‡the (allegedly venal) MSM_1837

Submitted on August 29, 2007 - 10:25am.
Published (cut/censored!) around 12:05pm.
(Text in this colour was cut from WD version.)

Subtitle: only believe (half of) what we can actually see?

-=*=-

G'day Eliot Ramsey, I refer to your post 'Zionist-Kurdish-Iraqi-Infidel conspiracy?' of August 28, 2007 - 12:10pm which you end with:

«David, do you doubt this incident occurred?»

OK. From 'the top:'

Q: Eliot, could you please explain (why; connection) your usage of "Zionist?[1]"

Q: Similarly, Eliot, could you please explain (why; connection) your usage of "Infidel?[2]"

-=*=-

Now. Eliot, you've challenged David over some MSM report. I could counter with Q: "How do you, Eliot, know the truth (or otherwise) of that/any report?"

A: In this case, I don't care; I've been busy elsewhere.

BUT: I recall seeing this:

«This is now a matter of public record.»

[Eliot Ramsey on August 23, 2007 - 2:42pm.]

Which I challenged, in a minor way, in my own 'élite hypocrisy:'

«While I have every respect for this page/organisation, it is only one voice; it is part of what we like to call the MSM, itself often alleged to be variously 'venal' or 'corrupt' if not both; my own expressions include pro-status quo propaganda pushers, and 'transmitter/amplifiers' of such propaganda. And propaganda by its very nature (being designed to deceive) is often described as 'filthy' and 'lying.'»

Then later, funnily enough, I came upon this:

«Wednesday, August 22, 2007
An Independent hoax

On Monday, the Independent published an exclusive interview with Muqtada al-Sadr.

The Independent’s article is really enlightening. “The young nationalist cleric heads Iraq's largest Arab grassroots political movement” the Independent tells us among other interesting things.

Too bad that interview seems to be an hoax.»

[Gabriele Zamparini]

And Q: Just who wrote that (allegedly) hoax-article?

A: (Well, wha'd'ya know!) - Exactly the same two who wrote the article Eliot quoted; the one that I expressed my doubts over!

Now, it is said, that one can find (almost!) everything on the net; I can only repeat something I also wrote in my 'élite hypocrisy:' caveat emptor!

More? - Yes, I - at least - am in the mood for more.

-=*=-

We know that the MSM lies. Not 'just' that they transmit lies, but they do so often without any comment, and worse, far worse: they amplify! Examples from the run-up to "Shock'n whore®" are Judith Miller (NYT), Tony Parkinson (theAge) and all of Murdoch's 150 or so editors, and including Murdoch himself who said invading Iraq would bring oil-prices down.

There is a valid and current point to be made right here and now; you may have heard of the demands being made of the (US puppet) Iraqi govt., for "reconciliation?"

What is meant, among other "bench-marks" is the demand being made - also now, note, by the cheese-eating surrender-monkey French, who have (with Sarkozy) jumped into the (criminal) frying pan, a key demand is for the passing of the 'oil-law' - this law being the penultimate step in the long awaited (mostly US, some UK) oil-theft in Iraq, aka murder for oil.

And the point is, that any 'news' organisation which (a) reports these bench-mark/reconciliation demands, (b) without including the (filthy, criminal) significance, is guilty of propagandising us, we the sheople®. All IMHO, as usual and of course.

More? - Yes, there is one important piece more.

-=*=-

My subtitle: only believe (half of) what we can actually see?

One of few things we can actually see, is the shocking results of the (illegal) invasion, now turned (brutal) occupation of Iraq, namely the death toll now estimated to be in the region of one million overwhelmingly innocent Iraqis.

Another of the other things we can actually see, is the brutal slaughter in and around the former Palestine, typified by the 1000+ killed as a result of the recent (2006) IDF incursion into Lebanon. Only the tip of a very large, very filthy and criminal iceberg, one which got underway with incidents such as the King David Hotel bombing introduction to modern terrorism (by Irgun, a perpetrator/member of which was Begin; not the only one such, refer to Sharon (aka "the Butcher of Beirut"), the list of such (alleged) murderers is looong), and the hideous Deir Yassin slaughter, as only two incidents in a 60+ year history of blood-letting, aka murder for land and water.

(I'm under the impression that those (allegedly) stealing Palestinian land and water call themselves Zionists. So could you please tell us, just what was the reason you used it, Eliot?)

-=*end*=-

[1] Zionism n. movement for the re-establishment and development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.  Zionist n. & adj. [POD]

[2] infidel —n. unbeliever in esp. the supposed true religion. —adj. 1 of infidels. 2 unbelieving. [Latin fides faith] [ibid.]

[cross-posted]

‡neither gushing nor gossiping ...

Submitted on August 27, 2007 - 11:49am.

(WD thread 1992; delayed - censored?

Not yet visible, but a later post is...

The WD Ed thought (ir)responsible is Richard Tonkin.

See eml/NFP to WD below[1].)

.. but waving gaily at the passing parade.

Subtitle: the lobby, and pro-pushed paradigm propagandists.

-=*=-

Prologue: The following may appear cryptic; those involved will understand perfectly - at least, so is my intention; sufficient material is made available.

-=*=-

I refer to three previous posts: P1, P2 & P3; a 4th ("Huh?" - not mine) follows P2 (as those who follow the links will be easily able to see).

1. Apology: in P1 I wrote "Pa, Pa & lit'li," this was incorrect (my oversight), and should read "Pa, Pa & lit'ly." The pronunciation was correctly given as "Pa(Huh?) - Pa(Sss!) - and little-Eee..."

2. Update: things have however, changed; Pa(Sss!) has apparently 'passed on,' (see my webdiary time-line) and has (ostensibly?) been replaced by "Err" (as short for 'error?') The pronunciation now becomes "Pa(Huh?) - Err, little-Eee?"

3. Reminder: The warning given in P2 still stands:

PLEASE DO NOT FRAME ME WITH THE 'H' WORD, where 'framing' is both in the normal sense, plus that of Lakoff.

And whilst speaking of 'framing,' a review of the post following P2 ("Huh?") is recommended.

-=*=-

Epilogue: I believe (word used advisedly, in the sense of 'balance of probabilities') that we of our great wide-brown Aus, as integral part of the wider world, are endangered by these problems in increasing order of importance, a) immorality, b) criminality and c) outright, greedy-grasping ignorance.

In reverse order, the outright ignorance is the worst; those that purportedly represent and lead us are not doing so (effectively), and we are all endangered by inaction in the face of the mooted CO2 climate-change greedastrophe®.

The second problem, criminality, infests both our so-called leaders, and most business, here referred to under the rubric 'globalisation' (aka the kleptocracy®.) What is happening is that (commercial) control of the world has been grasped by massive (mainly US) corporations who pursue policies inimical to us, we the sheople®. This is manifest primarily by the rapacious miners, oil being a special, worst case of mining, and the prime symptom being the hideous, illegal invasion of Iraq turned brutal occupation, both mass-murdering and premised on eventual oil-theft. My generalisation of this is: the wannabe world hegemon plus its illegal sprog and the poodle with dag, all mass-murdering to enable theft (the Anglo/Christian CoW® after oil, Israel after land and water.)

The third problem, most immediate for us, we the sheople, is immorality. Why do we have it? It is exhibited by the kleptocracy, our so-called leaders, transmitted and often amplified by the venal and corrupt MSM - and cheered on by amateurs (boo! Hiss!) Again, why?

-=*=-

Facit: any accommodation, of criminals or their spruikers both, 'legitimises' those utter baddies since (IMHO!) all such should be unreservedly condemned (and no correspondence entered into); as examples take the principle crooks, their propagandists, apologists, party-members and/or even voters. Anything outside of implacable opposition allows the rot to continue; progress can and will only be made by outing all evil, trunk, root and branch.

We are truly looking down the tubes of doom; no more of the same!

-=*end*=-

[1] eml/NFP to WD (eml sent Monday, August 27, 2007 13:08):

Submitted on August 27, 2007 - 1:38pm.

G'day Richard,

...I'm supposing that it's you who's 'on.'

And I'm also supposing that it's you who's "left me on hold," as you so charmingly put it - when not outright DNPing.

I'm further supposing that you are acting 'under orders.'

But I'm letting you know that:

a) I do not agree with what you (&/ WD) are doing,

b) I consider what you (&/ WD) are doing is anti-democratic and anti-free speech.

I personally don't know how you live with such utter hypocrisy.

[cross posted] means here.

I'm heartily sick of this (filthy!) WD behaviour.

I will wait 30mins for your reply.

[No answer came in the 30mins.]

I will wait a further 30mins for a reply to this NFP.

regards, Phil.

-=*=-

[Still no answer.]

Basically, I conclude that WD is not:

"Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent"

Oh, no! - and not on your Nelly. As far from it as is herein shown.

Sooo. Here I am, Harry; your latest refo. As extreme-left as they get; ask Hyacinth.

[cross posted]

‡An updated post may be flagged with the symbol: '‡'

a) pink mist, b) pink-mist

Updated on August 26, 2007 - 3:23pm.

This started out as a 'quickie,' to examine the history of "pink mist."

news.a (a general archive; 2003-5. ##=number, v=a/b, i.e. ' ' or '-'.)


##v               yymmdd
04a, beginning on 030409 Paul McGeough 'Amid the fragments of lives, new enemies are made,' April 9 2003.


16b, beginning on 060316 Most in webd Bob Wall's 'They hate us for our values,' (it might amuse some to look up the link.)

HYS (Canberra Times Have Your Say.)


02a, beginning on 030409 1st, judi grey Wednesday, 9 April 2003.

My drafts:


10a, beginning on 030716

37b, beginning on 041030

news.6 (news archive 2006)


01a, beginning on 060901

21b, beginning on 060503

news.7 (news archive 2007)


01a, beginning on 070412

14b, beginning on 070325

-=*=-

judi grey Have your say
Wednesday, 9 April 2003

In the article US zeroes in on dictator: Reuters Wed. April 9th, it was reported that

'US aircraft dropped four 900kg bombs on a building in a residential area on Monday after US intelligence reports said the Iraqi leader and his sons Uday and Qusay might have been inside with other Iraqi leaders, US officials said.' And again in the same article, 'It was unclear whether Saddam was still alive after coalition forces dropped four bunker-busting bombs on a restaurant where he was believed to be meeting.' I guess any innocent civilians close to where the 'bunker busting bombs exploded would now be, as the US military describe them, "PINK MIST". Another report from reuters that you have not mentioned happened on the Sunday night. It tells of a young 12 year boy, an 12 year Iraqi boy, a boy one year younger than my grandson, 'who was fast asleep when a missile demolished his home and obliterated most of his family, leaving him orphaned, badly burned and without arms. He says, 'It was midnight when the missile fell on us. My father, my mother and my brother died. My mother was five months pregnant. Our neighbours pulled me out and brought me here. I was unconscious.' He added

"Can you help get my arms back? Do you think the doctors can get me another pair of hands?" Abbas asked. "If I don't get a pair of hands I will commit suicide," he said with tears spilling down his cheeks.'

Is this what an arrogant (more arrogant that Paul Keating ever was, and I guess he's proud of that) John Howard, to use the US military jargon, calls collateral damage? SHAME!

-=*=-

My later comment: It is estimated, 'well' estimated (IMHO, but not 'well' at all), that there may now be upwards of one million Iraqis killed after the US/UK/Aus illegal invasion in 2003, this 'Nuremberg' style invasion (i.e. aggressive) now turned brutal occupation. In addition, it is estimated that four million have been displaced, two million managing to escape Iraq into (poorly coping) neighbour-lands. All in our names.

And 'just' to steal a bit - actually, a lot of - Iraq's oil...

thinking about ... [more WD censorship]

.. talking to this chap Friedham I. Whont, and wondering what sort'a name is that? Is that for real, I mused? No answer, except for a typical hand-gesture. (Yes, you may ask: "Typical of what?")

I had a look at the proffered passport: another "Yep!" - K'n oath©; both real and genuine. That should be a proper end to that, then.

I've been kindly allowed to copy his input to WD:

-----

cheese-eating surrender monkeys ...

Submitted by Friedham I. Whont on August 25, 2007 - 12:16pm.

.. jump into the criminal frying-pan

-=*=-

France opens door to helping Iraqi troops, police
Posted August 25, 2007 08:15:00

France says it may be prepared to provide assistance to Iraqi troops and police, a further sign of a thaw in relations with the United States after its foreign minister visited Baghdad this week.

Tags: unrest-conflict-and-war, france, iraq

-=*=-

Comment: We'll continue down the tubes, until and unless someone, somewhere effectively stands up the utterly immoral, thieving and murdering criminal Yanks.

-----

The post failed to surface, he said, so he eml-ed WD thusly:

G'day fiona,

Re:
"cheese-eating surrender monkeys ... 2004
Submitted by Friedham I. Whont on August 25, 2007 - 12:16pm."

This post has obviously been delayed, if not outright censored.

I'd like to know why. I do not have to say 'please,' nor grovel.

It's either a democracy with free speech, or it's not.

Re:

«Registering on Webdiary
Please register to post comments. It's free and your email will be kept private and confidential. Use of proper names is encouraged.»

[Registering on Webdiary]

More:

«Registering
Name:
As per the Webdiary guidelines a proper first name and surname is required and please use a capital letter to begin each name.
Email address:
A valid email address is required to register. Your password will be automatically sent to this email address.
Other details required:
None.»

[Your key to our new Webdiary home]

(The link to 'Webdiary guidelines' fails.)

Quote:
«Fiona: K**hy, given that I am a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, and the State of Victoria,»

Added comment: What's sauce for the goose...

regards, Friedham.

-----

[So far, no answer.]

élite hypocrisy_1837

Submitted on August 24, 2007 - 9:51am.

 Subtitle: considering the correct appellation

-=*=-

G'day Angela Ryan, and thanks for gracing us with your thoughts and research - as in your 'We can find friends elsewhere... so can a few others too'.

But 1st things 1st; before we go anywhere, I must raise an objection to this statement, from another post, almost from another world: "This is now a matter of public record." Referred to was an item published on a web-page sporting this: «"© 2004 Independent News & Media"».

While I have every respect for this page/organisation, it is only one voice; it is part of what we like to call the MSM, itself often alleged to be variously 'venal' or 'corrupt' if not both; my own expressions include pro-status quo propaganda pushers, and 'transmitter/amplifiers' of such propaganda. And propaganda by its very nature (being designed to deceive) is often described as 'filthy' and 'lying.'

Phew! Yes, that means the reader should carefully consider any such articles on their merits, keeping in mind traditional police procedures: establishing motive, opportunity, and method; and specifically a) who benefits (short and long) and b) who quotes what sort'a articles?

In other words: caveat emptor? Enough said, for that item - IMHO.

-=*=-

Now, back to this from Angela: «I wonder how many nations' sovereignty and security will be sacrificed for secure oil supply for the elite and powerful regimes. I wonder if Israel will ever become too much of a weight for the US and UK as compared to their own security. ...»

Without disagreeing with what Angela says (IMHO it's mostly correct and proper), I wish to consider the correct appellation, namely referring to the term: 'elite[1].'

IMHO, the so-called Anglo/Christian CoW® with Judaic sprog 'leaders' (possibly more puppets than freestanding) and any shadowy 'power' behind such puppets (i.e. the real string-pullers) - this amorphous (and horrible!) lot, some by definition attempting invisibility, are collectively better termed 'the kleptocracy®,' also for the very good reason that they're (often? mostly? all'a time?) up to no good (massive understatement!), as in the 'perfect' examples of 'murder for spoil;' in Iraq for oil and in (mostly ex- and fast disappearing) Palestine for land and water.

One fallacious 'argument' put up by the pro-status quo lying propaganda pushers is that the US didn't have to invade to secure Iraq's oil, they could'a just bought it. Well, of course that's risible, because it really begs the question Q: just why don't they just buy it?

It begs the question, because the answer A: is that the US and their partners in crime (here all together: the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag, all in greater or lesser degree (mass)murdering for spoil) are not interested in the very things they champion, namely, say, democracy and free markets; they say one thing (their propaganda) and do another (their vicious crimes;) some/many of these heinous crimes being considered worse that those of WW2, exactly because of - ta ra! The US/UK/Aus/Israel rank and utter hypocrisy[2].

What we get from the kleptocracy, their minions both 'professional' via the venal & corrupt MSM, and the [descriptor redacted] amateurs via the net (and to a certain apportioned shame) 'in here,' are lies and pretence (aka lying propaganda springing from the same single song-sheet[3]), spread with the intention of smearing the truth & truth-seeker/reporters both.

Well, this truth-seeker, this truth-reporter is not deceived, as I presume most honest readers also are not. "G'day" to honesty, "Bye" to crime & filthy perpetrator/apologists!

-=*end*=-

[1] élite n. 1 (prec. by the) the best (of a group). 2 select group or class. 3 a size of letters in typewriting (12 per inch). [French: related to *elect] [POD]

[2] hypocrisy n. (pl. -ies) 1 false claim to virtue; insincerity, pretence. 2 instance of this. [Greek, = acting, feigning] [ibid.]

[3] leitmotif n. (also leitmotiv) recurrent theme in a musical etc. composition representing a particular person, idea, etc. [German: related to *lead1, *motive] [ibid.]

[cross-posted and checked; letter-perfect.]

‡black-balling_2002

Submitted on August 23, 2007 - 8:49pm.

Subtitle: no, not the navy-recruit type

-=*=-



Update:

Post flagged thus: ‡

WD-censored marked in red like this.

WD-mangled version here.

-=*=-

1. Howard has offered the QLD local council-backers a possibly poisoned chalice; to vote y/n for amalgamation or the status quo.

2. Vaile flags vote on possible nuclear sites
Posted August 23, 2007 01:00:00
and Costello backs community vote on nuclear reactors
Posted August 23, 2007 10:00:00

3. Even TV shows are in on the act; see big-brother-ejac... err, ejected.

Since I started drafting this, it's becoming 'a movement:'

4. NT wants vote on proposed nuclear dump
Posted August 23, 2007 16:04:00

Then wha'd'ya know - our very own PM as 'flip-flopper:'

5. PM backs local votes on reactor sites
5:53pm PRIME Minister John Howard has moved to counter a Labor scare campaign on nuclear plants and a split in the coalition by supporting plebiscites about proposed reactor sites.

-=*=-

(This could be Howards *BIG* mistake: letting the democracy genie out'a the bottle. Haw!)

-=*=-

Could we be on the threshold of a new - and better - chapter in our poor, crippled democracy?

-=*=-

Q: Why didn't we get a vote back then, on the Iraq war illegal invasion (now turned brutal occupation) - both equally murdering, and based on eventual oil-theft... we could still have a vote anytime, it's never too late to stop this awful, senseless (unless you're an oil-major) slaughter?

Q: Then, or independently from all that, why don't we get a vote 'in here' (meant is WD) - we could choose to eject any serial, recalcitrant Störfaktors, on the hope of getting more readers, and encourage some utterly disgusted ones into coming back?

Let's face it, some sort'a clean-up is sorely needed. And not 'just' in WD.

The Origin of Sheople®_1983

Submitted on August 23, 2007 - 9:59am.

Subtitle: a Freudian slip?

-=*=-

Keywords:

hypocrisy[1],
deceit,lying[2],
moral hazard[3].

-=*=-

I'll start with a little humour: Just what is it, that ladies want? (i.e. Does size matter? - Haw!)

OK. (Some might'a had a laugh); now down to 'business.'

Generalising from the part (ladies) to the whole (sheople), Q: What do they(we) want?

A: A loving partner; 2.3 obedient, smiling (straight teeth; no cavities) children, a passable house (Emoh Ruo) with a white picket fence, an 'olden in the drive-way (not new perhaps, but not yet rusted right through.)

Oh, yeah; a 'real' job (9-5) whereby one a) feels as if one has achieved something before four-fifty-one rolls around, and b) a 'boss' who's (middlin') fair. And c) a pay packet that doesn't go instantly empty.

Not too much; and who gives a s**t about who's up who for what rent in a) the local shire, b) the (wicked) state capital and c) "Canberra," wherever the hell that may be? (Exactly; but a) no kulcha® and b) they all go to bed at or before 9PM.) All this para. referring to "Ay ort'a," aka any and all gummint®.

-=*=-

a) This morning, on the (steam-powered radio) program I just love to hate, the (viciously right-wing biased bag - err, 'lover-ly hostess') had a 'guest' from local government. He explained that all across our vast wide-brown, local government had been starved of funds, especially in the last 11(!) years - or so. Funding had been fixed to the CPI (or some-such crooked measure), but as a direct consequence, funding had fallen from appr. 1.5% to 0.7% (heading for 0.6%; figures from recall) of GDP. Well, wha'd'ya know?

b) The same fella mentioned that the states now had a 'growth-tax,' namely the GST. But that's more than just a 'slight' inaccuracy (IMHO!); it was 'promised' (non-core!) as a state's tax - but wha'd'ya know? Costello a) controls the GST with a miser-like grip and b) only dribbles it out to the states, as if getting any $s out'a him is like pulling teeth.

c) The federal government - and here, one can't distinguish because they all sing from the same, single-page song-sheet, talk about 'tax-cuts.' Well, wha'd'ya know? - and this time, blow me down - but the sheople's share of the pie has measurably, demonstrably fallen in the last 11(!) years.

But you don't have take my word for this last, see John Pratt on May 17, 2007 - 6:53am:

«According to the national accounts, between 1996 and 2006 the wages share of gross domestic product fell from 56 per cent to 54 per cent, while corporate profits rose from 23 per cent to 28 per cent. That is equal to about $40 a week if wages had maintained their mid-1990s share of national income.

But, worse for the battlers, the federal tax burden has increased from 23.3 to 25 per cent of GDP in the same period.»

[Original:Kenneth Davidson/Smoke and mirrors hide funding facts]

If the wages share is falling and the tax-take is rising, either the sheople are not getting enough pay rises (see adjustment à la CPI-type scam above), or the government is taking more; possibly a bit'a both. Any talk of an effective tax-cut - as shown by these figures - is misleading at best, if not a toadal®, outright lie. (Keywords: hypocrisy[1], deceit/lies[2]; say one thing whilst doing another, and telling filthy lies all the way.)

So. What else is new?

-=*=-

This is where we come to the sheople. It's not a particularly flattering term, but I don't flinch from deploying it: my idea, from direct observation (no, not of all but of some, and I claim of enough), is that the sheople, on the whole, rush home from their job (note: not 'career position,' not so much any more; now it could be 'hamburger flipper'), or school or whatever, and 1st in the door turns on the (flat-panel?) TV, and last to bed (if they don't all go comatose 'watching') turns the boob-tube off. During their more lucid moments, this audience soaks up all possible perversions portrayed by Hollywood-style 'entertainment' interspersed by raucous ads. Oh, yeah; and 'news' which is basically more often than not pushed-paradigm propaganda.

There is a more scientific way to describe what's occurring, it's called "manufactured desire/consent." And now, here's my 'new' bit:

«It is Edward Bernays who fine-tuned the art of public relations in the 20th century. Using many of the psychoanalytic theories put forward by his uncle Sigmund Freud, he developed a mastery of public manipulation, suggesting that such manipulation was essential to democracy itself. Bernays strongly believed that people are simply "stupid" and in need of being told how to behave, what to believe, what to eat, what to wear, and how to vote. The outcomes of such an experiment reverberate to this day.

Some historians credit Bernays's efforts in the 1920s and 1930s for turning the modern citizen into a modern consumer. ...

It was only natural that such tactics would soon become politicized. ...»

[Ramzy Baroud/The Art of War, Democracy and Public Relations]

Any more questions?

-=*=-

Basically, no. But of course and as usual, I'd like to say a bit more. The current Federal government, run (for the want of a better word) by Howard, has raised this sheople-bamboozling to new and dizzying heights. On the one hand it may not matter; if the sheople themselves feel content (relaxed and comfortable?) - then "She's Jake!"

But. Rabbits will sit only so long in the headlights, before - WHAM! - they're road-kill (Ami-speak?! Spit!)

The 'accident' is upon us, multiply so. Thanks largely to Costello's halving of the CGT, house price affordability has gone to ruin - for a very large slice of 'the aspirationals.'

(We know that 'aspirational' is a 'good' word since it is a Howard all-time favourite. Watch out, bunnies!)

No accident - not on your Nelly; Howard&Co lied us into an illegal war, morphed now into a brutal occupation, all based on the eventual theft of Iraq's oil: aka (mass!)murder for spoil. This is where the keyword moral hazard[3] comes in; Howard&Co are our putative representatives, despite the anti-war cries of "No war!" and "Not in our name!" - what they, Howard&Co have done / are doing sadly is in our name, to our enduring shame[4].

There are two more (non!)accidents, one is oil prices. Murdoch (spit!) claimed that if nothing else, the Iraq war would bring us lower oil prices. Utter BS, as is most'a the stuff he publishes.

The other (non!)accident is the run-away CO2 greedastrophe®, more on-the-way than merely mooted (see WHAM! discussion above); the one that Howard&Co are fooling around doing SFA effective about - to all our perils.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] hypocrisy n. (pl. -ies) 1 false claim to virtue; insincerity, pretence. 2 instance of this. [Greek, = acting, feigning] [POD]

[2] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]

[3] Moral hazard ...

«.. refers to the chance, or hazard, that a party in a transaction with more information about his intentions or actions behaves in a way that a party with less information would consider inappropriate, or in the extreme, "immoral". It arises because an individual or institution in a transaction does not bear the full consequences of its actions.

Moral hazard is related to asymmetric information, a situation one party in a transaction has more information than another. A special case of moral hazard is called a principal-agent problem, where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent may have an incentive or tendency to act in an inappropriate way in the view of the principal, if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned. The agent usually has more information about his actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually can not perfectly monitor the agent.»

[wiki]

[4] Anglo/Christian CoW®'s 'finest hour:'

«... So Bush's confident strut, his incessant upbeat pronouncements about the war, his complacent smirks, his callous indifference to the unspeakable horror he has unleashed in Iraq – these are not the hallmarks of self-delusion, or willful ignorance, or a disassociation from reality. He and his accomplices know full well what the reality is – and they like it.»

[Chris Floyd/Claiming the Prize: Bush Surge Aimed at Securing Iraqi Oil]

so yesterday® ...1991

.. a somewhat deferential[1] short history.

Taking inspiration from the end of 'Repugnant?'
Submitted on August 20, 2007 - 9:19pm,

where Michael de Angelos (g'day) wrote:

«but hating socialism is so yesterday...»

-=*=-

I occasionally use the '®' character as a plea to the WD Eds not to 'improve' my text by applying their spell-checker. An example:

Wardah®, wardah everywhere!
but hardly a drop for the crop...

(A reference to the coming CO2 greedastrophe® 'side-effect' of world-wide glacier and permafrost melting and concomitant sea-level rise, and the possibly unrelated current and desperate drought.)

Apropos wardah, Canberra, like (most) other wide-brown metropolises is going a bit short on it; the solutions proposed are a) expensive and b) IMHO wrong. They propose extending one dam ($132-165mio) and pumping from a river into another dam ($40-70mio+/-30%, both costs only indicative). IMHO, all they really need to do is a) discourage the sheople® from watering lawns and/or roses, say, or better b) reduce if not stop population growth. Of course, both my (a) & (b) are seen as politically too hard, so we'll probably just have to cough up the dough for an extremely non-optimal, possibly unsustainable and then only putative solution. Bah!

-=*=-

Getting back to 'so yesterday,' my memory is not what it used to be, so I often employ 'artificial aids' in partial recompense. Ergo, a Google.

Google shows a possible 'dead heat' for a 1st 'so yesterday' use between Stephen Smith and Phil Uebergang around August 23, 2005. So much for me thinking of claiming any sort'a priority. But I have used it recently:

a) In my 'stung!' response to Daniel Smythe (g'day),
Submitted on March 11, 2007 - 7:37pm.

«Violence is just so yesterday.»

b) In my 'house-price inflation, ...' response to Alan Curran,
Submitted on March 24, 2007 - 2:15pm.

«... using an interest-rate scare to rattle the punters these days - apart from being outright devious, mean and nasty - well - isn't it just so yesterday?»

Following the principle of "the first shall be last", I note that:

a) Alan Curran never responded to this, possibly my definitive house-price inflation post. I put this inflation[2] down mainly to Costello's halving of the CGT. Costello himself recently attributed it to low interest rates and population pressures - toadally® ignoring/dodging his own acts/responsibility - but he would, wouldn't he? IMHO, dear reader, you can decide. Then

b) some others did respond (figuratively kicking at a 'downed' target), but as I have since pointed out elsewhere, these responses were doubly fallacious - by dragging in the red herring of consumer inflation. A red herring can be a 'simple' diversion, but here it does double duty, it is a fallacious[3] form of reasoning called 'the definitional retreat,' to redefine a term in the face of a failing argument - i.e. when the topic is and always was house-price inflation (Sydney 250%! Perth may go higher); to jeer that figures for consumer inflation are 2-3% is, IMHO, a deliberate off-topic and fallacious diversion. (Haw! Bad tactics, fellas.)

-=*=-

Back to «Violence is just so yesterday». I found this article, already reported in my 'The most amazing lies' which details US criminal immorality vis-à-vis invading other countries going back at least to the 'conquering' of Hawaii in 1893. (IMHO, the website is a ripper!) The original might be here.

Sooo, an answer to «is the USA "military industrial complex" to blame for ALL the worlds' ills» is probably no. Just most, and that by a very long chalk.

-=*end*=-

PS This post originated with Michael's «hating socialism[4] is so yesterday.»

Q: How do we describe the recent world-wide stock exchange bail-outs performed by central banks' injections of squillions of $s:

a) free market operations?

b) printing money?

c) socialism?

(Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey.")

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] deferential adj. respectful.  deferentially adv. [POD]

[2] inflation n. 1 inflating. 2 Econ. a general increase in prices. b increase in the supply of money regarded as causing this.  inflationary adj. [ibid.]

[3] fallacy n. (pl. -ies) 1 mistaken belief. 2 faulty reasoning; misleading argument.  fallacious adj. [Latin fallo deceive] [ibid.]

[4] socialism; Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Comment: sounds OK to me; only fair even.

Zionists

Subtitle: immorality, criminality.

Leitmotif[1]: I report/opine; you decide.

-=*=-

This story begins in antiquity, it has many 'way stations[2],' but to cut a (very!) long story short: we apply WYSIWYG, and Q: what do we see?

A: We see so-called modern day Israelis (aka Zionists) murdering for spoil (land, water) in and around the territory previously known as Palestine - before 1947, say.

No more need be said [but see PS].

-=*end*=-

PS Oh, alright. I'll list a few 'choice' bits (but some only as hints.)

1. Biblical. From Dawkins ("The God Delusion") pp246: "Having promised to drive out of their homelands the unfortunate Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jubusites, God..." Presumably, this is 'the promised land' under discussion, but promised by whom?

2. Historical. Consider the illegal establishment of so-called 'modern-day' Israel. As if the actual establishment wasn't questionable enough, we got the King David Hotel atrocity and Deir Yassin massacre et al. Basically daaarlings, a 'nation' founded on blood, living on blood, none of which is theirs to shed - since it belongs to the former legal owners and their mates. Hence the rubric: 'the illegal sprog.'

3. Radical. Hamish Alcorn: "... a race-based theory of domination..."

4. Hysterical. Parsons: "Joooooooz."

5. Collegial. Pa, Pa & lit'ly (pron. Pa(Huh?) - Pa(Sss!) - and little-Eee...) have a hissy fit; the HH-refos agree that WD has become 'a hate site.'

6. Vandal. Anon comments "Why [he is] a Zionist."

Note: I don't 'do' video (steam-powered PC; fencing-wire modem).

Comment added later:

«When election campaigns are fought on YouTube and MySpace, whatever they are, the political process has become so trivial and meaningless that sensible people turn away in despair.»

[Terry Lane/Farewell, it's time to turn off, tune out]

Ref(s):

[1] leitmotif n. (also leitmotiv) recurrent theme in a musical etc. composition representing a particular person, idea, etc. [German: related to *lead1, *motive]

[2] indulgence n. 1 indulging or being indulgent. 2 thing indulged in. 3 RC Ch. remission of punishment still due after absolution. 4 privilege granted.

pragmatism vs. theory

(degrees of hypocrisy[1])_1979

Subtitle: will the real Christians please stand up?

More keywords: self-serving; fallacy[2], disingenuous[3], crusade[5], passion[6].

-=*=-

At the risk of appearing to dance on the head of a pin, and recognising that almost no matter what one says, it seems that there's always someone in here who will find something to carp[4] about it, I pose the following question.

Q: Just exactly what is it that is too hard to understand about "Thou shalt not kill!"

Tip: examine the word murder[0].

Then note the word 'unlawful.'

Consider two examples of killing,

a) in self-defence of you or yours, when under some direct mortal threat. Not too hard, that one - but not too often either. Then,

b) judicial killing, like that planned for the Bali-9. Not too popular, that one; and considering our AFP's role, not too savoury either.

Then ask yourself, just how lawful may it be, to be responsible for the pink-mist deaths of perhaps a million Iraqis since "Shock'n whore'03®" - this hideous, continuing slaughter thought to be predicated on impending and massive oil-theft. (The oil so stolen destined for a lot'a super-size SUVs and fat 4WDs.)

-=*=-

Intermezzo: It's not just what you say, it's how you say it.

a) JWBush: "crusade[5]." And not just the once, either[B1].

b) Blair: "I passionately[6] believe"[B2].

c) Howard: "Judaeo-Christian ethic"[H].

Now, I pose another question.

Q: Just exactly how separate is Church from State?

(And note: religion was similarly embedded in pre-WW2 Germany.)

A final feature, one of the most vicious claims in the pro-pushed paradigm propaganda is the one alleging concrete attempts at creating/restoring some sort'a (Islamic) caliphate[C1,C2].

-=*=-

Morality: I have tried to formalise my own, see the chezPhil morality in which the basic crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder. The whole thing has nothing to do with any 'g*d construct,' but is driven only by reflexive altruism (i.e. I don't wish to be murdered, therefore I agree not to murder some other); and a key tenet is "Fair go, ya mug!"

Actually, here I'm (metaphorically) standing on the shoulders of giants, see Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics[A].

-=*=-

Discussion: All the elements are now present. Killing human beings, except in extremely exceptional circumstances, is both morally wrong (morality being a field claimed by religion - but not necessarily; see my own, say) and legally wrong (law being a field claimed by the state.)

The 'usual exception' for killing, as war, is 'self-defence.'

The other side of the coin from 'self-defensive' war is invasive war, not 'just' criminal, but Nuremberg: "To initiate a war of aggression ... contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

There is another point to be made about the war on Iraq, and that is this: we do know that they lied us into it, and that yes, Saddam was a tyrant. Although it's arguable about the form of bringing about regime-change (what Howard himself said was not a valid casus belli), the (illegal) invasion was deliberately morphed into occupation. This (brutal) occupation endures, as do the efforts to persuade the (puppet) Iraqi government to sign away the Iraqi birthright by passing the oil law. Those who doubt that 'murder for oil' is not a perfectly adequate and accurate description of what is occurring in Iraq are possibly fooling themselves (but not me).

The final element here is religion; each of B, B & H claim personally to have it, and further, that it is integral to the US/UK/Aus societies, see Howard[H], say.

-=*=-

Performance: We can now examine the actions/inactions of individual Christians and Churches. There is no doubt that some, many individual Christians expressed shock, horror etc at the prospect of "Shock'n whore" and demonstrated against it, along with many other non-religious people (like me). No argument. Similarly, many churches protested.

But: the war went ahead anyway, we saw (obscene! - IMHO) pictures of US 'grunts' praying before going into battle, planning to 'pink-mist' Iraqis - who are referred to often by those same grunts as "Hajjs[7]."

Pragmatism: WYSIWYG, and Q: what do we see?

a) we see a notional Christian society demonstrating against Howard then re-electing him - illustrating that the war was not the highest priority. But not to make it the highest priority is to extend Howard 'cover.' Q: Is this not hypocrisy?

b) we see notionally Christian Churches protesting against war but some declaring the war 'just,' IMHO a truly filthy cop-out. Q: Is this not hypocrisy?

c) it has been suggested, that the reason for this apparent hypocrisy is that the so-called Christians involved are somehow 'not real Christians.' But we're dealing with the real world and again: WYSIWYG. It is a fallacious[2] form of reasoning called 'the definitional retreat' (more detail available), to redefine a term in the face of a failing argument (example: when the topic is 250% house-price inflation, to jeer that the ABS figures for consumer inflation are 2-3%. Haw! (Bad tactics, fellas.))

-=*=-

Conclusion: people, be they sheople® or whatever, may say what they like. (That's freedom, ain't it?) The facts of the matter are, that no matter how some theoretically correct Christian may think or what s/he says; ditto for Churches (whether Christian or not and who cares), we have an invasive war on our hands, an (illegal) invasion turned brutal occupation, both equally murderous and predicated on eventual and massive oil-theft. Our so-called leaders claim religion for themselves, and assert that the nations they lead are based on religious morals - and yet this total travesty continues.

Penultimate: this ghastly murder for oil war is only the latest war, perhaps one of the filthiest ever, but it's got a looong history behind it. War and religion have existed alongside each other for as good as forever - the 'just war' cop-out being indicative of just how close.

Q: What good, then, is this religion?

A: Not much, that I can see.

-=*=-

Epilogue: people, be they sheople or not, religious or not, could stop this war and the crimes that infest our society, IF ONLY enough wanted to, decided to, and did something about it.

For example, by voting warmongers (and liars, cheats) everywhere out.

-=*end*=-

PS - a slightly different loop: governments, and especially this government go to sometimes great lengths to ensure our honesty, and by this I mean collecting data on us (snooping in bank accounts, say), sharing such data around among departments, then bugging our communications, etc. Yet this same government has lied us into an illegal war with subsequent brutal invasion, both horrendously murdering, and all that predicated on eventual oil-theft from the hapless Iraqis. We only get one chance per three years, say, to 'discipline' our government. Wha'da 'bout it? How will you use your vote, next time?

Ref(s):

[0] murder —n. 1 intentional unlawful killing of a human being by another. [POD]

[1] hypocrisy n. (pl. -ies) 1 false claim to virtue; insincerity, pretence. 2 instance of this. [Greek, = acting, feigning] [ibid.]

[2] fallacy n. (pl. -ies) 1 mistaken belief. 2 faulty reasoning; misleading argument.  fallacious adj. [Latin fallo deceive] [ibid.]

[3] disingenuous adj. insincere, not candid.  disingenuously adv. [ibid.]

[4] carp2 v. find fault; complain pettily.  carper n. [Old Norse, = brag] [ibid.]

[5] crusade —n. 1 hist. any of several medieval military expeditions made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2 vigorous campaign for a cause. —v. (-ding) engage in a crusade.  crusader n. [French: related to *cross] [ibid.]

[6] passion n. 1 strong emotion. 2 outburst of anger (flew into a passion). 3 intense sexual love. 4 a strong enthusiasm (passion for football). b object arousing this. 5 (the Passion) a suffering of Christ during his last days. b Gospel account of this. c musical setting of this.  passionless adj. [Latin patior pass- suffer] [ibid.]

[7] hajj n. (also hadj) Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca. [Arabic] [ibid.]

[A] Asimov:

«..., the Three Laws of Robotics are a set of three rules written by Isaac Asimov, which almost all positronic robots appearing in his fiction must obey. Introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although foreshadowed in a few earlier stories, the Laws state the following:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.


2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.


3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Later, Asimov added the Zeroth Law: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm"; the rest of the laws are modified sequentially to acknowledge this.»

[Asimov/Three Laws of Robotics]

[B1] JWBush:

«We need to go back to work tomorrow and we will. But we need to be alert to the fact that these evil-doers still exist. We haven't seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time. No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people - and show no remorse. This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.»

[September 16, 2001/Remarks by the President Upon Arrival]

«I want to tell you something, we've got no better friends than Canada. (Applause.) They stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren.»

[February 16, 2002/President Rallies the Troops in Alaska]

[B2] Blair:

«The threat seems to some people to be remote, but I passionately believe that we must disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, we must uphold the authority of the United Nations, we must show rogue states and terrorist organisations that when we say we intend to deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction we mean it.»

[PM: 'Saddam should take the peaceful route and disarm']

[C1] Calphate:

«The terrorist Zawahiri, number two man in the al Qaeda team -- al Qaeda network, he said, we'll proceed with several incremental goals. The first stage is to expel the Americans from Iraq; the second stage is to establish an Islamic authority, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of caliphate; the third stage, extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq; and the fourth stage, the clash with Israel.»

[September 28, 2006/Remarks by the President at Bob Riley for Governor Luncheon]

[C2] Calphate:

«CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden: "… I strongly believe [U.S. failure in Iraq] would lead to al Qaeda with what it is they said is their goal there, which is the foundations of the caliphate, and in operational terms for us, a safe haven from which then to plan and conduct attacks against the West." (Committee On Intelligence, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing, 1/18/07)»

[May 3, 2007/Setting the Record Straight: Iraq Is The Central Front Of Al Qaeda's Global Campaign]

[H] Howard:

«MITCHELL:

Well what are Australian values? This is the point. What are the Australian values we expect people to embrace or get out?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well we expect them to embrace democracy, we expect them to recognise this is a society made up of both men and women and that each should be accorded proper respect and an equal place. That doesn't mean that we should try and make them the same in their outlook and their attitude, but simply they should be treated fairly and equally. It's a society that recognises and respects freedom of religion but it's a society that does not have an established religion. Christianity, although it is the Judaeo-Christian ethic is the great moral shaping force, has been and continues to be in different ways, the great shaping moral force of Australia it is not entrenched in any way and the Christian church is not entrenched in any way as a state religion. We respect all religions and we respect people who don't have religions and in that sense, we are very different from a country such as Iran, a country such as, in many respects, even a country such as Pakistan or Indonesia, where there is a far greater, how shall I put it, far greater central role for Islam as a religion.»

[Interview Transcript 24 February 2006]

no *flamin'* progress ...

 .. why the f**k not? ('Scuse the French.)

-=*=-

Since first hearing the ugly threat of "Shock'n whore®" then only being mooted for Iraq, I've been tearing my hair out - whoa! Figuratively, about the immorality, the illegality, and the sheer injustice of it all.

Now, more than four years 'down the track,' the illegal, murdering invasion has been morphed into an even more brutal occupation, and perhaps as many as a million have died, pink-misted by the US grunts 'playing in Iraq,' or blown to high heaven by persons unknown, possibly resistance fighters, possibly sectarian bombers, possibly al-Qaeda, possibly CIA-style black- or psyops (Wha'do I - or we - know, since the MSM either can't get the true story, or simply lies to us outright.) As well as the dead, four million have been displaced, half of them exiting Iraq.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE 'OUT THERE??'

SBN2S (Sorry, but not too sorry) - for shouting.

Day after day, week after week, month after month, even year after year, the Ami 'grunts,' along with the Poms'n 'our boys' are running an ugly, murdering occupation, premised on eventual oil-theft.

Nobody says 'Peep!'

What the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag, all mass-murdering for spoil (US/UK/Aus for oil in Iraq, Israel for land, water in (ex)Palestine & surrounds) are doing is directly analogous to armed robbery with actual, murdering violence; if such took place in Martin Place, say, with a few $s stolen, one or two dead'ns; the entire country would be up in toadal® bloody uproar.

Things are now so bad in fact, that the ugly lizard masquerading as 'our' PM has the nerve to ring the (US-puppet) Iraqi PM, and threaten him - for not cooperating in the rape, pillage and plunder of his very own country!

An aside that is not really an aside at all: religion has a role in this theft and carnage. NO, the US/Israel/UK/Aus are not raping, pillaging and/or plundering because of religion, but in spite of it. Speaking now of Christianity, it has its own moral framework, usually denoted by the 10 commandments, the strongest of which is "Thou shalt not kill!" - or lie, cheat, thieve etc.

And in addition to the pap about 'love thy neighbour as thyself,' are the concepts of "sins of commission" and "sins of omission."

When some Church declares some war 'just,' it is actively encouraging people to kill others; that's a sin of commission.

When some Church declines to forbid some war, that's a sin of omission.

IMHO all Churches should 'move Heaven and Earth' (pardon) to prevent, decry, discourage any killing at all, let alone war; then let alone a filthy, criminal murder for oil war.

The current total ineffectiveness of the Churches makes them accessories to crime; murdering, thieving crime.

-=*=-

And as for every Church, so for every believer, if their faith includes "Thou shalt not kill" (or analogue), they must do all in their power, now to stop the theft-predicated carnage, in Iraq, Palestine, anywhere.

And as for every believer, so for every other with even a pretension to having morals. Under the "With us, or agin' us" doctrine, if you, dear reader, also hold "Thou shalt not kill" or analogous as a correct rule, then you must do all in your power to stop the rape and pillage.

All together now: NO MORE WAR! YANKS GO HOME!

the most amazing lies_1983

 Subtitle: just how brazen can they get?

-=*=-

This is the start:

«August 16, 2007
THE world has become normal again. The years immediately following the end of the Cold War offered a tantalising glimpse of a new kind of international order, the hope that nations might grow together or disappear altogether, with ideological conflicts melting away and cultures intermingling through increasingly free commerce and communications.»

[Robert Kagan/Renewing the liberal vision]

The more you read, the worse it gets.

I've often mentioned the pushed-paradigm propaganda; here it is in (lying!) bucket-loads.

One more sample:

«The Islamists' struggle against the powerful and often impersonal forces of modernisation, capitalism and globalisation is a significant fact of life in the world today, but oddly this struggle is largely a sideshow on the international stage. The future is more likely to be dominated by the struggle between the great ideologies of liberalism and autocracy than by the effort of radical Islamists to restore an imagined past of piety.»

[ibid.]

Kagan blithely carries on, as if what he was talking about was 'the truth of the matter,' when in fact what he says pretty-well encapsulates the standard litany of lies.

One thing he says is correct, that the US is the strongest power, what he doesn't say is that that power works almost exclusively for evil.

One implication of what he's saying is that democracy is the way, the only way; all others are wrong or failed. What he doesn't say is that the democracies he's promoting just aren't.

He talks about the UN and its failures, what he doesn't say is that the UN is a US' plaything; if the UN buckles to US' wishes then OK, but if not it's ignored - when not outright abused. A one word proof: Bolton.

-=*=-

Statement of scope: Kagan speaks from the US, but the US is allied to/with Israel; the Israel lobby infests the US to the point of undue influence. The US is also 'allied' to/with the UK and Aus, where the alliance is better described by UK as a lesser accessory and Aus as tiny sycophant. A 'short-hand' for this grouping is Anglo/Christian/Judaic. Another short-handing is the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag.

-=*=-

1. There are at least two narratives, the lying one represented here by Kagan, and all such transmitted when not (corruptly) amplified by the (venal) MSM, and the actual truth. These two could hardly be further apart.

One could 'short-hand' the standard pushed-paradigm myth as "Truth, Justice and the American Way," but each item is an horrendous perversion. We are told almost nothing but filthy lies, there is effectively no justice, and 'the American Way' turns out to be "1001 ways of ripping the world off," all the while pissing the ripped-off proceeds up the pointless/profligate/obese-consumerist wall.

-=*=-

2. To have a functioning democracy, one needs a few pre-requisites:

a) A valid choice of candidates. The A/C/J 'democracies' are nominally two-party systems, but whether two or more, the choice between them is so narrow as to be effectively non-existent. No matter which 'side' is elected, almost the same policies will hold sway. Look at Israel since 1947; unrelieved (invasive) war against the former legal owner/occupants of what was previously known as Palestine. Look at Iraq now, illegal invasion morphed into brutal occupation; Repugs and Dummocrats both are after the oil, and prepared to mass-murder for it. Latham showed us here, on his 1st press conference as leader. Posed before a US flag (spit!)

b) A fully informed populace. This we do not have; see the quoted article. They used to make jokes: "The Mushroom Club" (kept in the dark and fed on BS.) Well, it's no joke. Never was, but telling us lies is toadally® undemocratic.

c) An actively engaged electorate. No chance at the moment; the sheople® having been bought-off with cheap Chinese junk and fed ever more BS via their 5.1ch, flat-panel TVs. The soma that puts them into their coma-like state being such BS as Hollywood portraying its 'all possible perversions' as infotainment, interspersed by raucous ads (thanks but no thanks to Madison Ave.)

-=*=-

3. The UN. I sincerely thought that this was genuine. If one looks at the governing structures, we have local, state, country then international. We are supposed to have "The rule of Law" at each level. Sadly, not. One knows one has trouble when one hears "You can't legislate morality." More BS; of course you can, all it takes is the will. The temptation there was to write 'the political[1] will,' but the word/concept 'politics'[2] is wrong. This concept and its application, just as democracy itself, has failed us.

Inspect the two definitions. Both contain 'power.' That's the problem. We are supposed to have representative government. But the elected do not represent - us, we the sheople. The representatives have become prostitute-puppets to a power-elite - the kleptocracy®, as the MSM have become presstitutes to the same. Oppositions hardly oppose; the ALP even having let it be publicly known: they have 'dropped' almost all left-leaning allegiances in favour of kow-towing to business.

-=*=-

The truth, as I see it. I date the start of the current problems to the A-bombing of Japan (an utterly vicious and cynical war crime), but according to Blum, say, the trouble with US criminal immorality vis-à-vis invading other countries goes back at least to the 'conquering' of Hawaii in 1893. Not to mention the genocide practised on their own indigenes. After WW2, the US did not demobilise, quite the reverse. The m/i-plex was deliberately extended into the bulk of the US, and they went onto a permanent war-footing. Why that? Because they were already 'harvesting' far more from the world than anything that could be considered fair (it currently stands at 5% population, 25% of resources), and they set out to maintain their position by brute-force.

There is nothing either liberal or democratic about the criminal power-plays dominating our world. The wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag, all mass-murdering for spoil (US/UK/Aus for oil, Israel for land, water) put the lie to both of those. What really bothers me is that neither the sheople nor other governments make any (visible) moves against these incredible injustices. Must be the US' nucular threats, eh? Plus the disenfranchised, disempowered, disabled poor sheople. (This last includes you'n me. Bah! - Baaaaa!)

-=*=-

Solution: People power. The electors must renounce their sheople-status; awake! The representatives must return to representing, or be displaced. The MSM must return to reporting the truth, or become redundant. (This last is already happening, thanks to the 'net.) The 'law as ass' must be reformed to deliver justice.

Simplify: 10 commandments is perhaps too many; IMHO only about four crimes need proscribing[3]; as described in the chezPhil morality, the basic crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder (add a few more if you like). The whole thing has nothing to do with any g*d construct (organised religion having disgraced itself), but is driven only by reflexive altruism (i.e. I don't wish to be murdered, therefore I agree not to murder some other, etc); and a key tenet is "Fair go, ya mug!"

We could quickly return the world to a fair place; the rich would not even have to surrender their riches - well, not too much of 'em anyway; 'all' we really have to do is eliminate the kleptocracy's filthy crimes.

Oh, yeah: that includes ending all war, and melting the guns into ploughshares. (While we're at it, teach a few pigs to fly.)

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] political adj. 1 a of or concerning the State or its government, or public affairs generally. b of or engaged in politics. 2 taking or belonging to a side in politics. 3 concerned with seeking power, status, etc. (political decision).  politically adv. [Latin: related to *politic] [POD]

[2] politics n.pl. 1 (treated as sing. or pl.) a art and science of government. b public life and affairs. 2 (usu. treated as pl.) political principles or practice (what are his politics?). 3 activities concerned with seeking power, status, etc. [ibid.]

[3] proscribe v. (-bing) 1 forbid, esp. by law. 2 reject or denounce (a practice etc.). 3 outlaw (a person).  proscription n. proscriptive adj. [Latin, = publish in writing] [ibid.]

unattributed quotes (Christianity)

Updated to sync with submit on August 15, 2007 - 6:13pm.

Subtitle: it matters not who or where - but what...

eigentlich isses mir ja scheiß egal, aber...

egal wo, wer, aber was.

-=*=-

Preamble:

« ... contribute something useful to a discussion on religion? You can't mate ... if you attack religious views [then] you just reinforce them. It's nuts I know, but it's true.»

Declaration: I do not wish to attack religious views, aka beliefs[0] per se. What the sheople® believe or not is a matter entirely up to them; my chosen blogging 'weapons' are observation, logic and rational thought. (I declared my own toadal® absence of belief in my 'one may lead an 'orse to wardah®....') Spurning the unreal, I propose to examine the real world.

Observations are made on real-life objects, the idea is to determine the fakts[1].

Logic is used to combine observations to reach conclusions; i.e. IF [some predicate(s)] THEN [some deduction]. Those wishing to further research this topic could try First-order logic, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory and Propositional calculus, say. This approach has a history; here's another Harvey[3].

Rational[4] thought is chosen over irrational; it should be quite obvious why. Included in rational, I will attempt to avoid fallacy[5].

-=*=-

Having set out to examine the real world, I have to specify what that is - and what it's not. For me personally, it's everything I can sense; see, smell, touch etc. There are also things 'invisible' to my senses, i.e. ionising radiation, or the deduced quarks, say. Quarks are a good example; I say 'deduced' because it is thought that it's impossible to observe an isolated quark, but the (scientific) evidence for their existence is strong. So I allow my universe to be expanded to include the scientifically observable. Note that science doesn't claim to actually prove anything, merely to reduce the probability that some theory or other is false to an irreducible minimum. Here I like to cite the 'conservation' laws; that nothing (matter, energy etc) can either be created or destroyed, a corollary being that no information can be communicated without the exchange of something real. This precludes - on both the scientific level and by definition - any communication with the supernatural.

The supernatural[6], on the other hand if such a thing were to somehow exist, is by definition not observable by any (known, verifiable) means, it is 'outside' our universe, and cannot communicate with us - 'us' here meaning science. Once one leaves the 'real world,' all things are possible (it's a lot!) - including any 'tricks' necessary to some religions, here exemplified by Christianity, namely an immaterial soul capable of eternal 'life,' say. (This 'life' being after conventional life, aka after death.) Another benefit of this soul, is that since it's also apart from the real world, it may be able to communicate with some g*d construct. That still doesn't explain how any 'g*d-info' might get into our minds, these minds being brain-based, i.e. part of the real world, as they seem to be. (The next obvious step may be to say that minds are not part of the real world either, but that might be tending to reductio ad absurdum[endnote].) That's my understanding of Christianity so far as it goes, but exactly since it's outside'a my 'real-world' realm, I can't say 'yes' or 'no' to any of it; I just have to say - nothing. Or, perhaps: hmmm.

Returning then, to the 'here and now,' what we do have is people with faith - they tell us so, and we have to accept that. We - actually, they - have something real to them; their belief, also called faith. And it is claimed that this faith has real benefits, here in the real world. Can this claim be tested?

Unattributed quote:

«Asking the armed men to come and listen to them they told these men that they did not hate them and that they were not afraid to die and that they forgave them for the terrible act that they would be committing. In amazement, the militia men asked why they would do such a thing only to be told that the promise of an eternal life and the selfless example of Jesus was enough for them. Their captors released them, threw away their weapons and joined them.»

Comment: Nice story. The principle works - if the story is true.

Immediate 'but:' Given that Christianity has now been running for 2000 years or so, why hasn't it become ubiquitous - and effective? How long before it does? (If ever. Waiting...)

More unattributed:

«If this is an act of gullibility then we are all better off for it. The gullibility involved in living a Christian life is far better than any other alternative lifestyle. It is better for the world. It is better for your neighbours. It is better for all those involved.»

Me: IMHO, it may only appear better for believers because they are essentially 'locked in,' as such they a) have no way out and b) have to conjure a positive for their own survival (recall my yesterday's "hag-ridden, death(g*d) fearing life. Once in, the death-agenda-monkey ...") It may well be nice for neighbours, but there just aren't enough of 'em (proper Christians), and as an influence on govt., business or society as a whole it's either -ve, null or ineffective.

More particularly; if GWBush claims to be a Christian, why then did we get "Shock'n whore®?"

Or why doesn't Israel throw down its nukes, and join the Hillsong 'happy-clappers?'

Blair is reputedly going so strong on the "I believe!" thingo now, that he's considering converting to Roman Catholicism.

Here (in our allegedly secular, once beautiful wide-brown), Howard is 'at pains' to specifically remind us "... according to the Judao/Christian ethic which is meant to govern conduct in this country" - and so on.

Given that Aus (by Howard&Co's decree; i.e. not in my name) is involved in invasive war and/or brutal occupation in the ME (possibly now a million Iraqis pink-mist murdered since '03), whatever these 'Judao/Christian ethics' are that he speaks of, they are clearly not those which caused the armed thugs in the prior quote to abandon their weapons, i.e. renounce all crime and 'come to Jesus.'

I'm quite prepared (yeah. Big of me,) to allow:

a) That genuine belief/faith may help those who possess it to enjoy life more than they otherwise might (but I express reservation), and that belief/faith may have positive effects. For example, some people say "Wha'da 'bout Mother Therese?" One may cite MT as proof that religion is not all bad; believers will take the stand that religion is on balance mostly, if not all good. (But then they'd have to say that, wouldn't they?)

b) That the confession of faith made by B, B & H and their ilk isn't to the 'real' Christianity.

However, having made those concessions, we have to then ask: what (bloody-hell) good could any'o this faith stuff ever do, given that the world is going ever further down the tubes? (Lies, cheating, greed in all its ugly forms then theft, murder & wars, pestilence; the greedastrophe®...)

I have proposed the chezPhil morality in which the basic crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder. The whole thing has nothing to do with any g*d construct, but is driven only by reflexive altruism (i.e. I don't wish to be murdered, therefore I agree not to murder some other); and a key tenet is "Fair go, ya mug!"

Conclusion: forget any and all'a this g*d stuff. Over 2000 years, and no visible improvement. Go for reflexive altruism.

No more lies.

No more cheating.

No more theft.

No more murder.

NO MORE WAR!

-=*end*=-

Endnote: If one thinks about it (I do), my supposed (putative!) progression g*d -> soul -> mind as all belonging to the supernatural may well be a requirement for the 'life after death' thesis. IF one were to experience transcendence THEN some part of oneself must 'endure' beyond death, and it'd only make sense if that part was or included 'the essential self,' i.e. one's' mind, aka consciousness. Yes? But consciousness can easily be seen to be a part of the real world. Experiencing music, for example, depends on sound signals being received, processed then appreciated (or if (C)rap then perhaps not) - by the conscious mind. Then, MRI scans can 'see' extra blood-flow whilst thinking; different locations for different types of mental effort. See? Mind clearly based on matter. But for transcendence, mind not based on matter. Yet another paradox. Perhaps far worse, MRI scans reveal extra blood-flow whilst recalling memories...

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[0] belief n. 1 firm opinion; acceptance (that is my belief). 2 religious conviction (belief in the afterlife; has no belief). 3 (usu. foll. by in) trust or confidence. [related to *believe] [POD]

[1] Fakts: Born in a freezing Polish winter in 1922, Harvek Milos Krumpetski is a man destined for ... From the “fakts” that Harvie’s mother teaches him to gather...

Harvie's “fakts” are items in the real world, verified by his own observations. Harvie could be my analogue in this respect.

More: Harvie's greatest contribution (IMHO), is "Carpe diem!"[2]

[2] carpe diem exclamation used to urge someone to make the most of the present time and give little thought to the future.
ORIGIN Latin, seize the day!, a quotation from Horace (Odes i.xi). [Oxford Pop-up]

[3] From Methodology before Harvey:

«Though Aristotle used his mind to reason about the world, his reasoning did not lack realworld observations. He did not put himself in a dark room, disconnect his senses from the world, and then ponder about logic. Certainly he did think about logic as abstracted from the wider world (e.g. syllogisms), but that was not the totality of his studies. The observations he used can be called experiences; they are what every person living at the time might agree to be true.»

[4] rational adj. 1 of or based on reason. 2 sensible. 3 endowed with reason. 4 rejecting what is unreasonable or cannot be tested by reason in religion or custom. [POD]

[5] fallacy n. (pl. -ies) 1 mistaken belief. 2 faulty reasoning; misleading argument.  fallacious adj. [Latin fallo deceive] [ibid.]

[6] supernatural —adj. not attributable to, or explicable by, the laws of nature; magical; mystical. —n. (prec. by the) supernatural forces, effects, etc.  supernaturally adv. [ibid.]

[7] transcendent adj. 1 excelling, surpassing. 2 transcending human experience. 3 (esp. of God) existing apart from, not subject to the limitations of, the material universe.  transcendence n. transcendency n. [ibid.]

Hag-ridden[1]

G'day Craigw.

You raised a few points; I'll 'deal' with two of them, then add one of my own.

-=*=-

Preamble: I don't blog for fun or fame. I consider problems; immoralities, injustices, crimes and 'the biggie,' the possible tending to ever more probable CO2-caused greedastrophe®. The hope is that by providing insights not (well if at all) highlighted by the (venal!) MSM, I and any readers may more clearly perceive reality, and go on to a better informed understanding.

I report/opine; dear reader, you decide.

1. Cross-posting at WD. I do that because I can't trust them to publish me. In the recent past they have a) not published me at all, or b) published with a day or so delay and/or c) published with their changes forced onto my text. (A result of cross-posting is that one may view a few DNPed posts, not normally possible.)

Examples of (a) are here: non sequiturs ...1936 and here: liar - a lying troll, even_1927.

An example of (b) is here: AusBC bias ...1942

An example of (c) is changing my title "only liars, thugs and trolls ..." to "only [the lonely...]" - a similar change was made in the text body.

WD claim that I was banned for abuse, I claim that that claim is nonsense. IMHO MK banned me for 'insubordination,' i.e. resisting her authority. «Margo: That's it, Phil. You're banned from this thread. You clearly don't respect my judgment, so there's no point going on with this.» I was attempting to defend myself against the unsubstantiated, untrue, not to mention unfair assertions made by a certain troll. Perusing either of the (a) posts might be enlightening.

HH claims that the AusBC is left-biased. Perusing the (b) post might be enlightening.

In addition to DNPing me for resisting WD authority, I suspect some DNPing is done to protect certain posters. Why any would need such 'protection' can only be theorised about.

2. Craigw's keywords: "convert, believe, attack, reinforce" in reference to religion. Any person prepared to believe in an entity for which science can find absolutely no evidence of existence, indeed an entity that is by definition entirely outside of both science and the universe, is also by definition outside the reach of my chosen 'weapons,' observation, logic and rational thought.

Indeed, as I attempted to show in the 'the ultimate conspiracy...' article, religion (as I have observed it, usually titled "Christianity") is toadally® arse-about; it talks about (universal) love, but it is based (almost entirely) on fear.

It is - IMHO, as usual and of course - based on the fear of death(g*d), and my reason for so bracketing, is that death-and-g*d cannot be separated vis-à-vis Christianity - again, in my observation. But you don't have to take my word for it, Pell/Jensen recently said exactly that: «Easter is the most important feast for all Christians because Good Friday and Easter Sunday represent Christianity's central claims that Jesus, the man of God, died on the cross and rose from death," he said. ... "His resurrection offers us a true and living hope."»

That is the death-agenda-monkey that Christians have had thrust into their minds, resulting in a hag-ridden, death(g*d) fearing life. Once in, the death-agenda-monkey is hard to dislodge, and then usually only by believers themselves. Some master their aroused/suppressed fears extremely well; see the Hillsong 'happy-clappers' (Displacement activities?) But no-one can argue with any'o that (i.e. irrational belief), and I simply don't try.

Penultimately, some people say "Wha'da 'bout Mother Therese?" One may cite MT as proof that religion is not all bad; believers will take the stand that religion is on balance mostly if not all good, but few acknowledge religion's role in evil. Which was one of my original points.

Conclusion. Not all religions offer an 'after-life' (Zen, perhaps); not all people are believers, and not all believers are Christian. But religion plays a dominant role in our society's 'narrative.' One could say that it is callously deployed, even shamelessly, not for good but rather to divert and pervert. The aim of diversion is to shut the sheople® up, and the perversions are multiple. Instead of a high-minded, proud and moral society, we live in one whose present functioning is deeply mired in immorality; lying, cheating, theft and murder are not just present but dominate. See murder for oil in Iraq. This is the essential hypocrisy; our so-called leaders, actually puppets of the kleptocracy®, say one thing (claiming high morals), then do another (performing criminal acts).

Basically, things could hardly be worse. (But beware the tyranny factor.)

3. War vs. peace; fair vs. foul[2]. Briefly now, as well as the usual anti-war stance, there's the efficiency angle. Blowing so much dough and resources, and blowing so much CO2 into the already endangered atmosphere, all in the name of 'defence,' when what is meant and done is murdering theft, i.e. not defence at all, but vile offence. Using "Shock'n whore®" to lay waste to an entire country's infrastructure (not to mention the uncounted, 'pink-misted,' mostly innocent 'collateral' dead) is not just immoral, not just criminal, but wickedly wasteful to boot.

The US big-notes itself as 'world leader,' whilst at the same time it's ripping the world right off. The Harvard Business School for Sharks, and especially the oil/mining sector lead the way on rip-offs. Think 'fair vs. foul,' think say one thing(moral), then do another(criminal). They preach(!?) "Greed is good" when it's just simply not; with 5% of the people, they consume 25% of the resources. The US military is the largest single oil burner/CO2 producer on the planet. They go to war to 'secure' the oil - to go to war...

Gotta stop, gotta be stopped.

-=*=-

Epilogue: Three hag-ridden themes; WD with imperfect moderation, Christians with fear, business with dishonesty; greed and crime. All together: we gotta do beddah; no more of the same!

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] hag-ridden adj. afflicted by nightmares or anxieties. [POD]

[2] foul —adj. 1 offensive; loathsome, stinking. 2 soiled, filthy. 3 colloq. disgusting, awful. 4 a noxious (foul air). b clogged, choked. 5 obscenely abusive (foul language). 6 unfair; against the rules (by fair means or foul). [ibid.]

the ultimate conspiracy...

 .. an almost (99.9'%) perfect scam[1].

-=*=-

Better don't look, but we've (almost) all been conned. The 'almost' exception is that to be conned at all requires someone to do the conning. (Shudder. Quail. As per plan... looping, already.)

One of Dawkins' suggestions in his "God Delusion," is that the g*d idea is a meme; an idea that propagates like a virus, infecting peoples' minds (as opposed to brains), and that the major (required?) route of infection is one of being passed on from parent/carer to child. I can concur with most/all of this, but I think it's more than just a random emergence; I think it's most likely to be a deliberately cultivated virus/meme, somewhat akin/analogous to a GM entity. (So what? Wait...)

-=*=-

Part 1: the 'g*d construct.'

My apprehension[2, haw!] of some g*d construct:

Something (unspecified; unspecifiable) toadally® outside of and entirely separate from the universe, including all visible and invisible parts. (Argument: the g*d construct created the lot (or so goes the claim); must be an independent, precursor entity.)

One of the most complete, most revered concepts of science, is that of 'conservation.' Simply put, nothing (matter, energy etc) may either be created or destroyed; transformations are possible but essentially: what we've got is all there is, was, and ever-more will be.

Note that any putative 'creation' event directly and totally conflicts with this conservation.

Straight away, we have a collision between science and the g*d construct. This collision is acknowledged; it is said that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any such g*d construct. (Clever, eh? More to come...)

An important corollary of the conservation 'laws' is that exactly because nothing can be either created or destroyed and any g*d construct must be separate from and outside of the universe, then it means that no information exchange (matter, energy etc) can take place between our universe and any such 'outside' entity. In plain text, (according to science) there can be no communication between any g*d and the (physical) universe, i.e. people.

Ooops!

Q: How then, can anyone possibly be aware of any such g*d construct?

A: (The fiendish invention!) We, the chosen (or so goes the claim), have a non-material, spiritual component: Ta-ra! - Enter, the immortal soul. It's this soul that can commune with some g*d construct. (I mean, daaarlings, just how neat is that?)

All problems solved; the scam is complete.

The communication of the meme is sooo easy:

(The following process is particularly effective because of an unconditional 'inbuilt' trust that immature humans automatically extend to their parents/carers.)

a) scare vulnerable/immature minds with death, then

b) promise them eternal life-after-death.

Voila! Like a charm, all finished.

-=*=-

Aside 1: if proof were needed, I offer two (unattributed) quotes:

1) one traditional:

5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

2) one recent:

Firstly, Christ did not come to make things better on earth. He said that the kingdom to which he came to lead us is not of this earth. You have to die to get "my Father's mansion".

More of these later.

-=*=-

Part 2: the universal applicability.

Once the fear of death(g*d) is acquired by (actually, pushed upon) a viable - (Haw! We're talking about death) - pushed upon a viable, self-propagating group, the problems begin. See all of history. The rot has now well and truly set in, and (contrary to my expectations) the rot is getting worse; see 'Hillsong,' say. It makes perfect - if perverse - sense; the more the world gets worse, the more people tend to flock (perfect word!) to the g*d escape.

Ignoring (for the moment) the 'born again' phenomena (the 'again' gives something away); note that for the very best effect, instilling the fear of death(g*d) is best done to vulnerable, usually immature minds. This is why Dawkins charged 'child abuse.'

Sooo, what are the applications? Well. From the 'very top,' if you're scared of death, forget it! You can have ever-lasting life. That's 'the biggie,' but there's more. Are you poor? Forget it! "The meek shall inherit the Earth." Are you being abused, ripped-off, stolen from? Forget it! "Sinners will go to Hell." Are you fatally ill? Forget it! "G*d loves you (these things are sent to try us)." You name the problem, g*d has an answer. (Smarmy, self-serving? Bet'cha!)

-=*=-

Aside 2: Wait a sec! Not everyone is a 'believer!' Correct. There are at least three more divisions 'out there' in the 'real' world. (And more religions; posit: most quite similar enough.)

(Note: I exclude from this discussion the Malthusian multitudes; as (usually) having a) no hope and b) no vote then c) they have no (effective) input.)

1) Cargo-cult consumers are being fed on diversions (and cheap Chinese junk); this group may and does contain believers, but the accent is on entertainment, as a substitute for 'real' life, say. As proof I offer any audience of the 'evil-eye' (flat panel?) TV-screen equipped 'home-entertainment' area. How does this audience look? As if soma-doped, distracted, mentally disengaged? Your eyes wide open, the audience's eyes fixed-gaze glazed? Take a good look, next time you're around some TV-addict.

As mooted; this group is believer or not, and (perhaps independently), happy or not. They are also not necessarily simply mindless consumers. The thing that uniquely identifies this group is that they are toadally unaware of the fact - or know but accept, that they are being deceived. This group is - the sheople®.

Q: What? Deceived? How?

A: By the status quo pushed-paradigm propaganda; that the world largely is as presented by Hollywood 'dreams' and the (venal!) MSM 'news;' that although, say, all politicians might lie, it is - and ever was - thus; i.e. no great harm done, and that the systems in place, whilst not perfect, are the best we're ever likely to get.

Comment: that the status quo pushed-paradigm propaganda is composed partly of filthy lies goes (almost) without saying; a perfect example is Howard's threats to the Iraqi (US-puppet) government, "Pass the oil-law or else!" To pass the oil-law would be to hand control of Iraqi oil to the (mostly US, some UK) oil-majors: i.e. completing the penultimate step in the oil-theft process.

Q: Does the (venal) MSM explain this to us, the sheople?

A: No. (Q: Why not? A: Haw!)

2) The ghostly group profiting from all'a the above; the 'movers and shakers,' the so-called (puppet!) rulers, the rip-off artistes - aka the kleptocracy®.

3) The (vanishingly?) small group not in either of the above. People who do not accept that the pushed-paradigm is anywhere near optimal; people who neither set out to, nor profit from the rip-offs. I'm definitely in this group, as you, dear reader, may well be. (Q: Or why else would you be here? A: If a troll, spy, psyop, and/or any such (criminal!) nasty: kindly P**S-OFF!) We of (3) are the truth and justice seekers; the 'honest united' (g'day and regards.)

-=*=-

Part 3: the scam.

Disclaimer: I use the word 'conspiracy,' but I will not stand to be accused of being some sort'a 'nutter.' I apply a WYSIWYG methodology; and what I see is criminal behaviour 'leading' this world. It could be, that this criminal behaviour is 'self-assembling,' that is to say not coordinated as such; more like a bunch of criminals all 'flying' in the same direction - as in a swarm of bees, say - but without any 'organising' intelligence, per se.

So. One of the big, bigger, biggest lies 'they' (the omni-present 'them,') tell us, is "Separation of Church and State." What utter and toadal BS! 'Our' parliament says prayers; it's thought that no un-believer could ever be elected US president – the intrusion of religion is ubiquitous. Here (in our allegedly secular, once beautiful wide-brown), Howard is 'at pains' to specifically remind us "... according to the Judao/Christian ethic which is meant to govern conduct in this country" and so on. The framing is set; we cannot escape.

Whether believer or not, the g*d-paradigm is deployed and the scam is this: it allows the baddies to be bad and the losers to console themselves - see the 'Aside 1' quotes. All the while, the criminal kleptocracy perpetrators laugh and laugh and laugh...

-=*=-

Part 4: where to?

The very act of writing this indicates a) that I do not accept that the status quo is (anywhere near) optimal, and b) that I do not accept the status quo as (anything like) immutable.

Without going circular; we have huge problems (general immorality, specifically lying, cheating and crime up to murder for spoil), and a lot'a those problems either involve religion (the 'believers' B, B & H and their murder for oil) or are (worse) caused by religion (Islam allegedly seeks caliphate, say). To break out'a this requires change.

So, the only way forward is in my blog's title: "¡No more of the same!"

Immorality being a large part of the problem, it's gotta be exchanged for a mutual morality.

Religion being a large part of the problem, it's gotta be a) reformed or b) ditched.

Crime being a large part of the problem, it's simply gotta be stopped.

-=*=-

One very important point must be made here. In reference to the theme 'Morality without a God,' religion is not only not needed, it is shown to be an impediment. I have attempted my own formalisation; see the chezPhil morality.

Since the prime-path to instilling the g*d-meme into vulnerable minds is by frightening poor buggers half to death - specifically by raising the spectre of death - that practice should be recognised (then forbidden forthwith) for exactly what it is, namely the previously mentioned (child) abuse. It's more than 'just' abuse, it is (or ort'a be declared) a crime: to saddle any person with the fear of death by injecting a life-long death-monkey-agenda into vulnerable, innocent minds. Living is hard enough finding out about death in good time, without having to be deliberately, knowingly scared s**tless.

-=*=-

Epilogue: Why this, why now?

Basically, because we're up s**t-creek.

Born after WW2, I grew up in the cold-war. We had the goodies (US) and the baddies (Commies.) We lived in fear of the bomb, then the wall fell down. Phew; all over...

But it wasn't at all; we're now up to 'murder for oil' in Iraq.

It turns out that it was all lies; all those 'goody' stories were the 'front' for the criminals and their developing crimes, "Shock'n whore®" (most often perpetrated by bible-bashing grunts) is nothing other than Blitzkrieg. Back at square 1.

And as if all'a that wasn't quite enough, we've got a possible CO2-caused climate-change on the way; the greedastrophe®.

The points to ponder are:

1) What is now.

2) What could be.

3) What should be.

Then, get on and fix our systems, and save our once jewel-like planet.

¡ NoMothS !

No more of the same!

-=*end*=-

PS This article prompted in part by Daniel/A CLEAR CASE OF FRAUD! Thanks and g'day.

Ref(s):

[1] scam n. US slang trick, fraud. [origin unknown] [POD]

[2] apprehension n. 1 uneasiness, dread. 2 understanding. 3 arrest, capture. [ibid.]