Q: Just how bad is GWBush?

 A: Utterly despicable - but a bit'a luck for us, we the sheople®.

-=*=-

"Wot??!" - "Lucky for us?" - "Are you mad?"

Well, 'mad' as in angry: yes, but as in 'off my trolley:' no.

A lot'a, lot'a people laugh(ed) at GWBush, his crude Texas-yokel style, tending to - when not actual - incomprehensibility. My word: pig-higorant.

It's a near-fatal error, though, to 'blame' everything on GWBush; although it's claimed that the US president is "the world's most powerful person," he is 'only' a cog in the vast machine that is Amerika. A cog close to the top perhaps, but nevertheless, still a cog.

"Won’t Get Fooled Again![1]" - Oh, yeah?

There's a lot'a, lot'a controversy about Bush#43; his initial 'election,' the very real possibility that '9/11' was a false-flag op and all the stumbles and fumbles.

Although personally inept, Bush was/is (nominal) leader of a team, the team which is the US m/i-plex[2] - whose actual leadership is found in the Pentagon and among the 'Captains' of Industry (and Finance, etc).

The point here: it is hardly credible, to the point of vanishingly tiny probability, that Bush would ever have been 'allowed' to do anything not in full accordance with the (wicked!) wishes of the whole US m/i-plex.

And the inescapable conclusion from the previous sentence is, that they are all, from the highest head-cook to the lowest bottle-washer - and including all boosters (venal MSM) and apologists (WD's filthy pro-USrael trolls, say, as accessories) - they are all equally guilty, as would be charged à la Nuremberg: "To initiate a war of aggression ... contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

So far, none'a the above is too controversial in nature, so what's with this "We should be so lucky?"

We-e-ell, apart from all'a the vicious lies deployed (False Pretenses: «President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56)[my emphasis], Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).»), the utter nakedness of the aggression and the wicked magnitude of the crimes were all too much: this time, the sheople actually noticed - an' that, despite the floods of propaganda, thanks (but "No, thanks!") to the venal MSM, including big bits'a the AusBC & SBS. Boo! Hiss!

And so, this particular member of the sheople-class, and others like me all around our once jewel-like planet, posed the following question:

"Hello-o!!? How long has all'a this shitty stuff been going on?"

And the "Shock! Horror!" answer is: a long bloody time, mate!

Too long; far too long.

And so that's why we're lucky; imperial over-reach plus hubris, liberally spiced with GWBush's ineptitude finally drew the attention of the sheople to what a dastardly, criminal 'creation' Amerika really is, always was and ever will be - unless stopped.

(If anyone is still looking for 'proof,' they clearly haven't appreciated that no-one (in their right mind) lies their way into murdering 100s of 1000s, probably over 1mio Iraqis, with 2mio extra fled and 2mio internally displaced - 'just' to steal oil. But that is exactly what Amerika set out to do. Too obvious, too criminal - and finally, a step too bloody far.)

A list of (often mass-) murdering, always criminal misdeeds has been published in William Blum's "Killing Hope". I'm a great fan of Blum and his documentation of the vile US atrocities; here's a roughly equivalent online list. (Whether complete or not, it really is a lot, and it all started long ago. Should that link not work (I like citing the apk site where I originally found it), try indopedia or whatreallyhappened).

And so, we all have'ta do our best to stop 'em, the wannabe hegemon which is the US m/i-plex, plus its illegal sprog Israel, together à la M-W: USrael, and their vast crimes - the foul, fouler, foulest - murdering for spoil.

-=*end*=-

PS It won't stop when GWBush goes; whether Dummocrat or Repugnican, the next US president will follow basically the same path, with a strike on Iran, say, a next order of business - if it doesn't get done by 'Mad George' himself. See [1]. That's why the entire juggernaut has to be stopped.

PPS As a general rule, I pay scant attention to the Murdoch rags, but a particularly stinky dog-turd (thanks) came to my notice today, found in theAus: «The odds are against a US strike on Iran under any circumstances, and I would say the odds are even against an Israeli strike. But either or both are much more likely if it looks like Obama will win.»

My comment: utter bullshit. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to enumerate just how many lies, how much ugly filth, Sheridan spews out, in just the one article.

When a certain link becomes available, a slightly different view vis-à-vis a possible attack on Iran will be posted here.

Ref(s):

[1] Prophetic last words:

«Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss»
[The Who/Won't Get Fooled Again]

[2] the US m/i-plex:

«A military-industrial complex (MIC) is composed of a nation's armed forces, its suppliers of weapons systems, supplies and services, and its civil government.

The term "MIC" is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, and the Congress and Executive branch. This sector is intrinsically prone to Principal-agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking. Cases of political corruption have also surfaced with regularity. A similar thesis was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin in his book of 1936, Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government support to heavy industry.»
[wiki/Military-industrial_complex]

The Sky Is Falling ...

 .. cried Chicken Little -

  Subtitle: but it didn't help!

-=*=-

Note the words "hysterical or mistaken belief" in the reference[1].

Note also, that "it didn't help" - to be alert or alarmed, say - because 'alert and/or alarmed' are not much good on their own: one has to do something (useful)!

Q: "But what can I do?" I hear the sheople® wail...

A: Lots; see below for f'rinstances.

-=*=-

There have been many 'Chicken Littles' down through the ages, and varying degrees of listening, hearing and/or sniggering. I will list some, and the responses/results.

1. "The commies are coming!"

Response: too many people listened.

Result: we got the ascendency of the murdering US m/i-plex.

Result: we got the 'cold war;' 1000s of A- and H-bombs, enough to destroy wo/mankind many times over.

Result: we got the Korean war, the Vietnam war and who knows what other wars, like the 'Malayan Emergency.' One may categorise each as some sort'a colonial/imperial invasion; IMHO few if any were for the liberation of, or otherwise benefit to the normal citizens.

2. "Too many people are coming!" (Club of Rome)

Response: as good as nobody listened.

Result: from 3.5 billion in 1970 we have now got 6.8bio, 'topping out' at around 9bio perhaps, before any decline is foreseen.

Apart from general apathy, the Vatican and the US have both acted against population control efforts (birth control, abortion).

-=*=-

The most frightening piece of sky threatening to fall on this observer is not a 'moral' piece ("All politicians lie!"), it's not an 'equity' piece ("The rich gorge themselves obscenely richer - while ever more poor people starve!"), it's not a 'justice' piece ("USrael mass-murdering for spoil!"); Oh no.

As important as those pieces are, there is an over-arching piece - called 'CO2-induced climate change' - which could do us all in.

All people must now listen, hear the warning - and no sniggering allowed (with thanks).

But not just listen and hear, we must all do something - useful!

Before we can see what there is that we can do, a bit more scene-setting is needed. We in our great wide-brown Aus are fortunate to live in a so-called democracy, indeed we've just had a people-powered regime-change (at last!)

I term our democracy 'so-called' because a proper democracy requires a few things we're a bit short on, namely 1) a valid choice of candidates, 2) full and frank information about both the candidates and their proposed policies, and 3) an aware and engaged electorate. To expand a bit:

1) Representatives must represent us, we the people - and not some corrupt cause, as illustrated in the current 'Gong goings-on, say.

2) The MSM, including the AusBC and SBS must be restricted to reporting the truth, that is to say no more (filthy!) propaganda.

3) The electorate, aka the sheople, must become engaged (turn those bloody TVs off!)

Well, #3 for a start is never gunna happen; it means that the TV-content itself has to be reformed. A lot less from Hollywood and Madison Ave., say - and no more lies!

-=*=-

Now we're ready to answer the above 'Q: What can I usefully do?'

1. Get informed; fight through all the filthy lies and get to the truth.

2. Go down to your representative(s), demand that s/he represents you.

Easy, when you think about it - an' I do, lots.

-=*end*=-

PS After drafting this, I thought to myself, Q: Do we have any hope? My answer is a very definite "Perhaps," but it requires - Ta Ra! NoMoreofTheSame... see what the Club of Rome had to say, over 30 years ago[2]. Can we do better than our record so far suggests?

Ref(s):

[1] «The Sky Is Falling, also known as Chicken Little, Henny Penny or Chicken Licken is an old fable about a chicken (or a hare in early versions) who believes the sky is falling. The phrase, "The sky is falling," has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. This usage is generally derogatory.

 ... In other versions the moral is usually interpreted to mean "do not believe everything you are told". In the latter case, it could well be a cautionary political tale: Chicken Little jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit.»
[wiki,fable]

[2] «If there is cause for deep concern, there is also cause for hope. Deliberately limiting growth would be difficult, but not impossible. The way to proceed is clear, and the necessary steps, although they are new ones for human society, are well within human capabilities. Man possesses, for a small moment in his history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known. He has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society--one that would be built to last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to the equilibrium society and the human will to achieve that goal. Without such a goal and a commitment to it[my emphasis], short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.»
[Club of Rome, ibid.]

Howard's End

 Subtitle: an extinction vortex

-=*=-

I just reviewed the transcript of Liz Jackson's 4C: "Howard's End."

Here are the quick notes that I made:

1. Of some 7000 words, Iraq was not mentioned at all.

2. Moral was mentioned just the once (see next & Howard[1]).

3. Kyoto was mentioned but only by Liz; Costello lied[2].

4. Perhaps the 'best' statement came from Hockey[3].

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] JOHN HOWARD: Do we need to lower carbon emissions over time? Of course we do. But to say that climate change is the overwhelming moral challenge for this generation of Australians is misguided at best and misleading at worst...

My comment: If anything, this shows just how far out'a touch Howard was/is. No environment = no future; the 'precautionary principle' says (paraphrased): "Never foul your own nest!" - But that's exactly what burning fossil fuel beyond the planet's ability to absorb the resulting CO2 is all about.

[2] PETER COSTELLO: Well I think people would have listened to what we were doing, which was quite substantive, on climate change if we had have ratified it. By meeting the target, we were meeting what our obligation would have been anyway.

My comment: Again out'a touch but also (effectively) a lie; 'our' Kyoto target was worse than a cop-out, it had been an act of blackmail by the Howard government and AFAIK the target - which was an increase, when all others were to decrease - was exceeded anyway, as the Howard government did as good as nothing (effective) vis-à-vis climate change.

[3] JOE HOCKEY: That was his decision. I suppose I was disappointed, very disappointed that the Prime Minister had always said that he would only stay so long as it was in the best interest of the Liberal Party and whilst his colleagues wanted him. And the formula changed, and he changed the formula.

My comment: it was all "Me, me, me!" from Howard, a party of one, as Bob Wall aptly put it.

-=*=-

Caution: Before anyone thinks to hurl "Howard hater!" register this: the 'hate meme' comes from the right; it is an accusation invented by right-wing think-tanks or the Israel Lobby (as documented by M-W) or both or some other filthy malefactors or all those together. I do not hate people, nor is it a feature of 'the left' to so hate. What I do hate, however (with a mad and purple passion), are the crimes which Howard 'led' our country into, the 'best' (of course, the worst) example being the illegal invasion now turned brutal occupation of Iraq, premised on the eventual theft of most if not all Iraq's oil; aka criminal mass-murder for spoil.

Important comment: the so-called mineral-boom is mainly a swindle; we the people are being robbed blind. Although nominally 'ours,' the great bulk of the income derived from mining is landing in the pockets of the mining entities. In the absence of a strict resource-rent tax (required by equity/justice), the after-tax profit (as fiddled by slimy accountancy practices and such wastage as flying labourers around wholesale), the fat super-profit goes not to we the people, the actual owners of the very ground the bonanza is being ripped from, but to some nebulous shareholders somewhere who may or may not even retain the dough in our wide-brown. Most of the 'good times' of the Howard era came from 'trickle-down' wages, plus 'cheap' imports - not actually cheap, better to say 'less expensive;' with the pollution as well as the jobs having mainly been exported. In a nutshell, the profits from the mineral-boom should be being applied to building infrastructure such as roads and railways for the people; instead we'll be left with nothing much more than yawningly empty holes.

My final comment: The Howard era was 'black,' a smear on our history. The man himself is a swindle; promising once "For all of us" when, like Bob implies, the subtext was always "But only if you're exactly like me, John W. Howard." There was always a sub-text, because that's how Howard lied.

But not 'just' a swindle; he was a shaman and an hypnotist who could make people 'believe,' as (once) did the 'battlers.' But no more; somehow they, the battlers (aka sheople®) twigged. Perhaps the fear of "Serf-Choices" snapped them out'a their TV-induced coma. After that, it was all downhill - into the extinction vortex. It wasn't just the battlers who were caught in Howard's hypnotic headlights, it was the party faithful, and the parliamentarians most of all. They hardly twitched, as they fell after him into his (electoral) grave. As Liz's 4C showed.

Why extinction vortex? Because of Howard's "Me, me, me!" there was no (effective) forward planning. As Menzies planned Holt, say. And, also as the program showed, both with and without Howard, the party faithful and the parliamentarians, as the sheople, saw no future - with the Liberals.

Correctly.

locks are only useful ...

.. to keep the honest out.

Subtitle: When webdiary bans someone, they stay banned, no?

-=*=-

C Parsons submitted his/her last post to webdiary:

«New problem for "peace" activists looming...
Submitted by C Parsons on June 9, 2007 - 10:23am»

Oddly enough, the very next post published was this:

«What a shame
Submitted by Margo Kingston on June 9, 2007 - 12:44pm.
Hello. I've just caught up on the action and am deeply sorry Craig and Richard have left us...»

[Of course they both came back - but not C Parsons, because...]

«Joe Lieberman is irrelevant I think
Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on June 12, 2007 - 12:25pm.»

Funny, Eh? Hardly 3 days between 'em - actually more like 2, when actual publication delays are included.

But what's this?

«Contingent reinforcement
Submitted by Fiona Reynolds on February 11, 2008 - 4:47pm.
We moderators have been somewhat perplexed over the past few weeks, Eliot. ... However, your usual pattern of "remorseless ridicule" is both offensive and tedious.

See you on St Patrick's Day.»

Eliot is suspended for 5 weeks. Didn't last, look here:

«Danger in misreading the Nazi experience
Submitted by Pauline P Kennedy on February 16, 2008 - 3:21pm.»

.. then here:

«Standards
Submitted by Pauline P Kennedy on February 16, 2008 - 3:42pm.»

.. and here:

«Here's to the future
Submitted by Pauline P Kennedy on February 16, 2008 - 3:47pm.»

.. finally (for the moment):

«Speaking as a Kennedy myself
Submitted by Pauline P Kennedy on February 18, 2008 - 9:42am.»

The 1st includes a long screed on Hitler, one'a C Parsons' favourite topics.

The latest includes a misleading reference to "The Guardian" but more interesting, a reference to an "indymedia" site; go to the link, scroll to the 1st comment... Ta Ra!

«Troubling times ahead for China
Posted by: Eliot Ramsey at Feb 14, 2008 17:42»

Note that the 1st three were submitted in a tight group, but didn't become 'visible' (i.e. released by the moderators) until sometime in the hour before Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:29:51.

The 1st three posts were 'in limbo' for some 29 hours, presumably until "Pauline P Kennedy" was accepted as a 'genuine' name, à la WD's wont.

But I wonder. Is Eliot being 'set up' by Pauline?

Is Pauline actually Eliot?

Russian dolls:

Is Eliot actually Chris Parsons, aka C Parsons?

Is C Parsons actually spinifex - who infested indymedia?

IMHO, "Yes" to all. So much, once again, for WD's so-called 'ethics.'

-=*=-

A comment:

«"S/he's a walkin' talkin' Russian doll;" apologies to Sir Cliff.»

Another comment:

Q: Why does it matter? A: Because fake-IDs are lies, and 'goodies' don't lie. But worse/worser/worst: spinifex/C Parsons/Eliot Ramsey/Pauline P Kennedy is on the wrong side, aka the 'dark side;' s/he supports the filthily criminal mass-murdering for spoil USrael m/i-plex.

dealing with criminals (Bravo webdiary!)

Subtitle: adversaries, opponents, enemies?

Pre-emption: for those only curious as to why "Bravo webdiary!" you could check my 8:00 PM comments over at Damian's.

Preamble: I never expected to use the word enemy. Although I had heard the expression "All's fair in love and war," I had a rosy view of love - but because I also had heard "True love never runs smooth," I expected to have to work a bit. And not just BTW, as "Money can't buy me love," I haven't suffered too much for the lack of a large fortune. As for war, I thought that it had been banished (by the UN, say) after WW2, except for the (supposedly(!!?)) brave Israelis battling for what was (allegedly(!!?)) rightly theirs.

Wrong, of course; not about love ("Everything in that garden is rosy;" well mostly, and speaking for myself (who else?)) - but I was wrong about war. Toadally® wrong. Not only is the UN corrupt (more correctly corrupted; there's a vast difference), but war never went away, and as for Israel, almost nothing is rightly theirs.

How does anything of this have anything to do with webdiary? Well, webdiary is a place supposedly safe for the 'wo/men in the street' to discuss anything they choose, and since I see the survival of wo/mankind as an absolute priority, webdiary was the place I chose to argue for our once jewel-like planet's environmental survival. Wrong again; not about my priorities, but about "safety."

No place is "safe" if you get tossed out, when your single "failing" may be merely the intolerance of fools. I'll take this up again in a moment, but complete one bit of logic here: war/survival. As all should know by now, the biggest threat to our survival is the CO2-induced climate catastrophe, the threat of which becomes ever more surer as 'business as usual' burns ever more carbon, and the biggest driver of this 'business as usual' being the rapacious appetites of the US (5% world's pop. but 25% of resource consumption/squandering), followed closely by the rest of the 6.8bio (topping-out at around 9bio, perhaps) sheople® in their stampede to catch up - or at least watch it all (Hollywood perversions sold by Madison Ave) on wide flat-screen TVs everywhere.

The ('Great Satan') US had the choice after WW2, to enjoy a peace dividend. They chose instead to go to (permanent(!!?)) war - to ensure their toadally unfair, obscene fat-cat 'share.' Proto-Israelis had less choice; they, forerunners of the modern I/J/Z-plex, were dedicated to stealing a 'homeland' by force - instead of buying one, like all the rest of us. That is no sort'a 'business,' it's simply, outright criminal.

The US makes war for at least three reasons, 1) to steal resources, 2) because they can and 3) because it's 'good business.' For reason (3), they need enemies, and should there occur a lack, they manufacture one or more. The Israelis are their own worst enemies; they just can't stop killing/stealing for land and water, following US reason (1). More on enemies below.

So we have the current crisis; the US armed to the teeth and murdering at will to rip-off spoil wherever it wants, with partner in crime Israel doing the same to the (previous) legal owners of (ex-) Palestine and their neighbours, trying to steal as much land & water as they can. And the reason USrael gets away with any/all of this is that as well as dreams - or rather as a continuous sub-text to dreams, Hollywood & Madison Ave via - and with active assist from - the venal MSM (i.e. main-stream media: TV, radio & print but mostly TV including big bits'a the AusBC & SBS), this multi-media armada impresses filthy lies aka propaganda onto the poor, only dimly-aware sheople.

We can partly summarise this world-picture by saying that various extreme criminals are obscuring their crimes of mass-murdering theft by deploying a vast web of lies, and we can easily verify this picture by 'turning the sound off,' i.e. looking to see what is really going on (illegal invasion of Iraq, say, turned to equally brutal occupation, premised on oil-theft; the 60+ year murder-spree by the I/J/Z-plex in ex-Palestine), and then seeing how this is reported via the corrupt MSM. Not what anyone would call a pretty picture. When what they say (noble claims) differs from what they do (criminal acts) then cognitive dissonance may arise in observers; the perpetrators are said to be hypocrites.

This, then, is our situation, a world being driven towards ruin by out'a control power-élites[1], who attempt to 'support' their actions by spinning lies only marginally less vicious than their actual modus operandi of mass-murdering theft.

We come then - Ta Ra! - finally, to the question on everyone's lips: how to deal with such criminals and in particular, their boosters and apologists?

It seems to me that we need a moral revival, but *not* of any religious sort, in fact the exact opposite. I have tried to write down my own secular version; see my formalisation the chezPhil morality. It's not too hard without being simplistic; the 'basic' crimes being lying, cheating, theft and murder. Without getting 'hung up' on any religious questions, I propose, as a necessary 1st step towards eliminating crime, the recognition of lies wherever they occur. It means examination of all inputs, analysis then notification, with reversion to truth as the natural goal. If the AusBC or SBS broadcasts propaganda (and they do(!!?)), contact them and object. Strenuously. After all, its our dough they exist on.

-=*=-

Philosophical interlude: In the application of the chezPhil pedagogy, "Get something (useful) to do!" plays a prominent and active part. This highlights the difference between a pastime and a profession; a pastime may be considered to be a (more or less structured) way to while away the hours (waiting for Godot, say), while a profession is most often applied to getting something (useful) done. Therefore note, that whereas (idle) complaining is one of the great English pastimes, constructive complaining as a prelude to developing practical fixes is a more proper, aka professional approach. Then, recalling Lakoff's ("Don't think of an elephant") framing, note that "Conspiracy theorist" is a (framing) concept conceived in right-wing think-tanks and deployed by thoroughly nasty NeoCon types as some sort'a condemnation, but that my report of the world run by criminal power-élites is a directly observable, fact-based description of an actual conspiracy - as opposed to any sort'a theoretical construct.

-=*=-

Just in time to support my call for secularism, here is a report just in:

«The results showed that it doesn't matter what you believe in, but if you believe in something, have faith in something, it means you're more likely to forgive ...»

[Forgiveness has God on its side]

But why forgiveness? Don't we favour "Prevention is better than cure?"

Clearly, justice delayed is justice denied, and religion 'passes on' the responsibility to another (non-existent(!!?)) power, in another (after death(!!?)) time. What utter poppycock!

And just in time to support my description of an actual conspiracy, here is another report just in:

«It is already clear that a vote for McCain is a vote for a permanent American imperial presence in the Middle East. (In the short term, it is a vote for war with Iran.) ...»

[David Bromwich/Next Year in Iraq]

It's not to be avoided by voting Dems, of course; almost without exception, each candidate screeches "All options on the table!" louder that the next, from whichever 'side.'

-=*=-

Returning, then to "Bravo webdiary!"

I have a topic here, called "imbecilic interference." What to do? As we have seen, in a previously documented encounter, WD lent its support to the imbecile, leading to my eventual exit. That particular imbecile is still there, but freshly, another (even longer term) imbecile has been suspended for 5 weeks, thus the "Bravo!"

I have another topic here, called "accessory." Of course, it's not my concept, but it states that anyone lending support to a criminal (act) makes him/herself criminal as well, by association. It's usually phrased as "accessory before/during/after some (criminal) act."

Now webdiary sets out to provide a 'safe haven' for diverse opinions. That maybe so, but what of 'opinion' which contradicts observable fact? What of 'opinion' which detours or derails discussions, distracting in general? What of trolls?

The particular imbecilic interferers, one of whom is now suspended, the other still raging, are very decidedly trolls. By trolling on the 'side' of the status quo, they are trolling on the 'side' of criminals. By their actions, they make themselves accessories before/during/after criminal acts.

What webdiary status, then, when webdiary tolerates, even favours, such criminal-accessory trolls?

-=*end*=-

Wha'da 'bout more on enemies? Lies and liars are enemy #1. If the sheople were enabled to see the truth, and followed up with effective calls for justice, criminality and war may well become impossible.

It's a mighty big IF.

Ref(s):

[1] This popular expression, i.e. power-élites, is a perversion of the meaning, for there is nothing at all 'élite' about criminals.

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]

some of my 'best' friends are ...

.. [negative attribute[1]] (but they're not really my best).

Subtitle: The webdiary problem bis[2]; the place some of us assumed to be a solution - but sadly is not.

Preamble: As is my wont, this piece is long-winded - for the purpose of being as free-standing as possible.

-=*=-

"Ah have a dream ..."

Not every Amerikan is a s**t, nor is what some of them say all s**t.

But in a (so-called) democracy, everyone is held responsible for their government - and what that government does, as in when we the anti-wars tried saying "Not in our name!" - and were contradicted by the (filthy) pro-wars (amongst others); but this much must be clear:

a) IF we have a true democracy THEN we are responsible

b) OR we do not have any sort'a democracy, except 'sham.'

A quick reminder of some things prerequisite to a true democracy:

1) an aware and engaged electorate

2) full, frank and accurate information

3) a fair and varied choice of candidates

4) (should be assumed) a fair electoral process.

Some of these will be elaborated upon below, but one point is to be emphasised: Aussies and Poms are held responsible for their (government's) actions, and the US and Israel, combined à la M-W as USrael, are to be held responsible for their crimes - which are many and vicious, of sufficient notoriety in fact, to qualify USrael as a notional 4th Reich.

-=*=-

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." but as in an old joke, webdiary holds some to be more equal than others. (Hiss! - But no sour grapes, Oh no!) More equal than others is 'just' anti-democratic - and anti free speech, to boot. A minimum of true names will receive mention; although Voltaire's (misquoted) idea of free speech may be a bit extreme, one of the webdiary ideas is 'a safe place for all opinion;' too bad they failed, and continue to fail.

My stance: Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one (sorry if that's Ameri-speak, spit!) - and they are largely indistinguishable. What're far more important are facts - and above facts, results.

The facts of importance are at least three:

1) the USrael 4th Reich is committing crimes on an almost incomprehensibly vast and despicable scale

2) these crimes are (largely) hidden by the lying, corrupt and venal MSM (including big bits'a the AusBC & SBS; boo!)

3) and apart from the direct human suffering caused by these heinous crimes, the process is thought (99.9% probability) to be crippling our planet's ability to support (human, let alone any/all) life.

I see the responsibility of all honest wo/men to endeavour to eliminate all USraeli crime, and as a corollary, I regard any not so disposed to exposing/eliminating these crimes to be a) 'enemy' and b) worse, themselves criminal, as defined by the 'accessory'[4] concept.

The sought-for result would be truth and justice for all, in the absence of all USraeli crime [see footnote^].

-=*=-

So now, having established 'the big picture,' we come to 'the crunch.'

Before being so rudely interrupted, I wrote in a WD post (paraphrased):

"The time for all discussion is over; we have to move to (effective) action."

Up until that point, a loose coalition, who may be termed 'the honest united,' had been working solidly away, and had succeeded in ridding WD of most of the (criminal!) anti-progress elements, and other anti-thought types (pro-religious, say) were successfully being discouraged. Note that the vanquished or disgruntled or both did not have their opinions blocked, only successfully countered. Some managed to get themselves banned (but not announcedly so, one of several occurrences of "more equal than others.")

Some sort'a coordinated 'putsch'[5] was mounted (I 'believe'[6] less and less in coincidence), with the result that most'a the 'baddies' came back, either under their usual names or as slimy, dishonest 'constructs'. All this has been documented. The result is as obvious as it is lamentable, see for example Damian's post here (g'day).

Damian mentions Kingston herself, the brother Alcorn but Roffey must also be included, as collectively being those 'in control' and presumably 'responsible' for allowing/favouring/encouraging(!!?) Damian's termed 'right-wing' elements, although the moderators cannot avoid some responsibility themselves, under the Nuremberg (non!) defence: "I was only taking orders!" Sorry fellas (ladies?); doesn't wash.

The 'name' of a prime 'right-wing' offender is mentioned, namely Eliot Ramsey, s/he is only one of several malefactors (previous 'names' used by Ramsey having been C Parsons and the earlier spinifex (how droll: "spin effects"), also in other forums. But who cares; what's in a name?

Note (also to Daniel): left/right should (rightly!) be abandoned; far more important is right/wrong, or better truth seekers vs. liars, justice seekers vs. criminals. The vast human majority is not criminal (psychopathic) - the real question must be put: why do we (the sheople®) accept being 'ruled' and simultaneously ripped-off by these obscenely fat-cat psychopaths?

Nevertheless, one real/pseudo name must be mentioned, namely David Davis/Harry Heidelberg. This turd provided a home away from home for webdiary reject/refugees, it was (still is?) a place where webdiary was roundly cursed. HH: "I'll never go back!" - but he did, and he 'led' lots'a his 'disciples' back with him (and yes, HH does have a 'g*d'-complex). Good one, Harr'ä!

-=*=-

Since the putsch and my exit (who cares if the two are related or not) - but as I've said, unlikely not to have been merely coincidental, Ramsey and other such utter s**ts have come to dominate the discourse more and more, with at least one effect as obvious as it is dreadful: any thoughts of effective action, let alone any action at all, have evaporated from discussion in webdiary. Mission accomplished - for the baddies, but not just: actively assisted by webdiary management/staff themselves.

Good one, fellas (ladies?)

Webdiary is seen to serve the powers of darkness.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] attribute

(stress on the first syllable)

1 he has all the attributes of a top midfield player
QUALITY, feature, characteristic, trait, element, aspect, property, hallmark, mark, distinction, sign, telltale sign, sure sign; idiosyncrasy, peculiarity, quirk.

2 the hourglass was depicted as the attribute of Father Time
SYMBOL, indicator, mark, sign, hallmark, trademark, status symbol. [Oxford Pop-up]

[2] bis
adverb Music (as a direction) again.
ORIGIN via French and Italian from Latin, literally twice [ibid.]

[3] sham
—v. (-mm-) 1 feign, pretend. 2 pretend to be. —n. 1 imposture, pretence. 2 bogus or false person or thing. —adj. pretended, counterfeit. [origin unknown] [POD]

[4] accessory
n. (pl. -ies) 1 additional or extra thing. 2 (usu. in pl.) small attachment, fitting, or subsidiary item of dress (e.g. shoes, gloves). 3 (often foll. by to) person who abets or is privy to an (esp. illegal) act. [medieval Latin: related to *accede] [ibid.]

[5] putsch
n. attempt at political revolution; violent uprising. [Swiss German] [ibid.]

[6] 'believe,' word used advisedly, since it is tainted by religious overtones; religion itself being a crime against humanity. Why that, you might ask? Simply this: religion, and any conceptual 'g*d(s)' so attached, are imaginary constructs without a single shred of substantiative evidence. Instilling any religious concept into an immature mind, i.e. children's, amounts to a most vicious form of child abuse.

[^Footnote]: USraeli crimes are not restricted to 'war' crimes, such as brutally invading countries then continuing the vile and criminal murdering as occupiers, all to enable the theft of resources (oil, 'coltan' etc), land and water - Oh, no! The military crimes may be considered to be only the tip of a very large (and filthy!) iceberg; the 'rest' of the crimes concern the modus operandi of (largely) US business à la the Harvard Business School (for Sharks) model vis-à-vis resources, say, as documented by Perkins' "Economic hit man" (a new follow-up is Hiatt's "A game as old as empire"). One only needs to examine the Aussie 'resource-boom' to see this in operation. Our wide-brown is having its riches ripped out as we are being ripped-off; apart from wages, we the people (or 'we the sheople®' when not paying proper attention) are getting as little as a miserly 30% of the profits, after all dirty-accountancy pre-tax rip-offs, natch. I invite you to imagine that: already obscenely fat-cat capitalists are 'walking off' with the vast bulk of our natural resource riches; soon all we'll be left with is yawningly empty holes - and equally empty wallets. Just why that? Wake up, sheople!

[cross post attempt failed]

public warning re: webdiary

Subtitle: vorsicht, fools (some criminal) at 'work.'

Preamble: the following may well be 'the long way around;' that is both my prerogative and pleasure. As to any "Why?" I would simply answer "Because," and then add that I am possessed of a morality which decries all lies and calls for justice via truth.

-=*=-

I arbitrarily date my history from the 1945 US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which I regard as purely criminal acts (as distinct, say, from 'war' crimes). Others (like William Blum) mention the US 'annexation' of Hawaii in 1893; here is a good summary of 'the lot' (whether complete or not, it really is 'a lot.' Should that link not work (I like citing the apk where I originally found it), try indopedia or whatreallyhappened). My point: although not generally regarded as a mostly criminal enterprise (up to and including cold-blooded mass-murder for spoil), that the US is so criminal should not be up for any sort'a 'debate,' the documentation being compelling. I maintain that facts are not subject to debate; anyone 'pushing' such a (fake!) debate is on a fool's errand.

For the title of 'world's most immoral,' the US has only one serious rival, namely Israel. As accomplices, boosters and accessories before, during and after the fact, the UK and Aus stand out (it remains to be seen if the recent regime-change in Canberra is as ineffective as the Blair->Brown one was in the overall US relationship scheme of things.) That is not to ignore others, say Germany, France or Japan; one wonders why any would accept the US criminal behaviour or have any dealings with the US at all, unless self-corrupt or coerced.

To extend my preamble, "Why does any of this matter?" can be answered with "Because the system is broken;" the system which may appear to be functioning 'as is' is in fact wrecking our once jewel-like planet, whilst criminally swindling the vast majority of us - we the people, or 'we the sheople®' when not paying proper attention - swindling us to further enrich an already obscenely wealthy few. This 'functioning as is' appearance is maintained mostly via the machinations of a corrupt MSM (i.e. main-stream media: TV, radio & print but mostly TV including big bits'a the AusBC & SBS); how they coordinate is a mystery (to me, at least). Thanks (but "No, thanks!") to GWBush&Co and their filthy invasion of Iraq now turned brutal occupation, each more criminally murderous than the other, my eyes were opened to these world's most immoral operations and my once-preferred vehicle for saying so was webdiary. I assumed a mature and aware audience and expected a 'fair shake,' both from that audience and webdiary itself, seeing them as 'honest brokers.' Sadly, not so.

-=*=-

Some of the worst problems occur when expectations are disappointed; one need only consider divorce, say. In this respect, one may consider this piece as resulting from my 'divorce' from webdiary (believe me; I'm happy to be out). One disappointment was the discovery that webdiary was partly populated by 'black-hats,' some cleverer than others and some, like the US/Israel, outright criminal in intent (if not, as in the US/Israel case, actual practice). Black-hats' names no longer matter (some previously mentioned by me), and some of them known to be false, despite webdiary so-called requirements/ethics. As well as 'black-hats' in the audience, I encountered problems with webdiary moderation. The most memorable encounter (apart from the terminal one) was the dialectic dilettante/cabal episode. Details here also no longer matter, but the exposed problem does (which is corrupt moderation), in that instance against me and in favour of the I/J/Z-plex.

As any other disgruntled type, I could possibly be accused of 'sour grapes;' any such accusation would be summarily rejected. I have recently returned from an exceedingly pleasant holiday (over 230,000 vertical metres skied, predominantly 'black') and in my optimism, I tried reading a bit of the recent stuff over at webdiary - but was utterly aghast to see the interactions with the same-old same-old criminal-intent black-hats. And sadly, some highly respected white-hats continue to stoop to engage the blacks. The blacks, in turn, are allowed/encouraged/protected(!!?) by webdiary management/moderators. Boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

And so to my public warning. Fazit[1]: forewarned is forearmed; debating criminals is pointless. Further, just like watching some Hollywood film and deluding yourself by thinking "I'm OK; it's only a movie," reading corrupt material may (and most probably will) corrupt the reader. Even further, attempting to debate criminals only lends them credibility.

There should never be debating with criminals, they belong in gaol. As do any/all aiders and abettors.

-=*end*=-

PS Friendly message, boys: face it, you(we) are dealing with deception and dishonesty when not outright criminality. As such, 'the enemy' are by definition liars, possibly criminal[2] and probably psychopathic[3]. And so as crooked as they are, you can't score points let alone 'win' since their 'rules' (if they have any at all) are quite different to yours. Dealing with them in any way is also most likely to be furthering their evil agenda, why else are they there?

Ref(s):

[1] Fazit, previously misspelt by me as 'facit.' From German, my intention is 'a final summary.'

[2] criminal

Ønoun
she struck up a friendship with a convicted criminal
LAWBREAKER, offender, villain, delinquent, malefactor, culprit, wrongdoer, transgressor, sinner; young offender, juvenile delinquent; felon, thief, robber, armed robber, burglar, housebreaker, shoplifter, mugger, fraudster, swindler, racketeer, gunman, gangster, outlaw, bandit, terrorist, rapist; (in Japan) yakuza; informal crook, con, jailbird, (old) lag, lifer, baddie; N. Amer. informal yardbird, yegg; Austral. informal crim; S. African informal lighty; W. Indian informal tief; Brit. rhyming slang tea leaf; informal, dated cracksman; law malfeasant, misfeasor, infractor; archaic miscreant, trespasser, trusty, transport; rare peculator, defalcator.
-opposite(s): LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN.

Øadjective
1 they were found guilty of criminal conduct
UNLAWFUL, illegal, illicit, illegitimate, lawbreaking, lawless, felonious, delinquent, culpable, villainous, nefarious, corrupt, fraudulent; indictable, punishable, actionable, unauthorized, unsanctioned, outlawed, banned, forbidden, interdicted, proscribed; wrong, bad, evil, wicked, iniquitous; informal crooked, shady, dirty; Brit. informal bent, dodgy; law malfeasant.
-opposite(s): LAWFUL.

2 (informal) closing the railway would be criminal folly
DEPLORABLE, preposterous, shameful, reprehensible, disgraceful, inexcusable, unforgivable, unpardonable, unacceptable; senseless, foolish, ridiculous, outrageous, monstrous, shocking, scandalous; wicked, sinful, immoral, iniquitous; rare egregious.
-opposite(s): COMMENDABLE.

[New Oxford Thesaurus of English]

[3] psychopath
noun a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
DERIVATIVES
psychopathic adjective
psychopathically adverb.

[The NEW OXFORD Dictionary
OF ENGLISH]