.. this one ...
.. is a long one ...
.. please relax & enjoy
Thesis/Subtitle: new! (for me) "proof by result"
Concomitant: we know "it is not simple"
Corollary: but think 'digital'
Musing: With the notable exception of NP-complete problems ("the time required to solve the problem using any currently known algorithm increases very quickly as the size of the problem grows" - example TSP), many of the problems of our world are practically solvable, indeed this is the essence of digital computing; that problems are reducible to a series of yes/no decisions (literally, the base-unit for all calculations is the binary-digit = 'bit' - only possible values being 0 and 1). But even then, one may need vast amounts of data (hence statistics bureaux), appropriate algorithms and super-computers. Is there a quicker way? IMHO yes; one may deploy Occam's razor ("mak[ing] the fewest assumptions" - example KISS), and deduce causes from observed results.
A word on language and 'framing,' we live more or less in a 'lie-cloud;' the more MSM + PFBCs we 'consume,' so the more lies, with more truth available to 'consumers' of the alternate media, largely internet & blogs. The alternates offer a range, from the mundane to the outrageous, whereby the 'knack' is to discern the truth - looping back to deduction and 'proof by result.' One way they lie to us is to distort the meaning of words, example is Reagan's "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Note now that the US' 'enemies' are almost exclusively termed militants, jihadis and extremists etc., when the same terms apply equally to the US' own subversives, agitators, covert destabilisers, mercenaries (as now in Syria, Al-Qaeda) & 5th columns etc.. Because of the lies (see ppp-dd'd), almost no word retains its original meaning, hence my 'quoted' words. It's a signal to say: Consider carefully! Here, a lemma:
"It's not what they say, but what they do that counts."
Consider the word 'enemy' (in single quotes); these days as deployed in the (corrupt & venal) MSM + PFBCs on behalf of the US/Zs, it means “someone the US/Zs want to kill - i.e. typically some resource-owner, oil(US) or soil(Zs)” - instead of the strict dictionary meaning. Years ago (pre 2002, say), I'd never have considered 'enemies,' but now I see that the US/Zs are the world's worst enemies - of us, we the people. Here, the 1st example of 'proof by result;' BECAUSE they attempt to 'rule' = monopolistically exploit/plunder the world, the US (greatest military power) and IL (illegitimate sprog; tail wagging dog, equal greatest criminal power), both murdering for spoil as they do, AND their neoliberal, *erring ideology* economic 'system,' by almost exclusively pursuing profit, mostly by *unfair* means, they have *denied* and/or *derailed* any and all efforts to save the planet from the impending XS-CO2-CCC = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe. Now *that's* a BIG problem (perhaps, 99.9% say, being the BIGGEST problem), and also to someone who might say: "You will be blaming the US/Zs for the weather next!" - I say, latest now: "Been there, done that."
A final word here on 'framing,' IF one deploys an 'enemy' word, here from my headline "knee-jerk;" THEN one invokes the enemy's frame, possibly transferring *some* advantage to that (detested) enemy. Thus, *extreme* caution is recommended; some *anti-disadvantage* should be simultaneously deployed. Here, mine: After considering 'proof by result,' to be "anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism" is only a) perfectly logical, b) on the side of truth and justice and therefore c) correct. Best is not to invoke any enemy frame at all, but the prior a, b & c nevertheless still (always!) apply.
Trigger article 1:
Are Israel’s Jews, Some of Them, on Their Way to Becoming Nazis?
By Alan Hart
December 05, 2012
«... there will at some point be a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and that might well convert the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism into classical anti-Semitism, bringing on Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews, ...
“The only way Israel is ever going to give up the occupation and its habit of military aggression is by going too far – by becoming such a Goliath that the Western world finally tells it to clean up its act or find some new allies.”»
Comment 1a: Hart starts with a typical anti-anti-something 'explanation,' possibly illustrating the fear instilled in many by the Jews; as soon as someone criticises the Jews, they set out to curse & smear - if not kill their mostly justified critics.
Comment 1b: Hart can be valuable when he introduces 'new' material, like the above cited article's extended quote from Jabotinsky. On the other hand, and not for the 1st time, he invokes doubts of his own sincerity/integrity, like his "go to hell" comment. (Q: Could he actually be a deep-cover hasbarah-ist?)
Comment 1c: Hart's "classical anti-Semitism" is a coded trigger, reinforcing my (1b). Then, criminals never "give up" their criminality unless forced - hence police *forces*. What is *required* is effective policing; arrest, try, convict & punish the so-called 'leaders,' then RoR+RaR = right of return plus revest and reparations for the hapless victims, their heirs & successors - there can never be peace without justice.
Comment 2a: See my "bipedal brutal pigs" and its three quotes, here in somewhat shorter form:
1. Herzl(1897): "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor [Palestinians] must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
2. Jabotinsky(~1923): "Unremitting force is viewed as the only answer to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."
3. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): "... we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
Comment 2b: The quotes out of their own mouths convict the prime-perpetrators = Zionists, now Israel. The deafening silence convicts all non-actively-opposing bystanders - like the UN (it's their job!), and most 'Western' governments, say.
Comment 2c: Proof by result = country-theft by murdering-violence; the Zio-Nazis preceded the D-Nazis (both perpetrated aggressive invasions, and the Zio-Nazis went on to ethnically-cleanse almost the entire country of Palestine by genocidal methods); the essential difference is that the 'the world' went after the D-Nazis (= WW2), but the Zio-Nazis are tolerated by some = bad, then worse, are actively helped by others (UK, US, D etc.). Worst, is that the Zio-Nazis are *still active* in their un-remedied crime-scene. Why the bloody-hell that?
Trigger article 2:
It’s time for the media to talk about Zionism
By Philip Weiss
December 05, 2012
«Last week, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan characterized me as "the anti-Zionist Jewish-American journalist ...
I believe the media have refused to explore the Zionist issue ...
But so long as these beliefs are not examined, and Israel and its supporters continue to play such a large role in our policymaking, the silence is bad for Jews. It allows people who are justifiably angry over our foreign policy to believe that all Jews support Israel, or suspect that we disguise our dual loyalty with misleading prescriptions about American security. It allows Zionists to seek cover for our country's blind support for Israel by stating that there is no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism - when there is absolutely a difference.»
Comment 1: Typical, that a Jew is worried about other Jews, with no idea of actually securing justice for the Jews' main victims, namely those who survived the Zionists' murderous attacks to become the improperly dispossessed ELO/Os (justice as I suggest above, namely RoR+RaR), let alone stopping the crimes and bringing any Zionist perpetrators to justice. Here, a note on 'facts on the ground:' Whatever one person/group does, can always be reversed by some other person/group: noone, and certainly no Zionist/Israelis, can ever legitimately own stolen land/property.
Comment 2: Nice to find 'kindred thoughts,' even if slightly mangled:
Comment to Weiss article
«fascistsloveplunder · 18 hours ago
one more thing.
how can such a virulent strain of ideology EVER be called liberal- as in liberal zionist? huh?
could we have had liberal nazis, for instance?
i think it's another case of the word liberal being ruined and made useless. as with neo CONSERVATIVE ruining the word conservative. neo LIBERAL is the theft of the political meaning of liberal, at least as i understood liberal to mean. seems to me all orwellian stuff for the nwo psyop propaganda world we shafted with these days.
by stealing the words, they steal our arguments. so, liberal zionism sounds like it's meant to soften the terror in the real definition- or, what zionism APPEARS to mean, BY ITS BELIEFS, MOTTOS AND ACTIONS- THE ONES YOU CAN HEAR AND SEE WITH YOUR EARS AND EYES.»
[ICH/Weiss ibid. - reader comment]
Comment: What I said, sort of; words having their meanings twisted, it's not what is said but what is done, etc..
Trigger article 3:
An Answer to the Anti-anti-war Left
by Jean Bricmont / December 5th, 2012
«Of course, the U.S. government is scarcely aware of the existence of the anti-anti-war Left. The United States decides whether or not to wage war according to the chances of succeeding and to their own assessment of their strategic, political and economic interests. And once a war is begun, they want to win at all costs. It makes no sense to ask them to carry out only good interventions, against genuine villains, using gentle methods that spare civilians and innocent bystanders.
For example, those who call for “saving Afghan women” are in fact calling on the United States to intervene and, among other things, bomb Afghan civilians and shoot drones at Pakistan. It makes no sense to ask them to protect but not to bomb, because armies function by shooting and bombing.»
Comment 1: This article is where the "knee-jerk" in my title came from; as no snip can ever be representative, this article should be read in its entirety.
Comment 2: Some people do complain, that there is no anti-war left, be any such Left, Right or Centre etc.. Of course it's nonsense - there definitely is an anti-war group, and neither small nor shabby - just ignored. Which brings up the next Q: Why are sooo many decent people sooo silent?
Comment 3: Anti-war at the moment = all of anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, because it's the US/Zs 'driving' most wars, and the wars are basically for resources; US - oil/gas/pipelines, and Zs - soil. Plus, the US/Zs press for hegemony; Zs in the ME and US wherever they want, where 'want' is defined as places with resources to grab, or competition to oppose/disable/conquer. But I suppose that you, dear reader, know this by now.
Trigger article 4:
“Legal Imperialism” and International Law: Legal Foundations for War Crimes, Debt Collection and Colonization
By Prof. James Petras
December 03, 2012
«Imperial legal doctrines and judicial decisions set the groundwork for imperial wars and economic pillage. The empire’s legal experts redefine assassinations, coercion, torture and arbitrary arrests as compatible with the ‘constitutional order’ by claiming imminent and constant threats to the security of the imperial state.
In this sense, imperial rulers are not ‘lawless’ as some liberal critics would argue; they function in accordance with ‘imperial jurisprudence’ and are faithful to the legal doctrines of empire building.»
Comment: I will only make a few responses:
1. I don't agree with Petras' thrust, typified by the 2nd para cited above. Making up *bad* law, ignoring good law, cannot be termed "not ‘lawless’" - see next.
2. Only just law may earn respect. I list the 'basic' crimes as lying, cheating, theft and murder. The US/Zs are 'prime perpetrators' of all those; their SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on, the UN and anyone who does not actively oppose that group make themselves accessories, and I simply cannot understand how this criminal group can operate (might does not make right); repeat Q: Why are sooo many decent people sooo silent? We, the (decent) people vastly outnumber the crooks. One may understand lawyers (apparently as good as zero morals), but what about the rest in the universities? Why are they largely 'on the wrong side?' - see next:
3. Boo, hiss! - Not at Petras, but at all crooks, especially crooks who murder to steal, all the while claiming to be 'good guys.' - Grrr!
Fazit 1: There's nothing at all "knee-jerk" about my anti-criminality.
Fazit 2: On Zionism/Israel, my 3 points in conclusion:
1. It was obvious from latest Herzl(1897), that the 'Zionist project' was by definition criminal: "the process of expropriation and the removal ..." Yet Balfour extended UK 'support.' Then came Jabotinsky(~1923): "Unremitting force..." as reinforcement. The next yet:
2. It was obvious from latest 1947, that the UN was corrupt; UNGA181: "an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State ... shall be evacuated ..." (my emphasis). No just person in their right mind would deliberately try to write 'improper dispossession of existing natives' into any law, but there it is in black & white. Recall only just law may earn respect. Then came Plan Dalet & Deir Yassin (and all the vicious etc.s; such outrages continuing intermittently, right down to the 'current moment.') Still, the now obviously criminal Zionists were and are 'allowed' to continue effectively un-checked. Another yet:
3. From Weiss: "... that all Jews support Israel," blah blah, him trying to object. BUT: The 'Zionist project' Israel, latest from its 1897 formulation, was and still is a criminal enterprise. *THAT* is simultaneously the 'greatest' achievement and 'eternal' damnation of *ALL* Jews (excepting possibly active anti-Zionists (perhaps including Weiss, but so far all such = ineffective, and anyway very much in the minority - again obviously) - proof: Illegitimate, un-remedied, Nuremberg-class crime-scene = Israel - is both allowed & supported to continue on its hideous way; ever more killing, ever more stealing.
 enemy n. (pl. -ies) 1 person actively hostile to another. 2 a (often attrib.) hostile nation or army. b member of this. 3 adversary or opponent (enemy of progress). [Latin: related to *in-2, amicus friend] [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.]
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
don't give in! - to knee-jerk
anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism
- document using the truth, demanding justice for victims,
& gaol++ for the psychopathic, murdering-to-steal criminals
.. this one ...