cooperation vs. confrontation
 irresponsible 'representatives'
  what a shitty, criminal system!

.. 'no debate' often means ...

  .. obfuscation + suppression ...

    .. typical of tyrants and dictators


Thesis/Subtitle: That many of our so-called 'leaders' = representative politicians are liars, rogues and even outright criminals.

Concomitant: That our so-called 'democracies' = deliberate sham = imposture, pretence.

Corollary: We the people need to take our power back.

Preamble: There is a difference between information designed to honestly inform and information designed to deceive [1, 2]. Well, *everyone* knows that - but can one always tell the difference?

Similarly, there's a difference between an honest debate and one designed to 'prove' an erring allegation/contention = as good as no debate at all.

Democracy is *assumed* to be 'of, by, for the people,' whereby the people surrender their power (to control their own lives & circumstances) to elected representatives who are to govern *in the people's interests.*

The dictionary defines 'criminal' as a person guilty of a crime[3], but since our so-called 'leaders' are not only 'law-makers' but also control the courts & police as well, there's a conflict of interest, so a better definition of 'criminal' here is one who harms people, their property or minds (the latter by instilling fear, say).

When 'representatives' act *against* we the people's interest, they make themselves a) un- & anti-representatives, b) traitors and c) criminals. Off to gaol with 'em, or even tumbrels!

Un- & anti-representatives could not get away with their crimes without the smoke-screen = lies provided via and by the MSM. PFBCs joining in with ditto = smoke-screen lies are worse; off to gaol or tumbrels for 'em all!

End preamble.


Trigger article 1:

There is no such thing as society
 G. R. Steele
30 September 2009
  «That detail derives from the work of Friedrich Hayek, which was much admired by Margaret Thatcher. The unifying theme of Hayek’s extensive writing is that the most enduring social institutions are shaped by spontaneous evolution, rather than by intellectual design...
Such “natural” structures are denigrated by left-of-centre intellectuals who sense that humankind can achieve a more rational order by design. Or, as Hayek writes, “One’s initial surprise at finding that intelligent people tend to be socialists diminishes when one realises that, of course, intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence.”»

Recommend: Read it all; it's short, pithy - and IMHO mostly wrong.

Comment: The opinion describes a key, basic problem. As with Adam Curtis' "The Century of the Self," that a certain group ('The Establishment,' OR 'the ruling élite' (nothing élite about criminals!)) - better, 'those leading us astray' - came up with an anti-Enlightenment strategy. The people were encouraged to 'look out for #1,' and allow any who might need society's support to begin 'falling between the cracks.'

Proof: Since approx. the mid-70s (marked in Aus by the anti-Whitlam coup), it's all been 'downhill' for us, we the people (the original Medibank survives, albeit in maliciously-manipulated = *anti*-intelligent, crippled form). Sure, there have been some advances (electronics tending less expensive, say), but for most it's been largely at the expense of a) ever-lowering job-quality, b) ever-lowering job-security, c) ever-lowering wages, when not d) ever-fewer jobs. See the US as 'putative society leader;' much manufacturing gone = jobs exported = ever-more products imported, mostly falling real wages and ever-increasing unemployment. It's simply not sustainable; proof = ever-increasing deficits, which the US 'pays' for by simply 'printing' $s. But almost every $ is issued as a loan = at interest = %, which someone has to pay. How, who? End-result of such a one-way process will be row upon row of bloodless stones. Contrast with 'Fordism.'

NB: "shaped by spontaneous evolution, rather than by intellectual design" - think about it - can you believe that 'spontaneous evolution' could excel over 'intellectual design?' Really? As if transistors, based as they are on quantum mechanics, could spontaneously appear en masse? IMHO, it's proof of the vandals' (not so well hidden) agenda = actual, criminal intent. Another proof: The <1% getting ever richer, ever faster - not so much a complaint as an evident fact.

Final word for here; Q: What's the alternative to "intellectual design?"

A1: Dumb design, or

A2: No design?


Trigger article 2:

Power privatisation would be good for Queensland
 By ABC's Alan Kohler
Posted January 24, 2013 12:10:10
  «Queensland Premier Campbell Newman is dead wrong on the subject of electricity privatisation.
It might true that the people in that state don't like the idea, but it's his job to persuade them and lead, not meekly give up on what he knows to be true.
Selling state-owned businesses is about the best thing a government can do...»

Note: "ABC's Alan Kohler." It doesn't specifically say 'opinion,' although it's in an AusBC opinion section.

Comment 1: The article's content is so bad - IMHO - as to be risible. But it's in the comments (in my own case 1st ~60 out of 410 read), where the true impact emerges - almost universal condemnation of Kohler's thesis. Read for yourself, then ask Q: Why is Kohler pushing such obvious shit? (My suggested A: Corruption.)

Comment 2: Privatisation of public utilities is outright theft. Think about it: The idea is that privatisation (the 'selling-point,') will somehow produce a positive for the people, because (assertions), a) public servants running utilities are (comparatively) inefficient vs. b) 'private enterprise,' being 'naturally' superior. Such assertions are not proven beforehand, but almost invariably disproved by subsequent results - too late! What's usually omitted are the prices (two), namely 1) the selling price (almost invariably too low) and 2) the profit to be extracted - invariably too high, in fact possibly infinitely so, when the public service was being run on egalitarian basis.

Comment 3: Despite more than enough evidence *against* privatisation, it is *still* being pushed & worse, implemented. This is *proof* of our so-called 'leaders' treachery - and as here, *proof* of the AusBC's accessory-treachery. Gaol! Tumbrels!


Trigger article 3:

Recession, Depression or Jobless Recovery?
Long-Term Unemployment under “Neoliberal Capitalism”
By Alan Nasser
February 01, 2013
  «Alas, then came, in the 1970s, the elite revolt against the “welfare state”, with declining labor income, a corporate revenue squeeze, accelerating credit inflation, rising inequality and financialization. That prelude to crisis eventually gave rise to the ensuing meltdown of 2007-2008 and the attempt by business and government to reconfigure the old Keynesian settlement into the shape of Microeconomics 101. The world after the current depression will neither look nor feel as it did in the lifetimes of those of us who grew up in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s. Persistent inequality and lowered living standards will be among the highest costs of neoliberalism, a return to a peculiar fusion of key features of the capitalism of the 1920s (unregulated, free markets and dramatic inequality) and 1930s (high unemployment and lowered living standards).» 

Comment 1: The above 'snip' is all I care to recommend, as (partial) proof of what I'm writing about here.

Comment 2; note: "elite revolt;" not *for* us, we the people, but *against* us - as is now 101% clear. Along the way, they (the so-called 'élite' pulling our politicians' strings) told us, via and actively assisted by the MSM/PFBCs, *whopping*, self-serving lies. More proof of treachery.


Trigger article 4:

Concerns raised over 'death trap' fire bunkers
 By Tom Tilley
 Updated February 05, 2013 07:51:58
  «But despite the brochure that clearly marketed their products as personal fire shelters, their invoice was made out for a storage shelter.
"They told me that their bunker was way superior than any others, it'll be the first cab off the rank to be accredited, and it's only a matter of time that they get it accredited," she said.»

Comment 1: This may appear to be unrelated - but it is, in that it shows the failure of 'free markets' = free, not for competition, but free of (safety, performance) regulation, and the underlying *irresponsibility* of our so-called 'leaders.'

Comment 2: Imagine anyone being allowed to sell a product that could literally lead to someone dying because of it?

Comment 3; note: Responsibility for regulations vis-à-vis fire protection, building safety, etc. (plus the economy, our entire life-situation) are spread across states and political parties; IF deficiencies of regulation exist - they obviously do (and a part of neoliberalism specifically works to 'roll-back' most if not all regulation), THEN it's bi-partisan failure; recall that bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic since no meaningful option is on offer to the electorate.


Argument: No further argument, your honour.


Members of the jury, how do you find?

Fazit: Guilty, your honour.


PS Q: What about 'no debate?'

A: Neoliberalism continues to be 'rolled out' - as if there was no debate = no option = Thatcher's "TINA!" But it, neoliberalism, is simply, mostly wrong; it should be stopped & itself 'rolled-back' - but only a few bloggers like me say so. Why that? Where is the decent majority of correctly thinking people?



[1] 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. [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] crime  n. 1 a offence punishable by law. b illegal acts (resorted to crime). 2 evil act (crime against humanity). 3 colloq. shameful act. [Latin crimen] [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

Zionism (latest post-Jabotinsky, '23) = permanent aggressive war

1 comment:

  1. Particularly pernicious is Kohler's hearty approval of privatising Aus' Commonwealth Bank = deliberately disposing of a continuous income source for the people via govt. ownership of a bank.

    See the bankster swindle which refers to What a government can do with its own bank: The remarkable model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia by Ellen Brown.

    Consider so-called 'fractional reserve banking,' where the fraction = 1/10. Let the interest on savings be 3% and on loans 7%. The idea is that a bank covers its costs and makes its profit from the difference between its loan income = 7% & savings outgoings = 3%, on the face of it a 'modest' 4%. Let's see:

    A depositor puts in $100, costing the bank $3 p/a.

    Due to the 1/10 ratio, the bank may now loan $100 * 10 = $1000, 'earning' the bank $70 p/a.

    Note that the bank 'creates' $900, by 'fiat' = at *zero* cost.

    Note also, that by this process, the bank 'creates' 90% of all the money 'out there' as loans (neglecting the Q: Where do deposits come from in the 1st place?) - and charges interest on this 90%.

    So the putative 4% is simply rubbish; for every $1,- the bank has in deposits it may 'earn' 67¢ *every year* (less overheads) - a colossal source of *unearned income* = 'economic rent.' You work it out, then consider that Aus' Commonwealth Bank also once had 'central bank' functions. Then consider if a publicly-owned Aus' Commonwealth Bank operating as our central bank created *all* the money, therefore keeping *all* the loan-income for the people, instead of letting the fat-cat private banksters stuff vast, essentially unearned income into their own pockets.

    Deposits are people's savings, plus any 'parked,' temporarily idle money. The 67¢ per deposit-$ per year extracted by the private banks is an enormous drain on the economy; think continuous leaky-bucket, and 'free-lunches' for the private banksters. How is this fair, let alone justified? It is more and absolute proof of politician perfidy and MSM + PFBC mendacity.