well, look what the cat dragged in!

[saved as draft, then republished]

DNP:Fiona:Racist and abusive Keep it up

Submitted by Ernest William ... on February 28, 2009 - 6:44pm.

Eliot Ramsey: "In every Muslim country surveyed, overwhelming or near unanimous majorities expressed negative views toward Jews. The figure reached 99 percent in Jordan, 98 percent in Egypt and 94 percent in Pakistan. Twenty-eight percent of Jordanians and 22 percent of Egyptians volunteered that "Jews" were to blame for bad relations between Muslims and the West, although Jews were not mentioned in the question."

The survey, according to you, was done on the population of those countries. What makes you think that they are all Muslims?

And in any case - how surprising. Why would the Jews be unpopular in the Middle East when they have considered themselves as different since the beginning of their religion - or is that a race?For some unknown reason to me, new Israel classifies itself as "western" and is so considered by the Arab nations of the middle east.Bearing in mind that the history of the nomadic tribes of the Arabian Desert who evolved into the Jews of today, I find that fascinating.The east is east and the west is west and never the twain shall meet.Just one more point Eliot, if I was Jewish I would never want you to defend me.NE OUBLIE.


DNP is their code for 'Do no publish.' That censoring from Reynolds comes on top of this sort of s**t editorialising from Tonkin:

Fair dinkum Alan. in Gaza Media Statement
by Ernest William ... on February 26, 2009 - 9:52pm

...

Richard: Ernest, your work that hasn't been published has been considered by editors to be racist, abusive, or containing-despite requests- unsourced extracts. Implications that anything more sinister is afoot do little for your perceived credibility.


Ethics? What ethics? Credibility? Whose credibility?
 

either their brains are faulty ...

  .. and their thinking fatally flawed ...

    .. or they are outright evil - effectively the same

Keywords: democracy vs. deceit, destruction and death.

Extra keywords: sophism[1] and casuist[2].

-=*=-

Preamble: If we talk about fatally flawed, perhaps the 'best' (actually of course, the worst) contemporary illustration may be terrorism; from the concept, the reaction and exploitation, then through to the current most often attempted 'remedy' aimed only at a symptom, i.e. military violence - which ignores the real and effective solution, i.e. a just cure, beginning at the source.

In particular, what about the US 'led' aggressive military violence in Afghanistan - the hapless Afghans did *nothing* to the US, did not even threaten anyone (well, any outside of Afghanistan, and internal 'only' Sharia law perhaps). Just about all the since-defeated Taliban regime did wrong was to snub an approach by the US in reference to a pipeline, the famous coercive 'carpet of gold or bombs' offer. (The story is denied with the usual tin-foil twist, and the fact that Karzai had alleged links to Unocal is mere coincidence - of course! Karzai, Khalilzad, PNAC, Unocal, Taliban, pipeline - 1000+ times together on the same pages. What's that funny stink? Oil?) More than 7 years later the killing still goes on and on (what proportion totally innocent 'collaterals?') - and sucking in Aus and NATO, amongst other quislings.

As truth and justice seekers, if we analyse terrorism - carefully, honestly, as we do - then we should be able to suggest how to solve the problem (peacefully!) to the satisfaction of all concerned. Another 'of course,' some of us have already done this analysis, so all the more the frustration as the situation continues to deteriorate - one must suppose that it is purposefully 'allowed,' even 'encouraged' to deteriorate.

Discussion: Terrorism is termed 'asymmetric warfare;' it is usually deployed by some v.lightly armed faction against some direct 'target' most often innocently civilian, again usually with the purpose of relieving some perceived injustice imposed by some (external) agency. (That terrorism could be deployed as a method of forcing some conjured-up caliphate on some region (even ours!) is held by this writer to be an evil furphy; largely propaganda invented by our own 'side,' since the objective is clearly not merely risibly improbable, but entirely impractical. Compare to 'CIA/Al-Qaeda' and 'black-ops' below.) Terrorism examples: IRA bombing of civilian targets with the perceived injustice coming from the allegedly occupying UK, Palestinians likewise with the *actual* injustice coming from the *illegally occupying* Israel.

As Pape's "Dying to Win" showed, suicide terrorism was invented by Tamils, and the objective is usually to eject an occupier. Here is a quote from a review:

  «Both recognize the importance of the underlying strategic logic that animates the campaigns, of the behavior of the enemy that provides the targets, and of foreign occupation as a motivating factor.»
[foreignaffairs/Lawrence D. Freedman]

It would be wrong to infer that any terrorism is justified; with the possible exception of true self-defence (actions directed solely at an illegal, murdering occupier could qualify as such self-defence), killing people is wrong, and killing innocent bystanders is infinitely wrong. (Which part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't you understand?)

(BTW, a note on 'infinitely wrong:' I use this in the way some say 'very unique.' Both wrong and unique are like binary switches, they are either 'on' or not, and need no 'extra' (extraneous?) qualifier. Then, someone comes along and demands 'nuancing,' which if acceded to even in any small way, can make what should be a simple dissertation into a distorted mish-mash - a bit like this BTW. Take, for a pertinent example, killing. I say "All killing is wrong," then some Tüpflischiiser comes along and says "except in a self-defence-type situation." Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, the same Ts-er says "military killing is neither illegal nor murder." What??! Killing is killing and is wrong, except... Now, we have to 'square the circle;' what comes 1st, the chicken or the egg? In order to have a 'self-defence' case, one needs - actually, of course, one doesn't need at all - a murderous attacker - who must clearly be in the wrong (... except!) Getting back to military killing, in the case of aggressive invasions (Palestine, 60+ years long, lately Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza... ) - aggressive invasions are Nuremberg-class war crimes, and any killing perpetrated by such invaders is both illegal and murder - since no self-defence is involved, except(!) - possibly on the part of the hapless victims. Now, we come to the law, as drawn attention to by Damian on his UNMISTAKABLE PARALLELS comment of 10:45 AM (see next para., g'day!) The apparent arbitrary, even contrary nature of some law is inexcusable; the only defensible law is just law, just as most of Israel is indefensible, on the grounds of being stolen. Hmmm, 'wandering' Jews, anyone?

Finally, as Damian said:

  «Any state or group of states can make a 'law' and then pass off various actions as being legal but that doesn't mean to say that it is in any way moral.»

As the law can obviously be as arbitrary as some corrupt types may desire (but not as desired by us, we the people - who on the whole seek justice), so lying blog-trolls can claim anything they like - that the IDF killing in Gaza is *not* murder, say, or that the US is *not* up to its ears in 'murder for spoil.' Dear reader, you may decide; end of this BTW.)

-=*=-

The reaction of the sheople to terrorism is usually as desired: "Shock, horror - and fear." The latter, fear, leads to:

The exploitation, since the usual reaction, both by the US and Israeli regimes is mostly militarily, and just as usually, wrong.

(As flawed as the terrorism concept is, it has had some success; Blair was forced to negotiate a settlement with the IRA, Israel was ejected (however temporarily) from Lebanon, the US were ejected from their military bases in Saudi Arabia following '9/11.')

But (and it's a very big BUT): ever-increasing violence is *NOT* a, the or any solution. Aggressively attacking with ever more violence (and as US/Israeli-implemented, mass civilian 'collateral' deaths) is engaging with the symptom, one *must* cure the underlying cause. In all cases the initial reaction to terrorism should be a police-type action - as opposed to military, but the source-grievance should be addressed as the priority - mediation, negotiation - but not just more knee-jerk = simplistic (WRONG!) killing. Illegal killing - or should one say indiscriminate slaughter: Afghanistan, 2001+, Iraq, 2003+, Lebanon, 2006, Gaza, 2008/09? Note: terrorism may have been claimed as the 'excuse,' but see immediately below.

However: things are not so simple. Although the US and Israeli regimes' reactions are apparently directed at the symptom of terrorism - arguably the wrong reaction in any case, there is almost invariably a not so well or hardly concealed purpose, in the case of Afghanistan it's a desired pipeline route, in Iraq it's the oil (however many times they try to deny it, it's just Oh, so painfully, bleedingly obvious) and 60+ bloody years long in now sadly mostly ex-Palestine, it's the land and water. As (deliberately!) dumbed-down as most sheople appear to be, most of them can nevertheless see the utter, criminal villainy rampant.

-=*=-

Ben-Gurion may well have said: "Well yes, there'll be a bit of blood - mostly theirs - but it may all work out for the best sometime. We'll start in Deir Yassin ..."

On being asked: «"Prime Minister, ... if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?"»

Golda Meir did say: «"Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying."»
[ICH/Alan Hart/Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews]

  «"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Xxx] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."»
[Conned-a-sleazer on CNN/Blitzer]

A dreadful 'of course:' Israel does not deny that it may have up to 200 'nukular' bombs...

Q: Exactly who are the terrorists here?

-=*=-

Having written above that things are not so simple, the defects in our democracy can be teased apart into simpler components:

1. the filthy lies

2. the dumbed-down sheople

3. the people who really should know better

Repeating as I must, prerequisites for a properly functioning democracy include an informed, involved electorate, a fair and wide choice of honest candidates and after election, representatives who then properly represent us, we the people. These prerequisites are largely honoured in the breach.

Some propaganda:

On torture: "If it saves just one life ..."

On surveillance: "If you have nothing to hide ..."

(Request: since I don't 'do' mainstream TV, avoiding Hollywood and Madison Ave both, as well as having much better things to do, I don't see too much of the propaganda as illustrated by the two examples given above. My wish is to collect more such examples; over to you dear reader.)

-=*=-

Thesis: The answer to the (plaintive cry) Q: "But what can I do? (Little old all-alone me?)" - simply cannot be "Nothing."

With no action at all, things will likely get worse (2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy tends to increase), with no effective action, nothing will change, let alone for the better (Newton's 1st law; inertia). Since lies are deployed to deceive, we can hardly be expected to deal with real problems if we are subjected to a confusing fug of propaganda, aka lies. The absolute minimum action is to identify (with the hope of eliminating) lies wherever possible on the way to determining the underlying truth, the next step is to expose both lies and truth for all to see. After that, people must combine to effect countervailing actions; demand - and get no more lies, demand - and get a varied range of honest candidates, demand - and get proper representation, demand - and get true justice.

As to a beginning method, one could examine all one's inputs - TV, both so-called 'news' and so-called 'entertainment,' and from all sources; broadcast, recorded and print. (It would help to reject *most* so-called entertainment and *all* silly outright time-wasting stuff - life is - or should be - much more than just TV.)

Some propaganda is psychologically designed to be as hard to detect as it is effective (Q: How democratic do you think that is?) - but some is easier to recognise. How often does 'militant' or 'extremist' precede Muslim? How often does 'radical' precede Palestinian, or Hamas? Can it really be so? This is 'simple', 'dumbing-down' demonisation, exactly as practised by other propagandists now long ago, but always preceded by 'evil' - of course! (But apparently not when practiced on we the people by publicly financed broadcasters? Should that be 'of course?' Or "Traitors!")

Speaking of publicly financed broadcasters, what are we to make of the fact that the Pope's little 'holocaust denier' rabbit he set running has totally displaced any and all 'news' relating to the Gaza massacre?

More propaganda: When the beautiful-looking boy-man comes on TV, with his Hollywood clothes and sad smile, as he intones "We're only trying to protect our poor, long suffering people!" - Recall that most Israelis live on or otherwise occupy basically stolen land, that many are illegal settlers - that in all cases, they are the immoral beneficiaries of murdering crime - well, see my article on Jews.

We the people have access only to publicly available information; we can observe that we are both lied to and propagandised, and since propaganda is a distortion of reality - when not outright lies, we are, as mentioned above, forced to exist in a surreal (information) world. Also as noted, this is undemocratic. But worse are the secret operations carried out 'in our name.' Here I refer not to any 'honest' gathering of info in the national interest, but rather to the scurrilous side, as exemplified by 'black-ops;' who knows, for instance, who the perpetrators of the 22 February 2006 al-Askari Mosque bombing were? (Scan down to "USA and Israel.") Secrecy can be a form of lying, as the Iraq intel-imbroglio showed - the spies *knew* Iraq was as good as totally harmless, but 'allowed' (Wilkie only partly excepted) the so-called leaders to mislead us. As lies attempt to decieve, so secrecy can be/is anathema to democracy.

All across the world, the US plots and plans, and the results are unmistakably obvious: with only about 5% of the world's pop., they consume about 25% of resources. How can that be, fair or otherwise? Israel pushes its borders ever outwards, gobbling up their neighbours' homelands. That's not just unfair, it's illegal. Both the US and Israel invade then occupy, that's not just illegal, it's Nuremberg-scale war crime. The US goes out of its way to foment widespread trouble - the CIA as good as created Al-qaeda, how foolish - how shocking, how idiotic - was that?

  «The United Kingdom politician Robin Cook, who served as the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons described Al-Qaeda as meaning "the database" and a product of western miscalculation. Cook wrote, "Al-Qaida, literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."»
[wiki/Al Qaeda]

(This article is directed at terrorism; the (mainly) US depredations extend into other spheres as well, say economic. As an example, consider the ostensible Aus mineral-boom; Q: Where has the money gone? A: Mostly *not* to Aus... Even during the boom, Aus continued to go down the deficit tubes, now the boom is ending...)

Without doing something - anything, all inactive people make themselves mere passengers. Is that really the preferred 'way to go,' given that the default destination looks like being 'down the gurgler?'

-=*end*=-

PS Can one have a (successful) dialogue with the devil[3]?

IMHO, no.

Fantasy as real life: According to one 'old, old story,' the devil was one of the original g*d-squad[4] (detested Ami-speak; spit!) - who split with the then 'leadership' and went into opposition. But as one of the original g*ds, s/he/it had roughly similar attributes - omniscience, infallibility, etc. Obviously, by opposing 'all that is alleged to be good,' any devil-construct was(is) essentially evil. The U-SS-rael combined regime is such a devil (on earth that is, i.e. without any of the imaginary supernatural s**t, and without much truth or justice either), and all accessories/apologists and their (corrupt!) enablers attract the same qualifier: pure evil.

So what? Well, both the US and Israel erroneously attempt to claim the high-ground, and swagger around as if they are, as they claim, to be pushing freedom and democracy, say. Simple observation exposes the opposite, well may we declare them as devils, i.e. the Great Satan, with an illegitimate satanic sprog. All one can do with devils is to exorcise them - or in this case, reform them.

Lakoff and framing: When one engages lying blog-trolls, even when one thinks one must on the highest of equity grounds, say, or just to expose their filthy lies, extreme caution and good tactics should be deployed wherever possible. Carrying on any sort of conversation allows the lying blog-trolls to repeat old (fallacious!) 'arguments' or introduce new sophisms, and as the old saw has it, any publicity is good publicity. My suggestions are a) to identify, b) to expose and then thereafter c) to ignore completely.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] sophism n. false argument, esp. one intended to deceive. [Greek sophos wise] [POD]

sophist n. captious or clever but fallacious reasoner.  sophistic adj. [Greek: related to *sophism] [ibid.]

[2] casuist n. 1 person who uses clever but false reasoning in matters of conscience etc. 2 sophist, quibbler.  casuistic adj. casuistry n. [Latin: related to *case1] [ibid.] [ibid.]

[3] devil —n. 1 (usu. the Devil) (in Christian and Jewish belief) supreme spirit of evil; Satan. 2 a evil spirit; demon. b personified evil. 3 a wicked person. b mischievously clever person. [ibid.]

[4] god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. [ibid.]

prima facie ...

  .. vs. the facts ...

    .. turns out I was correct

-=*=-

Is this just "Nyaa, nyaa, I told you so?" - no. A bit, of course - but on all the themes that I was right about - those things (and more) are still going badly wrong, most getting ever worse.

Preamble: I make no secret of the fact that I'm ju-u-st that little bit anti-US (regime, as anti-Israel). The US big-notes itself as the free(?) world's so-called 'leader,' and the Israeli regime is, per capita, the world's worst criminal - 60+ years long now and no end in sight. Free gets a "?" since I don't see much freedom anywhere - let alone in the US; 'leader' gets quotes since no sane leader would lead the world over a cliff, and the Israeli regime's criminality is Oh, so obvious - for any who can see through the filthy propaganda. The rabid US dog and the illegitimate Israeli tail (not clear as to which wags whom) are the joint source of most of the world's worst troubles - Oh! Only IMHO, as usual and of course. End preamble.

Some things that are obviously going wrong, in rough order of priority are: the ever-more threatening excess-CO2 caused climate change, the ghastly mass-murdering to enable resource-theft, the sadly now 'standard' commercial rip-offs and the associated still in slow motion financial crash, immorality in general - and the lies that surround us like a vile, stinking and suffocating shroud - err, cloud.

Thesis: It cannot be, that nothing can be done, because all of the things going wrong are not 'natural (out of our control) processes,' they are all the actions of people. What some can do, they can also stop doing - or, if required, be stopped from doing. After all, this 'stop or be stopped' is the principle behind having police - except for the only partly-cynical view, that police are there to protect the haves' property from the have-nots.

A quick, non-exhaustive list of things I've previously, in some cases repeatedly pointed out as going/gone wrong: most obviously, the profligate and largely irresponsible burning of fossil-fuel carbon, the US (UK, Aus) illegal invasion now brutal occupation of Iraq (of course; murder for oil), Israel (more of course; murder for land and water, 60+ bloody years looong), general, long-term US-regime criminality (I start partly along a disgustingly long time-line with the hideous double A-bombing war crime), the resource-rent rip-off (tip of a large & dirty commercial rip-off iceberg), general inflationary fiat-money printing with associated artificially low interest rates and discriminatory tax policies (Costello's halving of the capital gains tax being one particularly despicable low-point); that should be enough to go on with for now. Curiously perhaps, as I pointed out these problems I was far too often confronted by (lying!) blog-trolls attempting to contradict me; how funny is it that they all turned out to be completely wrong? (And exactly what's in it for them? No truth, no honour, no conscience - and no intelligence, except crooked.)

Most people reading this (trolls excepted - who may exit, go!) - most honestly enquiring minds would already know all about these problems, but for any who don't, no one need take my word for it; here is a short sampling of interesting articles:

1. Jul 9, 2003
THE ABDUCTION OF MODERNITY, Part 1
The race toward barbarism
By Henry C K Liu

  «China's most influential revolutionary, Mao Zedong, proclaimed in modern times his famous dictum: "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." He was in fact condemning the obsolete values of Confucianism (ru jia) as much as stating a truism in barbaric modern realpolitik.
Confucian ethics notwithstanding, morality and honor failed to save China from Western imperialism, because morality and honor require observation from both opponents. It was not a clash of civilizations, but a clash between civilization and barbarism. Militarism is a race toward barbarism camouflaged by technology as modernity.»
[atimes/Liu]

Comment: Paraphrased, lots of the finest human principles in and following on from "The Enlightenment" have been ignored, violated or outright obliterated by neo-liberal this and neoCon that, and their idiot running-dogs. Savages - barbarians.

2. Jun 16, 2005
Into the valley of death ...
By M K Bhadrakumar

  «The events in Andizhan have further destabilized the Ferghana Valley - a hotbed of Wahhabism and simmering nationality questions. This may appear to be a limited space on the vast Central Asian landscape, but the valley accounts for a quarter of the entire region's population and is shared uneasily between Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Overthrow the Uzbek government and pass on power to an Uzbek oligarch living in exile in the US - this seems to be the latest American game plan, tragic as it might sound.»
[atimes/Bhadrakumar]

Comment: I was tracking 'what the US did wrong in Andizhan,' Bhadrakumar follow-ups here, here, here and following the 'hottest' of hot tips, here. What did the US do wrong? Oh, just tried to subvert the natives - as usual, of course and what else?

3. February 19, 2009
Lobby Whistles Up Cordesman to "Prove" Israel Waged a Clean War in Gaza
The Cleanser
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

  «If the carefully orchestrated p.r. blitz ultimately did not convince, the problem was perhaps not that the whole world misperceived what happened or that Israel failed to convey adequately its humanitarian mission but rather that the scope of the massacre was so appalling that no amount of propaganda could disguise it, especially after the massacre was over and foreign reporters could no longer be barred on spurious pretexts. Alas, this preposterous, barely literate “analysis” Cordesman cobbled together after his junket is unlikely to fool anyone, although in fairness to camp-follower Cordesman it must be said that he plainly did his best to please and the American Jewish Committee plainly got its money’s worth from him.»
[counterpunch/Finkelstein]

Comment: Ho hum - yet another criminal massacre (1300+ mostly innocent dead) by the risibly named (offensive!) IDF. Speaking of morality, Jews allow themselves to bald-facedly lie - if such lies are deemed in the interests of the Israeli Vaterland. Another 'of course,' a people who would mass-slaughter innocents in order to steal those innocents' land and water doesn't have much in the way of morality.

4. February 23, 2009
What "Nationalize the Banks" and the "Free Market" Really Mean in Today's Looking-Glass World
The Language of Looting
By MICHAEL HUDSON

  «Neoliberal denunciations of public regulation and taxation as “socialism” is really an attack on classical political economy – the “original” liberalism whose ideal was to free society from the parasitic legacy of feudalism. ... Shifting the tax burden off wages and profits onto rent and interest was the core of classical political economy in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as the Progressive Era and Social Democratic reform movements in the United States and Europe prior to World War I. But this doctrine and its reform program has been buried by the rhetorical smokescreen organized by financial lobbyists seeking to muddy the ideological waters sufficiently to mute popular opposition to today’s power grab by finance capital and monopoly capital. Their alternative to true nationalization and socialization of finance is debt peonage, oligarchy and neo-feudalism. They have called this program “free markets.”»
[counterpunch/Hudson]

Comment: Basically, head shaking, hair pulling. One must read it all, as one should the other citations. There are statistics that show just how much richer the already obscenely rich fat-cats have become - obviously at our expense, and they, far from choking on their greed beyond avarice, along with all their pet politicians and other running-dogs, are leading the world over a cliff.

It's *someone's* job to stop the rot - and there're only us, we the truth and justice seekers.

Fazit: The articles above are only a small sample, but they all point in roughly the same direction - they illustrate the bankruptcy of the systems 'in play,' mostly crooked when not outright criminal. There's enough for all - just, and it has to be better distributed. Continuous growth in both resource usage (most notably burning carbon) and population must stop immediately; we must get sustainable. If having ultra-rich is unavoidable (why?) then tax them unmercifully; let them grasp after their ill-gotten 'gains,' but tax the $s right back off 'em. A special word to those who have provided the (erroneous!) ideology behind and/or support for the rip-offs, from the loftiest academics through the treacherous journalist 'water-carriers' to the lowest lying trolls: how could you be so bloody stupid?

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

prima facie —adv. at first sight. —adj. (of evidence) based on the first impression. [Latin] [POD]

the age of reason ...

Written partially in response to David G's
"So Innocent! So Defenseless! So Gullible!."

I have considered this and similar themes almost continuously (but obviously not 'full-time') for most of my adult life.

A short summary (but necessarily not too short):

1. As a young child (aged 6 or 7 perhaps), I was *forced* to go to 'Sunday school.' This (late) forcing might have contributed to 'saving' me; I am now and have been for a looong time an (aggressive!) atheist.

2. As a sub-teen I was 'counselled' by a 'man of the cloth' - not a bad person, I thought, and he had some good ideas - but even by that stage I could hear his 'messages' about his g*d, and smile: what rubbish!

3. Skip a few years to young adult-hood, and see with great surprise and anguish, the first marriage-failures in my peer group. My then conclusion: such people have an obvious information deficit, why did they put themselves into relationships that failed, and failed so fast at that?

4. Skip a few more years (lots) to the pre-planning for our daughter's arrival.

-=*=-

Intermezzo: I agree with David G's idea of a blank slate; extended, it is in the survival interest of the child to hear and instantly react to certain critical information, like "That is a poison spider, do not touch!" Hence, David G's 'sponge,' very young children suck up info, without any critical processing *possible*. It is this 'window of *unreason*' that is exploited to corrupt the child with religion (and other shit). Religious indoctrination may be initiated with a two-step process: a) scare the child shitless "Yore gunna die!" - then b) offer the 101% guaranteed way out "Unless you believe and get saved by g*d!" The age of reason takes over when the child becomes capable of detecting lies. Corrupting a child with religion is, in my opinion, disgusting, most serious child abuse. No excuse or pardon possible; the damage so done can, most often does, last a lifetime.

-=*=-

In (4) above, my wife and I discussed all of this and more. We came to the following conclusions (trying to be brief):

a) We agreed to my proposal that before 'the age of reason' (roughly, less than aged about 5 or 6, depending on rate of child's development), that we would protect our daughter from all lies, and that means from all sources, not just no 'little whites' from us (not at all necessary anyway, and extremely silly (possibly irrevocably damage to the child and trust, both[1]) - of any parent to do it), and point out any/all lies from outside. (One may begin to understand my loathing of lies via the MSM and public broadcasters...)

b) Following on from that, of course, trying to prevent any exposure to 'supernatural' stories, and if she did 'accidentally' hear such then explaining any error.

c) 'Naturally,' quotes here because it hardly happens naturally at all in our current societies, we instilled (recall: no critical faculties) a working, fair morality. Ours is (easily!) based on "Do unto others ..." with the (redundant but reinforcing) addition "Do no harm!"

Comment (redundant but required) : Handing the teaching of morals over to any church is an (obvious!) recipe for failure.

As a last bit (for now, trying to be compact), because the 'rest of the world' is so ugly, we gave our daughter fair warning "Other children may not understand and be mean to you, if that happens then you can simply ask them not to be so mean." That briefing, plus aware teachers (made so aware if required) can go a long way to surviving growing up and the education system both.

-=*=-

One 'payoff' came unexpected; our daughter informing us one day "Xxx lied!" in a wondrous voice. Her age of reason had been reached.

-=*=-

Quick summary/extension: In general, the 'normal' education process fails in several ways, first and most grievously at the parent level (why is there no standard manual? You may well ask), and later at the formal level, where along with the disinformation needed to turn out industrial slaves, the necessary information of basic human interactions is largely ignored or - worse - deliberately distorted.

-=*=-

Fazit: The first priority is, before the child's own natural 'lie detector' turns on, i.e. before "the age of reason," tell them no lies. Then, make sure that the obvious (wi-i-ide) gaps in the education system are filled by the parents.

Hope that's of some help.

-=*end*=-

PS Just as very young children have no properly functioning filter against lies, so the human audio/visual system has no properly functioning filter against TV - at any age. (No, it's not 'just' a movie! ... or 'news' broadcast...) The implications - and proof - are both obvious[1].

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] The possible antidote to these, as other problems: the truth. Lots of it. Exclusively and comprehensively, one might say.

[cross-posted]

Israel and an r-wing, pro-Z blog ...

  .. why does the whole world ...

    .. tolerate such awful crimes?

-=*=-

Preamble: I have serious problems with a certain r-wing, pro-Z blog in general (hereafter r-wb) and lying trolls in particular.

Specifically, the main problem is that they, r-wb and trolls both, a) are sometimes utterly unethical and b) they often lie (yeah; same old same old ...)

Another problem is that r-wb not only tolerates liars, trolls and propagandists (often combined as single, fake name(!!?) 'commenters'), r-wb actively encourages them[1]. One could call this 'web-whoring;' such whores appear willing to do anything (ethics? Who cares about ethics?) to solicit for blog-traffic.

A separate problem is that if one were to address some malefactor (liar, troll, propagandist), then one could draw unwarranted attention to that malefactor, and therefore extend the liar/troll/propagandist platform - basically, an altogether undesirable result.

So far, my 'best' strategy for dealing with this sort of thing is a) to point out any such nastiness and then b) to ignore it forthwith.

That gives me an opportunity for a single 'shot' ...

 .. per offence; *BLAM* - take that!

-=*=-

The 'modern' state of Israel was 'born' amid criminal, murdering violence, for example the King David Hotel bombing (91 people killed) and the Deir Yassin massacre (between 107 and 120 Palestinian unarmed civilian villagers killed), this IDF murdering seems never to stop; a sample 'going forward' of the Qana massacre (106 civilians killed in a UN compound; lots of massacres!) - for a fairly comprehensive list, try this Short History of the Israeli - Palestinian Conflict from Stephen Lendman.

(Note: Whatever one cites, from the comfort of one's blogging-workspace, it's always going to be excessively bland - compared to the actual blood, guts and splintered bone that the thoroughly offensive IDF causes to be splattered onto mostly erstwhile Palestinian land.)

The ink on the UN resolution establishing Israel was barely dry before Israel went to war against its neighbours, and the murdering violence has hardly paused since then, see the latest grim incursions into Lebanon in 2006, 1,233+ largely innocent civilians killed and into Gaza in '08/09, 1300+ more killed. (Imagine your own outrage, if this sort of thing was going on in your neighbourhood!) One writes 'largely innocent;' basically the only crime any of the people living near Israel are remotely 'guilty' of is the fact of being born there - as if they had some sort of choice? In the meantime, Israel has steadily stolen ever more land from the hapless prior legal owners, mostly Palestinian - as is proven by direct observation. One cannot hide that single, ghastly criminal fact - yet the world 'allows' it to go on and on and on ...

Aggressively invading a country was typified by the post-WW2 Nuremberg-tribunal as the ultimate war crime: "To initiate a war of aggression ... contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Part of the question from my headline then becomes Q: Exactly why does the world tolerate this continuing Israeli Nuremberg-class crime? Why doesn't *someone*, *anyone* stop it? It seems that all we ever hear is endless yammering about some 'ME peace process' - yeah, the brilliant "world's best practice" process that has shown no effective result these past 60+ looong and bloody years. The ugly IDF killing continues.

My suggested part-answer is A: Because we the people have been deceived, the crimes have been disguised, hushed up and generally information about them distorted, misreported or merely suppressed, by the (corrupt! Venal!) corporate MSM, some publicly financed broadcasters (boo! Hiss) and - the prime reason for this article - via liars, trolls and propagandists operating through such portals as r-wb.

A glaring problem is that throughout almost the entire unethical r-wb-saga, and especially lately, anti-Z dissenters have been censored and some even outright banned (while the pro-Zs are coddled, cuddled (urk!) and actively assisted), an example of the most utterly undemocratic, non-free speech behaviour one is ever likely to encounter (outside burning books - which could be next, r-wb depravity apparently knowing no bounds).

-=*=-

Intermezzo: One can see how much time and energy is 'burned' by the Jewish dilemma. It'd be absolute problem number one - except for the pillage, looting, plunder and rapine associated with mostly US-inspired capitalism - altogether too big a crime to be considered here (but see latest example Iraq, illegal invasion thereof, now morphed into brutal occupation; murder for oil). With a predominate motto/creed of "Greed is good!" - which it clearly is not, suffice it to say that the (mostly US) corporations are stuffing the world down the excess-CO2 gurgler, while a 'diversion' is run by the offensive IDF murdering for land and water. From my title, the whole world ('led' by the US, its 'illegal sprog' partner Israel, its accessories (UK & Aus), apologists (D, F, etc.) and general hangers-on (pug-ugly r-wing bloggers, say) - the whole world tolerates such awful crimes - with hardly an audible peep. Why?

-=*=-

Fazit - for now at least: I refuse to accept that the vast majority of we the people, with acceptable morality, usually law-abiding and most thoroughly decent to a 'T' must be dragged down, forced to live under the dictates of the current crop of criminals 'in charge.'

Especially not, when those criminals in charge are driving us over the excess-CO2 cliff.

Why should I accept this catastrophe, so some pigs can indulge their avarice?

Will you, dear reader, accept the crimes, then the coming crash?

I don't and I won't. Bury me with my boots on!

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] Ah! Surprise ending: no names (no pack-drill) - and no undesirable attention! Ever less blog traffic for them, haw!

how to fail at diplomacy ...

  .. without even really trying ...

    .. demand the utterly impossible

-=*=-

We saw it happen from 2003 - before our very own eyes - GWBush to Iraq: "Disarm (gimme the oil), or we'll kill you!"

Well, Iraq had no WMDs, so the US caused the death 1mio+ Iraqis with no legal 'excuse,' obviously intending to steal (even if 'only' control of) Iraqi oil. Nuremberg-scale illegal invasion, brutal occupation; murder for spoil.

We saw it happen last month - before our very own eyes - Israel to Gaza: "Stop firing rockets (stop asking for your land back), or we'll kill you!"

Well, it seems that the Gazans - with no possible chance of escape whatsoever - would rather be killed than surrender their rightful, just claims to the land that was - and really still is - legally theirs, so the risibly named (Nuremberg-scale offensive!) IDF caused the death of 1300 mostly unarmed (AK47s vs. US-made heavy battle tanks) Gazans, a vast proportion of those killed were women and children. Again an illegal invasion, brutal indiscriminate, wholesale destruction and killing; murder for 'collective punishment.'

-=*=-

Before the mass-murdering hail of WP-bombs and DU-bullets fly, the criminal regimes (US, UK, Aus & Israel) soften up the sheople, by propagandising them via the corrupt and venal MSM, including the treacherous publicly-financed broadcasters:

"Saddam is the new Hitler!"

"Militant Islamists!"

"Radical Hamas!"

-=*=-

Now the same old sort of tired, criminal US regime, but under a new president - Obama to Iran and N.Korea: "Give up your nukes, or we'll kill you!"

Well, we can understand US vs. Iran; Iran's got something the US wants, namely oil (just like Iraq). We can understand Israel vs. Palestine (and Lebanon, etc.); Israel's neighbours have something that Israel wants, namely land and water.

But N.Korea is guilty of nothing more that defying the US - Ooops! Yep, that's enough to deserve death-threats.

That's how 'diplomacy' works, US/Israeli-style:

"Gimme your oil, land and water, even 'just' subservience; surrender the lot, or we'll kill you!"

hypocrisy of the 'highest' order ...

  .. what we see (endless bloody murder) ...

    .. what they push on TV (filthy peace-process lie)

-=*=-

It's not 'merely' mass-murder, it's not 'just' genocide - it's incontrovertible evidence of the deep, essential criminality of the race that call themselves 'Jews.' More on that statement in a moment.

My thanks to Kate Bates for the Steven Lendmen article. More on that in a moment also.

Disclaimer 1: One of the mind-games played by Jews is that if one refers to them as Jews they may instantly object (screeching 'racism!' or worse, 'anti-Semitism!'), and/or demand to be called Israelis or Zionists or some other whatever. It is this site's policy to avoid such filthy mind-games; here a spade may be called a bloody shovel, if that is closer to the truth.

Disclaimer 2: Before being dragged into the ghastly task of fighting through the fug of capital crimes that the US and Israeli regimes continually create, it never occurred to me to mention the H-word: hate. On some Lakoff-framing scale, the H-word must rank as one of the very worst, as it invokes one of the most negative aspects of humans. I found to my horror, that not only was the H-word deployed in what should be serious discussions of vital matters of fact, but it was veritably thrown willy-nilly around - mostly, almost exclusively - by Jews, their accessories and apologists (any exceptions being generally secondary, i.e. in response to being H-worded first). Forgetting the US for the moment, and paraphrasing Marilyn Shepherd, we do not hate the Jews, we simply and utterly deplore the ugly, murdering-theft-crimes of the rogue state of Israel, and we completely condemn any and all support for those crimes.

One specific thing stands out and that by a vast margin: justice-seekers are vitally interested in truth, criminals simply are not, in fact with criminals, the absolute opposite to truth often obtains. So it is no surprise, in retrospect, that the criminal Israeli regime, its supporters, accessories and apologists use emotional terms - anything to avoid the sad truth, anything to hook sympathy however confected to their vile and criminal cause.

-=*=-

They (a publicly-financed broadcaster) trotted it out again last night, something like "What are the implications of the Israeli elections for the Middle-East peace process?"

Q: Err - exactly what 'peace process' please?

A: The one that hasn't worked these past 60+ years?

-=*=-

We know - now, following the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq (1mio+ dead Iraqis; murder for oil) - that the commercial mainstream media (MSM) can be very truth-averse when it comes to certain topics, like the US M/I/C-plex depredations, say. See the myriad filthy lies pushed by certain 'journalists,' the names of Judith Miller (NYT) and Tony Parkinson (theAge) come quickly - infamously - to mind.

The commercial MSM deploy a flimsy two-way 'excuse:' a) that they are privately-owned and b) that they must pursue profit (in the name of shareholder-value, actually another weak cop-out); I write 'excuse' because in good faith, the mission of the news-organizations is to inform us, when they tell us lies they are betraying the trust that they implied we should have in the first place, and what one tacitly assumes when one pays for a service. Well of course, caveat emptor; but now not only do we pay for the news (voluntarily in cash, or involuntarily by being passive advertising targets), we also have to spend our time and talents separating the truth from the lying propaganda.

It is, however, an entirely different story vis-à-vis any publicly-financed broadcaster. Having grown up in Aus, having turned to the AusBC as my primary information source - and having innocently fallen for the poor little Israeli David vs. ugly Arab Goliath myth, I accuse the AusBC as having knowingly broadcast lies. Given that the lies support murder of Palestinians, and have done so for 60+ years, I accuse the AusBC of nothing short of treachery (betrayal of trust), as well as being accessory to murder. It's not an easy thing to write and that's for sure, but in here, we deal with provable facts. The truth is not ugly, but acts of treachery indubitably are. Very.

Just as the commercial MSM clings to a flimsy, feeble 'excuse,' so the AusBC: they, the AusBC, must have permission[1] from 'above,' i.e. from the politicians - bipartisan, not in the people's interest, and therefore diametrically undemocratic - and, even more deeply undemocratic one supposes, permission from the politicians' shadowy controllers. This permission-giving chain has incredibly vicious implications all of its own: IMHO, it is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy of our so-called 'leaders,' a criminal conspiracy directed against us, we the people and at the very heart of our democracy, both.

-=*end*=-

PS Just as "Some of one's best friends may be Yanks," so not every Jew must be suspected of being bad, but until enough Jews deploy an effective counter to the criminality, Zionist evil will taint them all. The 'more' on Jewish racism (I don't invent this stuff, I just distil it) can be seen in detail in the Lendmen article, the Jews are often their own worst enemy. This latter, their own worst enemy, would be a good joke if it wasn't so sad; they even have an horrendous slur for any internal dissenter: "Self-hating Jew!" Now an extract:

February 09, 2009
A Short History of the Israeli - Palestinian Conflict: Past Is Prologue
 - by Stephen Lendman

  «Understanding Zionism is fundamental:

-- its reliance on oppression, violence, and dispossession;

-- its belief in exclusivity, privilege, and Jewish exceptionalism;

-- racism at the core of its politics;

-- democracy only for Jews;

-- an ethnically pure state in which half its inhabitants aren't Jewish, are afforded few rights, and none on what matters most.»
[sjlendman.blogspot]

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] permission used instead of remit[2], for the illiterate until proven otherwise Mr. Butler. BTW, distractions about blaming others are purely that: distractions (troll warning!) As far as I can see, no-one is denying anything here, perhaps you could save us from your baseless fantasies.

[2] remit (see—n. 1) —v. (-tt-) 1 cancel or refrain from exacting or inflicting (a debt, punishment, etc.). 2 abate or slacken; cease partly or entirely. 3 send (money etc.) in payment. 4 a (foll. by to) refer (a matter for decision etc.) to some authority. b send back (a case) to a lower court. 5 postpone or defer. 6 pardon (sins etc.). —n. 1 terms of reference of a committee etc. 2 item remitted for consideration. [Latin remitto -miss-] [POD]

morality and propaganda ...

  .. don't go too well together ...

    .. in a properly functioning democracy

-=*=-

A properly functioning democracy is usually understood as "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

By 'morality[1]' we need to add the qualifier 'good;' a good morality can be based on the necessary and sufficient "Do unto others" construct, with an added 'extra' for slow thinkers: "Do no harm."

To implement 'of the people, by the people, for the people' one needs an educated and involved electorate, a reasonable choice of honest, alternative candidates (Haw!) and comprehensive, accurate information flows (Haw again!)

-=*=-

OK, so how are we doing? As my "Haws" above indicate, our choice of candidates is extremely poor; as a 'prime' example (of what to deplore!) consider 'modern' Israel; no matter who is elected there, whatever regime that results will continue murdering Israel's hapless neighbours in the both *illegal and immoral* push to enlarge Israel at any cost (to those same hapless neighbours.) This on-going process, mass-murder for land and water theft, is perhaps the most egregious example of bad morality in the modern world (with just a single possible exception, namely the continued depredations of the US. Example: 1mio+ dead Iraqis.)

Then, as to 'comprehensive, accurate information flows,' we can see from the performance of the mainstream media (MSM) in the case of the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the 60+ year outrage that is the state of Israel's murdering aggression against the dispossessed former legal owners of Palestine and Israel's neighbours in general, that the MSM honours its responsibilities far too often in the breach.

Finally as is 'awesomely' evident, the voters have been deliberately dumbed-down, both by totally inadequate education and by corrupted, MSM provided 'news' (modern word: infotainment, in actuality some real news permeated (polluted!) by lying propaganda[2]) - but before even those two, inadequate parenting. While the preceding sentence may sound outrageous - and it is for its truth, the causes lie not with the people themselves but the society as constructed by our so-called 'leadership.'

(Anyone seeking proof of inadequate parenting could consider that these days, most babies are set down in front of a TV as 'cheap babysitter,' almost from the first moment the babies can sit up. And for the adults "No, it's not just a movie!" - the human 'video-in' system has as good as no filtering capacity, which one can well understand when one considers how that video-in system evolved: "Is that a real sabre-toothed tiger threatening to devour me - or is it just a movie of one?" (Haw!))

-=*=-

The fact that we are being propagandised will not be contested by aware observers; neither the US nor Israel could operate 'on the dark side' as they do without deceiving the general populace. The game is totally given away here:

  «The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.»
[wiki/Propaganda_(book)]

Read that and weep. Any such manipulated society is the utter antithesis of a properly functioning democracy; any so-called 'leaders' and/or others who practice such manipulation (and many obviously do) belong in gaol - the truth may someday set us free. It behoves us, we who can clearly see, to work towards that day: expose the lies whenever/wherever detected!

-=*end*=-

PS Over at dangerouscreation, David G asks Q: "Who Is Running Our World?"

A: In addition to the 'usual suspects' of multinational but largely US-inspired corporations, our mostly dreadful politicians, the corrupt and venal MSM (including some publicly financed broadcasters!) and the various Churches (the M/I-plex that Ike warned about, as extended), there are the 'hidden manipulators' referred to above who manage the propaganda, both in content and recruitment of the MSM 'fifth columnist' quisling/collaborators. The 'amateur' apologists - well may one say 'lying trolls' - are usually deluded, immoral self-recruits.

This item was partially inspired by an article on Damian Lataan's "History of the Twenty-First Century, " SICK AUSTRALIAN MURDOCH JOURNO EXPLOITS BUSHFIRE TRAGEDY TO PUSH ISLAMOPHOBIC PROPAGANDA.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] morality n. (pl. -ies) 1 degree of conformity to moral principles. 2 right moral conduct. 3 science of morals. 4 particular system of morals (commercial morality). [POD]

[2] propaganda n. 1 organized propagation of a doctrine by use of publicity, selected information, etc. 2 usu. derog. ideas etc. so propagated.  propagandist n. & adj. propagandize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing). [Latin: related to *propagate] [ibid.]

the jewish dilemma

Updated[1]

Since being impelled into action in late 2002 by the US (UK, Aus) threat to attack Iraq, now turned into the truly ghastly reality of an illegal invasion, which was then morphed into what appears to be an interminable, brutal occupation, my view of the world has changed radically.

Where once before I assumed trust in publicly financed broadcasters to relay the news to me, I have been convinced by critical observation, that not only do the corporate MSM but also some publicly financed broadcasters relay lies. Not just 'little whites' mind you, but filthy, deliberate and often propagandistic lies. There may be some room for debate on the possibility that the lies are simply passed along (whether due to ignorance or carelessness or whatever other 'excuse'), but I think that simply could not be the case. The people employed by news organizations are so-called professionals, and even if they made an occasional mistake, their 'controllers' would soon smarten them up - assuming the controllers at least were honest (sadly another insupportable assumption). My inescapable conclusion: we the people are being deliberately propagandised.

When I take a prioritised look at our world, I notice that the anticipated excess-CO2 caused climate-catastrophe is our biggest worry by far, and if that problem is not satisfactorily solved and soonest, then any other problems will be overwhelmed.

Standing in the way of combating climate change is a vast array of vested interests, prioritising these 2nd level problems, I assess the depredations of the mostly US-corporations-driven capitalism as the worst offender, also since that mainly US capitalism is accompanied by war (military, economic and/or covert, all unethical if not outright illegal) by the US on most of the rest of the world; this warfare not to defend the US but to guarantee US access primarily to resources but also to markets. Yapping at the US' heels is Israel, as I've often characterised it, the illegitimate tail desperately trying to wag the rabid US dog, and imitating the US depredations with absolutely unwarranted viciousness. Sorry - but not too sorry - for the strong language.

Closing the circle on the MSM/publicly financed broadcasters, their most egregious offence (always and of course IMHO), as well as 'carrying' lies and propaganda to disguise the US & Israeli depredations, is that for perhaps 60+ years, they have propagated the 'poor little Israeli David vs. the ugly, primitive and violent Arab/Muslim Goliath' myth, aka filthy lie.

That one miserable, long drawn-out criminal act is enough to damn them (MSM, etc.) irrevocably and forever.

The reality is totally the reverse, as anyone with truly open eyes can readily see: the rogue state of Israel, whether called a Zionist regime or a mob of mad Jews, has murdered its way into utter infamy. In a few stark words: Israel has mass-murdered in order to steal (mostly Palestinian) land and water - for 60+ looong and bloody years, no end in sight.

Now an important point: I have taken to using the word 'Jews' exclusively (as opposed to Israeli, or Zionist, or any other whatever) to refer to the regime and the people both, whether living in Israel or dispersed anywhere, but any and all organizations or people who claim to be Jewish. I have done this because I simply refuse to play any I/J/Z name-games.

Then, just as 'Some of one's best friends may be Yanks,' not all Jews are presumed to be guilty of the (abominable!) crimes perpetrated in Israel's name. At the same time a caution: any Jew not doing his/her absolute utmost to stop those crimes bears a certain personal responsibility; there are crimes of commission (IDF = offensive!) - and crimes of omission, i.e. inactivity in the face of such dreadful ignominy. I have had the unfortunate experience of encountering a particularly nasty, pug-ugly (if 'only' in spirit), arch-Zionist, who calls dissenters from the Zionist cause "self-hating Jews." How charming. In the same vein, they have a name for their murdering excesses, i.e. "disproportionate response" - more charming.

Fazit: I use the single word, Jews, to refer to the whole 'mess' - for it is a real mess, even compared to the trouble the US is causing. No offence is meant - to inoffensive people anywhere, however Israel - and hence Jews everywhere, are responsible for trouble far beyond their numbers. I can extend to 'Jews everywhere' being responsible, in the democratic sense of what the majority supports (or here perhaps, fails to stop) is what the whole must accept.

It's up to decent Jews everywhere to mount an effective, countervailing response to the crimes attributable to Israel - what's stopping them, stopping the murdering thefts?

[1] Update (17Feb'09):

There's not a lot of sense in pointing out a problem without suggesting a solution.

The real problem (IMHO, as usual and of course):

1. The legality of the establishment of Israel is arguable; 1st, Israel cannot claim the UN both as legitimising authority and at the same time defy that authority. In a wider sense, only just law is acceptable, and the only acceptable use of force is to enforce just law. The original 'law' ejecting Palestinians was not just, and is therefore not acceptable. So much for "right to exist;" that right does *not* exist.

To paraphrase in plain text: no one has the right to appropriate any property without adequate compensation.

2. The legality of the risibly named IDF's offensive operations is not 'merely' arguable, such operations are certainly immoral and most probably illegal. Proceeding from (1), stealing land (exactly what has occurred) by Israel or anyone else is not defensible, that is to say one simply cannot defend stolen land. So much for "right to defend;" stolen land is *not* defendable. Then, I don't suppose that illegal occupiers could have too many expectations vis-à-vis rights, but the real problem here is that the IDF is not 'defending' anything at all - when it invades to attack neighbours on the neighbours' own land. The proof of this is the steady, illegal expansion of Israel.

To paraphrase in plain text: aggressive invasion - what Israel has repeatedly done since its inception - is the ultimate war crime.

3. From (1) & (2), it follows that most, if not all of the land Israel occupies has been acquired by extremely questionable means, if not stolen outright. This reasoning (or similar) is behind the "Palestinian right of return" - it makes sense.

To paraphrase in plain text: any and all illegally obtained property must be returned to its rightful owners.

Sooo, to my suggested *just* solution:

1. In all cases, in all places, stop all the lying, cheating, killing and thefts.

2. Return all property to its rightful owners, and that means the owners before the disputed laws and all wars. Specifically, give back to the Palestinians everything that was not acquired perfectly legally - and yes, that does mean most of Israel. Alternatively, buy anything deemed impractical to return, see (3) next.

3. Pay full and fair reparation/compensation.

4. Say "Sorry!" - and mean it.

-=*=-

Moral: There can never be peace without justice.
 

raison d'être ...

  .. pernicious propaganda, cynical censorship ...

    .. what ever became of "The Enlightenment" principles?

-=*=-

There are millions of blogs, perhaps over 100mio; it's a writhing sea of words, a boiling broth of babel. None tower much above the seething surface - or most of us would already be there, and not scattered in all directions as we currently are; the term 'atomised' has been used. Of course, it takes all kinds - and one clear purpose of libre is to be free - but the main suggested direction is simple to state:

"The ultimate priority of libre is to contribute as effectively as possible towards saving the planet, and the proposed method is to stop the flood of bullshit we've all been drowning in."

It may sound grandiose, but I have neither pretensions nor illusions: libre itself is a very small drop in the bucket; at the same time I can't just sit idly by watching our once jewel-like planet's life-supporting environment being wilfully, disgustingly degraded, possibly even irreversibly destroyed.

Our environment is endangered by current rapacious practices, obviously 'led' by the US, with Israel as close accomplice. They try to excuse themselves with "greed is good" but it's not; enlightened altruism is the only practical way forward. Apart from the shady to outright crooked business models extant, there is the repeated, criminal deployment of deadly force, aka murder for spoil. The US going after Iraq's oil, Israel after Palestine's land and water (for 60+ bloody years); latest IDF (offensive!) outrage murdering over a 1000 in Gaza. 'Modern' US and Israeli depredations date from the end WW2, when we thought evil had been conquered, even banished - but no, the centre of evil merely relocated - beginning with the A-bombing war crime.

-=*=-

Those who understand the full ramifications of libre's title will know, but for others this: there was a blog which seemed to champion truth and justice, but it became obvious that that was a false-front façade: that blog now harbours and encourages trolls of the nastiest sort, more and worse: that blog censors submitted comments to favour the worst sort of Zionists. In short, that blog is corrupted and utterly unconscionable; libre offers a remedy, 'in here' one may call a spade a bloody shovel - if that alternate is considered closer to the truth.

Also as many will know, we (the general population) are being lied to, by and through the so-called 'leading' politicians, themselves speaking though and actively assisted by the main-stream media (MSM), including public broadcasters - yes; shock, horror. In the run-up to the Iraq war, a novel 'excuse' was provided especially for Howard: "All politicians lie!"

Be that as it may, we are now digging up the detail; we are being deliberately and systematically propagandised, which often means being told outright lies. As no democracy can correctly function if submerged in a fug of filthy lies, I see the task of libre as being to expose those lies on a prioritised basis, the aim being to promote justice via truth; the greatest good for the most people of all sorts.

definition

From Spanish and French libre (“‘freedom, liberty’”)