.. of propaganda
Subtitle: Cui bono?
-=*=-
As usual, via RN/Breakfast, a report (this time from the BBC, as opposed to the more usual CNN), blaming 'Islamic militants' for the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
I ask you to ask yourself Q: Cui bono?
A1: Some scruffy band of Islamic militants OR
A2: The 'ruling' kleptocracy and their evil rip-offs.
-=*=-
Not much changes, without our situation getting worse. Yeah, we in Aus have recently had a small (but nevertheless significant) 'win,' with the metaphorical death of our very own wicked old witch, JWHoward(&Co). But Rudd&Co have already flagged that they (meaning we, the sheople®) are staying in Afghanistan 'for the long haul.' In other words, 'Western' interference (illegal invasion, brutal occupation) aka the rape of Afghanistan will continue. As for Afghanistan (murder for oil pipeline), so (worse) for Iraq: murder for whole lakes of oil. And worst of all, the 60-year cancer on the planet that is Israel (murdering for land, water) will become ever more malignant.
All this is known - by the few such as we netizens who can and do look, but not by the many, i.e. those served by the (venal!) MSM - which includes big bits'a the AusBC & SBS (boo! Hiss!) Since '9/11' things have gone even more haywire, with Israel now employing the full spectrum of the US-weapons wizardry to carry out their foul murders.
The real terrorists are the cold-blooded murdering thieves who always benefit: the fat-cat rich getting ever more obscenely richer. One need think only of Cheney's pre-9/11 oil-maps of Iraq.
The pirate regimes of the US and Israel (with poodle UK, hardly less daggy Aus); the puppet regimes of Pakistan, Iraq & Afghanistan (and almost wherever else there are resources for the stealing) will all continue their criminal murdering for spoil.
I ask you to ask yourself again, Q: Cui bono?
Who is getting the biggest benefit, from the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto say, or 'the biggie,' 9/11 itself?
2007/12/28
daily dose ...
2007/12/18
blog closed until Feb'08 or until after greedastrophe ...
Update: see below*.
SBS 18dec'07 22:00 Crude Impact 23:45
Crude Impact exposes our deep-rooted dependency on the availability of fossil fuel energy and examines the future implications of peak oil, i.e. the point in time when the amount of petroleum available worldwide begins a steady, inexorable decline. It looks at the role of the media in keeping the people in developed countries unaware of the climate changes affecting the world today. Thanks to mankind's rapid growth, fuelled by fossil fuels and other minerals, we are warming the earth. As heat increases, the energy in the atmosphere increases causing more storms, hurricanes, droughts and other severe weather conditions. (From Australia, in English) (Documentary Series) (Rpt) PG (A) CC
In plain text: get sustainable, or get dead.
*Update: the descriptor "From Australia" is probably an error; see this website.
I watched the film "Crude Impact" after a 'tip-off' from a friend; it was preceded by another so-called documentary "Energy War." In my opinion the earlier piece is utter garbage, containing as it does almost unbelievable levels of filthy, pro-US propaganda. Boo! Hiss! If SBS is gunna broadcast such bilge, it could at least do so with a proper warning.
2007/12/13
eat it!
Subtitle: moral bankruptcy[1,2].
-=*=-
«Attention liberals. Waterboarding stopped terrorist attacks, maybe dozens. That's what the CIA agent said. The case is closed. We will continue to waterboard. Eat it.»
[posted 11:23 am on 12/12/2007 by thacher]
-=*=-
Illegally invading Palestine or any other neighbouring land outside the original 1947 UN remit, following up with a brutal occupation in order to steal land and water was and remains toadally® justifiable.
Eliot Ramsey: "Eat it!"
-=*=-
Illegally invading Iraq, following up with a brutal occupation in order to steal oil for our 4WDs & SUVs was and remains toadally justifiable.
Ian MacDougall: "Eat it!"
Paul Morrella: "Eat it!"
«Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. [As for Asia, read "world"] In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
... We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.»
[February 28, 1948, Declassified June 17, 1974]
For "power concepts" read USrael m/i-plex; murder for spoil.
USrael: "Eat it!"
«Over the next two and a half decades, U.S.-funded and trained Central American security forces would disappear tens of thousands of citizens and execute hundreds of thousands more. When supporters of the "War on Terror" advocated the exercise of the "Salvador Option," it was this slaughter they were talking about.»
[Bob Wall/Tomgram: Greg Grandin, On the Torturable and the Untorturable]
USrael: "Eat it!"
Perhaps that's why these two are:
«...that happy couple, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, the new White House poodles now Tony Blair has gone.»
[Bob Wall/Uri Avnery/How They Stole the Bomb From Us]
And speaking of bombs, the US drops'em all'a time. Like the A-bombings of roughly 140,000 plus 74,000 Japanese ... the overwhelming majority of the deaths were those of civilians:
"Eat it!"
Perhaps that explains the obesity epidemic.
-=*end*=-
PS It's not only the visible military extremes of murder for spoil, there's the Chicago School ideology they push everywhere, the World Bank / IMF fiddles à la Perkins' "Economic Hit Man" and Klein's "Disaster Capitalism." Not to forget the US$ fiat currency / PetroDollar / M3 swindles, and the resource-rent rip-offs in the mineral sectors. Finally, there's the threatening greenhouse catastrophe that the US mostly creates then ignores.
Oh, well; I report, you decide.
PPS Resistance and Hope
By Charles Sullivan
12/12/07
«If we Americans [plus hangers-on] are nothing more than hopelessly addicted consumers who think of ourselves as an exceptional people with special entitlements; if we see ourselves as god’s morally superior chosen people; if we are selfish and greedy beyond redemption—then we are complicit in all of the horrible crimes that government commits in our name.»
[ICH]
Ref(s):
[1] moral —adj. 1 a concerned with goodness or badness of human character or behaviour, or with the distinction between right and wrong. b concerned with accepted rules and standards of human behaviour. 2 a virtuous in general conduct. b capable of moral action. 3 (of rights or duties etc.) founded on moral not actual law. 4 associated with the psychological rather than the physical (moral courage; moral support). —n. 1 moral lesson of a fable, story, event, etc. 2 (in pl.) moral behaviour, e.g. in sexual conduct. morally adv. [Latin mos mor- custom]
[2] bankrupt —adj. 1 legally declared insolvent. 2 (often foll. by of) exhausted or drained (of emotion etc.). —n. insolvent person, esp. one whose assets are used to repay creditors. —v. make bankrupt. bankruptcy n. (pl. -ies). [Italian banca rotta broken bench: related to *bank2]
2007/12/12
treason and traitors, agenda monkeys;
Subtitle: hypocritical liars, anything else?
-=*=-
G'day again Daniel,
I see the URL title of your piece differs from your headline; let's talk about hypocrisy[1]. 'Say one thing and do another' would be an accurate paraphrasing of hypocrisy vis-à-vis Howard&Co, 'How does he get away with it?' Latham's plaintive cry; your suggestion involves a lack of education in the sheople® and although I tend to agree, I'd say it's worse than that.
I only started to hear "All politicians lie!" after it became obvious that Howard was, still is and will be known for evermore as an inveterate liar, but despite being *known* to be such a filthy liar, he was multiply re-elected; why that? The sheople were convinced, via but not only, with an active assist from the (venal!) MSM, that under Howard, they never had it so good(?!)
But instead of an honest polity whereby our so-called leaders worked openly to improve our lot (or at least trying do the least damage), we had Howard&Co lying, threatening and fear (terror! War!) mongering. Work (Chump! - No) Choices might'a been the final straw, but the rot truly was endemic.
Even so it all worked for a while, but only so long as the sheople went along; we thank our lucky stars that - however briefly - the sheople woke up.
A properly functioning democracy requires at least these attributes, a) an involved and aware electorate, b) a fair and varied choice of honest(!) candidates, and c) a full and fair reporting of the situation. This last requires an honest(!) MSM; that we just don't have. There is a vile nest of traitors, right there in our (venal!) MSM. Worst of course are the public broadcasters AusBC and SBS, that they retail some'a the same lies as the 'private' MSM is a true scandal: SHAME!
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] hypocrisy n. (pl. -ies) 1 false claim to virtue; insincerity, pretence. 2 instance of this. [Greek, = acting, feigning] [POD]
hypocrite n. person given to hypocrisy. hypocritical adj. hypocritically adv. [ibid.]
[Cross posted]
2007/12/10
the art of the innocent snub
Subtitle: down with all warmongering liars!
-=*=-
Hands-up, all those who think that GWBush is a knight in shining armour, bringing truth and justice to Iraq, say?
Hmmm, not too many. Then, hands-up, all those who think the (oxymoronic!)IDF is doing the same to (ex-)Palestine?
It's called 'transparency;' in fact, the lack thereof. The 'jig' is up, boys (and ladies; Clinton & Pelosi, say): we see what you are doing, USrael, and we DO NOT APPROVE.
-=*=-
Part of the propaganda-BS that the kleptocrats'[1] corrupt politicians, Madison Ave, Hollywood and M-W's "Israel Lobby" (plus their insidious apologists) all push via the supine/venal MSM is that the US and Israeli 'democracies' take precedence, and that Israel is the only democracy in the middle-East. Well, I put quotes around 'democracies' since there appear to be at least three prerequisites missing; a properly educated and engaged constituency, full and free information flows, and a valid choice of policies/candidates.
Hands-up, all those who think that anything major would change, if the current US and Israeli regimes were replaced by those run by their nearest opposition parties?
See? To spell it out, these two self-proclaimed democracies just ain't (not properly functioning democracies, that is, although they're not alone in this), so any alleged 'precedence' on democratic grounds evaporates. What about "The Rule of Law?" Also moot tending to nonsensical; the establishment of Israel can be viewed with extreme suspicion (as a misuse of the UN), and the fact that Israel ignores/violates so many UN resolutions forms the contradiction: one simply cannot claim UN authority when one continuously flies in the face of it. Then Iraq; the US (plus UK, Aus) illegal invasion morphed into brutal occupation thereof, rendition, torture, Abu Ghraib etc. As if that all wasn't enough, consider the illegal wire-taps in the US - too much to list here, but all pointing in one direction: the Rule of Law is breaking/has broken down.
-=*=-
Well, so what? Simply this: they won't stop unless stopped. Since we can't match their physical force ("Might is neither right nor wrong; it just works mate...") we need a different way to curb these filthy swine. Yelling "Shame!" won't do it either (but we must); we've got to hit them where it really hurts: in their wallets (US 'pocketbooks;' spit!) Sooo, boycott. Cut them off - in the shops, no more US brands; otherwise known as the art of the innocent snub.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] kleptocrats
«A kleptocracy (sometimes cleptocracy) (root: klepto+kratein = rule by thieves) is a government that extends the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats) at the expense of the population. A kleptocratic government often goes beyond merely awarding the prime contracts and civil service posts to friends (A common feature of corrupt governments). They also create projects and programs at a policy level which serve the primary purpose of funnelling money out of the treasury and into the pockets of the executive with little if any regard for the logic, viability or necessity of those projects.»
[wiki]
2007/12/07
a very hopeful sign
Subtitle: MAD if y'do...
-=*=-
We know all about last straws, and camels' backs - or, we ort'a.
What if the wicked and illegal invasion of Iraq, now morphed into brutal occupation, each more criminally murdering than the other, is such a straw?
What we do know fur sure is that the US first, then with Israel and the M-W lobby fused into USrael has been nukular-blackmailing the world.
What we don't know is why the world acquiesced (the threats must'a been truly horrendous), but with the exposing of the NIE, we might have crossed a real turning-point. The 'intelligence' establishment has, in words of one syllable or less, called GWBush a liar. But worse, is the sort'a lies he's been telling, as he Oh, so openly threatened Iran with "all options." (And note that it's not 'just' Bush&Co, the Dummocrats almost to a wo/man, too. Idiots.)
Consider another 'data-point,' the remarks of Fallon (paraphrased perhaps): "Not on my watch."
On the one hand, the 'responsible' military officer saying he'll disobey any order to attack Iran and on the other, the spies yelling "Liar, liar! Pants on fire!"
-=*=-
Until now, USrael has brutalised the world, doing just about whatever they wanted to do, in plain words mass-murdering for spoil (US for resources, culminating in murder for oil in Iraq, and Israel murdering for land and water in the pursuit of Greater Israel) - but all of a sudden, the most visible warmongers are being told in no uncertain terms "Why'n'cha just shuddup?!"
You have to ask Q: "Why?" - and the A: must be because someone has worked out that the game is over, they (USrael) are most likely not to get away with their threatened action (in this ball-breaking case: striking at Iran.)
Then Q: "Why not?" - and the A: must be because someone has made a bigger return threat. Nothing else makes sense; (cowardly!) thugs only ever cave-in to bigger thugs.
Something like this, perhaps?
«The Sea Dreamer: ...
Correction: 'massive deterrence' should read 'massive retaliation'; 'false-flag asymmetric nuclear warfare' might perhaps be better described as 'no-flag'; and of course the doctrine of asymmetric nuclear warfare has neither yet been fully articulated, nor demonstrated.
December 06, 2007
Votes: +0»
(In the comments to:
More War is Job One: Torturing the Truth on Iran
Written by Chris Floyd)
[chris-floyd ... Torturing_the_Truth_on_Iran]
2007/12/06
no further comment ...
.. for the moment, that is.
-=*=-
I just had occasion to 'visit' WD.
I'd like to pay tribute to three people's posts, namely those from Angela Ryan, Bob Wall & Daniel Smythe; their posts run together here, interspersed by a post from a known troll CP/ER.
There is no proper 'answer' to filthy trolls such as CP/ER, but as an indication of my utter contempt for such, I quote two passages (the last one was linked-to in a previous post on the same thread):
«In discourse analysis it’s known as the false dilemma. You can’t argue with somebody, particularly a leader, who insists that he was doing what was right because, implicitly, you invite yourself to be seen as arguing for what is morally wrong. And that’s why conviction politicians are so successful and can get away with murder. Literally. (It’s analogous to the assertion that "God promised us the land." The only sane response to that, if ones dares, is "You’re mad.")»
[ICH/Alan Hart/A Manifestation of Evil or Just Plain Madness?]
Note that the beginning of the Hart quote mentions "doing what was right" and was 'aimed' at Blair, but no person in their right mind could possibly believe that B, B & H's illegally invading Iraq (now morphed into a brutal occupation) with the intention of stealing its oil was ever "doing what was right." Further, I re-aim the end of the Hart quote not just at all of B, B & H, their accessories and apologists but also squarely at M-W's equally filthy 'lobby.'
«What then, in the end, do our leaders - present and future, Republican and Democrat - stand for? What is the most apt emblem for the ultimate value they embody and most assiduously serve?
A child dying in her own shit and blood, in a land ripped to pieces by a criminal war.
***»
[Chris Floyd/Eating Iraq: Corruption Rules and Cholera Rises While Insurgents Surf the Surge]
2007/11/29
keep it simple, stupid!
Subtitle: contrast the dialectical dilettante's nuance.
Lie[1], obfuscate, propagandise...
Preamble: the recent election result was the most satisfying since that of 2Dec'72 and yes, that means that at least since events leading up to 'the dismissal,' things have been going mostly down-hill, and more precipitously so in the last 11½ years... Dear reader, if you are offended by the name Whitlam, or incensed that Howard has finally received the 1st instalment of his comeuppance[2], please leave this blog now, taking your (crippled!) mind with you. Or perhaps not: you could hang around (skulking and/or sulking?) and learn something.
-=*=-
Sometimes I mark items as 'key.' Here are some recent ones:
«Sleepers awoke from slumber of indifference
November 27, 2007
By Hugh Mackay
When John Howard recycled Paul Keating's line about a change of government changing the country, ...»
[smh]
«If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I’m The Queen of England
By David Michael Green
11/24/07
I wish I had a nickel [5¢] for every time a conservative told a lie in order to sell an ideology that would otherwise be hopelessly unappealing...»
[ICH]
«The party's over and Liberals will soon be history
November 29, 2007
By Steve Biddulph
The Liberal Party is in trauma. The corporate sector is attempting to calm its nerves, ...»
[smh]
To the above three I add two more:
«Environment shock
Marian Wilkinson and Stephanie Peatling
November 19, 2007
MUCH of Australia will lose its ability to farm successfully, and there will be a large loss of species from the Great Barrier Reef and the tropics if the growth of polluting energy from coal, oil and gas is not halted within seven years, a dire report from the United Nations peak scientific body warns.»
[smh]
«IMF chiefs warns of economic 'perfect storm'
Posted November 28, 2007 22:45:00
The chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has given a warning that the world economy could be facing what he calls a "perfect storm".»
[AusBC]
That ort'a be enough for now.
-=*=-
The phrase which triggered a most ugly right-wing troll onslaught was contained in this snip: "I said that the time for arguing any of this is over; and so it is. All we can do now is observe the filthy, murdering criminals in action."
The criminals referred to in that snip were the regime-elements associated with B, B & H of the US, UK and Aus and their illegal invasion now turned brutal occupation of Iraq, and the murdering action is their still-proposed theft of and/or wrenching control over Iraq's oil. Whereas this is the current major crime, there is another of scarcely less import which has been underway since at least 1947; I refer of course to the illegal invasion now turned brutal occupation of Palestine by the i/j/z-plex, aka Zionists.
Far from being delivered into a world of peace and justice, we have been plunged into a morass of increasing violence and criminality. It's not 'just' the obvious armed attacks, there has been a systematic looting of world resources carried out under various themes such as 'economic rationalisation' and 'globalisation,' all 'lead' by "Chicago School" type thinking and implemented by the products of the "Harvard Business School (for sharks)" and such-like sharp types and practices ('sharp' here being homologous with 'criminal.')
As a bit of an aside, the 'systematic looting' that I refer to is the mal-appropriation of profits from the resources sector (keyword: resource-rent). In a nutshell, resources world-wide are mostly being rorted by corporations without adequate recompense. As if that wouldn't be enough, the US (otherwise worthless fiat) currency is out'a control (keyword: M3); they are attempting to print their way (recall Weimar), at a great cost to the rest of the world. The proof of this printing is asset-inflation, both in stock and house prices (the latter having received a local boost from Costello's CGT halving. Good economic managers? Hah!) Further proof is the accumulation of US$s outside the US, effectively worthless and worse, almost useless; look at China. Not much can be done with these external $s - except possibly to buy (US-produced) arms, thus enabling the extension of the circles of violence. Bah!
-=*=-
Although Blair and Howard have now left/been thrown out and Bush must eventually go, the crimes continue. Worse, the US economy is faltering and the greedastrophe® gets ever closer.
A note must here be made: it's not 'just' the filthy, lying politicians B, B & H plus their ugly assistants (and apologist/accessories) at fault; they could not propagate their lying propaganda without the active connivance of the main-stream media, the (venal!) MSM. This was marked during the election campaign by both overt (theAus, say, but big bits'a the SMH, Age etc) and covert support extended largely to the coalition, some of this sly support extending from deep within the AusBC and even more revoltingly by SBS. Boo! Hiss! Exactly who 'allows' publicly financed broadcasters to push lying propaganda?
To prove my even-handedness, I'll quote an Americanism (spit!) - "In g*d we trust; all others pay cash." That sets the tone; in having the wicked old witch Howard now (metaphorically) dead, it's up to Labor to save our local bit'a the planet. We don't just trust or hope they will, we will work to ensure they will. In other words, we will hold Labor to the promise; having stood against the ogre and won, they must now correct the ogre's errors.
-=*end*=-
PS And wha'da'bout "keep it simple, stupid" (aka KISS?) Well, the truth could be likened to a line, a single line so thin as to be only one-dimensional, a tiny thin thread running through the vastness of time. All else, the great infinity outside this single thread being the universe of (filthy!) lies. Only the single thread of truth is accountable, all else is not: keep it simple; no lies, see?
Next, some people say some sort'a g*d is needed, some invisible (and imaginary!) deity, to hang a morality on; I say "What utter bloody rubbish!" A fully functional and fair morality can be built on enlightened altruism, and it sits stably (and comfortably!) on the 'high-wire' of truth (no safety net needed). It behoves us all to seek out the truth - and tolerate no lies, no never, no more.
Ref(s):
[1] lie1
Ønoun
Len's loyalty to his mates had made him tell lies
UNTRUTH, falsehood, fib, fabrication, deception, made-up story, trumped-up story, invention, piece of fiction, fiction, falsification, falsity, fairy story/tale, cock-and-bull story, barefaced lie; (little) white lie, half-truth, exaggeration, prevarication, departure from the truth; yarn, story, red herring, rumour, fable, myth, flight of fancy, figment of the imagination; pretence, pretext, sham, ruse, wile, trickery, stratagem; (lies) misinformation, disinformation, perjury, dissimulation, mendacity, gossip, propaganda; informal tall story, tall tale, whopper; Brit. informal porky, pork pie, porky pie; humorous terminological inexactitude; vulgar slang bullshit.
-related word: mendacious.
-opposite(s): TRUTH, FACT. [New Oxford Thesaurus of English]
[2] comeuppance n. colloq. deserved punishment. [come up, *-ance] [POD]
Actually - or better, rightfully; B, B & H and their assistants (and apologist/accessories!) ort'a be tried for war-crimes. Most probably won't happen but should, presuming that a fair court were to exist. Yet more problems. Cooperation is the key, enlightened altruism the way.
2007/11/27
faux news
Subtitle: the eff'n 4th estate - filthy liars.
-=*=-
Over the 'long haul[1],' one of the most pernicious aspects that I have observed in 'political life' (both in Aus & US) has been lies. Not 'just' lies, and not 'just' from the political principals, not 'just' from governments but also from oppositions (failing to oppose - why?) - then worse, perhaps far worse: lies from 'the press,' modern term "main-stream media;" aka the (venal!) MSM.
It's almost a fable (as in fabulous[2]); the so-called 'good economic managers' that the Libs claim to be, and that the MSM reinforces at revoltingly short intervals - ad infinitum, even. We get this almost-fable thrust down our throats - but it's just not true. Take for example interest rates, whereby Howard's 22% from his own past period as treasurer is ignored, minimised or simply poo-pooed; we have our noses repeatedly rubbed in Keating's 17% or whatever, and then the latest iteration, the 'keeping interest rates (at record!) lows' hoo-ha. All basically misleading at best when not outright and deliberate lies. Both Howard's and Keating's 'highs' were mostly imported, although admittedly both compounded and confounded by local idiocy. Exactly the same story with rates since 2004. Yet the misleading lies abound, and the then-opposition either concurred or demurred; why?
One could query - as I do, as to the how and why we (the sheople®, = sheep + people) tolerate these political lies?
One 'excuse' could be along the 'no sense, no feeling' lines; the sheople have been dumbed-down, mostly by TV. But even if so, the sheople surely should be accorded a bit more respect; a properly functioning democracy requires at least three things, a) an aware and educated electorate, b) a fair and reasonable choice (of candidates), and c) accurate information.
The sad fact that too many candidates are crooks and liars is obscured by the venal MSM; shame and scandal twice.
-=*end*=-
PS I assert these sort'a things (venal MSM, say); is there any proof? Yep. Had a radio-test just this morning; many American accents. Why that? A big bit'a our TV programming comes from Hollywood, ads by Madison Ave. There's a reason; cheap! (We at chezphil prefer 'less expensive.') But nevertheless, we are steamrollered with US culture (too bad.) Anything else? You bet! Both SBS and the AusBC source far too much from the US - CNN, say, without proper (or even any) analysis. The breakfast-bag on RN is a serious, repeat offender in this respect, but here's a 'real' example of what I mean:
«HOLMES: The Iraqi navy on point getting ready to take over the sole responsibility of guarding the country's most precious resource.
NGUYEN: And their success or failure could have global implications.»
[CNN (SBS 071008) October 7, 2007 iraq oil]
The piece concludes with:
«ROBERTSON: The stakes are high. Failure here would impact world oil markets with inevitable repercussions for the global economy.»
See what I mean?
Filthy, lying propaganda.
(Do I need to labour the point? Surely not, but if a clue really is needed: murder for oil. Mass-murder. Millions gruesomely, "pink-mist, shock'n whore" murdered. Thanks, but no thanks Yanks. Go home.)
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] Noun 1. long haul - a journey over a long distance; "it's a long haul from New York to Los Angeles"
journey, journeying - the act of travelling from one place to another
2. long haul - a period of time sufficient for factors to work themselves out; "in the long run we will win"; "in the long run we will all be dead"; "he performed well over the long haul"
long run
period, period of time, time period - an amount of time; "a time period of 30 years"; "hastened the period of time of his recovery"; "Picasso's blue period"
[thefreedictionary]
[2] fabulous adj. 1 incredible. 2 colloq. marvellous. 3 legendary. fabulously adv. [Latin: related to *fable] [POD]
2007/11/23
a new 'down-under' world record!
UPDATE:
Howard concedes defeat
Source: ABC News
Published: Saturday, November 24, 2007 11:24 AEDT
John Howard concedes defeat to Kevin Rudd in the federal election and says he looks set to lose his Sydney seat of Bennelong to Labor's Maxine McKew. Mr Howard says his government has led Australia into prosperity and extends his deep gratitude to his parliamentary colleagues.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2007/11/24/2100356.htm?site=elections/federal/2007
Hoo-bloody-ray! The wicked old witch is dead!
Now, we might begin, to fight our way out.
Subtitle: but only if the sheople® don't go to water.
-=*=-
"If the polls are correct..." the voters could deliver a new world record smack in the chops for Howard.
Go for it, fellas (and ladies.)
The prize - watching Howard's capitulation speech.
-=*=-
UPDATE:
For those who don't believe that we're being propagandised - not 'just' by the Murdoch rags, not 'just' by corrupt politicians, but also by *almost all* politicians, by *almost all* the (venal!) MSM, including the AusBC and SBS (Boo! Hiss!) - then any such 'doubting Thomases' may be well advised to read this article:
«Spreading Democracy
By Gozawheena Bergacker
Deep in the bowels of a Washington DC Think Tank, ... »
[ICH]
- and don't try to tell me that the same sort'a thing isn't happening here, due to our very own greedies, and almost terminal monkey see, monkey do by most'a th'Aussie sheople. And we're not 'just' being propagandised, we're being taken to the cleaners - and all the while, being made utter fools of, where a large part of the 'being made' is reflexive.
Without a change, Howard will 'lead' us deeper into the shit.
2007/11/21
last chance saloon
Subtitle: the AusBC vs. us, we the sheople®
-=*=-
Anyone with more than half a brain knows what I say is true, when I screech: "AusBC bias!" And yes, the expression "more than half a brain" is tough, but no-one said life was meant to be easy; and the bias *demonstrated daily* by the AusBC is (mostly) far, far from 'Left,' daaarlings - despite what the disingenuous and rabid right-whingers repeatedly try to assert.
John Howard promised us (core?) "relaxed and comfortable."
Turns out that what he meant was that the sheople should doze before their flat-screen, 5.1ch surround-sound home entertainment systems (lapping up trivia, or Hollywood-style drivel?) - while the world went to pot.
While the sheople are dozing, our resources are being flogged-off for little more than wages and a song, as our public utilities were flogged-off (Qantas, Telstra; yep, partly Labor) and now, along with the drought, there's little left, either on, off or of 'the farm' to sell.
Apart from those home entertainment systems and grossly inflated house-prices (thanks economic wizard Costello), there'll not be much left to show for all that "relaxed and comfortable" snooze-time.
And the ice is melting; arctic, ant- and glacier everywhere.
Howard says: "We gotta keep diggin' up coal!"
But it's coal (and oil; see illegal invasion/brutal occupation of Iraq) that's burning us up: Environment shock!
Howard makes threats: "Change the government and the world - your world - will change!"
Any change must be for the better, and it bloody-well better change, or we're sunk - and/or dried, fried, possibly the lot.
And the AusBC? They're (mostly) backing Howard. Boo! Hiss!
For a representative sample, try the breakfast bag.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
last chance saloon:
«As an English metaphor
In everyday speech, by both American and British speakers of English, the term has been adopted to describe a situation beyond which hope or good fortune will greatly diminish.»
[wiki]
2007/11/20
seeing the wood, and the trees too
-=*=-
There was a story on twt today mentioning, almost in passing, that the two Tassie electorates 'stolen' by Howard last time are likely to fall back to Labor. ("But the Prime Minister certainly hasn't met any ordinary voters here in Tasmania so far." We could speculate as to why not.)
Could it be, that the voters have realised their mistake? That it didn't actually pay to switch? Perhaps, that Howard&Co have not 'paid' them well enough, even if at all?
Or could it just be, that not all forestry workers are as thick as two planks? (Fool them once, more fool them. Try fooling them twice, more fool him.)
-=*end*=-
PS The idea that voters get some sort'a 'hand-out' - or, better phrased: bribes - is (almost) entirely the fault of the sheople®, in asking themselves the perennial "What's in it for me?" (The 'almost' because the politicians are all too ready to offer bribes, and far too many do, daaarlings.)
Shouldn't the proper question be: "Who's gunna do the best for all of us/the country/the planet?"
2007/11/13
Lying and murdering tyrants and apologists like Ian MacDougall
But going back to some possible 'lesser evil,' his 'argument' *for* invasion was to stop Saddam killing any more Iraqi/Marsh Arab/Kurdish et al. citizens.
*BUT* there is no evidence, let alone good evidence, as to how many might'a actually been killed by "Saddam and his two psychopathic sons."
As far as I recall, no mass-graves were ever found, except for those relating back to the Iran/Iraq war, or to the the '91 imbroglio (also possibly prompted by the US; there were stories put about, of Kuwait diagonal-drilling down and across into Iraq to steal Iraq's oil, and the US assured Saddam that they, the US, had no objection to Iraq invading Kuwait. But just about as soon as that invasion took place, the US then U-turned and moved against Saddam. Hmmm?)
(Also another not-so-BTW, two wrongs never make a right; attacking Saddam/Iraq was never going to be the solution to Saddam's badness.)
Facit: while Saddam may well have been an absolutely 'orrible murdering bastard (even if he was the US' bastard), he just wasn't into mass-slaughter much if at all after '91, say (after the US inspired rebellions - subsequently abandoned by that same US - were brutally put down.)
And *that's* the basic error at the root of MacD's stance.
Then, even if there was an humanitarian case (as he claims), it ignores the oil/Israeli components, plus the revenge[1] components, and the general imperial thrust present since at least 1893[2] (and further back, even as far back as the first successful English colony [which] had been planted in 1607 with the 'Pilgrim Fathers' following in the "Mayflower" in 1620 & the associated genocide of the 'native' peoples).
MacD claims a tenuous humanitarian rationalisation, but it was not merely tenuous, it was Oh, so cynically hyped - and he, MacD, fell for the hype - lock, stock and barrel - and all those oil barrels, to boot ($US30trio?) We can then speak of MacD's misplaced faith (aka belief independent of the facts) in the pushed paradigm, the filthily lying politicians, a venal MSM, scheming & thieving m/i-plexes, finally and perhaps the worst, the lying, land and water stealing via murdering i/j/z-plex.
-=*=-
All of which were there, and are far, far, almost infinitely worse - than Saddam ever was. Saddam was a thug, but it's the US, the supposed 'hero' who is acting like the 4th Reich, as good as *is* the 4th Reich. Nobody has ever satisfactorily answered my 'house-siege' analogy; if the cops have to storm a domestic siege/hostage situation, they afterwards do not move in, loot the house and keep all proceeds for themselves - exactly what the US intends, with its massive 'embassy' and humungous military bases - and imposed privatisation/rip-offs, puppet-regime and oil-law.
It is the US which is the lying and murdering tyrant, and it's apologists like Ian MacDougall who give that tyrant support.
-=*=-
Finally, of course there's always the problem, when choosing between the 'lesser of two evils;' one must, perforce, end up with an evil. More work required?
-=*end*=-
PS One may be able to get the sailor out'a the port (it *was* about oil, even if *not only* about oil), but one can't get the port out'a the sailor: it wouldn't've happened *without* the oil. The wannabe hegemon, pushed by the illegitimate sprog, assisted by the poodle and dag, deliberately set out to brutally mass-murder for, not exclusively perhaps, but unavoidably *oil*.
Further: y'can't say that it was based on flawed intel or that it was bungled: both'a those may well've played a part (and the intel was fixed, i.e. fudged, see Downing St. memos, dodgy dossier, yellow-cake, alu-tubes... a whole lot'a filthy lies), but when someone sets out on a criminal enterprise (as B, B & H plus hangers-on most definitely did, and assisted by their apologists then as now), criminal is as criminal does; the invasion was illegal, just as the occupation is brutal, each more murdering than the other. And apologists make themselves accessories to those crimes, including the supreme crime à la Nuremberg.
Finally: Shock'n whore® was never gunna be a lesser evil. A rather fatal error, Mr. MacDougall; we the anti-wars foresaw most if not all the problems - which properly belong to you & your ilk, so YOU can get used to the guilt & opprobrium. Hmmm?
Ref(s):
[1] Revenge? - Yeah. More 'normally' associated with Iran, Iraq incurred US revenge - for switching oil payments to EURO. Can't be seen to undermine the otherwise practically worthless US fiat currency, threaten the US deficit-swindle 'free ride,' eh?
[2] Basic Statistics for United States Imperialism.
This is, IMHO, an exceedingly important document. I do not know its 'true' origin, but I found it 1st (with a big 'Haw!') here:
apk2000.dk/netavisen/artikler/global_debat/2002-1126_us_imp_basic_stats.htm
There is another copy here:
whatreallyhappened.com/usinterventionism.html
2007/11/08
what is vs. what could (should?) be.
-=*=-
Some big problems with "what is:"
1. Excessive & dangerous CO2 pollution.
2. Excessive & unsustainable resource (mis)use.
3. Excessive & profligate consumption by some sector(s).
A 'passenger' to the above is excessive population growth.
An actual 'driver' of the above is current 'leadership.'
-=*=-
It can be argued that the sheople® f**k like rabbits; it certainly seems that the highest population growth is most often associated with depressed living conditions and low education. An obvious antidote would be to improve living conditions and education - and certainly, to provide as much help as possible on the contraception front.
Q: Why is this not being done, in fact often the opposite?
A: Gross current 'leadership' failures.
As if that wasn't enough, the sheople are being encouraged to (over)consume - little encouragement required, but the direction nevertheless; a 'worst-case' example being humongous 4WD/SUVs as a class and the 'pits' here being the behemoth H3-Hummer. What a filthy, largely useless and senseless waste!
There might be nothing wrong with 'aspirational' per se, if the cumulative effects weren't so damaging; time to realise one may not always be able to Havidol...
-=*=-
Where we currently are is a result of ideological failure, not of the 'left' as alleged by some running-dogs of the 'right,' but failures of that right-faction itself, since it has been on the ascendancy these past years - since WW2, say; keywords Friedman, Chicago School, Perkins' Economic Hit Man, Klein's Shock Doctrine. More? Out'a control m/i-plex; colonial wars aka illegal invasions leading to brutal occupations, cf. (ex!)Palestine, Iraq - theft, torture and (mass!)murder.
We can claim 'leadership' failure exactly because the sheople are being further dumbed-down (corrupt politicians, venal MSM), further than they naturally would be, even under the worst Malthusian[1] nightmare. Laugh till you cry[2],[3]? We the sheople are being misrepresented; when we implored "No War!" we were ignored - and called a mob.
This situation being so - WYSIWYG; what to do?
The sheople, being sheople as they are, can only say: "Aorta!"
The (irresponsible!) leadership is a neff-ing disgrace.
-=*end*=-
PS As sheople, we are not exactly powerless. We have our voices, individually not much but collectively a possible "ROAR!" We have our votes, however devalued and/or corrupted. We must stand on our honour and morality, rejecting all corruption. It behoves us to speak out, and not reward any, let alone the grossest of leadership failures. Here I refer to the current incumbents[0].
Translation of an old German proverb:
"You have to take life as it happens, but you should try to make it happen the way you want to take it."
A vote for no change is unlikely to encourage desperately required improvements.
Ref(s):
[0] incumbent —adj. 1 resting as a duty (it is incumbent on you to do it). 2 (often foll. by on) lying, pressing. 3 currently holding office (the incumbent president). —n. holder of an office or post, esp. a benefice. [Latin incumbo lie upon]
[1] Malthus , Thomas Robert (1766–1834), English economist and clergyman. In Essay on Population (1798) he argued that without the practice of ‘moral restraint’ the population tends to increase at a greater rate than its means of subsistence, resulting in the population checks of war, famine, and epidemic.
DERIVATIVES
Malthusian adjective & noun
Malthusianism noun [Oxford Pop-up]
[2] Hobbesian
Hobbes , Thomas (1588–1679), English philosopher. Hobbes was a materialist, claiming that there was no more to the mind than the physical motions discovered by science, and he believed that human action was motivated entirely by selfish concerns, notably fear of death. In Leviathan (1651) he argued that absolute monarchy was the most rational, hence desirable, form of government.
DERIVATIVES
Hobbesian adjective [ibid.]
[3] Thomas Hobbes 1588–1679
English philosopher
Laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly.
Human Nature (1650) ch. 9, sect. 13 [The Oxford Dictionary of QUOTATIONS]
My comment:
Laugh, and the world laughs with you;
Weep, and you weep alone.
2007/11/02
when your only tool is...
.. a) a hammer; all problems look like nails.
.. b) hubris; most solutions involve arrogant pride or presumption.
.. c) criminality; most solutions don't just look like filthy crimes.
-=*=-
Some people seem to think that they can 'win' by being - well, a wee bit less than totally honest, shall we say? They seem to think that crime doesn't pay can be avoided. And by some accounts, some do so get away with criminality - for a while anyway, and I offer these three examples:
1. Howard (hopefully soon ex-PM),
2. The U S of A &
3. Israel.
Quite clearly, Howard has been less than totally honest, and 'suffers' (if that's the correct word) from hubris. As do the next 2 examples on my list.
The U S of A has roughly 5% of the world's population - but consumes roughly 25% of the world's resources. This mal-apportionment has not been achieved in a totally honest way, much to the contrary.
The state of Israel, as may clearly be seen, occupies great swathes of land which does not legally belong to that state; the state itself being of extremely dubious legality.
Each of the three think they can get away with their varying degrees of criminality; Howard has the nerve to try for yet another election win, The U S of A is by all accounts insensitive to the failures of their Iraq imbroglio (illegal invasion turned brutal occupation) and Israel just won't stop its Oh, so often murdering aggression against its neighbours.
What will each need, to teach them the error of their ways?
Some solutions - real solutions, just solutions - will be less painful and/or harmful than others.
-=*=-
2007/10/11
liars, cowards ...
-=*=-
How exquisitely apposite!
«With regard to Geoff's saying you [meant is DD/HH] write things that aren't meant to be read, perhaps he's suggesting that you use your blog to "vent". That you are letting off steam rather then [sic] writing something considered for a target audience.»
[Tony Powers Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 00:20 ]
Venting (one's spleen), or opinionating[1] (unsubstantiated rubbish) would in itself be relatively undamaging (like other forms of self-abuse/release, like masturbation, eh Sol?) - if a) it was done exclusively 'in private,' and if b) it hadn't been for one (criminal!?) stunt, namely the deployment of the
Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll, and then the subsequent re-entry into Webdiary of a swag of DD/HH-refos.
-=*=-
The above heading-keywords are some of the answers to "What are ya?"
That question must be posed because of what you lot have over time posted; now I do not claim to have read everything, everywhere you (filthy!) lot have been, (most of my time is actually and better spent elsewhere), but just to be sure, I list (some[*]) of whom this missive is directed towards:
1. DD/HH, aka David Davis/Harry Heidelberg: the arch-opinionator[1a].
2. GP, aka Geoff Pahoff: the arch-pseud[2] Zionist.
3. Pa, Pa & lit'ly (pron. Pa(Huh?) - Pa(Sss!) - and little-Eee...), aka Pahoff, Parsons & lyvers: part of the local amateur Israel lobby (but see next).
4. C Parsons = Eliot Ramsey = lying fraud and troll.
5. Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll.
6. Two more prime perpetrators, Michael Park & Justin Obodie, the latter known to be a pseudo-[2a] (and not 'just' by name).
7. Any left-over rest[*], Craig Warton, Kathy Farrelly & Hyacinth (the latter a self-confessed and unrepentant children's-minds abuser).
-=*=-
What each and every one of the above perpetrators have in common, is that they have expressed negative opinions of me personally - in direct contrast to what I write about - in other words, they have attacked the messenger, not always or instead of attacking the message. Under free speech - and especially on the internet - one may in general say what one likes; Voltaire misattributed: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." However, when anyone comes out in support if the crimes - bloody big crimes - of the US, UK, Aus & Israel - I feel that I have not just the right, but the solemn duty to object, and that's exactly what this missive is: an humungous objection to injustice, and those who push and/or support it.
-=*=-
An aside: Contrary to any (scandalous!) allegations from the likes of David Roffey, Margo Kingston and/or David Davis/Harry Heidelberg, I do not give a flying f**k about the 'true' identity of any poster; the problem is the deception involved in knowingly deploying a pseudonym - with the dual-prime purposes of deception and performing mischief - and then further compounding the offence by lying about it. Lies are lies, and *one lie* is usually enough to destroy *all* credibility; the identity frauds of JW/PM and CP/ER are hardly on the scale of 'little whites.' The reasoning here is that the lying does not start then stop with the pseudonym, it is carried over by the perpetrators into them pushing the standard, lying paradigm - which alleges, for example, that the US and Israel are justified in their modus operandi, when in fact they (the US and Israeli *regimes*) are murdering in order to steal, and spinning endless and filthy lies as attempted camouflage.
Lies which are passed on to us, via the MSM *including* the publicly financed AusBC & SBS (boo! Hiss!) And these lies are also being pushed by most if not all of the above mentioned perpetrators.
In opposing me personally, the above mob of *paradigm-tools* (yeah; rhymes with fools) oppose my cause, which is in general justice via truth, and specifically to stop the lies, stop the cheating rip-offs, stop the killing and stop the bloody, murdering wars!
Oh, yeah, and stop the CO2-caused greedastrophe®, before it stops us.
-=*end*=-
PS Yes, this is a big spit. And also yes, it is complicated. It is caused by the cognitive dissonance aroused when confronted with massive hypocrisy, i.e. the above or their ilk saying one thing (like "Truth, justice and the 'Merkin way!") but doing the absolute opposite, i.e. lying, cheating, murdering for spoil; US (plus UK & Aus in support) murdering for oil, Israel murdering for land, water. And the conscious misbehaviour of the above-listed perpetrators to rev me further up. Someone has to point all this out; the disgust I feel compels me. But I tell you this (for no extra charge): I would much rather be left in peace, to enjoy every part of every pico-sec.
Harry Heidelberg:
«I don't do debates.
I don't provide evidence.
I don't provide references.
I don't Google on behalf of others.
I issue opinions. I do so in the manner of a sage or cult leader.
If that makes me a boring, opinionated old fart, then I plead guilty. I would also point out that many sages have such characteristics as do cult leaders. It is only the weak who are attracted.
Stay tuned for my next pronouncement from on high.»
[Monday, September 24, 2007 at 21:27]
What complete and utter bullshit! What supreme arrogance! What an arse.
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] opinionated adj. dogmatic in one's opinions. [POD]
[1a] -or suffix forming nouns denoting esp. an agent (actor; escalator) or condition (error; horror). [Latin] [ibid.]
[2] pseud colloq. —adj. (esp. intellectually) pretentious; not genuine. —n. such a person; poseur. [from *pseudo-] [ibid.]
[2a] pseudo- comb. form (also pseud- before a vowel) 1 false; not genuine (pseudo-intellectual). 2 resembling or imitating (pseudo-acid). [Greek pseudes false] [ibid.]
[?] The pseudo-word "definately."
Whose is it?
Recently in the DD/HH-blog:
a) JW 4
b) SW 3
c) JO 3
d) CW 2
e) Gif.boy 1
From WD 2007 (spell-checked by Eds?):
SW 2
CP/ER 1
Surjit Wadhwa 1
Are they all dyslexic/illiterate? (Haw!)
«definately
Idiot-speak for "definitely". One of the most common moronic misspellings found on the internet.»
[urbandictionary]
[*] If anyone feels left out or insufficiently insulted, by all means feel free to yammer out a complaint. (yammer colloq. or dial. —n. 1 lament, wail, grumble. 2 voluble talk. —v. utter a yammer. [Old English] [POD])
[cross posted]
2007/10/09
Webdiary; open letter & call to action.
-=*=-
With the recent ejection of Craig Rowley, and subsequent statement by David Roffey on Damian Lataan's blog, it has become apparent that Webdiary, far from being any sort'a solution, is well and truly part of the problem.
David Roffey:
«Damian you continue to be the sort of complete tosser that drove me away from the left thirty years ago ...»
[DAVID ROFFEY ... HIS TRUE COLOURS]
(Disclosure: yes, I have a gripe, my own ejection following my attempts to counter the Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll was unjust and also part of the same problem. In reply to my query: "Did you not look at Morrella?" Margo Kingston answered "No. That's the past, before I came back. I'm looking to the future. I'd like us to start afresh." In this way, White/Morrella was enabled to continue destructively trolling, injustices accumulated.)
David Roffey has now made inaccurate/untrue and unsubstantiated allegations about both myself and Craig Rowley, a fine situation indeed. Allegations, mind you, that could be considered slanderous and/or defamatory and outside the internet would probably be actionable. My conscience, not just BTW, is quite clear, as appears Craig's, we are both fighting for truth and justice and hold the moral high-ground. Some of my conflict traffic with Webdiary can be seen elsewhere in this blog; without such transparency external to Webdiary, no-one usually sees what Webdiary censors. And by blocking any input from so-called 'banned' posters, there is no come-back possible within Webdiary itself. How fair; how just. Not!
Far from being a storm in a tea-cup, the recent history of Webdiary shows just what's going on; the reappearance of a swag of posters 'of the right,' better referred-to as right-wing trolls, marks a deliberate and management-supported moving to the right of the whole blog.
Specifically, supporters of the current regimes of the US, UK, Aus and Israel are all pushing the (filthy, lying) propaganda of the problem; they are mostly disinterested in debate other than to derail or stifle it.
The wise response is (should be) clear and the time has come to cease debating anyway; solutions need to be identified, then implemented - starting yesterday.
If anyone thinks they still need convincing, these:
a) Perkins' "Economic Hit Man,"
b) Klein's "Shock Doctrine" and
c) Monbiot's "Heat." (The last specifies the scale of the problem: a 94% reduction of CO2 is required by each of the US, UK & Aus.)
-=*end*=-
PS#1 Anyone knowing the eml@s of Angela Ryan and/or Alga Kavanagh is asked to send them a note drawing their attention to this post.
PS#2 The obvious tasks are three:
1. Reduce the greenhouse to eliminate the threat.
2. Reduce the world's population to a sustainable level.
3. Eliminate the Friedman rip-offs and install justice for all.
Anyone knowing any of the 'hows' of doing (3) please let me/us/the world know.
[cross posted]
2007/09/24
my last re: Webdiary post ...
-=*=-
The recent reappearance of Hamish Alcorn (aka the dialectic dilettante) marks an end-point (for me) of a Webdiary journey which began on or before Wednesday, December 11, 2002 09:15 (1st archived eml to Margo Kingston, titled "re: Never give up your disbelief.")
Near the end of that article, MK: "Remember - disbelieve. We are being lied to."
One of my early posts may still be seen on the web, it's in "Osama's back, suitably censored - Opinion WebDiary Archive 2003." Scan for 'peace plan.'
-=*=-
A very important Webdiary waypoint was this one, on March 29, 2006:
HA: "you have a race-based theory of domination..." which (apart from being untrue - aka an HA lie) provided the stimulus for the start of my research into the I/J/Z-plex. Then came M-W; any doubt disappeared. Another HA 'gem:' "the Left today ... guys, just f**k off" on August 24, 2006. As no BTW and IMHO as usual and of course, 'the Left' is usually right - in the sense of being correct, and 'the Right' is most often wrong. And now HA is 'back.' I have accumulated many 'enemies' in WD, skipping over the Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll[1] and C Parsons = Eliot Ramsey = lying fraud and troll suppositions as not requiring any further comment, two 'stand-outs' must get another mention. I have already cited Harry Heidelberg (aka David Davis) and Geoff Pahoff in my 'digging some dirt ... ,' but here're another couple'a quotes.
HH/DD:
«I just don't want to be a slave to my own blog and as you'd appreciate, I'd rather die than become involved with something like Webdiary again.
Literally, I would rather DIE than do that!!!»
[Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 23:40]
On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 11:15 Harr'äh encouraged his troops to decamp: "I am sure if anyone wants to participate on Webdiary..." - in other words, off you go, kiddies. And so they did, see my 'webdiary time-line.'
GP:
«May I once again congratulate the IAF ... Their mission was important beyond your imagination.
By their skill and courage the world is safer today.»
[Your Spin. Your Game. on September 22, 2007 - 5:04pm.]
Pahoff was talking about yet another illegal Israeli incursion into a sovereign neighbour-state. The now passing 60 years-long pillage and murder in ex-Palestine and surrounds continues; just who is 'safer?'
-=*=-
Q: Does any of this matter?
A: Well, both yes and no.
We have some real and pressing problems:
1. Information; the lack and bending thereof.
2. Criminality; the effects and our part therein.
3. Death-threats; specifically the greedastrophe®.
In reverse order the greedastrophe, aka CO2 induced run-away climate change will get us, unless we take *urgent* and *effective* action. A book by Monbiot, "Heat," says we (Aus, UK, US) must reduce our per person CO2 output by 94%. No joke.
The criminality is a) murder for oil, aka the illegal invasion turned brutal occupation of Iraq, looks like Iran could be next. Then b) the resource rip-offs in general; see Perkins' "Economic Hit Man." Finally c) the failure of the democracies in Aus, UK, US and Israel, all a-c summarised as the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag, all in greater or lesser degree (mass-) murdering for spoil. These are the worst and most criminal of thugs.
The lack and bending of information is thanks to the mostly venal and corrupt MSM (incl. big bits'a the AusBC & SBS - boo! Hiss!) It is this lack and bending which seeks redress in Webdiary. I, for one, am smarter and more knowledgeable; but it appears that the sheople® are neither by very much, if any at all. Recall MK's 2002 lament:
"Remember - disbelieve. We are being lied to."
Dear reader, what's changed, 5 years on?
-=*end*=-
PS Some reference must be made to the Webdiary model. Not all opinions are valid or equal, nor all posters of equal merit. Their "Hail fellow well met!" patter is particularly galling when used on known baddies. Civil discourse with the Devil is probably impossible, and the mere association with criminals is dangerous. As the results show.
My blog is called "¡no more of the same!" for a good reason.
Ref(s):
[1] Oh, alright; one last *smack!* For JW/PM, the following key-words: specious, fallacious & ridiculous. Your pitiful attempts at denying my JW=PM evidence do not even rate as specious, your 'arguments' vis-à-vis inflation and M3 are only fallacious and your overall performance invites total ridicule. By the bagfuls. And thanks to an Anonymous posting referring me to an indymedia item, I now know how to treat trolls: a) identify then b) ignore. Their, their & bye!
[cross-posted]
2007/09/22
Jay White vs. justice_via_truth
-=*=-
«My name is Jay. I have not entered into the argument because I do not like you or what you are about. I would not bother wasting too much of my time on you. You are below me. Apart from this I have had other pressing matters in my life.
Now go and make me some F**KING EGGS!»
[Jay White | Friday, September 21, 2007 at 22:36]
The allegation has been made that:
Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll.
At a rough guess, Jay White has "not entered into the argument because" the presented evidence that JW=PM is unassailable.
(Having dared to present evidence, I acknowledge an essential feature of the 'native' HH/DD habitués: evidence-less-ness is next to brainless-ness.)
-=*=-
«In Criminal procedure, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant had to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime (opportunity). Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.»
[wiki/Means, motive, and opportunity]
-=*=-
1. Means: The means have been discussed in my 'WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella' post. Specifically, multiple examples of three different aspects of illiteracy common to the scribblings of both JW and PM are presented. And there's lots more where those came from. IMHO, the evidence *proves* that JW=PM[1].
2. Motive: was also there discussed, one 'strand' having been Jay White's abject failure[2] to defend his own stand against John Perkins' "Economic Hit Man" thesis[3]. Morrella appeared one week after I highlighted this particular failure of White's.
3. Opportunity: Easy-peasy. Webdiary requires only a) a realistic looking name and b) a functioning eml@. (These easy-peasy requirements are an invitation to fraud; how widespread is a matter for conjecture. See, for example, the somewhat parallel case of the C Parsons = Eliot Ramsey = lying fraud and troll supposition.)
-=*=-
Dear reader. I call myself a seeker of truth; it is my hope that by reporting malfeasance when I find it, more justice will be enabled. As such, I present my 'case' as outlined above and elsewhere, that:
Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll.
You can see my reports, you may decide.
-=*end*=-
PS Why an ironic 'thanks?' It is(was?) an item of faith in HH/DD's, that Webdiary is toxic. I'm now out'a there, partly thanks to JW=PM's efforts. Ironic thanks may take the form of a Bronx cheer.
PPS See this, Jay? "and the broad money supply (M3) is surging at 22 per cent." My comment: Haw!
Ref(s):
[1] The simplest explanation for the evidence showing the many and varied parallels between JW and PM is that JW is PM. By all means, suggest some alternative - i.e. some conspiracy theory, say. (The mind boggles.) But as we know, the alternative to any conspiracy is a f**k-up. And knowing Jay White, he'd be in a f**k-up every time.
[2] A confession of White's:
«I wrote a whole couple of posts ... answering his questions about that fraud book "economic hitman". Funny none of that was posted either. I wasted half an hour of my life putting it together. And I was not even abusive.»
[Jay White | Monday, March 19, 2007 at 11:09]
My comment: Haw again! Not abusive? Pull the other one. But typical Webdiary 'justice.'
[3] Perkins describes the role of an EHM as follows:
«Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.»
[wiki/Confessions of an Economic Hit Man]
Supposition: White's extreme allergy to the "Economic Hit Man" thesis may go a long way towards answering the perennial troll-Q: "What's in it for him?" (Haw the 3rd!)
[cross-posted]
2007/09/21
evidence-free = brainless? (Harry Heidelberg)
.. but the hesitation is 'quiet' short (haw!)
-=*=-
«What about taxes? We have had REAL reductions under this government. As far as I am concerned tax reform is equal to TAX CUTS. I don't give a f**king damn about the rest of it. I care about what i PAY and under this governmet I pay SIGNIFICANTLY less.»
[Harry Heidelberg Friday, September 21, 2007 at 06:51]
Since you introduce "don't give a f**king damn," the above quote shows that you know sweet f**k-all about the Liberals and their tax rip-offs.
«The Commonwealth's accounts purport to show that in 2000-01 its taxation receipts fell by 2.2 percentage points of GDP (from 23.5 per cent to 21.3 per cent), In truth, in that year, its taxation receipts (including the GST) rose by 1.6 percentage points, from 23.5 per cent of GDP to 25.1 per cent. Whereas in 1996-97 (the Coalition's first full year in office), Commonwealth tax receipts were 22.8 per cent of GDP, in 2006-07 they are estimated to have been 25.2 per cent (GST inclusive).
When the Treasurer now says that "the Government's medium-term fiscal strategy has a number of supplementary objectives, including not increasing the overall tax burden from 1996-97 levels", what he is in fact promising is not to increase the tax burden as now falsely presented from 1996-97 levels. In reality, Commonwealth taxes are already more than 2 per cent of GDP higher than 1996-97 levels.»
[John Stone The truth about tax]
Someone is lying, and it's not 'just' you, Harr'äh. You *personally* may be paying more or less tax (and who gives a flying f**k), but the gross figures show that the sheople are getting shafted with the wrong end of the tax-pineapple. Your 'side' are liars and thieves, Harr'äh; you going in to bat for them makes *you* a criminal by accessory ( 3 (often foll. by to) person who abets or is privy to an (esp. illegal) act... Hmmm?)
[Cross-posted Friday, September 21, 2007 at 08:03]
2007/09/20
Take that, Harr'äh!
all hands to the pump
Subtitle: GP shows he's worth something (at last! - but it can't/won't last.)
Here is Will Howard's story: Catalyst: Ocean Acidification – The BIG global warming story - ABC TV Science.
-=*=-
Q: Why am I doing this?
A1: Because all those arse-holes over there are so disgustingly, psycophantically pro-Lib and so anti-Lab as to be pathological.
A2: Because the Libs, in addition to being filthy, lying, murdering criminals (Iraq), they will not lift a finger to stop the greedastrophe®, they *must* be dumped.
A3: Because they over there are such shits as to move en masse into WD in their foul attempts to prop-up those filthy criminal Libs.
A4: Because they over there are such shits to go so far as to loose the disgustingly undemocratic Jay White = Paul Morrella = fraud into WD.
A5: Because they over there are all such utter shits, full stop.
-=*=-
People of their ilk (i.e. most/all over at Harr'äh's) seem to think that they can survive the coming greedastrophe; to all of them my Q: is both a) just what's in it for them? (Yes, predicated that they're all some part of the rip-offs) - then, and far more importantly, how're they gunna survive, when it all comes crashing down? - Which, as Will Howard can see, is already happening? In short, what'a they got, that's gunna save their horrible, ugly
My tip: We'll all go together, when we go. But there is a difference; *they* over there at Harr'äh's are bearing some'a the blame, for not trying to stop the rot.
2007/09/17
peace & justice via truth
Subtitle: lies, hate & hypocrisy
-=*=-
I hardly need to name names; those who have acted against me know who they are, and 'tattling' would bring little improvement. Sadly, it's unlikely that anything short of a revolution will bring significant improvement anyway, so I don't feel too bad about my own so-far futile - but well-meant - efforts. But one never knows; perhaps success is just around some corner, and perseverance may soon be rewarded. (Carpe diem! - thanks, Harvie.)
The actions of B, B & H brought me a new word: enemy. In the beginning, they (B, B & H) set out - so they Oh, so piously asserted - to liberate the tyrant-oppressed Iraqi people (sounded somewhat OK and sucked a lot in), but as the illegal invasion was morphed into a brutal occupation (a state of total domination being required to ensure the eventual theft/control of Iraq's oil), so the target-liberatees were being killed in ever increasing numbers, and rather than being accused of killing the objects of their own (but only feigned) good intentions, the people being pink-mist murdered were relabelled: enemies.
Since I champion peace & justice via truth, those opposing me must share one or more of pushing lies, hate & hypocrisy; so in an analogous way, the people acting against me have picked up the same taint: enemies.
They do this to themselves; I just wonder why. (Tip: What's in it for them?)
To support any form of injustice is immoral, aka a failure to distinguish between right and wrong. There is a single principle of morality, namely the "Golden Rule - Do unto others..." That, along with the "Silver Rule - Do no harm," are based on reflexive altruism, i.e. what's good for one's self is good for all. To claim this morality as the property of some religion is nothing short of bizarre. (Take that, one!)
-=*end*=-
PS My runs are 'on the board;' for example looking in my submit-archive, I count 8 "no killing," 43 "stop the killing," 59 "Blix" and 98 "no war" then finally 372 "murder for oil." In addition and NB: I have not contaminated any child-mind with lies, nor inculcated the fear of death/g*d into any such innocent and highly vulnerable person. (Take that, two!)
It is the US of A leading the immoral charge, with the Israel lobby pushing; these two combined give USrael. Then the current UK and Aus regimes are in it too; all together giving the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag, all in greater or lesser degree (mass)murdering for spoil. These are the worst and most criminal of thugs.
We can actually see it happening on a daily basis; look no further than Iraq or the former Palestine.
These thugs can do what they do because they propagandise the sheople®, the sheople being demonstrably more interested in flat-screen TVs (say) than peace & justice via truth - why/how else could each of B, B & H have been re-elected? The handmaidens of the pushed-paradigm propaganda are the corrupt & venal majority in the MSM, the whole show being run for the benefit of a tiny fat-cat getting obscenely fatter minority: the kleptocracy®.
I don't think it goes too far to say that anyone not opposing these swine to the best of their ability are the true haters.
-=*=-
One last thing: humanity stands before a possible, becoming ever more probable CO2 caused climate-crash, aka the greedastrophe®. It will be no good, as we all drown or burn or both, to say "Der - I didn't think!"
The time for action is now; we must start as we mean to go on, and rid ourselves of the enemies of humanity. We have our voices and votes, say it out loud: "NO MORE WAR!" - and vote all the lying warmongers 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] hate —v. (-ting) 1 dislike intensely. 2 colloq. a dislike. b be reluctant (to do something) (I hate to disturb you; I hate fighting). —n. 1 hatred. 2 colloq. hated person or thing. [Old English]
hateful adj. arousing hatred. [POD]
[3] hypocrisy n. (pl. -ies) 1 false claim to virtue; insincerity, pretence. 2 instance of this. [Greek, = acting, feigning]
hypocrite n. person given to hypocrisy. hypocritical adj. hypocritically adv. [POD]
[4] truth n. (pl. truths) 1 quality or state of being true. 2 what is true. in truth literary truly, really. [Old English: related to *true]
truthful adj. 1 habitually speaking the truth. 2 (of a story etc.) true. truthfully adv. truthfulness n. [POD]
[5] justice n. 1 justness, fairness. 2 authority exercised in the maintenance of right. 3 judicial proceedings (brought to justice; Court of Justice). 4 magistrate; judge. do justice to 1 treat fairly. 2 appreciate properly. do oneself justice perform at one's best. with justice reasonably. [Latin justitia] [POD]
[6] peace n. 1 a quiet; tranquillity. b mental calm; serenity. 2 a (often attrib.) freedom from or the cessation of war (peace talks). b (esp. Peace) treaty of peace between States etc. at war. 3 freedom from civil disorder. at peace 1 in a state of friendliness. 2 serene. 3 euphem. dead. hold one's peace keep silent. keep the peace prevent, or refrain from, strife. make one's peace (often foll. by with) re-establish friendly relations. make peace agree to end a war or quarrel. [Latin pax pac-] [POD]
[cross-posted]
2007/09/06
webdiary impropriety?
Subtitle: surely, it's a matter of fact.
-=*=-
The character-assassination of this writer continues apace over at Webdiary.
They appear to have little if any propriety at all.
From their own statement of ethics:
«1. If you don't want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don't want to use your real name. Please send me your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used.»
[Webdiary Ethics]
The piece concludes with this:
«12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.
Guidance Clause
Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.»
[ibid.]
Lay-dees an' gennel-men! I've had enough.
I claim that attacks mounted by the Paul Morrella ID and published by Webdiary are exposing me to "risk of substantial harm."
If Paul Morrella is not the real name of the poster deploying that ID - and there are what I consider to be incontrovertible grounds to think that it isn't, see WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella where I outline my proof that Paul Morrella is not 'Paul Morrella' at all, but is a fake-ID creature exhibiting defining hallmarks of Jay White (this deployment being considered a conscious and premeditated fraud), then that poster is forbidden by Webdiary Ethics from having "attacks on other contributors" published, something which began with Morrella's very first post, and continues, even after I've been banished, i.e. I may no longer defend myself on that site.
As if that wasn't enough, the management of Webdiary - Roffey speaking for Kingston - now appear to this writer to verge on slander[1], libel[2] if not defamation[3] (wha'do I know?) themselves, insisting that I'm in some sort'a violation of their ethics or rules, since I insist on challenging the veracity of the Morrella-ID. (The situation appears so bad, going on so long, that one wonders if Webdiary is not proceeding from some sort'a prejudiced state; Morrella certainly exhibits one such.)
Well, naturally enough and obviously, I don't see the Morrella issue Webdiary's way. My raison d'être in blogging is justice via truth; one of either Paul Morrella or Jay White (or both) must be fake-IDs; any one of those combinations is in itself both an outright, premeditated lie, as well as being in full violation of Webdiary Ethics.
The truth of the matter is what I seek; if Margo Kingston wants to see that as a challenge to her authority[4] rather that my seeking for truth, then she can stick her authority where it fits best.
Installing Margo Kingston as the ultimate arbiter of the truth? How can that work, if she won't allow truth-seekers to seek - or when a lie is discovered, to speak?
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] slander —n. 1 false and damaging utterance about a person. 2 uttering of this. —v. utter slander about. slanderous adj. [French esclandre: related to *scandal] [POD]
[2] libel —n. 1 Law a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. b act of publishing this. 2 false and defamatory misrepresentation or statement. —v. (-ll-; US -l-) 1 defame by libellous statements. 2 Law publish a libel against. libellous adj. [Latin libellus diminutive of liber book] [ibid.]
[3] defame v. (-ming) libel; slander; speak ill of. defamation n. defamatory adj. [Latin fama report] [ibid.]
[4] authoritarian —adj. favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority. —n. authoritarian person. [ibid.]
2007/09/05
‡WD, trolls & my rationale
Subtitle: when only the best will do
-=*=-
By extrapolation, I expect most people to strive to do their best. Objections to this thought immediately appear; and so we get the 1st caveat (from 'Bringing up Baby:') "Yes, but!" - it depends on the objective.
Cast of characters: WD, trolls and me.
1. My prime objective is to seek justice via truth.
2. WD's objectives are specified on their site, but include these three points:
2a. «Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent»
2b. «... banned several people from Webdiary when I am satisfied that they are not commenting in good faith, but rather to destroy the safety of the space for the civil debate I'm seeking to foster. ... invited people who believe I have breached the code to complain...»
2c. «Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary.»
3. Trolls' objectives are known largely only unto themselves, but by inspection obviously include disruption, diversion and if possible destruction, among other far-darker - possibly criminal - motives.
-=*=-
To cut a long story short, I'll divide the Morrella invasion into three parts; initial (up to MK's 1st intervention) middle (steadily declining productivity from me) and end (with me ejected from WD.)
1. The initial attack phase can be seen here. The threat was immediately recognised and responded to. BIG mistake. One of the 'tasks' for a troll is to 'hook' victims; had I but known... Some 'learning by doing' was done.
2. The mid-phase. As noted, this was a period of declining productivity for me, with steadily rising frustration. During this period Morrella skirmished with other posters; it wasn't 'just' me coming under attack from the vicious troll. But, 'nuff said.
The transition from initial to mid-phase was my 1st banning by MK. In total, I was banned a) from a thread, b) for a week (different poster, similar ethical clash) and finally c) forever. There were some email exchanges.
On 13Jun'07, I wrote:
«G'day Margo,
...you may wish for calm; the victims of the 'murder for spoil' parties can only dream - if not [be] already pink-misted *dead*.
Since you are our 'founder,' and establisher of the WD moral/ethic guidelines, you might care to review the 1st appearances of Paul Morrella, starting with 'Not all things are always'_1891.
Look closely at that 1st post, then my careful answers and finally the slurs that he then spreads.»
After no satisfactory reply, also on 13Jun'07, I wrote:
«Did you not look at Morrella?»
From Margo:
«No. That's the past, before I came back. I'm looking to the future. I'd like us to start afresh.»
But starting afresh with the troll was not an option for me.
3. The end-phase. I serendipitously observed this:
I Agree Gareth
... by Paul Morrella on August 29, 2007 - 11:32am.
«I will though say that if one had of started accepting ...»
[WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella]
Upon recognising the "had of" as the spoor of the perpetrator (perpe-traitor?) Jay White, it was only a trifle, a matter of less than a morning's work, to assemble the proof. Q: Now, what to do with it, in the face of "The Edict?" A: Go public, my only real - and ethical - choice. The material mirrored here was 'posted' to WD under the title "NFP WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella" on thread 1837 and copied to HH's. Note that NFP is a WD term meaning "Not For Publication." The rest is now history; all over but the 'paper work:' this epilogue.
-=*=-
Conclusion:
1. Naturally, I claim the 'high moral ground.' I have consistently striven to pursue my prime objective, i.e. justice via truth. It has been my contention all along, that Morrella was not "commenting in good faith." (2b) also says one may complain, (2c) says detected lies are to be exposed. The deployment of a fake-ID is both unethical and a lie. Basta! I stand on my record; some of my 'contested' posts are on this blog. Readers may decide.
2. Also naturally enough, WD claims the 'high moral ground.' But: in allowing the attacks of Morrella in the 1st instance, WD began it's own downward slide of ethics. WD's denying that Morrella might be a fake-name was a critical turning point. Morrella's presence meant both 'safety of the space' and 'civil debate' were endangered, when not outright excluded.
3. Readers may decide, on the morality or otherwise of White/Morrella.
-=*=-
Possible lessons: Having intercourse with criminal types can be dangerous; a) one may be drawn down to their level, and b) one may become contaminated. These dangers apply to both posters and forums.
Facit: Trolls should be ejected by management immediately upon detection; if suspected by posters they should be a) flagged as such then b) totally ignored. Posters should obviously be allowed to voice their suspicions. That's freedom, ain't it?
End: As things stand, the troll won. But not without assistance.
When trolls win, everybody else loses.
-=*end*=-
PS Updated from here.
David R: ... And Phil wasn't banned for asking questions on those, he was banned for continually and persistently questioning identity when Margo had specifically said that she had checked, was satisfied, and would not publish any further comment on the subject, and for repeatedly accusing Margo and other editors of hypocrisy and other misdemeanours for sticking to that ruling. You can only insult Margo so many times before she's had enough.
Comment: How curious.
From an earlier draft: What a curious statement. Extraordinary, really: "Any attempts ... will be deleted." Hmmm. Just how free, the speech in WD? However, in the light of the info presented here, the statements by DR/MK now require clarification/correction.
The draft was referring to DR's relay of MK's statement that PM=PM. Which I have shown to be false, i.e. by proving that JW=PM.
Kindly note: Roffey seems to be continually hiding behind his Mistress' skirts, and says in so many words, that I was banned for declaring that the Empress has no clothes.
And possibly into the bargain, I may have accused the sorceress' apprentices of being unable sort their arses from their elbows?
Dear reader, can you work out what's going on?
In clear text, isn't it time we get some truth?
(i.e. what WD really knows about PM?)
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] rationale n. fundamental reason, logical basis. [neuter of Latin rationalis: related to *rational] [POD]