neoliberal ideology - but also the universities, who now teach the rubbish as the 'unique non-alternative' - to the Enlightenment. The universities were initially corrupted by 'more of the same' neoliberal nonsense; they were partly or fully privatised, making them increasingly dependent on sponsorship - and therefore and not 'by the way' corruptible, but even further, now have to waste large amounts of time & effort scrounging for funds, instead of better using their brains on research, productive or 'pure' - whatever.

Academic independence was seemingly deliberately destroyed, the brains re-deployed - *for* evil. Well, academics? No sense, no feelings? Bah!

The malevolents' progress is incremental; they say (for example) 'Stagflation proves Keynes doesn't work - so here, take this neoliberalism (poison) pill & move on!' What they don't say is that stagflation was a 'natural' result of a) the Vietnam war winding down, b) an oil-crisis (possibly prompted, at least LIHOP) and c) on the whole (more but different) *erring* policy settings.

The Enlightenment represented the (good!) moral peak; the arseholes - mostly in the US, but 'echoed' by their corrupt quisling accessories (like Lib/Lab in Aus, say, or Cameron/Merkel/Sarkozy) - are deliberately destroying even the concept of governments working *with/for* the people. Then, they have the nerve to claim that we are sooo lucky, living in a democracy! Sooo lucky, that we bomb others (Iran '53, Iraq '91, '03, Afghanistan '01, now Pakistan, Yemen, Libya '11 - next Iran (again)) into pacified, abject, *fake-democratic* misery?

That anyone would deliberately set out to wind-back progress towards the Enlightenment tells us *loads* about the perpetrators themselves, but what of their accessories = our politicians, our so-called 'representatives?' That these 'representatives' can force obvious (when properly perceived & analysed) anti-people policies upon us tells us "It's time!" - to get rid of not just representative government, but the representatives themselves - who are definitely *not* our friends, rather they are our proven, fiendish enemies, let the tumbrels roll!

PPS One other thing: We are witnessing an ostensibly clever psyop, see any of my discussions of 'lie-cloud' = pushed propaganda paradigm - with an objection, there's nothing at all clever about crime. Crime, whether delimited by proper laws or enabled by corrupt law (only just law may earn respect), means unjust exploitation = rip-offs (= cheating theft, murder). All the facts are visible - but continually obscured by the corrupt & venal MSM. It means that those cooperating with the criminals, either as direct accessories or indirect apologists, make themselves as equally guilty as the prime perpetrators. Consider then Fraser's "Life wasn't meant to be easy," then answer the Q: "Who says the crims should be allowed to win?"

In other words, Q: Where are the decent people who could stop this corruption crippling our world?

[«back»]

democracy, life & everything - just as easy as 1, 2, 3

1st 1, 2, 3:

1. fully & fairly informed

2. wide range of honest candidates

3. who if/when elected, properly represented

In the days of the horse & buggy, it *may* have made sense, but only if each 'leg' was adhered to. None is; 1 = dumbed-down, 2 = Lib/Lab = bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic, then 3 = reps doing what the *reps* want (or what $s want), not what *we* the people would decide - if (1st 1, 2, 3) were true; looping.

Some years ago the French deployed a 'smart-phone' system, practically to each home.

We, in our wide-brown, even resorting to fencing-wire modems, must be able to go at least 'one-up' on the Frogs?

Instant democracy is both possible and practical, and could once & for all bring 'of, by, for the people etc' to real-life.

It's *our* country, *our* lives, *our* future.

By *rights* we should have a say.

No say = possible suicide.

2nd 1, 2, 3:

1. Globalisation/neoliberal = economic rationalism is voodoo economics *designed* to make the rich obscenely richer at the expense of everyone else, and it's working.

2. Militarism (US+Zs) is rampant, building an empire designed to oppress the entire world, and it's mass-murdering - to steal.

3. The excess-CO2 climate catastrophe could, probably will lead to an extinction-event par excellence, taking out most of the 'top predators' (we the people, in case you didn't 'get it'), and it's accelerating, *being* accelerated. Only way to stop it is to reduce burning fossil carbon below 'sustainability' = achieve a falling CO2 concentration in our once jewel-like planet's air. Arctic ice is melting; it's visibly shrinking.

3rd & last 1, 2, 3:

Putting 1, 2, 3... next to names on a ballot every 3-4 years ain't never gunna save us - as the results over the last 63 years or so show = *prove* - see 2nd 1, 2, 3 = disaster; looping.

it's not enough that they're off mass-murdering - to steal oil (AfPak, Iraq, Libya; Iran next?) but they stoop to petty theft

Trigger article:

Iraq hunting $17 billion missing after US invasion
Posted June 20, 2011 06:50:00
  «Iraq's parliament is chasing about $US17 billion of Iraqi oil money it says was stolen after the 2003 US-led invasion, and has asked the United Nations for help to track it down.
...
"All indications are that the institutions of the United States of America committed financial corruption by stealing the money of the Iraqi people, which was allocated to develop Iraq, (and) that it was about $17 billion," said the letter sent to the UN with a 50-page report.
The committee called the disappearance of the money a "financial crime" but said UN Security Council resolutions prevent Iraq from making a claim against the United States.» 
[AusBC]

Comment: We *know* that the US is corrupt[1], and we've suspected that the UN was not doing it's 'job' = preventing war. Well, 'optimists' held out hope for the UN - latest until they failed to prevent the plundering of Iraq, and now they've actually *approved* the plundering of Libya.

Nevertheless, with about $US3trio as the eventual total cost to the US tax-payer for the illegal invasion and subsequent brutal occupation of Iraq alone(and no end anywhere in sight for the hapless, suffering Iraqis (see 63+ years long Palestinian suffering)), you'd really have to wonder why the US bothers with stealing 'small-change' = $US17bio belonging to Iraq?

To *prove* that it was no mistake, and how *petty* they really are, they've confiscated $US30bio off Libya too, as they now demolish yet another ME oil-owner.

The *real* question is Q: Why is this outrageous (understatement; lying, cheating, theft & mass-murder = multiply, viciously criminal) behaviour tolerated?

Where the bloody-hell are the *decent* people?

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] corrupt  -adj. 1 dishonest, esp. using bribery. 2 immoral; wicked. 3 (of a text etc.) made unreliable by errors or alterations. -v. make or become corrupt.  corruptible adj. corruptibility n. corruption n. corruptive adj. corruptly adv. corruptness n. [Latin rumpo rupt- break] [POD]

no improvement without change no changes without force no force in votes

.. criminals ...

  .. will not change ...

    .. they must *be* changed

Subtitle: 'Top down' or 'bottom up?'

Q: Where are the brains?
 
[update 18Jun'11]

Musing: It doesn't take much thought to *prove* that democracy as we live it foist upon us does not work (perhaps it simply cannot work? An 'unbelievable' narrative) - but in any case, the current system is 'leading' us into disaster = we're being pushed over several catastrophe-cliffs.

It hardly needs saying that lying to the people is wrong. A properly functioning democracy requires at the very least a) an aware & informed electorate, b) a wide range of honest candidates who c) if/when elected proceed to properly represent the people - as opposed to 'accommodating' vested interest/moneyed groups, say (= treachery) - or, far worse, caving-in to lobbies for some foreign power (= treason). Lying to the people is filthily un- and anti-democratic; misinformed = dumbed-down voters simply cannot make informed choices (assuming some effective choice = in the rule, not).

"All politicians lie" (thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward) - but one seriously wonders why this may be so - let alone apparently being tolerated; we only have the one reality, and lies tend to differ from this (massive understatement!) Living in a lie-cloud (= pushed propaganda paradigm) is literally living in la-la = fantasy land. No wonder things (Libya, Greece, climate) are crashing. End musing.

-=*=-

Q: What catastrophe-cliffs?

A1: The truth and justice cliff; we are being lied to, cheated, stolen from and many murdered (one would be one too many).

A1a: The war cliff; the US+Zs murdering for spoil (Zs = soil, US = oil.)

A1b: The economic cliff = globalisation + neoliberalism = rich getting obscenely richer by swindling ever more.

A2: The excess-CO2 climate-change cliff; ever more fossil carbon burnt = ever more CO2 pollution, ever higher atmospheric CO2 = increasing green-house effect = more and more vicious weather = storm damage + melting ice (proof: see it from space) = possibly poorer harvests and certainly higher oceans = use your own imagination. Not at all trivial, but being resisted by a) carbon-profiteers and/or b) troglodytes.

-=*=-

Q: What lies?

A: Legion.

That we're being lied to can't seriously be contested (except by liars themselves), and we recognise those by what they do and not by what they say - except the broadcasters, who not only conduit lies, but (worse) often actively assist lies (once would be once too often).

My personal proof of perfidy by publicly-financed broadcasters (i.e. the Australian ABC = AusBC), is my previous perception vis-à-vis Israel, which turned out to be *completely false*. Again, use your own imagination: IF false perception THEN false reporting (there being nothing wrong with my hearing nor comprehension ability.) Given that the 4th Estate has the *responsibility* to inform the voters, IF they deceive us (they do), THEN they're not merely failing their remit, but crippling democracy to boot. And so it is; many AusBC reporters are Uni-graduates, and 'news' is their chosen profession - IF they transmit lies, more ominously IF they assist/augment such lies, THEN it's either through sheer ignorance = idiocy or deliberate malice = idiocy; you choose (they already have = traitors).

-=*=-

Q: Any specific lies?

A: Almost infinite.

The 'noble' lie - mainly government.

The 'big' lie - mainly war; most if not all wars.

Many statistics. Jokes aside, consider US unemployment; they quote around 9% yet it's more like 20%. The concentration of wealth is no joke at all, and has accelerated of late (post Thatcher/Reagan, say, but started earlier.) That the rich get richer at the cost of the poor is contested by the globalists + neoliberals = economic 'rationalists' - but see 'except' above.

The current Greek 'experience' is both typical and instructive; any fool can cut taxes (Costello's ½CGT = house-prices promptly doubled), any fool can widen the tax-base (Howard's GST = regressive; hits poorer harder), any fool can promise to cut taxes further (Abbott). Tax-fools, as neoliberal fools, are not just on the one side; Lab is just about equally as neoliberal as Lib and bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic. After the tax cuts, mainly reducing the rich's contribution, services are much harder to cut (reduce pensions & benefits, sack govt. workers, close schools, public hospitals, *privatisations*?) - and so rising deficits are a 'natural' result. Collectively called 'race to the bottom;' thanks, but "No, thanks!" to economic 'rationalists.'

That the 'big' lie - mainly war, is a total lie can't seriously be contested; neither the US 'excuse' = "Bringing democracy" nor the Zs' = "Some imaginary being promised it to us" pass the 'giggle-test.'

That the 'noble' lie - mainly government ("We know what's good for you, so shuddup!") - is utter bullshit is shown by the results, namely the catastrophe-cliffs we're being pushed over.

-=*=-

Fazit: I had a friend once, who said: "Don't like your life? Change it." Current trends are not just 'not to like,' but are *real* disasters on the way; action, *effective* action, is urgently needed.

Globalisiation + neoliberalism = economic 'rationalism' is a swindle, proof: TINA! is an outright lie; we can get back on the Enlightenment track by a properly progressive tax reform, whereby 'reform' doesn't mean some cynical fiddle, but effectively spreads 'the burden.' A more radical suggestion is that *all* money-creation be done *only* by the state; the accrued interest may be enough to cover all 'responsibilities.' (More to come on this - eventually, perhaps.)

Democratic reform? Forget it; the sheople doze before their flat-wide TVs, dumbed-down by the content (including all possible perversions = venal MSM incl. AusBC, then DVDs, youtube & etc.), contented with their home-delivered pizza + 6-pack. Dumbed-down voters don't have a clue, can't have a clue, and aren't given any real, let alone effective choice anyway. Worst of it all is, most don't even know what they, our so-called noble-lying 'leaders' are getting us into - possibly on the 'no sense, no feeling' model.

So it can't be 'bottom up' - where are the clever planet-savers?

-=*end*=-

PS Some say, that the sheople get the government they deserve. Odd. What if the sheople are deceived? Of course, it's not 'what if' or even 'when,' because they are deceived, and that continuously. From "Bringing up Baby," it's always someone else's fault; in this case the so-called 'leaders' (aka politicians = apologist/accessories), plus the actual perpetrators (corporations) and their collective 'enforcement arm' = spys, military and police, not forgetting the 'erring ideologists' = *purchased* think-tanks, plus universities = academia. Note the oxymoron: 'security forces;' in all the so-called tyrannies currently being targeted for 'democratisation' (= resource-theft), it's mostly the 'security forces' being accused of atrocities like 'snipers hiding on roof-tops' or 'viagra-assisted girl-raping;' earlier ejecting premature-babies out of incubators onto cold, stone floors.

Q: Can we have more truth & fewer lies, please?

A: Of course not; lying is a trivial transgression, compared to mass-murdering theft. Note another thing, the *alleged* atrocities are *so* shocking, as to inhibit most, if not all rational thought. Surely not accidental, and most likely = 99.9% untrue, but lies need only to be effective *propaganda*, even if briefly = in the short-term. That's a *misuse* of cognitive science; once again thanks, but "No, thanks!" to academia prepared villains, this time to the psy-ops boys (and girls, no doubt equal-opportunity evil).

So quit blaming us, we the sheople, for the failures of the lying, so-called 'élite;' when it comes to 'Who dunnit,' where 'it' = hopeless disaster, the 'who' = the smart-arses pulling the strings, and all those who could have acted to save the planet - but did *SFA* instead. Letting disaster happen - LIHOP; think 9/11 hijacks (the *3* towers were pre-primed) - is not very smart; letting the world go 'down the tubes' - basically, by inaction - is not smart at all. Well?

PPS IF the electorate is deceived (they definitely are, so it's not 'if' at all), THEN *no* representative elected by a deceived electorate has *any* mandate whatsoever. It follows that so-called 'representatives' without mandates may *not* make legislation, and any that they do slip through *cannot* be valid (so empty the gaols, now? Only for victims of injustice, like most drugs users - say.) Think about deceptions for a few secs, then think of non-mandated politicians sending 'our boys' off to war; no mandate = no legitimacy, any killing the ADF does 'in our name' = illegal = murder. Which it *doubly* is; since forces crossing borders inbound = aggressive, Nuremberg-class invaders; pay special attention I/J/Z-plex - 63+ murdering, thieving years, and no just end anywhere in sight for the hapless Palestinian ELO/Os.

Fazit (2nd): The issues I raise are serious, but hardly over-complex; there's nothing 'élite' about criminality, the *voodoo* economics being forced upon us is based on erring ideology - and doesn't work, as we can plainly see; the resource-wars are pure evil (UN knackered, actually now counter-useful) - and the lies are often achingly obvious. Bad things can happen, when good wo/men ...

Always worth a repeat - where are the clever planet-savers?

-=*=-
 
Update, 18Jun'11; Q: What's wrong with war? Or neoliberalism?

A1a: Re: War; if you have to ask, then this is the wrong place for you, by-ee! - Oh, but wait! Before you go, consider this: War is nothing other than murdering theft. Proof: There is *always* an aggressor - otherwise people all stay home. The aggressor seeks to gain something otherwise unobtainable, with armed force = the *exact* definition of armed theft. Note to Pentagon + Zionists. 2nd note: Get out of Palestine, get out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, ... Yanks go home; Zs return whence you came - or at the very, very least a) honour UNGA194, b) revest the stolen land/property & c) say a *loud & sincere* SORRY!

Then, think about all the 'laws of war' bullshit. Tip: Replace the two letters UN (plus all their yak-yak and squillion-word texts) with just these two words: NO WAR! - What idiots - Q: Is this really the best we can do? A: Better not be; it's only criminality, corruption, etc. etc. Normal people are much better than that. Bye-bye, pro-wars.

A1b: A better question is Q2: What's *right* with Neoliberalism?

A2: About the only thing 'right' is that it's right-whinger extremism. Of course, on principle I don't 'do' left/right, but that doesn't stop others. For 'right-whinger' then, read 'unscrupulous capitalist or apologist for same.' The prime purpose of neoliberalism is to make the rich even richer, and if that means the poor get poorer, well, that's just a) too bad and b) evolution in action (or so they say). To be poor, one must be less-well genetically endowed - or so social-Darwinism or some-such idiocy would presumably have it. I call it un- and anti-egalitarian; it doesn't mean that the rich should be *totally* impoverished, just that they shouldn't be allowed to further enrich themselves at the expense of we, the people and/or our once jewel-like planet.

Take just one neoliberal example, the recent privatisation of part of the electricity system in NSW. Repeated attempts at privatisation by *Labor* failed, until Ms. Keneally managed 'the 1st stage;' she was then voted out and what do we see next but electricity prices going up 17% in one dirty blow:

Electricity: the long fight to get rid of it
Updated December 14, 2010 11:31:00
  «NSW Premier Kristina Keneally has finally achieved what her two more electorally-successful predecessors couldn't do, and privatised the NSW electricity grid.» 
[AusBC/TheDrum]

Comment: Labor is supposed to be on the people's side; Lib for the bosses, Lab for the workers. But here is Lab, privatising the people's property = 'the family silver' - for a few measly shekels, and then what? Well, this is what:

Power price hike of 17pc hits NSW
Updated June 14, 2011 14:58:00
  «IPART says nearly half of the increase is due to increased network costs.
The regulator says much of the rest is due to increased costs because of the Federal Government's Renewable Energy Target scheme.» 
[AusBC/justin]

Comment 1: There's no guarantee that anything they say is true, but "increased network costs" just after privatisation sounds *extremely* fishy, and then a swipe at the Fed. Govt.'s MRET *must* be almost purely political.

Comment 2: They tell us, that "at least, you can vote them out" - which simply *doesn't* help, after the damage is done.

Comment 3: We *must* have responsible, responsive representatives, it's the only way an "of, by, for the people" democracy can work. That we don't have the former means that we can't = don't have the latter.

I have a friend who told me "It is not simple," and he's by-and-large correct.

There are many parts to the puzzle; here are a few:

1. Government enterprises are inefficient (or so they say); they have too many 'workers,' whose wages are too high, take far too many holidays and they never work hard enough (if they work at all) = they're all worthless slackers, bludging on the rest of us (i.e. we, who all work nightmare hours for a miserable pittance and never take a single day off, ever, much less a 'smoko.')

2. Private enterprises are super-efficient (or so they say); they will get rid of the slackers and 'encourage' (= enforce) higher productivity, here it helps to have competition to 'drive' the process, end result is a 'cheaper' product, obviously a boon to all. Artificial competition, by the way; on a previous public monopoly, either means faked competition, or useless, senseless duplication, then the pointless, obscure advertising, 'selling' us something we *need*. To use a bit of detested US-speak: "Big whoop!"

3. What actually happens is a) the new private owners demand a profit (where little profit, none or even a subsidy was previously present); the new owners may have borrowed to buy the people's (fire-sale priced?) asset, and thus interest is gouged 'up front,' profit + interest is an added cost to the consumer = some of the 'down-side.' Then b) on the supposed 'up-side,' large numbers of slackers are 'made redundant' = fired (unemployment up), maintenance programs, as the enterprise in general, are 'down-sized' (reducing overheads, you see); the enterprise is forced to be 'lean & mean' (even leaner if some asset-stripping takes place). Public 'store-fronts' may be replaced by out-sourced 'call-centres,' possibly off-shored to India, say. The many laid-off workers are replaced by a handful of over-worked-to-near-death sub-contractors (their houses on the line to finance their vehicles/toolkits). The infrastructure begins to decay; power-masts which were previously replaced if suspect are now allowed to 'age (un)gracefully,' and may be blown down in a storm = black-outs. Charges, previously controlled by the politician/voter interaction are now 'freed' (cynical 'free market'); the prices so freed *will* sooner or later rise, typically just short of the point of 'getting blood out of a stone.' The more remote parts of the network will suffer extreme neglect, see the Telstra experience. A typical quote: "The government is hindering us leveraging our monopoly." By far the most cynical bit of neoliberalism is medicine for profit; profit will always take precedence, and this quite literally means that people will die for lack of $s.

Task for the reader: Explain why any of (3) is desirable.

Most importantly, you *know* it's wrong when you discover some non-trivial lie, and note that *all* lies = deception, and deception always occurs shortly before someone gets ripped-off. Like crying "TINA!" - when there always was an alternative, i.e. cooperation instead of confrontation, progressive taxation instead of tax-cuts followed by service cuts; when the latter are inadequate (virtually guaranteed), then deficits grow (economy spiralling down), followed by financial rape - err, plundering, as they are now forcing Greece to submit to. Note that some of the Greek people can see what's coming, and are demonstrating (until recently peacefully; what changed? Violence is *always* bad, note to Pentagon + Zionists.) IF the politicians do not listen to their electorate (another thing virtually guaranteed), THEN the plundering = raping will be done un- & anti-democratically - and many Greeks will get very, very sad.

This is the 'modern' world; the Enlightenment being demolished, piece by piece, thanks, but "No, thanks!" to neoliberalism.

[Aside, vis-à-vis sad. Contrast Harvie Krumpet's "Carpe diem!" = Seize the day (sub-text: Enjoy every second!) - with Fraser's "Life was not meant to be easy" - then neoliberalism's 'misery for the masses.'

Recall the old joke; Q: Why do crims rob banks? A: That's where the money is. In fact, all our (fiat) money is 'created by keystroke' - in banks; now the banks look like they're 'going for the lot.' Neoliberalism drives people/countries into debt, then the banks foreclose (see US, so-called 'world leader,' and their own real-estate = housing market = collapse.) Then, there's the so-called 'GFC' = global finance crisis; apparently the only ones to benefit were those who actually caused it in the 1st place, namely Wall St banksters. Assuming this process is pushed to its obvious limit, once the banksters own *everything*, what then?

Tip: There's something exceedingly *dark*, going down here.]

One final note for now: Above, I wrote "We *must* have ... an 'of, by, for the people' democracy," which would be a +ve, for us and our planet. The EU (Merkel + Sarkozy), ECB & IMF say "They *must* have ... neoliberalism imposed," which will be an utter disaster for most Greeks.

Spot the difference in intent and results? Oh yeah; then there's the story of matching Greek tax-returns to swimming-pools in back-yards. Turns out the match is not quite 'perfect' (haw!) Once EU, ECB & IMF have privatised everything they can get their greedy, grubby, $-grabbing hands on, Greece will probably go broke anyway - it's said that the debts are already unpayable; either go broke or the money-lenders 'take a haircut.' That's another charming thing about neoliberalism, all the lovely new words (like, lean and mean, man!)

[«back»]

suppressing information like failing to index a blog is also un- & anti-democratic

.. censored inputs ...

  .. indicate systemic bias ...

    .. and may lead to poster radicalisation

-=*=-
 
[update, 17Jun'11, update, 19Jun'11.]

A funny thing happened after recently submitting what I regard as a *fair* comment and having it censored; my corresponding blog-report here has so far not been indexed; I don't suppose we really have to wonder why?

"This happened once before
when I came to your door
No reply
They said it wasn't you
but I saw you peep through
your window"

- democracy's the loser...

Censored inputs indicate systemic bias and may lead to poster radicalisation.

-=*end*=-

PS It's not all inputs that are censored (just one would be too many), but what is censored indicates the (erring!) ideology of the censors. That AusBC is tax-payer supported and they dare to un- & anti-democratically censor anything is proof of their corruption and treachery both.

-=*=-
 
Update, 17Jun'11; Progress. From the google cache @ appr 07:30, this post and the preceding 'message' post have now been indexed, but the home-page cache is still old = down-level. If one wonders how they do that, I'd say 'bad fingers.'

It can be proven that I submitted a comment (I keep the receipts), and that indexing was interfered with. The question only becomes: Whose bad fingers?

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Update, 19Jun'11; Progress? Not much, if any; still some down-level indexing. This article is deliberately duplicated, partly as a test.

A bit of nontrivia: Consider auto-da-fé[1], then heretic[2], a thesaurus entry for which is listed below[3]. If we dump all the supernatural implications (as totally invalid), the issue then is truth vs. lies. I advocate for truth & justice; in that frame it is the liars (commission/omission) who are the heretics, aka recusants (recalls Marxisant. Haw!)

Interfering with free-speech is a crime against democracy, and invalidates the perpetrator-platform.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] auto-da-fé  n. (pl. autos-da-fé) 1 hist. ceremonial judgement of heretics by the Spanish Inquisition. 2 public burning of heretics. [Portuguese, = act of the faith] [POD]

[2] heretic  n. 1 person believing in or practising religious heresy. 2 holder of an unorthodox opinion.  heretical adj.[ibid.]

[3] ›noun
he was condemned as a heretic and executed at the stake
DISSIDENT, dissenter, nonconformist, unorthodox thinker, heterodox thinker, apostate, freethinker, iconoclast, schismatic, renegade; sceptic, agnostic, atheist, non-believer, unbeliever, idolater, idolatress, pagan, heathen; separatist, sectarian, revisionist; rare tergiversator, recreant, recusant, nullifidian; archaic paynim.
-opposite(s): CONFORMIST; BELIEVER. [New Oxford Thesaurus of English]

[«back»]

the so-called 'noble' lie meets Newton's third law - where's the countervailing force?

.. surely ...

  .. they can't *all* ...

    .. be wicked psychopaths[1]?
 
[update, 16:51]

Preamble: There's a 'them' and an 'us;' the 'us' is we the people; since they tell us that we are not as clever as they claim to be, we are followers much as sheep, so it's us, we the sheople. The 'them' are those who rule us (Congress = US for parliaments), those who inform us (4th Estate), those who run the corporations (industry), those who 'defend' us (military, these days mostly offensive); reordered = M/I/C/4-plex. In addition, there are those who teach us (educators) and those who manage the money (banksters). There are a few other groupings, like scientists, say, or more broadly technologists, those who search for or apply 'pure' knowledge. I write 'pure' because knowledge itself is abstract and value-free (in ideological terms), but the searching for, or application of, may be heavily ideologically biased = crooked, if not outright harmful. Here I'm looking primarily at climate-change research, economics and propaganda (the good, the bad and the ugly). The scientists, technologists and educators work under the direction of the M/I/C/4-plex, but the banksters are full M/I/C/4-plex partners - if not the ultimate string-pullers.

-=*=-

Things we can see if we bother to look:

The first odd thing to notice is that the M/I/C/4-plex operates in both an extremely well coordinated and almost totally uncontested way. It's as if they have achieved some sort of comfortable consensus, proof = no real boat-rocking, next to no 'debate.' Latest proof of this 'coordinated consensus' contention is shown by the current US/NATO attack on Libya; this is a Nuremberg-class = aggressive war crime in developing progress - without a peep of (effective) protest, even Russia and China having 'signed on' at the UNSC. Germany did not so sign-on - but Merkel is currently being fêted by Obama, silky-smooth smiles all round. Merkel said something like 'Germany has no better friend than the US.' (Old saw: With friends like the US, who needs enemies?) Merkel, as other such sycophants, is a quisling.

The next thing to notice is that we the sheople are being lied to, and not just with 'little whites.' The 'excuse' for attacking Libya is given as 'protecting civilians,' whereas we *know* that they're after Libya's oil and subservience both. Gaddafi's 'prime-sin' is to refuse US hegemony - a sin not to be tolerated by any US regime (= the Empire). The lies are conduited to us via and with *active assistance* from the 4th Estate = corrupt & venal MSM (including taxpayer-funded broadcasters like the AusBC). Saying one thing ('protecting civilians') whilst doing another (murdering for spoil) is called hypocrisy, and a criminal act colluded in secret is called conspiracy. So far, not too many have been killed in Libya (starting as a 'restricted' air war, escalating daily), but then there's Iraq; 1mio+ dead before 2003 (UN=US sanctions, Albright's ½mio 'worth it' kids) and 1mio+ dead after 2003, 2mio internally & 2mio externally displaced. The casualties are horrendous.

The 3rd thing to notice is that they don't care a fig about us, see the economic wreckage they're creating almost everywhere with their 'economic rationalism' = neo-liberalism + globalisation (see my TINA!) This should be enough for the sake of my argument here, and anyone paying attention will have seen it all plus more - wicked depredations on a daily basis.

Q: How did we get here?

A: Tyranny by stealth; every little surrender followed by the next.

One can hardly imagine that Merkel set out to be a bad person, perhaps it's true that power really does corrupt. Whatever, we see the result. One of the nasty pro-war trolls asserted that no one gets chosen as a leader who's not prepared to go to war. (Q: How would s/he know? By what imaginable process?) Since *all* wars involve at least one guilty party, namely those who attack, *and* there are now no enemies, only 'investment opportunities' (Afgh/Pak, Iraq, Libya, Iran next? Perhaps the most illegitimate, the 63+ bloody years of Zionist theft by murder of Palestinian land), our wars (we, 'the West') are all criminal - and the leaders with them.

Musing: The mind boggles, that sooo many people (M/I/C/4-plex) are being sooo bad = psychopathic. There must be decent ones amongst them, and they secretly 'coordinate' by sharing their so-called 'noble' lie. Such secrecy is un- & anti-democratic but worse, the result is almost all *bad*. Bad for the killed, bad for the ripped-off, bad for the oppressed everywhere. It means = *proves* that their so-called 'noble' lie is anything but 'noble' = criminal.

Fazit: The criminals will not stop voluntarily, they'll have to *be* stopped.

Q: Where's the countervailing force?

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] psychopath  n. 1 mentally deranged person, esp. showing abnormal or violent social behaviour. 2 mentally or emotionally unstable person.  psychopathic adj. [POD]

[2] Newton's third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force -F on the first body. F and -F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and -F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous. [wiki]

-=*=-
 
Update, 16:51; PS Obviously, I don't/can't know, what their 'noble' lie is, not being (and not wishing to be) of the 'anointed élite' - but we can see that whatever it is, it's *complete bullshit*. Here's some proof:

  «In restricting knowledge to an élite ruling class of “the few”, obscurantism is fundamentally anti-democratic, because its component anti-intellectualism and elitism exclude the people as intellectually unworthy of knowing the facts and truth about the government of their City-State.» 
[wiki/Obscurantism]

Comment #1: There's nothing at all élite about criminality.

Comment #2; note: "fundamentally anti-democratic," then think about one of their 'biggest, boldest' claims, namely to be bringing democracy to the 'heathen (Muslim, Arab) &/ ignorant savages.' IF they, the so-called élite don't have democracy (they don't; *we the sheople* certainly do not), THEN they can hardly bring what they themselves don't have, anywhere. Ho, hum, just another lie; one that 100% destroys their credibility - all over again.

Comment #3: Consider the expression "race to the bottom," and compare to where we appear to be heading (= over the climate-catastrophe cliff). IF the so-called 'élite' had a plan - a convincing one, that avoided the excess-CO2 caused climate-change catastrophe, THEN all they'd have to do is say so, and we could all go "Phew!"

Comment #4: That they don't say so (that they have a once jewel-like planet's comfortable life-supporting ecosphere-*saving* plan, so that we are shoved into and remain in 'fear-mode'), means that they simply don't have one, full-stop. In addition to 'believing' in their so-called 'noble' lie (recalling that 'belief' is what's done *in the total absence of evidence*), not only do they keep idiotic secrets, but they really don't have a clue (apart from enriching themselves, and their already obscenely rich 'mates'). Repeat: Tumbrels! Note that when our ecosphere collapses = drastically reducing food production, and the oceans start to rise = permanent flooding of low-lying land, $s are neither very edible, nor do they float too well.

[«back»]

TINA! = wicked lie = democracy raped

.. There Is No Alternative ...

  .. means surrender to greed ...

    .. violating the 'democratic covenant'

Thesis: The root-problem is corruption[1], driven by greed and enabled by irresponsibility.

Preamble: The basic 'democratic covenant' is that we the sheople surrender power to those who would rule us, on the understanding that those rulers will protect our, we the sheople's best interests. It is not working; to the contrary, our so-called 'democratic' rulers have 'allowed,' when not actively connived in introducing, an economic system definitely *not* in our, we the sheople's best interests. We have been lied to; these lies[2] being deployed to deceive[3], in turn for villains to take wicked[4] advantage and in addition, a deceived = misinformed electorate, apart from a) possibly (actually, definitely) being ripped-off, b) cannot possibly 'vote straight,' this in turn means that any representative elected via deploying lies has *zero* mandate. As a by-product, any/all laws made by such deceptive rulers are invalid.

-=*=-

Trigger article:

Hewson takes swipe at parties over climate
Posted June 6, 2011 00:05:00
  «Dr Hewson said vested interests were buying influence in Canberra and leadership was needed to take them on.
"We [also] need leadership to challenge the scare campaign that's been led by one of my ex-staff members," he said, referring to Mr Abbott.» 
[AusBC/'news']

Comment: Any idiot can promise to cut taxes, or screech "No new taxes!" - as Abbott repeatedly demonstrates. It's often called 'populism,' and is denigrated by saying that those out of power can say such things because they don't actually have to implement their 'promises' = irresponsibility. Tax-cuts are easy, but reducing *required* services is not quite so easy - proof is what we see; less socialised medicine = sicker (lower-income) people, for example. But it gets worse.

-=*=-

Thatcher's cry of "TINA!" was early-on in the march of neo-liberalism which, accompanied by globalisation, has somewhat of a by-product of ruthless, tending to exhaustive exploitation, brought our world to the brink of total disaster = the approaching excess-CO2 caused climate-change catastrophe. That our rulers have so far taken *no* effective steps to avoid having our once jewel-like, comfortable-life sustaining ecosphere being crippled by climate-change is the proof of their ultimate irresponsibility. Even if Gillard/Lab gets a CO2-tax up, it will almost certainly be too little, too late - unless the rulers across the planet cooperate, and *all* stick the price up high enough to get the needed reduction everywhere. Not just as a BTW, *someone* must pay, namely who else but the consumer? Of course the 'polluter must pay' - at the point of emission, but that *real cost* of doing business will be then passed 'down-stream.' IF some market-based solution THEN the 'price-signal' must be clearly & *honestly* visible. Then, any compensation thought justified (for the 'less affluent' amongst us) can only come via taxes - a topic to be expanded below. By correctly taxing = pricing CO2, the externality it represents will finally be included - as opposed to being short-sightedly, apparently cost-free dumped into the commons, to the detriment of all. Climate-change is the final irresponsibility, but there are others, also highly important.

Idiots have been cutting taxes, *mainly* off the rich, at least from the Thatcher-era. One dishonest campaign was to 'broaden the tax base' = add a regressive GST = consumption tax, a tax which impacts the poorer far more that the rich. Not so incidentally, Lab experimented with negative-gearing, while Lib halved the capital gains tax = ½CGT; it was the latter action which lead quick-time to house-price doubling, let there be no doubt (a little well-directed research will *prove* this). One 'general principle' behind lowering taxes on upper income brackets is that the (already mostly rich) capitalists need ever-more profits to make them, the capitalists work, in so doing increasing economic activity = jobs & income to the masses. That's the greed theory; in fact they'd work anyway, so let them 'earn' their squillions - but then tax those same squillions progressively à la the Beatles; one for the rich, nineteen for the country.

Whereas there may be something in greed (clever, 'white' lies = 'good' propaganda, such will be more 'believable' than outright, naked lies = Saddam's (non-existent!) WMDs, say - all the while noting that 'believing' is what people do in the absence of evidence); the proof is in = income inequality widening to the extreme = the already mostly rich getting obscenely richer. Note another piece of pushed-paradigm propaganda; they allege complaining about the rich = 'wealth-envy' - actually, not. Just as the end-user must pay the cost of all externalities, *someone* has to pay taxes, and it only makes sense to get more off those who can pay more. The rich may get any 'extra' rewards in heaven (bi-i-ig perhaps), meanwhile they should pay a fair, progressive income tax. Because:

Consider the PIIGS; Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece & Spain. Following the 'tax-cuts for the rich' formula, they have run up *serious* deficits. The neo-liberal bankster-vultures are swooping, demanding their blood-money. The economies will be driven into ruin by austerity, as the people's patrimony is privatised. Again we hear "TINA!" - from both political sides, but bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic. The PIIGS tax-cuts, as in Aus, along with the rest of the neo-liberal rubbish, *forced* onto some (usually 3rd world) countries by the IMF, were implemented *voluntarily* by both sides - again, bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic = treachery.

Fazit: Whole countries, across the world, even including the US, are having wages and conditions reduced or destroyed by the so-called 'economic rationalists' = neo-liberalism + globalisation. That this is *not* in we the sheople's interests is so obvious one needs not illustrate it further, but it proves that the 'democratic covenant' is totally, knowingly & bipartisanly violated. Such rulers belong, however briefly, on tumbrels.

Of course, there is an alternative; reverse the deregulation which enabled the GFC, but 1st & foremost, restore progressive taxation, to pay for the sheople's deserved = human rights amenities = infrastructure (water, sewage, elec. etc.), get back on the track to the egalitarian Enlightenment, and vis-à-vis CO2, get sustainable. Start all that by stopping the lies. It may be a truism, but cooperation is better than confrontation; time to de-militarise the cops (to lose the appellation 'pigs'), stop attacking other countries (Nuremberg, cf. tumbrels) and for our rulers to start working for/with us, instead of against us.

-=*end*=-

PS We can see it happening; in Aus & elsewhere (not just in the PIIGS but 3rd world & other 1st world = US, say). As it was being introduced, we could see it was 'non-optimal;' take off-shoring, out-sourcing, down-sizing, lean&meaning and privatisations as some of 'the worst.' Job off-shoring quite clearly reduces both jobs available & incomes, pointedly of those laid-off. Privatisation hands the people's patrimony to the vultures for a pittance, our once-egalitarian state-monopolies to be viciously exploited as 'toll-booths.' Promised new jobs ('service industries' = hamburger-flipping, hair-dressing, plus all the 'no-shows') either a) paid far less or b) never even materialised at all. I saw some/most of it happening & screeched: "Madness!" Some, claiming to be 'professional economists,' said things like 'a rising tide lifts all boats' and 'a smaller share of a bigger pie could be larger' - but such 'weak excuses' were outright, probably premeditated lies. IF I can see the troubles THEN so can others, presumably equal-to or smarter than I. Sooo, are those in power, those forcing neo-liberalism + globalisation on us (we the sheople = democratic electorate), are these rulers a) not so smart or b) deliberately malicious? I tip (b), but there's never any accounting for idiocy, especially corrupt idiocy. See Hewson's comment: "vested interests were buying influence ..." A democracy 'for sale' = a corrupt democracy = a dead duck; where is my vote?

I have heard of the so-called 'noble lie,' whereby the rulers claim a) to know best and b) to be doing the best. Fail, as excess-CO2 shows, and the economic depredations visited upon us, we the sheople *proves*. Their 'noble lie' is a stinker; nothing other than a weak but truly filthy lie - 'worthy' only of common criminals. All else failing, may they rot in hell - they have certainly well and truly damned themselves. As probable (99.9%) psychopaths, they probably couldn't care less, and will not reform themselves - but it matters, seriously, to us and our world, that they *be* reformed.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] corrupt  -adj. 1 dishonest, esp. using bribery. 2 immoral; wicked. 3 (of a text etc.) made unreliable by errors or alterations. -v. make or become corrupt.  corruptible adj. corruptibility n. corruption n. corruptive adj. corruptly adv. corruptness n. [Latin rumpo rupt- break] [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.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]

[3] deceive  v. (-ving) 1 make (a person) believe what is false; purposely mislead. 2 be unfaithful to, esp. sexually. 3 use deceit.  deceive oneself persist in a mistaken belief.  deceiver n. [ibid.]

[4] wicked  adj. (-er, -est) 1 sinful, iniquitous, immoral. 2 spiteful. 3 playfully malicious. 4 colloq. very bad. 5 slang excellent.  wickedly adv. wickedness n. [origin uncertain] [ibid.]

O104 EHEC

It can't be food - far too many female victims.

[update]

It can't be *only* female, a few male victims.

It must be something mostly women use.

My tip: Lipstick, perhaps?

-=*=-
 
Update; Well ... after ruining many a cucumber-farmer (mainly in Spain), closely followed by lettuce and tomato farmers almost everywhere, they say that they *definitively* traced it to sprouts, usually served as part of a salad. IF so THEN it would appear that 'leaf-eaters' are overwhelmingly female. No offence, ladies... and lipstick can make you look prettier, no danger there.