(After 24hrs not visible, one must assume: DNPed - i.e. censored.)
.. don't count for much, if anything at all[1].
-=*=-
G'day David Davis.
Me: "or whatever his alias this week is."
From David: an entire post (Names and ethics), including "mad lefties have tried to attack me about all this" and "Which dastardly secret and manipulative alias will I use today?"
Me: on such a tiny whiff of suspicion from me, David built quite a fantastic response. Q: do we get a whiff of paranoia[2]? There, there; calming down.
Me: "exactly what's in it for you?"
David: from his 'Back in the court of lefties,' such gems as "Howard hating at its best. ... Why am I evil and why do I support a vicious proxy mass-murderer?", "When I read bile like this" and "The Germans and the French certainly believed they existed.".
-=*=-
On the principle that 'the 1st shall be last,' I will start with David's 'xx certainly believed they existed.' Q: How do you know, what the Germans and the French or any others might'a believed, David? Possibly, "Leave it to Blix!" became a mantra (31 times in my 'input' archive) - basically, because those invoking it thought that it would'a worked. On the other hand, we had the (filthy, lying) propaganda, one'a the 'best' examples being Conned'a Sleazer's 'mushroom cloud.' Not to mention Colin Powell's PowerPoint; how many times did we hear "We know," when they quite clearly didn't, and not just from Powell. Many were bludgeoned into self-defensively allowing that they couldn't afford the risk of not assenting to the Ami's assertions, i.e. they reluctantly acquiesced (if they acquiesced at all, many didn't; i.e. no UNSC resolution) in the face of unfair pressure, aka lies. IMHO, Bush&Co had no case, knew that they had no case, and manufactured one. See the 'Downing St. Memos' say, everyone else has.
One cannot employ hindsight on the "Leave it to Blix!" discussion, but we can see the outcomes; namely illegal invasion, NO WMDs, brutal occupation, murder to enable oil-theft in the process of being implemented. We the anti-wars (lefties or not) forecast the lot. Just about the only positive is that yes, a thug-tyrant has been removed (then lynched), but the old tyrant has been replaced by a new and arguably far worse mass-murdering oil-theft tyrant.
There is, IMHO, a generalisation that can be made here: at a certain point, I realised that the MSM were not just transmitting B, B & H's lies, they were amplifying them. NYT's Judith Miller and theAge's Tony Parkinson come to mind as 'stand-outs,' ignoring any of Murdoch's stable - for quite obvious reasons. So here comes David's "average Joe;" the smarter the Joe, the quicker the realisation that we, the sheople® were being propaganda-bulls**tted. Once one comes to the realisation that deliberate, premeditated and filthy lies were in play, and the truly awful consequences that "Shock and awe" promised, one begins to suspect everything, and most if not all of those suspicions have now been confirmed.
Facit: absolutely nothing that B, B & H or their servants, slaves or other proxies including trolls say should ever be believed in the absence of obvious and convincing proof. In particular, the central plank of their 'terrorism' argument is Muslim extremism (plus the risible caliphate corollary); we do not know, and probably can not ever know how much trouble 'belongs' to bona fide Muslims (extremists or not) vs. trouble caused by US-sponsored psy-ops or outright black-ops. The suspicion must be on the latter dominating, it's the same-old same-old; Q: who benefits? Clearly not us, we the sheople, nor the Muslims, but the US m/i-plex, that's who. Every bloody indicator points to 'perfect' perfidy.
-=*=-
Since I'm working backwards, David: "When I read bile like this..."
Me: bile[3], eh? David exercises his right to a value-judgement, but it's hardly 'civil discourse' - one might'a thunk. Oh, well: no matter, I get a bit emotional m'self. My own value-judgement: over the top.
-=*=-
Last bit, David: "Howard hating at its best. ... Why am I evil and why do I support a vicious proxy mass-murderer?" I suppose it's somehow fair, for David to allege that I called him evil, but I'm not so sure. David, what I actually wrote is "you champion Howard - the most evil, [his evil deeds and] support the same"; whether that's actually calling David evil I leave as a value-judgement for the reader to make. But I don't much care for David's allegations, nor do I care for his "Chuckle" and "Now the Howard haters simply amuse me. They're funny." I suppose such tactics have their place, but WTF is that place?
Again though, there's a generalisation that can be made here: I don't 'get' the argument that lefties (or any other minority) might be out of it, nor that the majority (of sheople) get anything right. In a perfect world things would work as they should; my 'democratic covenant,' i.e. the responsibility of all representatives towards their constituents; that they should represent the will of the majority, while protecting the interests of any minority. To which is added "And don't do anything I wouldn't do!" - all of that would function; people would act morally, and we wouldn't have lies, cheating, theft or murder. But we do, and so we come to the crux.
It so happens, that the current Anglo-Christian CoW® leaders are mainly of the right, Bliar® notwithstanding, and so are the main supporters. But I don't care for the detail here (nor for what's left or right); what we have - in addition to my summary of "mainstream Australian politics" (see my "if 'lefties' are funny,") is the sad fact that our democracy simply doesn't work: the Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins hardly differ, the corrupt and venal MSM reports lies as if true, and the sheople are basically scared s**tless and/or otherwise not interested. So-called pragmatism rears its ugly head, if and when forced, the sheople choose - well, do they fairly choose anything? If propagandised (they are), then no, they just can't. But if they could, do they have a valid choice? Take the example Latham; also not. But not because he imploded - lack of internal support whilst withering MSM attacks would be hard enough to resist - no, it was Latham's sell-out to the US alliance which - for me, I can and do speak only for myself - but Latham's cop-out in the direction of the suck-hole conga-line showed that there was no real choice. (So-called bipartisanship is deeply undemocratic, it allows for no choice.)
Sooo, and anyway: it's not a question of left vs. right, it's a question of who and what is right, and IMHO the governing regimes and their rhetoric, what I call the kleptocracy and their pushed paradigm, is simply not. What exists is not just not perfect, it's so far from perfect - not to mention criminal - as to be existence-threatening dangerous, and must be abandoned; i.e. NOMOREOFTHESAME! (See? I did say that I sometimes get emotional. Then, there's the coming greedastrophe®...)
-=*=-
Intermezzo. I can't be everywhere, read everything. In particular, as it takes time to prepare a piece such as this, the world may 'move on' somewhat in the interregnum (especially if it's weekend). But I can notice a few things, like the recent contributions of JH and IM. I followed Ian's link to 1315 but couldn't (quickly) find his target text; no matter. If I may make another generalisation, what disturbs me most about a common theme emerging here, is that both JH and IM 'champion' bits'a the 'pushed paradigm,' as does DD. This is a worry, exactly because the pushed paradigm contains lying murder for oil, i.e. that the CoW may, on their (Trojan-horse?) way to combating terrorism in general, Saddam in particular or the nebulous Islamist-caliphate extremism, they tell us filthy lies and perform mass-murdering theft, basically just to fill SUVs and 4WDs (and their own gas-guzzling military, a bit circular, that, as is this missive. Looping. Again.) Bits'a the pushed paradigm are waved to distract us, while filthy, murdering theft goes on under the propaganda blanket.
Example: "Our worst nightmare!" - That terrorists may get WMDs. See Howards's latest: "WMD aspirations, energy demand..."
Example: See any mention (Murdoch press, say) of the utterly horrible Islamist extremist aim (or so goes the claim) of forcing a caliphate on us poor Christian sheople. Another reiteration, I term this claim 'risible.'
Example: "If it saves just one life!" - as a justification for torture, or "If you've nothing to hide!" - as a justification for wire-taps.
I'm not saying that JH, DD and/or IM retail or believe any of the above lies, but it's all part-and-parcel of the pushed paradigm, and whereas 'good' propaganda should have some grain of truth upon which to hang the lies, people who pick any such bits'a the (contaminated) truth and use them as the hook to hang their own arguments on is - Oh, only IMHO! - more than just a bit suspicious. All the more so, when those pushing such bits are arguing for some part of the status quo. Going circular again...
-=*=-
David, you support the status quo, the pushed paradigm, most if not all of the current system - with its myriad failures. Up to and including murder for oil. You say you supported the invasion, and that the sheople back you up (claim to 'higher' authority?) All, IMHO, non sequiturs, which is where I started. David, you are free to answer - or, by your many examples, duck - any of my questions; I'm beyond caring - about you.
I wish to acknowledge here, some work done by Roger Fedyk (g'day). Roger has spent time pointing out that (my paraphrase) it's not "Is murder for oil happening?" but "How do we live with our murdering for oil?" I have myself said, that it is past the time to argue such stuff. But we should not duck any of the issues; just acknowledge what's happening in our name, and admit to how we're gunna deal with it.
In the plainest of text (also for Charles J Camilleri), I base my life on the chezPhil morality, and as a single operating principle, MYOB, from "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell. I think that all the sheople, the flock and the leaders both, should simply leave each other in peace, and eliminate all lies, cheating, theft and murder. Yeah sure, pigs may fly - but the alternative is to accept crime as the dominant way of living, something which I simply do not wish to do.
So the real question is not: "Is David Davis evil?"
The real question is: "Is David Davis moral to support evil?"
In the light of Roger's work, just how does David Davis a) live with lies, cheating and specifically murder to enable oil-theft, and b) justify that living-with?
And no more distractions, diversions or non sequiturs please.
-=*end*=-
PS (Yet another reiteration), DD said words to the effect that lefties claim the high moral ground. Fact: I stand for no more of the same, in general no more lies, cheating, theft or murder; and in particular stop the killing, no oil theft; NO WAR!
I'm interested to know what bit of high moral ground could be found for any opponent of these aspirations to stand on.
There is the possibility, I suppose, that I could be wrong. But also as before, if someone were to allege so, saying it just ain't enough; proper proof must supplied. Good luck.
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] non sequitur n. conclusion that does not logically follow from the premisses. [Latin, = it does not follow] [POD]
[2] paranoia n. 1 mental disorder with delusions of persecution and self-importance. 2 abnormal suspicion and mistrust. [ibid.]
[3] bile n. 1 bitter digestive fluid secreted by the liver. 2 bad temper; peevish anger. [Latin bilis] [ibid.]
No comments:
Post a Comment