the enemy of my enemy is my friend (enemies = US, Zs; liars, cheats & criminals)

.. getting censored by the AusBC ...

  .. proves that they are un- & anti-democratic ...

    .. but WTF when a so-called 'friend' censors my comments?

Thesis: One single event, i.e. a deliberate lie[1] (always bad) or action (worse->worst = cheat[2] or rip-off then theft, murder) - is enough to declare the perpetrator = enemy.
 
[update, 11:09]

-=*=-

Trigger event: Comment submitted to Damian Lataan's blog item "IF INTERVENTION IN LIBYA IS GOOD ..." was *not* published = was censored; grrr! My comment summarised: Western (US + sycophantic quisling hangers-on) intervention in Libya was/is *not* good; see the comment in full here. Damian may have a bearable 'excuse' so I'm not declaring him enemy (yet), and so to my wider topic = friends vs. enemies:

What sparked my comment to Damian's blog was amongst other things this: "the American desire for intervention was reflexively always likely to be viewed with suspicion by the Left anyway ..."

Specifically: "reflexive," by which I *assume* is meant "as an automatic response."

Q: Is/are there ground(s) to be 'automatically' against any particular US action?

A: Lots. They should not need enumeration, and let's face it, a full list would likely never end. Blum has documented much, for an example try here. Hardly a day goes by without some new proof 'surfacing,' but not usually via the corrupt & venal MSM. Think WikiLeaks, say.

The US 'has form,' and does *all* of what I term the 'basic crimes' of lying, cheating, theft & murder.

They even dare boast of it: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business," nothing at all 'tongue-in-cheek' about it, since that's *exactly* what they do.

No documentation of the Z's multifarious grave crimes need be given; suffice it to say that any project which began with a vast crime (= Deir Yassin type massacres, say) and continues the same criminal way for the last 62+ grisly years (latest outrage = the murdering high-seas attack on the 'peace-flotilla') - such a project is not only criminal but actually illegitimate to boot.

Quickly now and somewhat repetitively, the world faces *massive* problems, possibly the worst and getting the least remedial action being the becoming ever less-avoidable excess-CO2 caused climate catastrophe, then resource depletion, pollution and generally *unsustainable* consumption. We simply can't afford to continue down that idiotically destructive path, but any progress is a) blocked by the so-called 'world-leader' and b) our attention diverted partly by idiot entertainment - and Israel's continued ghastly crimes.

Going back to lies being a) deployed to decieve and b) leading on to crime, what's needed is a world-wide 'MiniTrue' authority to stamp out lies so the US&/Zs can't keep their filthy propaganda going, can't keep the real problems being obscured and ignored.

Stop and reverse:

The military domination by the US empire must be stopped and reversed - go home, bastards!

The economic depredation by the US empire must be stopped and reversed.

The criminal dispossession of the hapless Palestinians must be stopped and reversed.

The excess-CO2 polluting our life-supporting biosphere must be stopped and reversed.

Get that done; get the world back on track, restore "The Enlightenment" as our *correct* method and destination - then perhaps lots of us could stop suffering the inner terror which the US&Zs continuously inflict upon us all.

-=*end*=-

PS - An absolutely vital point:

We know - or by now bloody-well should know - that we're being lied to = propagandised, and that continuously. I 'monitor' the output of several state-supported broadcasters; they've *all* been sending the same 'tone' = demonising Gaddafi, reporting 'his' atrocities by attacking his own people etc.. Some of it is undoubtedly true, but the important 'hook' here is the 'some,' namely what proportion really is true (as opposed to mainly US-sourced propaganda), and how much/many of the atrocities are really being done by Gaddafi forces, as opposed to how much is being done by infiltrator/destabilisers?

The intervention itself was done with what appears to have been unseemly haste; one report held that the French aircraft were on the way before/during Sarkozy's Paris conference, a fact which was notified *only* at the end, another - equally hastily revised, perhaps, to say that Sarkozy'd advised the conference 'beforehand.' Hmmm. Haste was of course required everywhere, because it looked like the 'rebels' were headed for a loss or the exits, if not both.

The next and obvious question is Q: How much of the supposed 'revolution' was being instigated/done by 'ring-in' (CIA etc.) subversives?

Let me put that, another way: Recalling the known fact that the MSM conduits and *actively* assists lies being transmitted to us, so exactly how far have we been led down the garden path - this time?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] 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. [POD]

[2] cheat -v. 1 a (often foll. by into, out of) deceive or trick. b (foll. by of) deprive of. 2 gain an unfair advantage by deception or breaking rules. -n. 1 person who cheats. 2 trick, deception. cheat on colloq. be sexually unfaithful to. [from *escheat] [ibid.]

-=*=-
 
Update, 11:09; Damian has explained (see his comment of 10:42 below) and all is OK.

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Comment posted Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:47:00 PM 'blog-time:'
IDHolm said...
G'day Damian, may this 'lefty' dare to differ?

Vis-à-vis black vs. white, the US will *always* act only when there are $s in it, even when aiding the gruesomely criminal Zs.

The parallels between Saddam & Gaddafi are far more important than any differences, namely both tried to extract a 'fairer' return on their 'patrimony' (that word 'popularised' thanks, but "No, thanks!" to GWBush), and both returned more to their own people than is 'neoliberally' acceptable. These are similar/same parallels we see with Iran & Chavez, say.

All US 'enemies' suffer covert destabilisation attacks, we can only speculate how far this secret subversion aggravates or even actually creates any tendency towards tyranny = suppression of civil rights by Saddam, Gaddafi, Iran & Chavez, etc.. We know about the "El Salvador" option and how al-Qaida was created, and some of the US/CIA/Z/Mossad dirty tricks. How or why would we *not* suspect all the same dirty tricks to have been active against Gaddafi?

Any 'nuanced' analysis must acknowledge the realities, one of the starkest being the contempt of the people demonstrated by the US regimes = ruling 'élite' (nothing élite about crime) - over more than the last 100 years, and the interventions they have done, and the utter misery they inflict. See "Rogue State," see "Hit Man," see "Hegemony or Survival."

The neoCons are an extension, perhaps 'merely' a continuation, of the US erring ideology, typified by their utter negation of communism, socialism, or even mild 'welfare state' assistance to the 'lower' (= poorer = serf) classes. The lower classes are *deliberately* forced there, *deliberately* held there, and if at all possible, *deliberately* made to suffer ever more.

The current attacks on Libya already vastly exceed anything needed to 'protect' any civilians, and the end-result will be the same as Iraq; namely infrastructure widely if not completely destroyed (not 'merely' military but transport, utilities = water, sewage, power, phone, possibly hospitals and schools). The other and (for the US) most important of all end-result will be the 'harvesting' of the 'economic rent' by 'the West' (mainly US multinationals) of Libya's oil. Any other result would contradict the habitual, vast, criminal record of the US.

[«back»].

Proof of posting:

Shockin' Whore Mk2 = Nuremberg, Libyan version .. eight years after Iraq outrage, 'new' president, same-old criminality

.. the supreme international crime, ...

  .. differing only from other war crimes in that ...

    .. it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole

Subtitle: They've killed off not only "The Enlightenment" but some 'just' law and all decency with it.

Summary: We, the sheople, have *NO* say at all. We were not even asked (last time we had time to demo - but/and were ignored; called "a mob"), nor this time were the 'sham' parliaments even (publicly) 'briefed.' Our so-called 'leaders' procured an UNSC resolution, 'to protect civilians,' and what we've got is a full-on = total war, all the US plus (cowed &/ coerced = corrupt, quisling) 'allies' know. They will destroy any- and every-thing (civilian infrastructure as well as 'military'); that'll teach any dissidents who dare disobey = 4th Reich by stealth = lying propaganda; via and often *assisted by* corrupt & venal MSM + Hollywood (no, it's *not* just a movie!) TV + film = dumbing-down the sheople; how/why else do they so easily swallow the horrid lies?

-=*=-

Trigger article:

Libya, Hypocrisy and Betrayal by the United Nations
By Felicity Arbuthnot
March 19, 2011
  «"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever." - George Orwell.» 
[ICH/Arbuthnot]

Comment: Absolutely, chillingly correct - how did he know?

-=*=-

Trigger article:

The UN Security Council Has Not Authorized Regime Change in Libya
By Robert Naiman
March 18, 2011
  «It is crucial that the goal of protecting civilians, which the Security Council has endorsed, and the goal of overthrowing the Libyan government, which it has most certainly not endorsed, be kept distinct. There is a clear effort by some actors - especially the French government - to conflate these goals ... » 
[ICH,justforeignpolicy/Naiman]

Comment: One should read both - I did.

-=*=-

Fazit: Another 'Western' (see 'US plus' above) murdering war for oil. Apart from asking Q: Why not just *buy* oil (supposedly 'free' market), every barrel of oil burnt (over any *sustainable* minimum) adds to the coming excess CO2-caused climate catastrophe. This time, the so-called un- and anti-democratic ruling 'élite' (nothing élite about crime) are taking the world down with their totally unnecessary (they're already obscenely rich) greed.

-=*end*=-

PS

Q: Why "'sham' parliaments," "un- and anti-democratic?"

A: Functionally 'proper' democracy (of, by, for the people etc.) requires at least (1) a fully and honestly informed electorate (we're not), (2) a 'fair' choice of honest candidates (most are not, and bipartisan policies offer us *no* choice at all), and (3) elected representatives who faithfully implement the will of the majority, whilst protecting any minorities' interests (most do not so-represent).

QED

The people must regain sovereignty; all else is otherwise lost.

the TINA lie, & other such leadership failures

.. things one really knows ...

  .. things one thinks one knows ...

    .. things one can simply *never* know

-=*=-

Preamble: There are two opposing philosophical outlooks of interest here, a) the (eternal?) optimist: "We never had it so good!" - vs. b) the (pragmatic?) pessimist: "*Must* do better... " Given the current 'state of play,' I choose pessimism. We will start with a few of the things going wrong:

1. Run-away pollution. Any sort of pollution is always bad news, since it has the potential to poison or otherwise negatively affect our once jewel-like planet's life-supporting ecosphere. Excess-CO2 may be the worst pollutant, in that it could - if not sufficiently reversed most likely will - induce a climate-change catastrophe.

Q: Are any effective steps being taken? A: No; since the result could be terminal for most life as we know (& like) it; possibly the greatest leadership failure.

2. Excess population growth. «The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book modeling the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies, commissioned by the Club of Rome.» From 4bio in 1974, we are about to cross the 7bio line, with 9.2bio as estimated peak. Already, some resource limits may have been exceeded.

Q: Were effective steps taken? A: If any then not sufficient (too little, too late), some even to the contrary; another leadership failure.

3. Systemic economic failure. As one of the 1st, Thatcher cried "TINA!" and began neoliberalising. Add Reagan, Hawke/Keating, Clinton, Howard/Costello, Blair et al.. (Note bipartisan; why that?) As a result, in combination with globalisation policies, economies across the planet are failing, most people getting less well off etc. These policies were deliberate, continue to be implemented and even extended to affect more victims.

Q: Any effective steps being taken? A: No; *deliberate* leadership failure.

4. More war, rather than less. The UN was *supposed* to eliminate war; fell pretty well at the 1st hurdle (UNGA181). The UN 'good intentions' have been crippled, mainly by the US, mainly in the service of Israel and/or US' empire/hegemony.

Q: Any effective steps being taken? A: No; *more, worse & ghastly* deliberate leadership failures.

From the above (incomplete) list, we can see that things are *not* getting better, the obvious, biggest question Q: Why not? Why such grievous *leadership* failures?

Thesis: The world is imperilled by these and other *leadership* failures, so-termed since we the sheople have *NO* effective control over our so-called 'leadership.' They do = fail, we suffer.

Sub-thesis: Our so-called 'democracies' mostly do not work = sham.

-=*=-

Argument:

1) Things one *really* knows ... in comparison (1:7bio), not much. An old saw: "Trust half of what one sees, far less of what one hears." Already we hit a, if not *the* problem; Q: Why trust half/less, why not trust *all*? Simple (but not simplistic) A: Lies[1].

Q: Who wants to be deceived? A: Not me. Worse, IF voters are deceived THEN democracy is destroyed, since deceived voters cannot possibly deliver informed votes.

Q: Are we the sheople being lied to? A: Yes, ergo democracy *impossible* - the 1st of three blows, *all* fatal[2].

Proof: "All politicians lie!" - Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Howard.

Corollary: Lying so-called 'leaders' have a looong history, see Plato's 'noble lie[3].'

Debunk: My main thesis; our so-called leaders' lies are now so 'advanced' that they may well be killing the planet's ecosphere & therefore killing us, we the sheople off, as 'collaterals.' The wiki even says as much: "whereas noble lies ... would ... cause discord if uncovered." - Gotta be stopped! And not so BTW, so-called 'élites' are totally mis-named; there's nothing élite about crime - seemingly their forte (will be elaborated, even if not already apparent).

Summary: IF 'things one really knows' are only derived from personal experience (necessarily limited) OR untrustworthy sources, THEN we're condemned in large part to (relative) ignorance. See next.

-=*=-

2) Things one *thinks* one knows: Say the things that we read, hear &/or see via the (corrupt & venal) MSM. A personal anecdote:

Many years ago, I had a 'debate' with a friend over Israel vs. Palestine. I argued pro-IL, she pro-Palestine. It turns out that she had it mostly correct, and me almost everything totally wrong. The point of this story: I had accumulated almost all of my current-affairs 'knowledge' from the local publicly-financed broadcaster, then & still known as the AusBC. In a nutshell, I had trusted the AusBC - but they had lied (not just 'little whites' - Oh no!) Here is a *grave* problem. The AusBC was then, as it remains, a taxpayer-financed agency of the government, indirectly but literally 'our' AusBC. That they *dare* lie to us means that they are 'permitted' by the government to so lie, confirming that neither the government nor the AusBC are our 'friends.' Thus (via GWBush), IF they are not our friends THEN both the government and the AusBC are our enemies. All this before we get to the 'for profit' MSM, i.e. on the one hand Murdoch's News Ltd./theAus group, on the other 'extremist' talk-back radio. No need to say much, if anything, more.

A BTW re the AusBC: Allegations of 'left bias' are risible; one only needs to read/listen/watch for a while to see huge pro-US, pro-IL, pro-war, pro-religion, not to mention pro-Liberal bias. Any alleging 'left bias' is either an outright idiot/liar, a trouble-maker, or both & more.

The point: As with the politicians, the 'news-gateways' relay & often actively augment lies, again making proper democracy impossible.

-=*=-

3) Things one can simply *never* know: How may one list 'known unknowns?' (Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Rumsfeld[5]) Physicists (Heisenberg, say) tell us that there are things, mostly in the quantum frame, that we may never know, i.e. "that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known." Note that there is an 'or' in there; we may determine one but not the other, we have an 'or' choice, and it is *not* as if we may know *nothing*. But there is *one* important one, in no *physical* frame at all, namely the (non!)existence of some g*d (or other/s). We do know, also from science, that our universe is 'closed' via the conservation laws. No message = information (mass or light, nothing) may either 'leave to' or 'arrive from' 'outside' our universe - for *two* very good reasons; (1) any such 'transmission' would violate the conservation laws and (2, much worse); Q: How can one define 'outside?' A: Impossible. But again, that's the whole point of religion & the 'g*d-delusion,' the impossible is claimed possible - via 'faith.' Their 'next trick' is to claim that yes, their g*d is in fact *supernatural*, again on faith alone (aka lacking any evidence; circular). This gives rise to 'belief is what some do in the absence of evidence.' All I can say in this 'here&now' is "Suit yourself!"

There is a point to my anti-religious diatribe, namely this(these):

1. By 'promising[4]' life (and/or justice) after death, religion reduces the need and opportunity to properly enjoy life in the 'here&now' *and* reduces the need and opportunity to properly pursue criminals. A *very* convenient, ultra-cynical swindle.

2. Again worse; by 'hoaxing' people into believing an impossibility, they propagate what may be the biggest lie of all. After *that* particular 'extreme-of-extremes' lie, propagating all other lies must be a doddle.

Not such a BTW re g*d/religion: There is an 'Age of Reason' before which children are vulnerably gullible (it's in their survival-interests to place 100% trust in their primary-carers). Beginning the above referred to hoaxing *before* the child's 'Age of Reason,' especially by presenting the 'believe in g*d and get eternal life - or else' swindle, (usually?) allied with scaring the child with the fear of death, is about the worst child-abuse possibly imaginable. Minds (indeed, whole lives) handicapped, basically before they even start.

-=*=-
 
Facit: Lies are the 'gateway' to crime. ('Basic' crimes = lies, cheating, theft & murder.) Lies are deployed to deceive, and deceivers are out to rip you off, if not kill you. See 62+ bloody years of land-theft from Palestine by murdering Zionists (Zs = the worst liars on the planet), the (mainly) US theft of (the returns from) resources (via resource-rent, say), the (mainly) US lust for oil leading the US to wide-scale aggression, one result the current side-effect revolutions among the repressed & ripped-off Arab/Muslim citizenry. There's lots more, like the US rape of South America (death-squads, support for tyrants). Then, see [5]. Q: Why '(mainly) US?' A: With appr. 5% of the world's population, the US consumes appr. 25% of the world's resources; that didn't happen by chance. The US 'defense' (actually attack) budget rivals the entire rest of the world's arms-spend, and it's mainly the US a) attacking resource-owners and/or ripping them off & b) pushing neoliberal 'voodoo' economics. [This section slightly revised on 7Mar'11.]

Since lies are the 'gateway' to crime, stopping lies is the first step to stopping the crimes - before the crimes (cheating = banks etc., other rip-offs = thefts, by war = (mass)murders, worst: *lack* of leadership climate-change catastrophe) - before the (mainly) US(Z) crimes stop us all - dead.

Plato is sooo yesterday; we *demand* proper democracy!

(Read [5] yet?)

-=*end*=-

PS The 'noble lie' swindle *exactly* explains the unreasoned and unreasonable US rage at Wikileaks; the leaked = exposed US lies turn out to be anything *but* noble. Time to boot the lying, perfidious ruling-class right *out*?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] 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] [POD]

[2] The other two blows: 2) False = no effective choice, reduced choice (i.e. no matter who 'wins' we still cooperate in US aggressive wars); worse, when Lib=Lab=bipartisan, which allows the voter no real choice at all, and 3) representatives who after election a) do what *they* want to do (as opposed to doing the will of the majority, whilst protecting any minorities) and b) who generally favour the sheoples' *enemies* = vested interests = the 'big end of town' - by privatising the sheople's utilities, say. Such representatives are literally both worse than nothing and worth less than nothing. [This section slightly revised on 7Mar'11.]

[3] «In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in The Republic. A noble lie, although it may benefit all parties, is different from a white lie since a white lie does not cause discord if uncovered whereas noble lies are usually of a nature such that they would do so.»
[wiki/Plato]

[4] promise -n. 1 assurance that one will or will not undertake a certain action etc. [POD]

Note that the 'g*d promise' is both unverifiable & unpunishable; the dead *never* come back. Oh! Except, for believers, that single, very special once. Just how desperate, how gullible, how *pitiful* is that?
 
[5] «If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the "unknown unknowns," that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns" - the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values.»
[wiki/Slavoj Žižek]

Although Rumsfeld&Co told vicious lies and Žižek's formulation is not perfect, one point is *supremely* important; it is in fact the point of this essay, namely the "disavowed [facts, crimes] we pretend not to know about." We are subjected to a barrage of lies, submerged into what I call the pushed-propaganda paradigm. Things happening, things reported even half-honestly by the MSM, are somehow (PR-tricks; not for nothing did Bernays re-brand propaganda as PR) - minimised into unimportance - when in fact we should be screaming for relief = stop the killing, restore justice. US/Z wars and depredations are effectively 'should not occur' travesties = murder + theft injustices - yet the world just rolls on, apparently oblivious. Q: Why? A: Lies. Remedy: Stop *all* lies, restore justice (to the hapless Palestinians & similar victims) - and reinstate 'The Enlightenment' (via proper democracy) as our *honourable* target.

[Back to «Facit»]

who will rid us of these meddlesome, quisling-traitors - meaning the US, UK, Aus & IL so-called 'leaders?'

Consider Gillard's shameful, 'illegal' treachery vis-à-vis Assange/Wikileaks. She didn't stop any wars either; see next.

Consider Rudd's continuation of Howard's foreign policy = illegal resource-wars = mass murder for spoil. Then Rudd's idiotic threats towards China.

Note: Bipartisan anything is un- and anti-democratic; when it comes to wars it would make us, we the sheople, accessories to murder - except that by lying = deceiving us (amongst other grave offences), the politicians have broken the 'democratic covenant.'

Consider Howard's many abuses, from GST via Serf-Choices to illegal invasions (etc. etc. - list faaar too long). Howard was not alone on neoliberalism; Keating wanted a GST too, he with Hawke began privatisations.

Neoliberalism was around in Fraser's time; he was accused of wasting time by not beginning. Fraser's biggest (un- and anti-democratic) crime was unseating Whitlam, although the CIA and Murdoch were co-conspirators.

I know of nothing sufficiently grave to charge Whitlam with; he may have over-reached, but his Medibank legacy survives as Medicare. Menzies was mostly 'before my time' but he got us into Vietnam.

That's enough of Aus for the current purpose; in UK Thatcher (TINA) & Blair (Iraq) primarily draw my ire. One for economics - Thatcher, but she went to war too, the other for outright Nuremberg-class war - Blair, but he continued with neoliberalism too. Both worse than the other.

In the US it's been almost continuously one bad-apple president after another; 'low'-lights starting with Wilson then Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton through to the Bush-Obama pug-ugly twins.

When it comes to un- and anti-democratic, there is no rogue-state quite like Israel; no matter who gets in it's all war, all the time.

-=*=-

War was supposed to have been eliminated post-WW2 by the UN, but even before the UN was chartered, the US had begun its next war with the double war crime A-bombings. Peace, basically, never got a chance. The UN permanently blotted its copybook no later than passing UNGA181.

Nevertheless, after WW2 there was a mini economic-boom roughly coinciding with the baby-boom; life looked pretty good for a while. Largely hidden from sight was the Nakba (the MSM of the time perhaps prototyping its corrupt venality), and other oddities (aka crimes) like the coups in Guatemala and against Mossadegh in '53. I wasn't paying too much attention at that time; get a fuller, looong list from Blum's "Killing Hope."

-=*=-

Wars have to be started by someone (evil), usually for some sort of purpose = mostly gain. There *may* be purely ideological ones (Korea, Vietnam), although one suspects that they too had a money-motive somewhere. Certainly in and around Palestine it's Lebensraum = land + water coveted by the alien invaders (aka Zs), in Afghanistan it's pipeline routes, poppies & pursuit of hegemony (hegemony itself = also to push for oil, land-theft in Palestine, threaten Iran, Russia & China), and in Iraq it's all oil, all the time as it is with the threatened attack on Iran. None of this should be news to the aware observer, but before 9/11 I was busy with other things and had only rather vague suspicions, and most sheople appear to not give a toss (busy with their wide-flat-screen amusements as they are).

On the economic side, pretty-well all positive progress was turned on its head starting some time mid-70s by neoliberalism (aspects globalisation, privatisation, deregulation, upturning progressive taxation etc. & etc.; it's not simple) - a deliberate, created disaster becoming more & more visible.

-=*=-

At least since Wilson's "Making the world safe for democracy," the leaders have progressively become more rogue & *less* democratic, assuming they ever were democratic, perhaps an unwarranted assumption.

But - and it's a *massive* BUT: The so-called leaders are *not* working for us, rather against us, as proven by these unwanted, aggressive wars and aggressive, rich-get-ever-richer economics at the expense of the vast majority of us, we the sheople.

Now, looks like there's one very clear reason for all this = greed, backed by wicked immorality.

But - and it's another *massive* BUT: the leaders were once more on our side, more inclined to spread it around a bit, and rhetorically they're all against wars - except as we see, when there's something in it for the rich (= most of the time).

Fazit: There *must* be many caring, clever people out there; specifically those caring and clever enough to *effectively* oppose those who currently lead us, namely our un- and anti-democratic quisling-traitor tyrants.

Q: Where (the bloody-hell!) are those caring and clever ones?

Open letter to the Aus' people, parliament & the AusBC:

 .. we knew (in our heart-of-hearts) that it was too good to last, and it didn't. Yesterday was a day of (relative) freedom on 'unleashed' (four out of four published), then CRASH! - Down came the censorship-shutters once again.

Demolishing democratic debate is par-for-the-course for brutal tyrants.

We know who (generally speaking) they are - namely the AusBC rats = traitors.

No person of sound mind would realistically expect a free discussion on a forum (plural: forums, *not* 'fora') run by the (corrupt & venal) MSM, but expectations for a publicly-financed broadcaster are somewhat higher. (For one thing, we the taxpayers are footing the bill.)

But Oh, no; it's been obvious to me for a looong time that the AusBC are *not* so-called 'honest brokers.'

Censoring democratic debate is just as cowardly, just as criminal as the US-armed & -armoured grunts murdering basically unarmed natives (AK47s vs. tanks, F-16s, helicopter gun-ships and/or remote hellfire-drones, etc.) - in some 3rd world hell, like Afghanistan (pipelines, poppies) or Iraq (oil) (Israel 1st and continuously for the last 62+ *bloody, land-thieving* years, Iran (more oil) next?); murdering grunts sent there to make theft of the natives' national treasures possible. The propaganda-arm and the killing-arm work together, both are equally guilty = guilty as sin - so burn in Hell.

No world that tolerates murder-for-spoil is a just world; the Enlightenment might as well have never happened.

No democracy can function if the voters are fed on lies - and/or censored. Thanks, but "No, thanks!" Aunty.

Personal note: By submitting this to unleashed, you the AusBC person reading this are the censor, or you know who it is who censors my inputs and presumably others' whose interests/aims are truth and justice. So it is you - or your 'mate(s)' - to whom this is *directly* addressed. Q: What's in it for *you/him/her*? A: *Not* the squillions being ripped-off with all the scams/crimes starting with economic rents and ending with mass-murder for spoil, Oh no! All *you/s/he* can ever expect is possibly a comfortable life-of-crime and (excluding sociopaths), a guilty conscience. Again, what's in it for (traitorous) *you*?

It gets worse. By blocking any/all progress on ending the rip-offs and Nuremberg-class resource-wars, the AusBC, their lies and censorship are hindering any possible progress on saving our once jewel-like planet's eco-systems from the excess-CO2 caused climate catastrophe. Such traitors make the AusBC an accessory to our doom.

squinting 'freely' through the lie-fog [lies, cheating, theft & war - nothing much 'new']

What one 'superficially' sees is *not* what one gets.

After the initial "Ah ha!" - possibly long delayed by naïve trust - it doesn't take too long to see how cynically we have been, many still are 'deceived.'

I heard a 'new' word this morning, on the radio show I just 'love to hate.' In actual fact I'm not a hater at all; I've come to realise that hate is the almost exclusive province of the murdering ME burglars, aka the J*ws. Anyway, the word new to me is "neo-jihadi," doubly interesting for its contrast to neo-liberal. Liberal is one of the most abused words; it is deployed as a positive [= free] but has almost only negative actions associated - examples Aus-Liberal party = mostly anti-liberal, and neo-liberal = rip-off economics.

There is a 'free' associated with neo-liberal economics, namely the 'free-lunch' of economic rent. Since Keynes proposed "euthanasia of the rentiers," a certain group has acquired a potent anti-Keynes allergy. Marx argued for a "victory of the proletariat," the same group acquired an equally potent anti-Marx allergy involving an absolute antagonism against communism and socialism - i.e. against all workers in general. The last significant 'free' here is the so-called 'freedom' not to *buy* resources so much as to acquire control via aggressive, invasive war (Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq - Iran next?) What this amounts to is a re-introduction of a neo-robber-baron class including murdering for spoil, and another neo, namely neo-serfdom - resulting in almost the worst of all possible worlds: neo-anti-Hobbes social contract aka anti-Enlightenment. And hardly as an afterthought, completely defeating democracies and disenfranchising the sheople, by a 3-pronged attack: 1) dumbing the voters down, 2) faux-representatives (who lie and only pretend to properly represent the voters' interests) and 3) bipartisan approaches to major topics including *demolishing* citizens' rights, *rip-off* economics and *aggressive* war; since anything bipartisan offers voters *no* effective choice, so bipartisan is totally un- and anti-democratic.

Q: Why does any of this matter? A: Pretty obvious; IF the citizens have lost all control (we have, supposing we ever had *any*), THEN we are only passive, powerless passengers at the mercy of the 'drivers' - who are driving us over a multi-dimensional cliff composed of the excess-CO2 climate-change threat (becoming unavoidable), Nuremberg-class resource-wars and economic + social ruin = worse than serfdom for the sheople.

Q: Who is (ir)responsible?

A1: In the 1st line, the corporations but more importantly, the banksters.

A2: In the 2nd line, the politicians but equally importantly their partners-in-lying, the corrupt & venal MSM.

A3: In the 3rd line, the supposed thinkers, the so-called 'intellectuals' primarily in universities but also in (corrupt!) think-tanks.

All collectively termed by me as 'leadership failure.'

For proof, one merely needs to - squint 'freely' through the lie-fog. A poignant-negative example of the corrupt & venal MSM is the publicly-financed AusBC; I relied on them (naïve trust) and 'accepted' one of their most egregious lies, namely the circa 1967 narrative of 'Israel as brave David.' See some of the real facts from Hart here at ICH. Once deception of this level becomes apparent - as it did for me (finally! - but better late than never) - in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, now morphed into a brutal occupation, *all* MSM, *all* politicians, *all* so-called 'leaders' come under suspicion. And what do you know, with insignificant exception(s), *all* turn out to be more or less *totally* corrupt.

Coming back to neo-jihadi; with the fall of the wall, one group in particular (unexpectedly = CIA incompetency) lost their 'enemy,' a new one was needed ASAP. Enter Muslims/Islam, a bit of radicalisation, a bit of subversion, a few false-flag 'terrorist' outrages and a new bogeyman arrives, complete with different skin-colour, culture and religion. A super, almost ideal 'other' - to be 1st feared then 2nd hated and finally 3rd attacked - how 'odd,' that it's mostly Muslims who inhabit the 'oil-heartlands of the planet?' Here a recent (submitted but not published = censored!) comment:

Patsy: "It is cheaper to buy oil directly than to go to war for it."

The 'natural' Q follows: Then why not just *buy* Iraq's oil, and other such coveted resources, like poppies, pipeline-routes, land & water? - But Oh, no; 'we, the West' (mostly US, UK, Aus + IL = Anglo/Judaic) seemingly love going to war. Proof: Simply look around.

I welcome the patsy's comments, because s/he simultaneously defines both the paradigm and the 'target' audience.

Just keep it simple; vilify the putative 'enemy' until the hate-level in a big enough sector clamours for the 'conflict' - then it's bombs away. Easy-peasy, and it didn't start post-9/11 (= *more* CIA incompetency - or *far* worse). Try wiki/Memo PPS23 by George Kennan - every now and then the curtain slips and we see villainy exposed in all its gruesome 'glory.' Down through the years and despite strenuous mass-denial, people let the cat out of the bag:

Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran
Robert Weissman
Posted: September 17, 2007 12:09 AM
[huffpo/Weissman]

The latest 'enemy' is radical-Islam, somehow those idiots have 'developed' the risible idea that they can force a caliphate onto 'we, the West,' largely by terrorism. I wonder where that ridiculous idea came from? But I don't wonder too hard, because we see that the idea has achieved wide acceptance - thanks again, patsy.

I also wonder how 'we, the West' can force radical-Islam into democracy using *state* terrorism. Especially since our own democracies lie in deliberately created ruin, but such are the fantasies we are force-fed via *and actively by* our 'news' gatekeepers. [end of non-published comment]

Musing; Q: Why non-publish = censor? A: Because on the principle of 'the truth hurts,' either some sponsor or the AusBC itself can't abide my facts/criticism. It again proves their perfidy, given their supposed function of (honestly, completely) informing the voters, it amounts to nothing less than the deepest, darkest treachery.

Q: How (the hell) did we get here? Where are the truly clever ones; how/why do they hold their tongues?

Dear reader, anyone 'landing' in this blog either knows or suspects all of the above s**t, so this article might seem like 'preaching to the converted.' Someone has to point all this out - in this case me, but someone else will have to fix it. Where is/are s/he/they, and what's keeping them?

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] squint -v. 1 have eyes that do not move together but look in different directions. 2 (often foll. by at) look obliquely or with half-closed eyes. -n. 1 condition causing squinting. 2 stealthy or sidelong glance. 3 colloq. glance, look. 4 oblique opening in a church wall affording a view of the altar. [obsolete asquint, perhaps from Dutch schuinte slant] [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] fog -n. 1 thick cloud of water droplets or smoke suspended at or near the earth's surface. 2 cloudiness on a photographic negative etc. 3 uncertain or confused position or state. -v. (-gg-) 1 cover or become covered with or as with fog. 2 perplex. [perhaps a back-formation from *foggy] [ibid.]

[4] superficial adj. 1 of or on the surface; lacking depth. 2 swift or cursory (superficial examination). 3 apparent but not real (superficial resemblance). 4 (esp. of a person) shallow. superficiality n. superficially adv. [Latin: related to *face] [ibid.]

[5] naïve adj. (also naive) 1 innocent; unaffected. 2 foolishly credulous. 3 (of art) produced in a sophisticated society but lacking conventional expertise. naïvely adv. naïvety n. (also naïveté). [Latin nativus *native] [ibid.]

[6] liberal -adj. 1 abundant, ample. 2 giving freely, generous. 3 open-minded. 4 not strict or rigorous. 5 for the general broadening of the mind (liberal studies). 6 a favouring moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals. -n. 1 person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) supporter or member of a Liberal Party. liberalism n. liberality n. liberally adv. [Latin liber free] [ibid.]

Tip: Whenever you hear 'liberal,' run in the opposite direction.

a 'fair' manifesto - survival of the just

Subtitle:

the Enlightenment; Gandhi & Marx vs. Rand; greed, plunder & rapine

Theme:

"Into every life a little socialism must fall."

Cooperation trumps confrontation.

Morality [1]:

"Do unto others ..."

"Do no harm."

Legality:

The 'basic' crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder.

Lying is an assault against integrity; lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives.[POD]

All cheating = rip-offs are theft; super/'windfall'-profits, crooked deals, depressed wages/conditions, etc..

War is murdering theft; violence is a resort of the IQ/morality/legality-challenged.

Status summary:

Starting possibly with Thatcher (Fraser was criticised for wasting time, so the theory must have been available '75+/-) we have been forced to endure a so-called 'free-market revolution,' comprised of neoliberalism + globalisation + resource-wars all foist upon us, often totally independent of the sheople's wishes. Proof: What the IMF *forced* upon so-called 'developing' economies was done to us apparently *voluntarily* by both political 'sides' i.e. in Aus by both Lib & Lab, more generally by so-called conservatives & progressives. More proof: Bipartisan *anything* = un- and anti-democratic; the voters even if fully & honestly informed (we're not) have/are offered *no* choice. Final proof: Thatcher's screech: "TINA!" = Totally, cruelly, maliciously wrong; of course there are alternatives.

Argument; what's needed:

'Correct' income distribution by a properly progressive income tax for individuals and an income/super-profit tax on corporations, an appropriate capital gains tax on all but the family home/farm & a gift/inheritance tax above a certain (not overly-generous) minimum. Where appropriate, reverse iniquitous privatisation(s).

Grounds: Thatcher's wily "There is no community, only individuals" means no dynasties either, let alone any 'free lunches'.

By all means, let the profit-motive rip (within reason, like not forcing anyone into deprivation), let the fat-cats keep their rather pointless scoring - but then recover all drastic excesses. Use the so-generated surplus to save our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere (it's only 101% critical for our collective survival). Gated communities just won't/can't save anyone, once the climate well & truly crashes (see melting Arctic ice, already happening).

Thatcher's "TINA!" is wrong; money creation to be by the commune, all interest flows to the commune, commune creates the bulk + interest & 'gives' that interest-portion to the government. The government's spending on *required* services & *shared* infrastructure provides the mechanism for paying the private-sector interest-component, thus avoiding the 'compound interest' paradox. Inflation target is to be 0% and population across the world should be encouraged to steadily fall towards (or below) the sustainable level. 'Sustainable' must imply *no* mining (sooner or later), that will anyway be *forced* latest when exhaustion is reached.

Possible theory sources:

1. Michael Hudson (tax property)

2. Ellen Brown (community banks)

-=*=-

So-called 'free-market' systems are failing; the *non-duplicable* 'required/normal' utilities (water, sewage, elec./energy, comms = road, rail & airports + phone, new = internet) + health. *For profit* privatisations are leading - you might have guessed - to more profit and less (egalitarian) service.

Another name for these vicious 'free-market' processes is financialization (note: "makes economic rents (= rip-offs) possible"); all possible income-streams are being purchased with borrowed money up to their full carrying capacity - less the grossly excessive management overheads (obscene CEO & lessers' 'remuneration' packages.)

Another term for this is 'misallocation of resources,' and in a world of *guaranteed* limited resources any 'wastage' amounts to a crime, not to mention higher prices = super-profits being ripped off the 'lower levels' to add ever more to the fat-cats' already obscenely over-full cash-coffers.

The 'free-marketeers' (Randians?) may have some point pushing their profit motive, but IMHO they've gone totally overboard. The priority *must* be directed to egalitarian delivery of required services at the fairest price. Obviously, extracting profits from health-care means higher prices and/or lower service = inhumane nonsense (inhuman adj. brutal; unfeeling; barbarous. [POD])

What is so outrageous is that one could see the resulting mess coming - for example, they trumpeted that we had/were getting a 'consumer-led' economy, whilst simultaneously *reducing* the sheople's incomes by off-shoring etc, and depressing conditions on remaining jobs - a guaranteed contradiction. Similarly, by a) flogging off the sheoples' utilities, govt. income-streams were ditched, b) by cutting taxes (mostly off the rich), govt. income was further reduced, forcing govts. into deficit = borrowing, all the while viciously cutting services = reducing lifestyles. Now we have govts. in debt almost everywhere; a spiral to the bankrupt-bottom. How clever was/is that? TINA, indeed!

Following the expression "Fair go, ya mug!" the profits of our collective efforts (workers + bosses, 'investors') must be equitably shared.

Following the expression "A fair exchange is no robbery," prices must be fair, not hide externalities, and profits must be reasonable - or taxed away if not.

Following the expression "There's nothing new under the Sun," there's probably adequate theory already available to solve our problems, restore humanity's track towards the Enlightenment and a well-earned relax for the currently fat-cat-oppressed. Brown & Hudson have given us some tips, where's the rest?

-=*=-

Musing; why does any of this matter?

Some accuse critics of financialization (-> rip-off profits & the rich getting ever-more obscenely richer), of the 'politics of envy.' IMHO incorrectly, but much more: the current system is deliberately, maliciously ignoring the biggest problem we face, namely the excess-CO2 climate-change catastrophe which, so far lacking effective countervailing action, is getting *less* avoidable thus *more* inevitable; something *must* be changed. Otherwise, the (irrevocable) end coming up?

How ignominious, to be shoved over a cliff and down the gurgler, all for ever-more profits to the ghastly mega-greedy.

Fazit: Freedom is fine and required;

  "... be free,
be whatever you are,
do whatever you want to do,
just so long as you don't hurt anyone." 
[Haîr/my conviction]

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] From my side-bar, musing; morals:

"Do unto others ... " is both necessary and sufficient; 'enlightened altruism' works in any size group, providing the members unite to 'enforce' it. Just as eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - when those (human) parts cooperate. "Me, me me!" is a recipe for eventual disaster; any and all rippers-off must be rejected. Truth is more beautiful than brutal; lies are deployed only to deceive - all liars must be identified, and immediately thereafter any communication with such liars terminated. Note Lakoff-framing and avoid the negatives; merely conversing with a propagandist will extend his/her/its platform - simply point 'em out, then turn 'em off. Our future depends on eliminating most/all error and becoming strictly sustainable.