.. what they say ...
.. vs. what they do ...
.. IF lies THEN criminals
Thesis/Subtitle: there are irrational conspiracies
Concomitant: like "Area 51" OR "Elvis lives!"
Corollary: but what of real conspiracies?
Lemmas - see Morality, Democracy and Criminality below.
- 'positive progress' ('+ve' qualification required; clarity)
- 'every day, in every way, it's getting better and better'
- it's obviously not, in fact the exact opposite, hence -
- 'do unto others' (liberté, égalité, fraternité)
- 'do no harm' (nor even threaten same)
- deception; actual damage, intimidation = injury
- 'psychological manipulation'
- 'cognitive infiltration'
- 'lying propaganda'
- damage to people, property, our once jewel-like planet
- 'cognitive dissonance' - *why the hell that*?
- countervailing *force* required;
- 'no more of the (bad) same!'
Disclosure: I admit that I don't know everything, but better than that, I don't (often) make exaggerated claims. But I can add up; i.e. 2 + 2 = 5, see? - Err, ooops! (To reduce possible pettifogging, one could at this point review "Quibbles.") More to the point - and this is *exactly* the point here, I can (and do) open my eyes and look - and mostly, at some *very* important things, the result that I see is not too flash (massive understatement!) IF anyone near you, affecting you, operates via deception THEN better look out! Someone is targeted for rip-off - and it behoves you, dear reader, not to let you-or-yours be a target. Who knows how much of whatever you may stand to lose?
General problem: Our planet's resources are being plundered, at an increasing, and increasingly unsustainable, rate. We, the people, are being ripped-off in the work-place, the market-place and in the social-justice sphere. Pollution, especially excess-CO2, is basically out of control. No-one (so-called 'leaders,' say), ever does much, let alone anything effective, to help.
Specific: The plundering is on purpose, consciously, by a criminal under-class, pushed partly using aggressive wars = murder for spoil = shocking, Nuremberg-class war crimes, via and by our so-called 'leaders' (altogether, the vile M/I/C/$4a†-plex plus the vilest I/J/Z-plex), for and on behalf of an already obscenely-rich <1%. The 99%+ = we, the people, are being abused both coming and going; on the one hand having benefits for the needy reduced, and on the other hand having the jobs we depend on a) shipped overseas, b) reduced on skill-level and remuneration both, and c) overall job numbers reduced = increasingly desperate unemployment (see 'prototype' = USA). The 'rising tide lifts all boats' was only ever cruel rhetoric; what we've actually had forced upon us is 'race to the bottom' wages, conditions & benefits = spiral-down (the gurgler). The pollution is treated as an un-costed external - by many clever-clogs (= idiotic) economists, but this avoidance of responsibility could end up costing us the (habitable) Earth.
Personal: I find all unfairness, destruction and waste objectionable, but the on-purpose ruining of our once jewel-like planet's comfortable-life supporting ecosphere is worse than senseless, worse than unconscionable, it's utterly and absolutely, death-penalty criminal-madness.
Trigger article 1 (warm-up):
Old Labor wounds reopened in McKew memoir
By chief political correspondent Simon Cullen
Updated October 26, 2012 16:28:09
«Labor's leadership wounds have been reopened amid claims by former MP Maxine McKew that Julia Gillard was a "disloyal deputy" to former prime minister Kevin Rudd.
Ms McKew, who is a strong supporter of Mr Rudd, has used her book to criticise the way Treasurer Wayne Swan handled the mining super profits tax, which was subsequently abandoned under Ms Gillard's leadership.
It was instead replaced by a new version of the tax that did not raise any revenue in its first three months of operation.»
[AusBC/'news' October 26]
Comment 1: Delicious; as we all know, *nothing* irks Labor more than an internal attack, and as the Libs also say, "disunity is death." Amazing; who did McKew wrong? (Intended double entendre.)
Comment 2: We also know that Rudd offended the Zs over the Zs' criminal use of Aus' passports in an assassination, now we get 'another brick in the wall' = Rudd's vs. Gillard's MRRT. Interesting; do we wonder where the real power lies?
Comment 3: IF, as alleged here, Gillard has truly knackered the MRRT, then we may bid her good day.
Trigger article 2 (not just BTW):
Power bills higher than they should be: ACCC
By Simon Frazer
Updated October 24, 2012 13:17:05
«The head of Australia's competition watchdog says the rules governing the setting of electricity prices are not working, and are a major factor behind a 90 per cent increase in power prices over the past five years.»
[AusBC/'news' October 24]
Comment 1: Shocker, but basically 'what I said;' privatisation of public assets (i.e. especially essential, egalitarian, 'natural' monopolies) is outright theft.
Comment 2: Note 'rules' = regulation, vs. the 'erring-ideology' neoliberal ideal of so-called 'free' markets. Each Aus' state had a single power system, which was fractured into supposedly but only ever pseudo 'competition-units' then flogged off, essentially for peanuts. Not just outright criminality, but also outright idiocy. And we, the people are made to pay - and pay, and pay ...
Comment 3: Aside from the article, note what is happening to elec. (and other such privatised 'utilities'); neoliberal lean- & mean-ing, for-profit entities a) reduce if not eliminate any 'preventative' maintenance, leading to service reduction or lapses due to storm damage, say & etc., *plus* the injury of adding profit- and interest-charges to a formerly egalitarianly provided essential-service. 'Proof by result' = for-profit anything puts profits 1st & we the people last (think limiting-case, for-profit medicine) - monsters!
Comment 4: Privatisation in 'the West' = under the hideous US-tyranny, is basically bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic = proof of politicians' traitorous perfidy.
Trigger article 3 (aside; new (to me) terminology = 'cognitive infiltration'):
"Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration
«Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence.
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."»
Comment 1: Brrr. This item is 'open to interpretation.'
Comment 2: 'Cognitive infiltration' is what is done in some reader-comments, specifically those presenting 'pro-establishment' (aka IMHO largely criminal) points of view, by whom I call 'internet-trolls.' The absolute worst of such trolls are the filthily lying hasbarah-ists, next in line for disparagement the r-whingers, then any Labor traitors. Recalling that it is not who says, but what is said, the labels are assigned retrospectively based on content.
Comment 3: One thing is clear; this 'infiltration' article illustrates that not only are we the people lied to, we are lied to both by design and with malice-aforethought. Well; most already knew that?
Trigger article 4 (serious):
Dispelling The Myth: Taxes And Job Creation By Robert Emerick & David Rommereim 24 October, 2012
« ... even with the Great Depression and WWII debt, and, even with the added post-war cost of the Marshall Plan, the GI Bill, and the Eisenhower Federal Interstate Highway System, and, on top of all that, the additional expense of the Korean War, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War, the Federal debt actually went DOWN 69.1% between 1946 and 1971! What’s more, from 1946 to 1971 we had lower unemployment, much lower deficits, and higher real private sector growth. And we had all this prosperity and economic strength with higher tax rates on the wealthy.
[from the end of a table:]
Federal debt: From 1946 to 1971 WENT DOWN 69.1%; From 1972 to 2011 WENT UP 167.5%»
[countercurrents/Emerick & Rommereim, my emphasis]
Comment 1: 1971 was when Nixon oversaw the 'bankrupting' of the US, going off the gold standard, killing-off Bretton-Woods and introducing the fiat-$US.
Comment 2: Although this article/snip may imply a continuous deficit-growth from '71, it's not that simple; Reagan did change the US from the world's biggest creditor to ditto debitor, Clinton reversed the trend (at the same time unleashing bankster-chaos by repealing Glass–Steagall), then the deficits began to grow again under GWBush and continue to worsen under Obama.
Comment 3: After Nixon (and Carter) came Thatcher's TINA and Reagan's voodoo economics, aka neoliberalism + globalisation - the system actively forced upon most of 'the West' and much the rest of the world (excepting places like Aus, whose (corrupt) politicians neoliberalise without being visibly forced, let alone having valid mandates); recall Perkins' "Economic Hit Man," [whenever I hear IMF/SAPs, entsichere ich meinen Browning!] - then see next...
Trigger article 5 (serious):
The Globalization of NATO New Book by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya By Global Research October 09, 2012
«The book from the outset examines the economic dimension of NATO’s military undertakings, how the latter support the imposition of deadly macroeconomic reforms on sovereign countries. War and globalization are intricately related. Economic globalization under the helm of Wall Street and the IMF is endorsed by a global military agenda.
Nazemroaya explores how dominant economic interests are supported by the “internationalization” of NATO as a military entity, which has extended its areas of jurisdiction from the European-North Atlantic region into new frontiers. “The Globalization of NATO” endorses and sustains the Worldwide imposition of neoliberal economic doctrine.»
[globalresearch/book review (spotted on whatreallyhappened)]
Comment 1: Brrr indeed!
Comment 2: Framing; for "jurisdiction" substitute "tyranny."
Comment 3: Framing; IF the book truly "endorses and sustains" destructive neoliberalism + globalisation THEN I am totally anti- the book. However, I expect (and hope) that this is a problem with the wording of the review; meant is the process documented, not the book itself.
Argument: "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war."
The military order Havoc! was a signal given to the English military forces in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare's parlance 'the dogs of war') to pillage and chaos.
Argument summary; what we can observe:
1. People - being sent down the road to serfdom.
2. Money - concentrated into the <1%.
3. War vs. peace; war is criminally 'winning.'
4. Environment - is being 'severely compromised.'
To these observations, we may apply 'proof by result' = a lot of bad news, aided and/or caused by a lot of bad perpetrators - including many/most of our so-called 'leaders.'
Musing: Once there was a thing called "The Enlightenment," which was held to be a big part of humanity's desired direction. After WW2, the UN was established to banish war - but was co-opted by the forces *for* war = murder for spoil, latest with the passage of UNGA181 in 1947. The post WW2, post-Vietnam 'peace-bonuses' have been squandered, the world returned to an active, criminal war-footing, and "The Enlightenment" put into reverse.
Argument conclusion: IMHO, no majority of voters in their right (fully and honestly informed) mind would choose our current world. More 'proof by result' = the world we now have has been foist upon us, by people *not* informing us = plans executed in secrecy, and since the result of these plans = we, the people are being ripped-off, it amounts to crimes against us, and against the (proper) functioning of democracy. Refer to the definition of conspiracy.
Fazit: Since the criminal perpetrators will not voluntarily cease their vile depredations, what we *desperately* need is, as mentioned in the preamble, some effective countervailing *force*, and certainly 'no more of the (wicked) same!'
Q: Where is this effective countervailing force hiding, and why?
^ Morality (opinion; the distinction between right and wrong):
Primary; "Do unto others ... " is both necessary and sufficient; 'enlightened altruism' works in any size group, providing most members unite to 'enforce' it.
Auxiliary; "Do no harm" - to others.
Discussion: Morality is an individual's internal compass - how one *should* behave. Psychopaths excepted, it only makes sense to respect - including never harming - all others. (To harm only one's self is, IMHO, an inviolable personal freedom.)
Corollary: Whereas morality per se may not be subject to legislation, all (non-self) harm is criminal - and should be prosecuted and proportionally punished. Prevention, of course, is to be preferred.
End morality lemma, «back»
^ Democracy: Only "of, by, for the people" may be a 'proper' democracy.
1. It is easy to prove that 'our' democracies (Anglo = US, UK, Aus etc., Judaic = IL, 'the West' adds D, F and other SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on) - are 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.
2a. It is easy to see that we have no worthwhile 'rule of law,' since we are being forced into the erring-ideology 'neoliberalism' economic regime, using all sorts of threats/coercion, *by* (or with the active connivance *of*) our so-called leaders. The offence here is the deliberate transfer of wealth to the <1% - which is an injury = crime against all the rest of the 99%+.
2b. As for individual countries, so for the UN, whose founding purpose was to prevent war, it dismally has not - in fact quite the opposite - from UNGA181 (1947, subsequent improper dispossession of Palestinian land/property via genocidal methods - thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the aggressively invading Zionists), down to 2001-present = ditto aggressive, mainly US plus their SQSHsO invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (current moment), Iran (probably next in the US' target-list), eventually even Russia and/or China.
Fazit: IF no proper democracy THEN sham; offending reps into gaol.
Corollary: Only just law may earn respect!
End democracy lemma, «back»
^ Criminality: IF harm (also threat) THEN criminal = self-evident.
Corollary: IF lie THEN likely criminal.
Thesis: Lying is a pre- & post-requisite to crime; lies are deployed to deceive, deception is done with malice-aforethought and after any crime, the perpetrators must lie about the crime, even if only to avoid self-incrimination. There is (almost) no such thing as a 'harmless' lie.
Exception: Theoretically, 'harmless' lies may exist, IF so THEN perfectly pointless, so why would anyone ('normal' = non-psychopathic) lie?
Aside/extra: See lemmas 1-4 at beginning of my criminal hypocrisy article and from " (Opinion:)" in same article (for convenience repeated below).
Fazit: IF lie AND harm (actual &/ threat) THEN criminal, into gaol.
End criminality lemma, «back»
^ Criminality (extended):
Criminality may be defined as doing harm, either to someone else's body, property or mind.
Corollary (opinion): Self-harm, even suicide, is an individual person's *right*. If self-harm has some '$-societal-cost' then society may have some right to demand $-recompense - but *never* to interfere with personal rights.
A 'minimalist' crime-list: Lying, cheating, stealing or killing.
Corollary: Threatening harm is also a crime.
Proof: That harm is criminal should be obvious, and threatening harm causes fear &/ anxiety - which is also harm, to the psyche.
One (non-trivial) lie destroys *all* credibility.
Proof: IF someone lies *once*, THEN they may do so *again* - at any time, and how would anyone know?
Corollary: *All* lies are damaging; even so-called 'trivial' lies are deployed to deceive.
Lying is a necessary and sufficient entry into criminality.
Proof: *Because* lies are deployed to deceive, the liar either intends harm, if not already having caused harm.
Corollary: Criminals *must* lie - if only to avoid self-incrimination.
IF some crime THEN any number, and especially all 'lesser' crimes are then 'easy,' as mere bagatelles.
Proof: Self-evident; sample = "Shock'n whoring" of Iraq (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria ...), and end lemmas.
Objection: That not all crimes are prosecuted is a corrupt-scandal; that not all crimes are 'correctly' legislated against is a negligence-scandal - and that some non-crimes are 'incorrectly' legislated against is a criminal-scandal - all such scandals are proof of *tyranny*.
Only just law may earn respect!
End criminality (extended) lemma, «back»
 prima facie
adjective & adverb Law based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise: [as ADJ.] a prima facie case of professional misconduct | [as ADV.] the original lessee prima facie remains liable for the payment of the rent.
ORIGIN Latin, from primus ‘first’ + facies ‘face’.
[The NEW OXFORD Dictionary OF ENGLISH]
 conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire] [POD]
 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.]
 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.]
^ Quibbles: My arguments are often presented in the form:
Posit: IF p THEN q.
Possibly some discussion, ending with:
But time is fleeting = some short-cuts may be taken. Generally, I look at 'means, motive, and opportunity' + modus operandi, the oh, so obvious cui bono, and use a subset of Sherlock Holmes' ideas (i.e. eliminate the impossible) and Occam's Razor (rough analogue to KISS) - also loosely, 'balance of probabilities.' New here is 'proof by result;' more formalism on which perhaps, in some future post.
Further, when I say "all" I may mean not exactly 100% but almost all = 95% say, plus or minus a small few %s; formally within some confidence interval at a reasonable confidence level = the average plus/minus so many standard deviations, i.e. not quite exact - but good enough for the argument's sake.
End by requesting 'no frivolous quibbles please;' «back»
ELO/Os = hapless erstwhile legal owner/occupiers
I/J/Z-plex; illegitimate IL squats on genocidally ethnically-cleansed = improperly alienated, mainly Palestinian ELO/Os' land/property = IL is an un-remedied crime-scene and *all* I/J/Z-plex (except any actively opposing) are guilty; sole remedy = reparations = revest where possible, adequate = acceptable recompense where not + *sincere* apology
M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches.
MSM = mainstream media (print and broadcast), aka 'corrupt&venal'
neoliberalism = 'economic rationalism,' 'supply-side,' (wicked) privatisations, 'small govt.' = minimised to no égalité etc. + globalisation = wage arbitration etc. = <1% rips off 99%+
PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC
ppp-dd'd = pushed propaganda paradigm dumbed-down
PRopaganda = PR + propaganda, usual qualifier: 'lying'
SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on
the Enlightenment well summarised by liberté, égalité, fraternité
US-MMH = Media (aka press, radio + TV), Madison Ave., Hollywood
US&/Zs = the US of A and/or Zionists; sometimes indistinguishable
XS-CO2-CCC = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe
the prima facie conspiracy
.. what they say ...