full-spectrum dominance
 not for any democracy
  but for criminal evil

.. rogue-regimes ...

  .. murdering for spoil ...

    .. all smothered by filthy lies

Thesis/Subtitle: none so blind - as those who will not see


1. Lying is a pre- & post-requisite to crime; lies are deployed to deceive, deception is done with malice-aforethought and afterwards, the criminals have to lie to avoid self-incrimination. There is no such thing as a 'harmless' lie.

2. It is easy to prove that 'our' democracy (our = Anglo = US, UK, Aus, Judaic = IL, 'the West' adds D, F and other SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on) - is sham; of three pre-requisites (fully and honestly informed voters, sufficiently wide choice of candidates, elected representatives who implement the will of the majority while protecting minorities) - we fail all three.

3. It is easy to see that we have no 'rule of law,' since the UN whose founding purpose was to prevent war, dismally has not - in fact the opposite (from UNGA181 down to 2001+ = Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (current), Iran (next in the US' target-queue)). Also, note that only just law may earn respect - one 'best' (= worst) example, 'war on drugs.'

End preamble.


Trigger article:

Assad says Syria in 'real state of war'
 By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker, wires
 Posted June 27, 2012 06:21:47
  «Video posted by activists showed heavy gunfire and explosions. Blood pooled on a pavement in Qudsiya suburb and a blood trail led to a building to where one casualty had been dragged. A naked man writhed, his body pierced by shrapnel.» 

Comment, note: the propaganda shock-techniques - "posted by activists", "heavy gunfire", "Blood pooled", "casualty had been dragged", "naked man writhed", "body pierced by shrapnel".

The primary intention is to cause revulsion in the reader, then, 'normal' intelligence eclipsed (switched from thinking to feeling = fogged by emotion), to ram the message down the reader's neck: we (= 'our' activists) good, them (= other = everything-Assad) bad.

'Simple,' psychologically designed = psyop propaganda.

All things being 'equal,' as the MSM+AusBC would have us believe, namely that Assad = brutal tyrant killing his own innocent, democracy-seeking citizens, THEN the US/NATO would have some right to smash the next country on the US' list = Syria - to pieces. (See Wesley Clark (4 Star General, now retd.): US will attack seven countries in five years here (~1m20s:2m50s) and here.) Of course, smashing countries for regime-change is itself a crime; what could be needed is some form of police-action.

But, of course, all things are *not* 'equal,' and a single lie is enough as proof: "It is clear, however, that Assad is desperate to hang on to power at all cost, as evidenced by his continued use of air power and Shabbiha [militia] gangs." [AusBC/Barker ibid.]

Using "air power" against foreign-armed and -supported, crossing borders inbound, violent subversives would be responsible policy, for any government protecting its own citizens - as Assad would be mad *not* to be doing.

The "Shabbiha [militia] gangs" is a reference to the Houla massacre, an outrage allegedly carried out by a) Assad-aligned thugs, or b) rebel-aligned death squads - depending on which 'side' one 'believes'. IF (b) THEN Shabbiha-assertion = lie.

The text is a quote from "White House spokesman Jay Carney" - on behalf of, effectively directly from, US president Obama. In this case it's *via* Barker, i.e. unembroidered, in contrast to other Barker reports which often are (About 1,620 results(time of writing))

The text starting "Video posted by activists" is not attributed, one can assume it's all Barker's own handiwork.


Lemma 1: 'Belief'[1] mainly occurs in the absence of evidence. It is the task of 'news' agencies to inform us = provide evidence; when they transmit and/or *amplify* lies, they fail their remit. That's delivering a defective product (a commercial crime) but worse, it's a crime against democracy (dishonestly[2] informed = deceived voters).

Lemma 2: At any crime-scene, one examines 'means, motive, and opportunity,' modus operandi (= m.o.) plus 'cui bono?' = who benefits? One examines any available facts, suspecting lies at every turn (recalling recent m.o. in Iraq, say), then drawing conclusions based on the balance of probabilities.

We have ample evidence of criminality = murder for spoil, one rogue-regime has embarked on a kill-list (Clark), not 'just' of people but whole countries (murder for oil). Another rogue-regime long ago took improper possession of almost an entire country (Zionists in Palestine, murder for soil).

Of course, for the larger rogue-regime, oil may not be the 'sole' reason, there is also hegemony, hubris & 'protection' of a certain illegitimate-sprog = the other rogue-regime.


It's not a matter of 'believe it or not;' I'm not into lying, nor do I have any motive for doing so. Indeed, me lying would be *totally* self-defeating, since my purpose is the pursuit of and agitation for truth & justice. From time to time, the rogue-regimes actually declare their intentions, see vast range between Herzl(1897+), and nyt June 21, 2012 (C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition). This report *proves* that both Assad and Syria are under attack from outside-supported forces.

So-called 'news professionals' by definition must know more than their audience, and must be able to identify lies far better than we, the people ever could. When the mainstream media (=MSM) and publicly-financed broadcasters (=PFBCs) transmit lies = aiding the criminal rogue-regimes, they make themselves criminals by the accessory-mechanism, and show themselves to be corrupt&venal.

Fazit; 2 Qs:

1: How dare the MSM plus PFBCs like the AusBC transmit lies and worse, often directly lie to us, and

2: Where are the decent people, those who could form an effective, countervailing force against these criminal-swine rogue-regimes plus their vile accomplices?



[1] belief  n. 1 firm opinion; acceptance (that is my belief). 2 religious conviction (belief in the afterlife; has no belief). 3 (usu. foll. by in) trust or confidence. [related to *believe] [POD]

[2] dishonest  adj. fraudulent or insincere.  dishonestly adv. dishonesty n. [ibid.]  

No comments:

Post a Comment