$5(+1)mio lawsuit against Webdiary announced ...

 .. for allowing slander, libel, knowingly lying and general dishonesty, aka deliberately violating their own self-asserted ethics - boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Based on the new evidence provided on the Road to the Tropics_2366 thread, for perhaps the 1st time clearly and unambiguously documenting deliberate Webdiary malfeasance, I can now initiate legal proceedings against the Webdiary company *and* associated individuals. No company structure should protect these people, each of them knowingly transgressed against their own self-touted ethics, ignoring all reasonable appeals for truth and justice; each jointly and separately allowed the publishing of filthily lying, slanderous and libellous comments, specifically issuing from the cyber-entity known as the Morrella troll.

1. Against Webdiary itself: $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

2. Against Margo Kingston:  $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

3. Against David Roffey:    $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

4. Against Fiona Reynolds:  $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

5. Against Richard Tonkin:  $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

6. Against David Davis:     $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages - for his conspiracy/collusion in the Morrella troll deployment.

Morrella himself, as an alleged 99.9% confidence fraudulent cyber-entity (see my comparison between the Morrella cyber-entity and a certain Jay White), is thought to be beyond reach - unless his/her true name and address can be ascertained. A special mention must be made of Hamish Alcorn, although largely 'invisible' during the Morrella dramas, nevertheless he may have been involved.

One very real problem here, is that when an entity, a person, a company is known to have perpetrated any single criminal act, they can never thereafter be trusted. It's one thing to have a CWA-style Kaffeeklatsch, another thing entirely to publish untrue, damaging slurs.

At the very latest, Webdiary should'a pulled the plug on Morrella after s/he submitted his Jayson Blair libel against me.

-=*=-

I came to Webdiary in the face of the US (+UK & Aus etc.) *threat* of the "Shockin' whore" illegal invasion of Iraq, that threat was then actualised and has now been morphed into an indefinite, brutal occupation, each more criminally murdering than the other. The US object: possibly to help the (equally criminal!) Zionist's desire for a "Greater Israel," and to make the war pay for itself (over and over; estimated potential 'haul' now over $US27trio) - by stealing (even if 'only' control over) Iraq's 'patrimony,' i.e. murder for oil.

I came to Webdiary in protest against those filthy threats then being made, in the hope of uniting with similar minded people and moving towards stopping the US (+UK & Aus etc.) in their tracks. The general appeal back then is the same as now, namely for justice via truth. We know how our appeals to Howard turned out: he called us a mob, then totally ignored us all, we the (sovereign voter) sheople®.

One of the greatest shocks, deepest disappointments, was after the arrival of the lying Morrella troll just over one year ago, of having Webdiary itself turn on me.

This is, of course, no Darlinghurst courtroom. Any evidence I cared to present is other-where on this site (ancient history perhaps - but should I forget that I've been wronged?) - but look at just these few bits from Fiona Reynolds:

« ... and (2) all such moderators have received varying levels of threats during that period.»

My comment: interesting admission, to the best of my knowledge until today strenuously denied. Is not such a denial a lie?

See [1], then Reynolds:

«Incorrect, and fallacious ... nothing more to be said.»

My comment: Oh, really? Is there a statute of limitations on perfidy? By not specifically addressing Rowley's citing of "the [WD] special deal made to allow the ridiculer his pseudonymity," Reynolds gives tacit agreement that there was such a 'deal' - again, to the best of my knowledge until today strenuously denied. Is not such a denial a lie?

Some comments from another thread moved here[2,3].

Get this: ... given that we know that he knows that we know...

The prosecution rests.

Seems there are lies, damned lies - and WD-lies.

We can be reasonably assured that every criminal on the planet thinks that the crimes s/he perpetrates are acceptable (but only to themselves, natch) - but no crime against me will ever be forgiven. Webdiary jointly and severally allowed slander and libel against me, and in cases have slandered me themselves. This is cyber-crime of the 1st water writ large, and should not be allowed to go unpunished ...

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] Craig Rowley's query:

«Indeed, as one or two of you have acknowledged over time that very point about the special deal made to allow the ridiculer his pseudonymity (which is a deal it seems I cannot mention for fear of censorship), with no answer to my question I simply cannot comprehend how what's been done reflects WD Ethics.»

Fiona Reynolds response:
«Incorrect, and fallacious. IF one takes the position that (original) identity A is the same as (now) identity B, one cannot assume that identity B is the pseudonymous identity. It’s equally plausible that identity A may have been the pseudonym, and if as appears to be the case identity B is that individual’s true identity (insofar as it is possible for us to check), there is nothing more to be said.»

Repeat: Seems there are lies, damned lies - and WD-lies.

[2] justice_via_truth 11:34 said...

IF identity-A (C Parsons) = identity-B (Eliot Ramsey) (*IT DOES*) THEN either -A is false AND/OR -B is false. there's just no way out of it. It means that either -A or -B (most likely both) are undeclared pseudonyms, which WD has eternally denied, both implicitly and explicitly - and MK has gone so far as to forbid any further mention of such. As DR did on the 'map-wiping meme.' Each of these events, the deploying of an undeclared pseudonym, lying about it, or making any 'forbid' ruling and then later allowing exactly that, are all ethical breaches and border on, if not actually embrace, criminality.

Convicted. Self-convicted; CP/ER, MK, DR and the rest, your honour. Which (your putative collective honour) was obliterated then, is now and will so be for all time, the whole lying lot'a ys. Crimes do not expire - 'settled long ago' is pure BS, aka wishful thinking.

Even if we were to accept the not so veiled attempted wriggle-out "if as appears to be the case identity B is that individual's true identity (insofar as it is possible for us to check)," that still leaves C Parsons as a long term liar. Reynolds dances on the head of a pin. Liar is as liar does. No credibility. No honour. No *ethics.*

[3] justice_via_truth 12:17 said...

Addendum: WD lying then trying to wriggle-out is, of course, not the real problem.

The real problem is two: a) the lying trolls, and b) WD's not just tolerance but active encouragement of same, whilst failing to protect honest commentator troll-targets.

It is a troll's function to destroy (truth) and distract (from any attempting remedial action, say.)

Both the Parsons/Ramsey and Morrella entities do exactly that; they endlessly reprise the 'standard,' lying pushed-paradigm propaganda, and it is they and all their ilk's speciality to 'hook' honest commentators.

If we speak of fallacies, we can inspect this dirty, dishonest trick: Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly.

That's what's referred to by 'remorseless ridicule,' say. But the lying, offensively insulting Morrella tops Parsons/Ramsey at every turn. And WD calls all that 'safe debating,' 'robust contesting of ideas;' I call it a travesty. A dishonest travesty, to boot.

[cross posted]

a Morrella-ty play ...

 .. no honesty, no honour - and no progress

  subtitle: greedastrophe®: is that what we really want?

-=*=-

Preamble:

It gives me little pleasure to say "S/he is wrong!"

(Note: 'little' is not none. Haw!)

I am a truth-seeker - but not 'only;' I seek justice[1] via truth.

Note 'justness, fairness;' as in "Fair go, ya mug!"

My primary thesis is "Things are crook; we gotta do bedda!"

Which is why this blog-title is:

¡ NoMothS !

No more of the same!

-=*=-

Dramatis personae:

Margo Kingston: a tyrant - but 'our' tyrant.

David Roffey: the BANJO man; self-titled, for acting without thinking.

Hamish Alcorn: a dialectic dilettante.

Fiona Reynolds & Richard Tonkin: general factotums.

Paul Morrella: a filthily lying troll.

C Parsons/Eliot Ramsey: only s/he knows[2]?

Geoff Pahoff: a rabid, right-wing arch-Zionist. Makes threats of violence.

Alan Curran: not quite who he says he is.

Jenny Hume: a nutter hypocrite[3]. (Ooops! Sorry - but not too sorry: an utter hypocrite.)

(Anyone feeling insufficiently insulted may complain, anyone omitted may apply for redress.)

-=*=-

The scene: "Things are crook in Tallarook" is a catchphrase for any adverse situation. And Oh, boy - is our situation adverse!

1. The physical, 'murder for spoil;' general criminality.

2. The political, 'crippled democracies.'

3. The business, 'rip-offs dominate.'

4. The 4th estate, 'corrupt & venal MSM.'

5. The moral, 'TV-dozing, apathetic sheople®.'

6. The threat. As if 1-5 weren't bad enough, 'business as usual' is driving our once jewel-like planet towards an excess CO2-caused climate crash, aka the greedastrophe. With no effective counteraction, we humans may stuff it up in a terminal way.

Comment: All of 1-5 is (should be) known, none should be controversial, my general label for the situation is the 'pushed-paradigm.' Not much of what is superficially asserted by this pushed-paradigm is really what's going on; buzz-words here are "All politicians lie!" and "They hate us for our freedoms" and "We will disarm him!"

All of which and more being bullshit; I counter such with:

"No more war!"

"No more rip-offs!"

"Give us back our democracies!"

And, of course, over all: "Fair go, ya mug!"

-=*=-

Act one. There is only one act; aka reality. Truth is the only correct description of reality; all else is commentary - or worse, destructive distractions, lies and/or outright propaganda.

Roffey: «We don't change the world much but there are a lot of people kibitzing ...»

Me: You said it, matey; but I'd change "much" to "by anything even if at all." But that was our hope; to rescue the world. Silly? Perhaps, but I've pointed out other-when; doing nothing is no option. Then, almost nothing is worse than dashed expectations; draw your own conclusion. I'm not surprised at Roffey's deployment of 'kibitzing[6],' the key here is exactly what 'unwelcome advice' should be tendered, and to whom.

Reynolds: «Webdiary is, after all, supposed to be about the contest of ideas.»

Me: You said it, lady; but if y'wanna have a fair contest then a) y'gotta set fair rules, then b) consistently enforce 'em. And right there is *THE PROBLEM* - as you well know, and now we can invoke hypocrisy - this time, on your behalf.

Reynolds: «... accusing Webdiary management of not living up to its aim ...»

Me: Exactly, also as you well know; and when you (collectively, individually) do that, i.e. *not* live up to its aim, *then* the emails fly. And when no satisfactory 'outcome' is achieved, it can get acrimonious.

WD's fundamental problem is and always has been how to 'handle' the 'dark side,' and - IMHO - WD has consistently erred by extending their favours to the liars and cheats, at direct cost to honest truth-seekers.

Let's face it, everyone thinks (feels) they're correct; any alternative could/would most likely cause cognitive dissonance. (Except in the "No sense, no feeling" cases, which WD also has.) The 'trick' of course is to think/feel correctly, aka based on verifiable facts. Ta ra! - Enter the truth-seeker!

(Ooops! Totally wrong prompt...)

Alcorn: «... you have a race-based theory of domination, and to me it appears not just as a conspiracy theory, but a really silly one.»

Me: You little snot! How dare you?

Morrella: «Never ceases to amaze me the chuckleheads that actually think it works - on any person with an IQ above 80 that is.»

Me: Note the language; 'chuckleheads,' 'IQ above 80.' And this, on a supposedly 'safe debating' site. As for the Morrella 'murder for oil' denial, truth-seekers the world over have been digging, discovering, documenting each individual, concrete step towards the eventual oil-theft; while all that is so-called circumstantial, it is nevertheless actual, verifiable evidence; for Morrella to deny (IMHO simply not possible), without fronting a single shred of countervailing evidence is purely risible (adj. laughable, ludicrous. [Latin rideo ris- laugh] [POD]) But it's a free country, as they say; so by all means, "Go for it." (Detested Ameri-speak? Spit!) WD apparently desires, prefers, actually openly welcomes your sort'a (lying!) contributions.

My comment: Notice this, that Morrella has from the very beginning and then always hidden behind WD's protective skirts. It's called dependency. It's called (mutually reinforcing) cowardice.

Hume: «It is about boundaries and protecting children from exploitation of any kind.»

Me: this is where we go breathless, at this particularly revolting piece of utter hypocrisy. Hume goes ga-ga over a few dirty postcards, while at the same time maintaining her right to otherwise corrupt what surely is the most precious commodity on earth, a child's innocent mind[3], by infecting such minds with the ghastly and cruel death/g*d fear memes. That's 'child abuse' writ about as large as is possible.

Hume: «Anyone hassling, sending abusive or vexatious emails to moderators or repeatedly attempting to post abusive comments on the site should be promptly banned from the site.»

Me: 1. How would we define 'abusive?' Like Curran's suggestion that the IDF (wrong name; should be 'offence') would be the ideal agency to bomb the crap out'a some neighbour?

Me: 2. How about the WD-commenter's 'right of appeal?' See the factotums' responses - ooops! a) They don't always answer either for their actions or their emails, going sphinx-like mute. b) In their quest for (fake!) 'balance,' they cuddle up to criminals.

-=*=-

Intermezzo: It's not *who* says it, but *what* they say. The 'what' can be truth, lies or irrelevancies. Lies to deceive, irrelevancies to distract (see WD's champ, Parsons/Ramsey.) I see the need to correctly identify the 'what' in order to progress towards useful solutions. Lying trolls etc. presumably have other agendas.

-=*=-

Fazit: WYSIWYG. WD is as it is, the inhabitants more or less as happy as pigs in shit, and they're truly welcome to it.

-=*end*=-

Epilogue: I don't *really* care (in the end we're all dead.) Of course I do care a bit - otherwise I could go and have some fun elsewhere, instead of fighting criminality, and its disgusting entourage.

Should the agents provocateurs; the apologists, accessory/agitators and outright lying trolls 'win,' (they can win merely by having no effective opposition), then what?

WHAM! Come the greedastrophe®: is that what we really want?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] justice n. 1 justness, fairness. 2 authority exercised in the maintenance of right. 3 judicial proceedings (brought to justice; Court of Justice). 4 magistrate; judge.  do justice to 1 treat fairly. 2 appreciate properly. do oneself justice perform at one's best. with justice reasonably. [Latin justitia] [POD]

[2] Nah, but not sooo important. In a BANJO-type act, the 'C Parsons' blog-entity was disabled; 'Eliot Ramsey' almost instantaneously, even magically appeared. Thanks DR, thanks MK. That sure was 'transparent,' eh?

Keyword: 'remorseless ridicule,' but that's not accurate. What the Parsons/Ramsey entity does is to endlessly re-hash the pushed-paradigm, which - given the foul nature of that paradigm - cannot do any more than hinder possible progress.

[3] 'Ha, ha' hyacinth, the hypocrite[4] from the sticks.

She's a blowhard[5], sometimes as in 'blows with the wind,' but mostly as in -fly.

Most of all she's a lightweight, with pretensions *far* above her 'station.' (Haw again.)

None of that is important, but the really nasty bit is her insistence that it is her (g*d-given!) right to corrupt child-minds with cruel Christianity-crap. Boo! Hiss!

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

hypocrite n. person given to hypocrisy.  hypocritical adj. hypocritically adv. [ibid.]

[5] blowhard N. Amer. informal
noun a person who blusters and boasts in an unpleasant way.
adjective acting or appearing in such a way.

[6] kibitz
verb [no OBJ.] informal, chiefly N. Amer. look on and offer unwelcome advice, especially at a card game.
n
speak informally; chat: she kibitzed with friends.
DERIVATIVES
kibitzer noun.

ORIGIN 1920s: Yiddish, from colloquial German, from German Kiebitz ‘interfering onlooker’ (literally ‘lapwing’). [Oxford Pop-up]

evil is as evil thinks ...

 .. but s/he who evil does is worst - a criminal[1,2].

-=*=-

Preamble: I have occasionally been queried (or worse) as to why I include definitions. The 'simple' answer is to ensure that any reader is left in less doubt as to my intended meaning. Sooo, let's 1st consider criminal. We immediately have to take one step back and ask "What is a crime[2]," and yet another, "What is a law[3]?" Then we are in a bit'a trouble, since a) laws are artificial, i.e. human constructs, b) some maintain that one can't legislate morality (a furphy[4], since if not morality what then?) - and c) some laws are known to be more or less complete asses.

As an aside, what of the current controversy over photographs of sexually immature people, aka children? This, from SMH letters 24-5May'08:

«Photos of nude children are "honest and beautiful". Isn't that the stock defence of the child pornographer?»

Now, it should not primarily be a question of art; one could (should) ask: was it legal to procure the photos? Whether there was/is any arty-farty (aka prurient[5]?) interest is very much a 2ndary, but nevertheless still an important question. To put the photos to rest, I think we can (should) all agree that it is the job of the police to detect crime, not to censor art. So Q: Did some crime precede (and produce) this putative art?

We are humans and have feelings; we run on morality, not laws. Laws are (or better perhaps, should be) only there 'to help' - to discourage morality boundary-jumping, and if such boundaries are exceeded, then to punish - i.e. no pain, no gain. (Argh! Detested Ameri-speak; spit!)

The primary idea, though, is (should be) one of deterrence. Lawbreaking is serious - but we are drowning under a flood if it, from the so-called élites (of the US, UK, Aus & Israel say), through our representatives, the venal MSM - and on 'down' to a certain jolly hockey-sticks Kaffeeklatsch I used to frequent. End of preamble.

-=*=-

No prizes then for having guessed, that this blog-item concerns exactly that Kaffeeklatsch, and any morality (actually, a certain lack thereof) and/or criminality (lots thereof) involved. Disclosure: I was 'invited permanently out,' probably ultimately because of my somewhat colourful language, here's a sample:

1. The collective entity I refer to as the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodles (now UK+F) with dag, are all in greater or lesser degree (mass-) murdering for spoil. These are the worst and most criminal of thugs. The prime task of the US-led entity at the moment seems to be the seizing of control over the world's oil, by murdering force (free markets, anyone? Haw!) - at a time when burning any more fossil fuel (above a tiny, life-sustaining minimum) is condemning us all to a grisly and lingering excess CO2-caused greedastrophe® death.

And while we're doing 'collective entities' here's another:

2. Riddle me this: why does USrael, the entity formed from the US and its M/I/C-plex, plus Israel and its I/J/Z-plex, 'melded' together by the neoCon cabal, say, and M-W's Israel Lobby etc., have to murder for spoil? Why can't they just buy stuff, like you'n I have to?

Picking up now, on the word 'cabal;' I once used it in a particular way, only to be confronted with:

  «... you have a race-based theory of domination, and to me it appears not just as a conspiracy theory, but a really silly one.»

(My reference was to the PNAC/neocon cabal; as it has lately been pointed out, there are few neocons indeed, without some Zionist connection. Actually, «There is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel»; slightly - but not too much - different.)

What I should have said to the 'dialectic dilettante' back then is this: You little snot! How dare you?

Suffice it to say, it was all mostly downhill after that. Also, a funny thing happened - I believe it's called radicalisation[6]. A critical step leading up to my eventual ejection occurred just over one year ago; here's sample of the sort'a filthy, lying and underhand battle then being waged against me:

  «... I suggest you read the link carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair.»

A competent quick Google should show the original occurrence, and part of the subsequent strife; in the 2nd case an intervention on my behalf by an 'honest/friendly,' (g'day.) What is to be noted is the demonstrable fact that the moderators/management a) allowed the publication of such rubbish at all, but worse, b) on repeated appeal (all the way 'up'), they supported the lying troll. Now, I don't mind being 'out,' in fact I'm much better off. But, a new occurrence of the moderators attacking another honest/friendly over the weekend was brought to my attention. My first reaction: Boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Now we can take a breather - and go on to investigate two things:

1. My statement 'above,' namely that "we are drowning under a flood" of crime, and

2. That this flood includes "a certain jolly hockey-sticks Kaffeeklatsch."

The dastardly deployer of the Jayson Blair slur was then as now a lying troll. Specifically, 'it' purported to dispute 'murder for oil' by GWBush&Co in Iraq, a 'special case' of murder for spoil, another example of which is murder for land and water in and around the now sadly mostly ex-Palestine. (As I write (10:03), a spy reports an occurrence of the lying troll as having been active 4 hours 53 min ago.) [Needless to say, the Jayson Blair affair was only one 'blip' on the long and deep descent of the NYT, formerly a pillar of the now venal MSM.]

As one of a number of 'murder for oil deniers' (note perfect similarity to 'holocaust denier'), the lying troll did not - because it simply could not, it's just not possible to - provide any proof in support of its denial. But the troll was allowed - encouraged to be, is there still. Another Boo! Hiss!

The battle - my battle against the lying troll - was lost - with assist from the moderators/management acting against me, rather than ensuring 'a fair & safe debating space.' Fact.

We switch now, to WYSIWYG, i.e. what you see is what you get: the US, along with its running-dog poodle with dag, inflicted "Shockin' Whore" on Iraq, an illegal invasion now morphed into a brutal occupation, each more murdering than the other, for a few reasons, yes (but none 'honourable'), one of which was the intent of the theft of, even if 'only' control over, Iraq's oil. We see this (those of us with eyes wide-open); we see it and we know. We who care have been battling that ever since first hearing of it, and one of our chosen battle-grounds was the now Kaffeeklatsch.

The last bit of WYSIWYG is the (valid) question: just why do the Kaffeeklatsch moderators/management support obvious criminal types like the before-mentioned lying troll, the arch-Zionist (you love that, don'cha, eh? Any more threats y'wanna make against me?) - and the 'remorseless ridiculer?' These mentioned amongst lesser others, like fake-named businessmen, puffed-up pro-wars or child-mind abusing farmer/fish-wives, say. (Anyone feeling insufficiently insulted may complain.) Exactly what's in it for them, the moderators/management?

Another link I have previously asserted, is that of criminal to accomplice to accessory[7]. I contend, that the above-mentioned lying troll etc. malefactors[8] are providing support for criminals, and those who enable the provision of that support are accessories. Basta. And so a final thought:

Honi Soit Qui Mal Pense![9]

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] criminal —n. person guilty of a crime. —adj. 1 of, involving, or concerning crime. 2 guilty of crime. 3 Law of or concerning criminal offences (criminal code; criminal lawyer). 4 colloq. scandalous, deplorable.  criminality n. criminally adv. [Latin: related to *crime] [POD]

[2] crime n. 1 a offence punishable by law. b illegal acts (resorted to crime). 2 evil act (crime against humanity). 3 colloq. shameful act. [Latin crimen] [ibid.]

[3] law n. 1 a rule enacted or customary in a community and recognized as commanding or forbidding certain actions. b body of such rules. 2 controlling influence of laws; respect for laws. 3 laws collectively as a social system or subject of study. 4 binding force (her word is law). 5 (prec. by the) a the legal profession. b colloq. the police. 6 (in pl.) jurisprudence. 7 a the judicial remedy. b the lawcourts as providing this (go to law). 8 rule of action or procedure. 9 regularity in natural occurrences (laws of nature; law of gravity). 10 divine commandments.  be a law unto oneself do what one considers right; disregard custom. lay down the law be dogmatic or authoritarian. take the law into one's own hands redress a grievance by one's own means, esp. by force. [Old English from Old Norse, = thing laid down] [ibid.]

law-abiding adj. obedient to the laws. [ibid.]

lawbreaker n. person who breaks the law.  lawbreaking n. & adj. [ibid.]

[4] furphy
noun (PL. -ies) Austral./NZ informal a rumour or story, especially one that is untrue or absurd.
ORIGIN First World War: from the name painted on water and sanitary carts manufactured by the Furphy family of Shepparton, Victoria.

[5] prurient adj. having or encouraging unhealthy sexual curiosity.  prurience n. [Latin prurio itch] [ibid.]

[6] radicalize (also -ise)
verb [with OBJ.] cause (someone) to become an advocate of radical political or social reform: some of those involved had been radicalized by the Vietnam War.
n initiate or introduce fundamental or far-reaching changes in: the push to radicalize 16–19 science education.
DERIVATIVES
radicalization noun. [Oxford Pop-up]

[7] 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] [POD]

[8] malefactor n. criminal; evil-doer.  malefaction n. [Latin male badly, facio fact- do] [ibid.]

[9] A quote/motto or thought for the today:
Evil to him[her] who evil thinks.
(Honi Soit Qui Mal Pense)
King Edward the Third, Motto of the order of the Garter
English king 1327-1377 (1312 - 1377)

Comment: A detested English monarch. All are, by some. Possibly most - at least around here, in our wide-brown.

The Stations of the Cross ...

 .. Ys'c'n all 'ave a relax - not religious

-=*=-

Preamble (long): 'Pure' logic would assure us, that as there are many more religions than anyone can 'reasonably' poke a stick at, then no so-called secular[1] state should concern itself with religion at all, let alone singling any particular one out.

Well, of course, 'pure' logic is not in play - or any sort'a proper logic at all when it comes to religion (aka belief without basis), and we have all of B, B & H making various claims to/about religion. Israel, as the 4th leg in our Anglo-Judaic democracy mess, seems to be inextricably entwined with religion (amongst other 'perversions.')

Speaking of perversions[2], as I've recently written, the three so-called Abrahmic variations ... Christianity, Islam & Judaism. ... each has an associated morality. The number-one commandment in each resembles "Thou shalt not kill!" There are other commandments, but no religion has a monopoly on morals. I have my own attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality (based on reflexive altruism, aka "The Golden Rule." Some basic moral tenets are no lies, no cheating, no theft and no murder. There're others, like love thy neighbour, say ...

I have heard it said that one cannot legislate morality, but it is claimed that we live in a society governed by laws. Although some laws might be asses, a reasonable wo/man would conclude that whatever laws we make should be just (—adj. 1 morally right or fair. [POD]) It is this word 'just,' and justice, that we now pursue.

Pseudo-quote:

GWBush, "G*d made me do it!"

Actual quotes:

Tony Blair, "I passionately believe ..."[4] (Haw! What 'peace process' can apply to 60+ years of killing to steal?)

John Howard, "... and according to the Judao/Christian ethic which is meant to govern conduct in this country ..."[5] (Haw! See above discussion on commandments.)

(Aside: Yes, Howard is gone, had to go; good riddance. But the replacement differs only in minor degrees - if at all.)

Funnily enough, in the current 'us v.s them' scenario, Christianity & Judaism are on 'our' side, and Islam on the 'other.' (Us good, them bad.) Indeed, it has been alleged, that Bush&Co are on a crusade, as well as pursuing murder for oil and a "Greater Israel" - say.

However, it is also widely acknowledged that they are all lying in their teeth, and have absolutely no 'right' on their side - except the hollow boast: "Might makes right." The hell it does!

So, (long story short:) any claim of 'separation of Church and State,' just as any claim that our so-called democracies follow the edicts of Judao/Christian ethics falls flat on its (bigoted![3]) face. Truth can be glimpsed, despite the venal MSM attempts at concealment. An what an awful, ghastly truth it is.

-=*=-

Preamble (summary): Not much of the above is new or surprising. That "All politicians lie" has come to be accepted, thanks - but "No, thanks!" to the non-small contributions made by Howard. That the US-led 'coalition of the killing' (illegally!) invaded Iraq with the intention of (brutally!) occupying it in order to steal (even if 'only' control over) oil, or that Israel is similarly pursuing the intention to steal land and water - should not seriously be in dispute. Sooo, Q: What's 'new?' - A: These two:

-=*=-

1. A review by "Economic Hit Man" Perkins of a new book "Right is Wrong" by Arianna Huffington.

2. A 2002 video possibly missed (thanks ICH), the BBC's "The Century of the Self," and some commentary by medialens.

The 1st, according to the review, summarises what's wrong (in the US, and following them, the wider world, with some few exceptions), and the 2nd lays out how the dreadful deeds described could be done.

Quote from the review:

«Her assessment of the current hijacking of a nation that emerged from World War II as the hero of freedom and the defender of democracy is insightful, eloquent, and shockingly informative. Most of the world -- outside the United States -- understands that the corporatocracy (those who run our biggest corporations and, through them, control the majority of our politicians) have not only emasculated us, but have sent us spinning toward global environmental disaster.»

[John Perkins/Exposing the Wrong Side of Right]

Quote from a medialens report on the video:

«"Politicians and planners came to believe that Freud was right to suggest that hidden deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. They were convinced that it was the unleashing of these instincts that had lead to the barbarism of Nazi Germany. To stop it ever happening again, they set out to find ways to control the hidden enemy within the human mind." (The Century of the Self - The Engineering of Consent, BBC2, March 24, 2002)»

[Media Alert: The Unspoken Rule of Media Reporting]

What? Freud? I mean, we know the name ... but look at the next paragraph:

«It is a remarkable claim, and one that could only be taken seriously in a culture that has been largely stripped of political awareness. In fact post-1945 (like pre-1945) "politicians and planners" set out to +promote+ dangerous and irrational desires and fears in the service of profits and power, not peace. Similarly, far from setting out to "stop it ever happening again", post-war U.S. policies generated repetitions of Nazi-style barbarism throughout the Third World.»

[ibid]

And there, dear readers, you have it.

-=*end*=-

Epilogue: My title is "The Stations of the Cross," but this missive is not religious; I am myself irreligious (adj. lacking or hostile to religion; irreverent [POD]). But religion is one of the cards cynically in play, mainly as a disguise, a distraction - and as a 'weapon' of sheople®-control. The 'Ace' is hypocrisy, i.e. saying one thing and doing another. My discovery of the video provides a vital new-for-me part in the "Who, how & why?"

Quick summary:

1. WW2 ended not with a (peaceful) whisper, but with a (murdering) bang - actually two, the (criminal!) A-bombings of Japan.

2. Some Freudian/psychological theory was deployed, ostensibly to avoid any recurrence of the Nazi-catastrophe - but was 'subverted' to 'commercial' interests. (There have been two waves, the 2nd being the 'me generation' one.)

3. Corporations (mainly US) have come to dominate world commerce, not based on a fair price for anything, but rather what the market will bear (nothing too criminal in that, but see (4), next). Worth a separate thread is "The Washington Consensus," aka globalisation. But the 'news' here is basically all bad - except for the crooked, fat-cat beyond obscene avarice so-called élites.

4. The underlying basis is not freedom but fear, not 'rule of law' but criminality, not democracy but secret manipulations (no wonder the term sheople occurred to me.)

Fazit: New is (2). We the sheople are not only being lied to while being ripped off - but secretly manipulated (no surprise perhaps, but the method, along with misdirected motive is). Little is as it seems (disgusting lies via and by a venal and traitorous MSM), and worst, we appear to be headed over an excess-CO2 caused climate-crash cliff, aka greedastrophe®. As well as the Perkins review, I recommend reading the video description[6] and the three medialens reports[7,8,9]. One possible 'next step' for me is to find out more on the Freud angle.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] secular adj. 1 not concerned with religion; not sacred; worldly (secular education; secular music). 2 (of clerics) not monastic.  secularism n. secularize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing). secularization n. [Latin saeculum an age] [POD]

[2] pervert —v. 1 turn (a person or thing) aside from its proper use or nature. 2 misapply (words etc.). 3 lead astray from right conduct or (esp. religious) beliefs; corrupt. 4 (as perverted adj.) showing perversion. —n. perverted person, esp. sexually. [Latin verto vers- turn] [ibid.]

[3] bigot n. obstinate believer who is intolerant of others.  bigoted adj. bigotry n. [French] [ibid.]

[4] This is 'a good one' from Blair:

«We have no option if we care about Israel, if we care about the plight of the Palestinians, if we care about the peace of that region, we have no option but to strive for the re-launch of that peace process and when I said earlier that I intend to do everything I could to advance it, I mean that. I went there once, I will go back again. I will give my time and commitment as much as it takes in any way that I can do to help. And I do it because I passionately believe that if this conflict is not resolved the consequences for Israel are dire, the consequences for the Palestinian people are terrible, but what is more the consequences for the world are disastrous.»

[Labour Friends of Israel]

All anyone can do, is shake their head; the utter hypocrisy is 'breathless.'

Anyone serious about ending the tragedy which is Israel could do so instantly and in a single stroke: give back all the stolen land to its proper owners, namely the cruelly dispossessed Palestinians.

[5] Here is a different bit from Howard:

«Around the world the undeniable fact is that the common element in all the acts of terrorism in recent years has been a perversion of the Muslim religion. I stress a perversion. Not a true practice of it, because Islam repudiates, as does Christianity and Judaism, terrorism and violence, but that's been a common thread and that is why it is reasonable to talk about extremism within the Muslim community without being accused of being prejudiced against Muslims. You don't have fundamentalist and evangelical Christians blowing up Trade Centres. You have criminal elements in all societies but what these people are doing is justifying their actions according to a religious belief. Now, that is just quite different and something that we have to confront in a sensible way.»

[Howard 060301/INTERVIEW WITH KARL STEFANOVIC]

Howard speaks to the 'manufactured' enemy, Islamo-fascism/extremism.

Anyone who thinks this is not 'dog-whistle' politics has not been paying attention.

In case anyone still needs proof, see Pape's "Dying to win."

[6] The Century of the Self
Adam Curtis' acclaimed series examines the rise of the all-consuming self against the backdrop of the Freud dynasty
Tuesday March 21st, 2006

«"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized."
- Edward Bernays»

[review/URL list]

[7] Media Lens critiques aspects of the film (1st bit already mentioned),

The Unspoken Rule of Media Reporting: The BBC's The Century of the Self

[8] - Part 2

[9] - Part 3

AusBC bias ...

 .. again? - no, still

-=*=-

Please consider the following:

Medicare surcharge to cost $1.7b: audit

Posted May 18, 2008 09:03:00

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan says he does not accept figures commissioned by the private health industry, which show changes to the Medicare surcharge levy will cost state governments $1.7 billion.

[AusBC/justin]

-=*=-

You can see a part-copy of the news article itself below[3].

Note what is said, and the way it's said, specifically:

In the justin headline: «... to cost $1.7b: audit»

In the article headline: «... 'to cost states $1.7b'»

(Note the word audit dropped and the addition of single quotes.)

In the article body: «The private health industry says it commissioned a report from accountants ...»

An audit[1] (scrutiny of accounts, i.e. of some existing record) is different from this so-called 'report,' which is in fact somebody's estimate, but the words audit and report have been deployed interchangeably.

In both: will cost.

As opposed, say, to may cost - if the estimate were to be correct.

-=*=-

In these days of 'the quick sound-bite,' where nearly everyone is rushed and few have the time or inclination to follow-up on the full story, sometimes all that is absorbed is the headline. Which in this case (as in far too many others), gives quite a misleading impression. The conjunction of 'audit' and 'will cost' give a false sense of fact - where what is actually in play is a (somewhat dubious? Self-serving?) estimate.

-=*=-

So. Is this deliberate malfeasance, 'simple' carelessness, utter ignorance - or worse?

(Tip: the AusBC is a so-called professional organization, paid for using public funds, i.e. our dough, where 'our' is defined as ours, we the sheople®'s.)

-=*end*=-

PS I'm really fed-up with being lied to, not just by politicians via the MSM, but also by the MSM itself, of which the AusBC is a shameful part - and qualifies both the MSM and the AusBC to be referred to as venal[2]. It's not that I think that the AusBC actually takes bribes, but by departing from the truth, by giving advantage to black-hats, they are a) misusing our dough and b) misinforming the sheople. IMHO, traitorous behaviour: boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] audit —n. official scrutiny of accounts. —v. (-t-) conduct an audit of. [POD]

[2] venal adj. corrupt; able to be bribed; involving bribery.  venality n. venally adv. [Latin venum thing for sale] [ibid.]

[3] Medicare changes 'to cost states $1.7b'
Posted May 18, 2008 09:03:00

«Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan says he does not accept figures commissioned by the private health industry, which show changes to the Medicare surcharge levy will cost state governments $1.7 billion.
...
The private health industry says it commissioned a report from accountants ...»

[AusBC/news/stories/]

'definitive' Einstein ...

 .. what you see is what you get

  subtitle: fact vs. fiction, and vicious bullies

-=*=-

Possible US slogan:

"Truth, Justice and the American Way!"

Possible Israeli slogan:

"Gimme! It's ours, some g*d said so! We are 'David...'"

(Yep, David alright, as in King David Hotel, or this, Remember the King David Hotel. Yeah, sure it's Galloway; so what? We search for the shining truth, no matter where it is, or who points it out. Take it up with The Guardian.)

-=*=-

Preamble: We now know, thanks mainly to the internet, with a vicious impetus from the gruesome actions of GWBush&Co (thanks, but "No, thanks!" to B, B & H), namely their "Shockin' Whore" illegal invasion of Iraq, now turned brutal occupation, each more murdering than the other - we now know that all is not what 'they' (the baddies) try to make it seem. I repeat certain bits both for emphasis and 'not forgetting,' the latter being one of the intents of the criminals. By not mentioning the bad bits, 'they' hope we will forget; we must not. What should be crystal-clear by now, to all but the most comatose of the TV-somatized sheople®, is that we are being lied to, by vicious, theft-by-murder villains most vile.

-=*=-

More preamble: From 'Bringing up Baby:' "Be a good [boy/girl]!"

Ummm.

This is interesting, because?

Well, because of the massive assumption, which is that the poor little sprog knows what's right'n what's not. Q: How does s/he know? A: Because the parents ('primary carer(s)') have carefully educated the child, that's how. Then: Oh, really? It's easy to specify a workable morality; here's my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality (based on reflexive altruism, aka "The Golden Rule" which has a history well in excess of 2000 years...) - it then becomes a question of the learning ability of the students, the success of the educators, and - sadly - the apparently unavoidable few who fail to teach (shame!) - or worse, fail to learn, either from a lack of ability (idiots?) - or, now worst: enter, the psychopaths. Now, the kindergarten becomes a microcosm[1]. What we see played out there hardly varies from the world of the so-called grown-ups.

What goes well is the vast majority who do learn to get along with their peers (termed well socialised) - and the nasty little 'flies in the ointment,' the few immoral/amoral psychopaths, the liars, cheats, thieves and bullies - who then proceed to cause mayhem.

One major difference between our kindergarten microcosm and the big, wide world is that in the latter, the immoral/amoral psychopaths, the liars, cheats, thieves and bullies turn to murder, and the mayhem they cause extends to genocide. See the sadly now mostly ex-Palestine, see Afghanistan, see Iraq.

Another major difference is that in the kindergarten, adults are in control; in the big, wide world the psychopaths, now masquerading as so-called leaders, or as some sort'a so-called élites, have declared themselves outside the law, outside all acceptable morality, having seized power - from us, we the sheople, the true sovereigns in a properly functioning democracy, these psychopath bullies rule at the point of both a lie and gun.

-=*=-

Intermezzo: Motto vs. slogan[4,5].

Another US slogan:

"In g*d we trust! (All others pay cash.)"

This brings up 'fact vs. fiction,' aka truth vs. lies.

Contrast that one may live by a motto vs. another may deploy a slogan to deceive.

It is a fact that most people, the vast majority, decent to a fault(!!?) - know the difference between right and wrong. Specifically, it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal - or murder. Including myself in this decent group, the law-recognising and law-abiding sheople, I can relay my mottos: "No lies!" "No crime!" "No war!"

We the sheople recognise that we need police, to restrain (as far as possible, and assuming that our police do not go corrupt) - to restrain any criminal psychopaths.

On the other hand are the so-called 'leaders' who deploy slogans, aka lies: "We will disarm him!"

Such so-called 'leaders' ignore some/all law and recognise no police.

A slogan above introduced religion, aka 'belief in some g*d.' Being 'supernatural' by definition, religion is not based on any fact at all; more in the next bit.

But before we get to that next bit, riddle me this: why does USrael, the entity formed from the US and its M/I/C-plex, plus Israel and its I/J/Z-plex, 'melded' together by the neoCon cabal, say, and M-W's Israel Lobby etc., have to murder for spoil?

Why can't they, as all others, pay cash?

-=*=-

Example 1: no g*d from Einstein[6]

Religion - and here I address the three so-called Abrahmic variations; Oh, how ironic: Christianity, Islam & Judaism. Each is a belief system revolving around some putative g*d, and each has an associated morality. The number-one commandment must be some variation of "Thou shalt not kill!"

The ironies abound, imagine GWBush claiming religion - and then sending the US off to slaughter untold numbers of Iraqis, lots'a them being Muslims. As a belief system - in an imaginary concept - religion has no place in the 'real' world, hence the desired total separation of religion and State.

My totally g*dless 0th commandment: "Mind your own business; leave other people alone and above all, do no harm!"

-=*=-

Example 2: lying propaganda from NYT/Friedman[7]

The cited article is sooo bad, one is tempted to classify it as parody.

The 4th Estate's function is to inform, without fear or favour. Pushing lying propaganda totally violates this 'responsibility,' all those who do so are traitors - to us, we the sheople.

-=*=-

The nub; long story not so short: people tell lies[2] in a futile attempt to try to disguise some malfeasance. (Warning: believing such lies may be dangerous to your health or worse, dangerous to the health of our once-jewel-like planet.) Since there are almost no 'harmless' malfeasances, it is wrong to perpetrate a harmful malfeasance, and lying about it only extends the crime[3]. Note the definition; some crimes may be as arbitrary as some (ass-like!!?) law may define, but some crimes are 'naturally' evil, i.e. in contravention of all acceptable morality.

It is these latter form of crimes, namely pure evil, being perpetrated in the above-mentioned places, i.e. in and around ex-Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. And the 'rumble' is, that Iran may very well be next.

-=*=-

How utterly ghastly - it's just not good enough. We most stop the criminality.

We, the sheople must reclaim our democratic rights.

-=*end*=-

PS (Reprised) How? Just how can we save our once jewel-like planet?

a) Get a morality, see my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality.

b) Demand honesty, from the MSM (AusBC!), from business and from our so-called leaders.

c) Demand honest representation (or devolve to direct citizen government - by CIRs, say.)

After all, daaarlings, it's 'only' our democratic right.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] microcosm n. (often foll. by of) miniature representation, e.g. mankind or a community seen as a small-scale model of the universe; epitome.  microcosmic adj. [from *micro-, *cosmos] [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] crime n. 1 a offence punishable by law. b illegal acts (resorted to crime). 2 evil act (crime against humanity). 3 colloq. shameful act. [Latin crimen] [ibid.]

[4] motto n. (pl. -es) 1 maxim adopted as a rule of conduct. 2 phrase or sentence accompanying a coat of arms. 3 appropriate inscription. 4 joke, maxim, etc. in a paper cracker. [Italian: related to *mot] [ibid.]

[5] slogan n. 1 catchy phrase used in advertising etc. 2 party cry; watchword. [Gaelic, = war cry] [ibid.]

[6] Belief in God childish, Jews not chosen people: Einstein
Posted May 14, 2008 07:00:00

«As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.»

[AusBC/Einstein]

[7] The New Cold War
By Thomas L. Friedman
The right question for the next U.S. president isn't whether we talk or don't talk with Iran. It's whether we have leverage or don't have leverage.

«For now, Team America is losing on just about every front. How come? The short answer is that Iran is smart and ruthless, America is dumb and weak, and the Sunni Arab world is feckless and divided. Any other questions?»

[nyt/OpEd]

My comment, 1: Tosh, otherwise known as bullshit. All the US is losing(lost!) is credibility, those in the know always knew that the US had no honour left to lose. As for ruthless, America is number one, and the only dumb ones are those who don't see USrael for the utterly wicked criminals that they are.

My comment, 2: IMHO, Friedman is a liar and propagandist; I recognised other such as he in the run-up to "Shockin' Whore", specifically one Judith Miller and the 'home-grown' Tony Parkinson and many (far too many; zero required) of RN/breakfast's presenters, from Peter Thompson 'back then' to Fran Kelly now. There is simply no excuse for any of these foul, lying propagandists.

vacuously, heinously criminal ...

 .. totally without scruple or shame

  subtitle "Some of my best friends are ..." [1,2]

-=*=-

I just read a real shocker: David Bromwich/Euphemism and American Violence (thanks for the link; g'day).

Below are some quotes, with my spontaneous comments [3,4,5].

My earnest recommendation is to read it all, now.

-=*=-

Part of the article discusses US torture of 'suspects,' ordered from 'on high,' including all the way 'up' to GWBush.

The reason 'they' - here meaning the forces of darkness masquerading as 'US security operators,' be they so-called secret agencies like the CIA, the US military, or some amorphous, becoming ever more ubiquitous 'contractors' or whatever-the-hell - just why 'they' may be getting away with torture (only so far is the hope), could lie in TV programs like the 'fictional' "24" and/or outright (lying!) propaganda - plus the above two qualifiers, i.e. vacuous and heinous, as applied to the obvious callous disregard for anyone but themselves displayed by both the US 'ruling élite' and the US sheople®, followed closely by all other such so-called élites and sheople everywhere, where not just US torture actions but more generally, US' naked and mass-murderingly criminal aggression goes effectively unopposed. And while we are mentioning US torture and murdering war crimes, we must also here include Israel, since as M-W have shown, the utterly malevolent influences 'in control' of both the US and Israel are melded into one (utterly disgusting!) entity, referred to by me as USrael. Phew!

(I'd apologise for the preceding convoluted construction, but I'm too distraught to untangle it.)

Five+ years now 'down the track,' in the cold, hard light of reality, where the illegal invasion of Iraq has now morphed into a brutal occupation, each more murdering than the other, the only possible reasons which may still be considered to have motivated B, B & H plus a few other psychophantic odds'n sods, all collectively 'the coalition of the killing' to embark on "Shockin' Whore" against Iraq are:

1. The US M/I/C-plex (with the illegal sprog's I/J/Z-plex) needs an enemy, more helpfully a war, to justify their continued funding, even very existence.

2. The US M/I/C-plex 'wants' to control Iraqi oil.

3. The I/J/Z-plex 'wants' a "Greater Israel."

4. With an 'outside' chance, the Anglo/Judaic 'ruling élite' 'wants' to crusade against, if not annihilate Islam.

-=*=-

I call the "Shockin' Whore" invasion illegal because that's what it is, even Annan eventually admitted it. The fact that the UN failed to prevent it indicates the end of any UN pretensions. The law is often called an ass; it is in fact an arbitrary construct. Whatever, that aggressive, invasive murdering war is wrong can hardly be contentious. The question then becomes:

a) How dare they, and

b) how can they expect to get away with it?

I have found a possible explanation; here's another quote from Bromwich:

«"If a Power coerces once," wrote H.N. Brailsford in his great study of imperialism, The War of Steel and Gold, "it may dictate for years afterwards without requiring to repeat the lesson." This was the design of the American "shock and awe" in Iraq. Looking back on the invasion, one is impressed that so clear-cut a strategy could have evaded challenge under the casual drapery of "democracy."»

As far as I'm concerned, the 1st coercion was the A-bombing. It's been all downhill since then.

-=*end*=-

PS One'a the bits they throw at us is: "We don't bargain with terrorists!"

Q: But who, exactly, are world's most feared terrorists?

Epilogue: Most of the so-called 'free' world appears to be in the thrall of the US, whose main idea of 'fun' seems to be utterly immoral murdering theft. As long as the craven cowardice exhibited by the rest of the so-called 'free' world continues, this murdering theft is most likely not just to continue, but get worse.

Then, of course, there's the excess CO2-caused greedastrophe®, 'coming down the pike.' (Detested Ameri-speak; spit!)

Ref(s):

[1] vacuous adj. 1 expressionless. 2 showing absence of thought or intelligence, inane.  vacuity n. vacuously adv. [Latin vacuus empty] [POD]

[2] heinous adj. utterly odious or wicked. [French haïr hate] [ibid.]

[3] Oh, how fiendishly 'clever:'

«It would be hard to find a precedent for the sophistical juggle of these explanations. The secret in plain view was not a judgment about present or future policy, but an imposed acceptance of something past. President Bush, in 2002 and later, sought and obtained legal justifications for ordering the torture of terrorism suspects, and it is known that American interrogators used methods on some suspects that constitute torture under international law. If these acts had been admitted by the attorney general to meet the definition of torture, those who conducted the interrogations and those who ordered them, including the President, would be liable to prosecution for war crimes. Because the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials remains vivid today, the very idea of a war crime has been treated as a thing worth steering clear of, no matter what the cost in overstretched ingenuity. Thought of a war crime does not lend itself to euphemistic reduction.»

[4] How did they do it?

«Indeed, the single greatest propaganda victory of the Bush administration may be the belief shared by most Americans that the rise of radical Islam - so-called Islamofascism - has nothing to do with any previous actions by the United States.»

GWBush: "They hate us for our freedoms!"

[5] So much for our so-called democracies:

«But say a thing often enough, so as to subdue the anxiety of a people and flatter their pride, and, unless they have come to know better with their own eyes and their own hands, they will accept the illusion.»

All together: "Murder for oil!"

where to, what to do?

 .. the continuing saga of trying to save our arses

"Choosing Sides (II): Killing Truth and Hope -- The Fatal Illusion of Opposition," Arthur Silber:

(The Silber quotes courtesy of Bob (g'day), the theme is that the dummocrats are not an opposition, merely one side of a coin.
[me: agreed, just as for Lib/Lab];)

«Given this system and its nature and complexity, it is only ignorance, a failure to understand history, politics, economics and culture, and/or repeated, habitual dishonesty and manipulation that can permit anyone to believe that a single individual could reverse these developments over more than a century, or alter them in any significant manner whatsoever.»

[Silber/Choosing Sides (II)]

(Actually referring specifically to Obama, but more widely, then:)

"Murder in the Cathedral" is a poetic drama by T. S. Eliot...

«Now is my way clear, now is the meaning plain:
Temptation shall not come in this kind again.
The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.»

[Eliot/Murder in the Cathedral]

Eliot is perhaps too poetic, Silber unnecessarily pessimistic.

The right deed for the *right* reason is to keep going; what one person may not change perhaps *many* can.

Doing nothing is no option; if one accepts that *no change* is possible, one would be succumbing to 'the last temptation' (i.e. to give up, to do nothing;) that really would be 'the greatest treason.'

Fazit: giving up means nowhere to go.

Silber is aware of other strategies (than giving up):

«...You've explained how King's approach wasn't purely about reconciliation.

It was about reconciliation. But just because it was about reconciliation doesn't mean that he wasn't confrontational. King believed in nonviolent, direct confrontation. And thus when we come marching through the town, we are trying to expose inequality and expose violence. And if you practice nonviolent confrontation, you morally shame your opponent toward moral suasion. And when you shame them toward moral suasion, it's not to defeat your opponent, but to reunite with your opponent. You're trying to make them ashamed of themselves, so they will turn from their wicked ways. These are all Gospel principles.»

[Silber/Choosing Sides (I)]

Me: Gospel, perhaps, but 'belongs' to no g*d.

Perhaps, lacking 'hard' power (I don't 'do' guns, say), the only available approach: shaming - but not only, with claiming:

Boo! Hiss! No more of the same:

No war! No rip-offs! No murder for spoil!

Give us back our democracy, our once jewel-like planet!

And it may work - but probably only if enough get on it, loudly enough.

It's a might big *IF*.

how dare they?

.. the utter, eff'n hypocrites!

«Iraq envoy rejects funding anger
From correspondents in Washington May 12, 2008

IRAQ'S ambassador to the United States has insisted his government is doing more to pay its own way as angry Democrats in Congress push to cut US funding for reconstruction.

...

Democrats said that with Iraq profiting from booming oil prices, its government is letting billions of dollars sit idle in US bank accounts as Washington spends up to $US12 billion ($12.72 billion) a month in the country.

The Senate's armed services committee has proposed banning US funds for all large-scale projects in Iraq costing above $US2 million ($2.12 million), demanding Baghdad assume a larger share of reconstruction costs.

The committee's Democratic chairman, Carl Levin, said on May 1 that it "is unconscionable, it is inexcusable, it makes no common sense" for Iraq's government not to be spending more of its own funds.»

[theAus/breakingnews]

-=*=-

Someone - might'a been Powell, before or after he prostituted himself; but who cares who or when? - acquainted GWBush&Co with the so-called 'Pottery Barn rule:' "You break it, you own it."[1]

Whether GWBush&Co heard it is not known, but if so "They didn't listen," they nevertheless inflicted "Shockin' Whore" on Iraq; 1st as illegal invasion and now turned brutal occupation, each more (criminally!) murdering than the other.

If my admittedly poor recall serves me at all well, I thought that an invader is obliged to repair any damage. And yet here we are, the other political 'side' from GWBush&Co, the 'side' recently chosen over the Bush side, ostensibly to stop the war, not 'just' not stopping the war, but demanding that Iraq pay to fix what B, B & H broke?

Perhaps now you can see, dear reader, why I just wrote: "In the US, UK, Aus & Israel, no matter who is elected, basically the same policies will be followed; Ta Ra! - namely, any number of variations of murder for spoil."

-=*end*=-

PS Q: Whose eff'n oil is it, anyway? A: As for any natural resource, it belongs to we, the sheople® - that's you'n I, not to any government to give away to any corrupt resource-harvester for a mere pittance - as is done increasingly across our once jewel-like planet. The voracious maw of (mostly US, some UK then others) rip-off capitalism has it highest (actually lowest) expression in Iraq, thanks (but "No, thanks!") to neoCon ideology, as implemented by Bremer. One of the charming end-results of this whole sordid - and ghastly process (i.e. "Shockin' Whore," aka murder for oil.)

Ref(s):

[1] Rule that isn't its rule upsets Pottery Barn:

«Supposedly Powell warned Bush that if he sent U.S. troops to Iraq, "you're going to be owning this place." That was based on what Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage called "the Pottery Barn rule" of "you break it, you own it."»

[Published April 20, 2004]

we hold these truths to be self-evident ...

 .. that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

  subtitle (with all due respect), what complete and utter bullshit!

-=*=-

From my admittedly poor recall, I think it was David G (g'day) who 1st alerted me to the error in the above.

It's only partly correct (a feature of lots'a (lying!) propaganda); for although there's equality in that every human born will sooner or later die, there's lots in between that's drastically *not* equal.

(As a not just BTW aside, it is this rather inconvenient truth, that all must die, that the religions of most concern to us are 'hung.' Specifically, they promise some sort'a 'life after death' for the so-called 'immortal soul' (utterly unprovable, also undetectable, both by definition) part. On the way, they (these religions) more or less promise some sort'a justice - after death, say. The more clever will appreciate that justice delayed - sooo long - is justice denied - absolutely, at least as far any non-believer is concerned. Justice, daaarlings, must be seen to be done.)

-=*=-

Now back on track; the most amazing binary splits occur, sorting people into us, we the sheople® on the one hand, and a so-called élite, aka 'rulers' on the other. These rulers may be of the political type or the commercial type - or a special sub-class, the military-command type. This ruling élite is the "military-industrial complex" warned about by Eisenhower, now extended by the integration of Congress (i.e. parliaments); what I refer to as the M/I/C-plex, which is 'served' by the mostly corrupt '4th Estate,' aka the venal MSM.

We the sheople can laughingly be called "The Mushroom Club" (as in kept in the dark and fed on bullshit. Har, har - but not really funny at all.) The 'dark' is caused by a corrupt education process - which fails almost totally to encourage any sort'a critical thinking, and hides the true history of the world - a history of almost unrelieved barbarism - behind a smokescreen of trivialities. The 'bullshit,' aka lies are served up to us by the (venal!) MSM. One of the worst, most cruel lies is that we live in democracies; this is a lie because our so-called democracies deliver us no real choice. In the US, UK, Aus & Israel, no matter who is elected, basically the same policies will be followed; Ta Ra! - namely, any number of variations of murder for spoil.

Of the three most basic requirements for a properly functioning democracy, to wit a) a switched-on, informed and engaged electorate, b) free and fair information flows and c) a meaningful choice of honest candidates, we have effectively none.

-=*=-

Then, to the 'rulers.' They have adopted the "Rights of Kings," namely the right to go to war, to rip us off; basically to drive the systems into the current catastrophic environment which we the sheople find our hapless selves in.

(As another not just BTW aside, the current 'market' system is built not on a "Fair go, ya mug!" - but rather on "Buy low, sell high;" in other words not "Cost plus a fair profit," but rather 180° in direct opposition, "What the market will bear." One might say "So? Nobody is *forced* to buy!!?" - but we the sheople have little choice; we've gotta eat, clothe and house - and drive, say, lacking better options. But no *must* vis-à-vis TV.)

It used to be (somewhere, perhaps only in hopeful imagination), "One rule for all," but it is in fact "One rule for us, we the sheople, and hardly any rules at all for the 'rulers.'"

And right there, we see how to fix this horrible mess: return, with no exceptions, to "One rule for all."

-=*end*=-

PS (Reprised) How? Just how can we save our once jewel-like planet?

a) Get a morality, see my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality.

b) Demand honesty, from the MSM (AusBC!), from business and from our so-called leaders.

c) Demand honest representation (or devolve to direct citizen government - by CIRs, say.)

After all, daaarlings, it's 'only' our democratic right.

the sound of one hand clapping ...

 .. Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent?

-=*=-

Independent perhaps, but if so that'd only be one out'a four. (But what of that story, actually admitted via email, of intimidation? Ooops! Down to zero out'a four?)

-=*=-

The definition of a dialogue[1] implies 'more than one side.' But what if one side or other is criminal?

I don't like criminals, and I don't think they have anything (positive) to say.

I really shouldn't need to be specific about which criminals are 'in discussion' here, but if anyone has been 'out to lunch' (detested Ameri-speak; spit!) - out to lunch these past 5+ - or 60+ years, I speak of USrael, the entity formed from the US and its M/I/C-plex plus Israel and its I/J/Z-plex, 'melded' by the neoCon cabal, say, and M-W's Israel Lobby etc.. This entity demonstrates its filthy, dishonourable criminality daily by 'executing' its policies of murder for spoil; the US mass-murdering for oil in Iraq (not only; one place of many!) - and Israel mass-murdering for land and water in and around the mostly now ex-Palestine.

I found 'I, E, A & T?' in the run-up to B, B & H's illegal invasion of Iraq now turned brutal occupation, each ugliness more murdering than the other. (Vicious war crimes of Nuremberg severity.)

I beseeched "No war!" and bemoaned 'murder for oil,' all to no avail; Howard called us, we the sheople® anti-wars 'a mob' and disregarded our every entreaty.

But I stuck to 'I, E, A & T?' in the hope of finding similar souls, and making some progress - towards truth and justice, say.

I was frustrated in my attempts; various apologists, accessory/agitators and outright lying trolls impeded progress by indulging in distortions, disingenuity and outright dishonesty to provoke dissension, division & distraction in vile attempts at derailing worthwhile discussions; phew!

Extracting a single word from the preceding para, namely 'accessory[2],' we wonder how one can have a 'civilised' (aka CWA-style, jolly hockey-sticks etc.) chat with same, and in general, I won't. Talk to them, that is; they have, as I've said, nothing (good) to say. (Note that such advocates for criminality take on shades of criminality themselves.)

Imagine the frustration, then, when 'I, E, A & T?' not just tolerates the crooked side, but actively encourages, i.e. coddles(cuddles?) them.

Yuk! So who's listening to 'em? Not me. And not too many others, it now seems...

Under the principle, brought to our undivided attention by GWBush&Co (an entity of the utmost black, aka criminality), of "If y'ain't with us, yore agin' us," then 'IEA&T?' is not part of any solution, it's actually made itself part of 'the problem.' Sooo, if we are seeing its demise, we may say it's a bit'a 'natural justice,' admittedly only served on a minnow, whilst the 'big fish' are still raging 'free' - to plunder our once jewel-like planet.

While our world cries out for succour, 'IEA&T?' encourages the help-hinderers[0].

Now, who will remove the ugly blot that is USrael?

-=*end*=-

PS

Q: How can we liberate ourselves from this ghastly criminality?

A: Well, (a) get real, (b) rein them in, and (c) vote them out.

a) Get a morality, see my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality.

b) Demand honesty, from the MSM (AusBC!), from business and from our so-called leaders.

c) Demand honest representation (or devolve to direct citizen government - by CIRs, say.)

After all, daaarlings, it's 'only' our democratic right.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[0] the 'last standing' were not all goodies (haw!):

-----Thu, 8 May 2008 04:27:25
8 Eliot Ramsey
4 Fiona Reynolds
4 Paul Morrella
2 Kathy Farrelly
2 Richard Tonkin
1 BasilSmith
1 Craig Rowley
1 Jenny Hume
1 John Pratt
1 Scott Dunmore
-----Tue, 6 May 2008 20:52:13

[1] dialogue n. (US dialog) 1 a conversation. b this in written form. 2 discussion between people with different opinions. [Greek lego speak] [POD]

[2] accessory n. .... 3 (often foll. by to) person who abets or is privy to an (esp. illegal) act. [medieval Latin: related to *accede] [ibid.]

just whose country/planet is this, anyway? ...

 .. ask me no questions; I'll tell you no lies.

  subtitle: in conspiracy vs. cock-up, always favour the cock-up[1].

-=*=-

In arguably[2] the most monumental - and murdering - cock-up of all time, B, B & H 'sent' the US, UK and Aus (plus a few other psychophantic[3] odds'n sods, all collectively 'the koalition of the killing') off to disarm Saddam of his (non-existent!) WMDs, with which Saddam, in alliance with al-Qaeda (back then not involved/connected at all; each lie more unbelievable than the other), i.e. this wholly imagined concoction allegedly threatened the world in general, and Bliar in particular, him announcing his famous 45mins from annihilation.

935 lies have been collected and collated; undoubtedly there were more, see for example Howard's 'human-shredding machine.'

-=*=-

OK, I hear you mutter, so Q: why 'most monumental?'

A: Well, consider the following Q/A model:

Q: Why do crims try to rob banks?

A: Because that's where the money is.

Ha ha; but not really all that funny. However, following that model, a new Q/A:

Q: Why did they lie to us?

A: To conceal horrendous crimes - what else, daaarlings?

This, then, was/is the (evil!) genius of B, B & H, they and their hubris[4] have brought the whole charade undone. And what a monumental - and criminal - charade it is.

Because? Well, it isn't just murder for oil in Iraq that was disclosed, but further investigations reveal Israel's murder for land and water, and the (mainly US, some UK + minor others) globalized capitalism's rip-off resource-harvesting (aka "Economic Hit Men") scams, all together murder for spoil.

And again, not 'just' that; they, the filthily hubristic B, B & H enabled us to see that the very foundation of our nations, the much ballyhooed democracy - is a sham.

-=*=-

An aside on 'murder for oil.' In my blogging since 1st hearing of the utterly dreadful "Shockin' Whore" then being mooted for Iraq (with the equally chilling US grunts' "Let's go play in Iraq!" - in order to 'pink-mist' hapless collaterals), many have tried to nay-say the US' plan for eventual oil-theft, but none have disproved it. That is, in a nutshell, because it's simply not disprovable; it's what's gunna happen - unless the brutal occupation of Iraq is stopped, and US forces completely ejected. Make no mistake; it may well be, that the US is *partly* in Iraq to enable Zionist dreams of a "Greater Israel" to fester, but consider Sun Tsu[5], Ch#2 "... and how success requires making winning pay."

They (the US administration) said that Iraq would pay for its reconstruction via its oil revenues; but what they always tried to deny was what they planned all along: to grab the lot, integrating their filthy capitalism 'from the sand to the sea;' to suck as much oil - and $s out'a Iraq as they possibly could. One (possible) side-effect of this could be to 'control' who may buy the oil; so much for so-called 'free' markets. Finally, it only makes 'good' (rip-off!) capitalist sense, so denying 'murder for oil' is a crime of the order of denying the holocaust.

Once more for emphasis: it's simply inconceivable, that the US would do anything, let alone murder 100s of 1000s, if not 1.2mio+ Iraqis, if they didn't think they could make their crimes pay. That is, after all, exactly what (US-style, but not only US) capitalism is all about.

-=*=-

Now back on track: democracy. At this point, you might care to read (all!) of this, War Is a Government Program by Sheldon Richman.

(I doubt if all will read the cited article, so let's see; the following «text» is from the article:)

1. «War is politics.» {Me: Not too controversial...}

2. «Politicians start wars for political reasons. (This is not to imply that economic reasons aren't involved.)» {Me: Again not too controversial... and see 'economic reasons,' aka murder for oil.}

3. «Ruling classes hold power so that they may live off the toil of the domestic population.» {Me: Ooops! 'Ruling?' The shit, so's to say, has hit the fan. Further, 'live off' - what?}

"Houston! We have a problem!"

I reiterate: this is the (evil!) genius of B, B & H, they have let the cat out'a the bag, as mentioned above, our democracies are sham. Boo! Hiss!

To round this off, there are at least three prerequisites for a properly functioning democracy, 1) a switched-on (i.e. involved) and fully informed electorate, 2) full and free information flows and 3) a valid choice of honest representative-candidates.

As the illegal invasion of Iraq, now turned brutal occupation, each more murdering than the other - and the Israel debacle now 60+ years long, all examples of murder for spoil show, our so-called leaders are actually rulers, criminally exploiting 'the system' for nefarious purposes, usually self-enrichment.

(And speaking of debacles, what about Iemma's electricity fiddle?)

The crimes of our putative leaders (and the so-called shadowy élite) are hidden by the lies pushed/assisted by the (venal!) MSM - and the TV-comatozed sheople® doze on.

Is that (murder for spoil, etc.) honest?

Is that (rip-off capitalism) fair?

Shouldn't the crimes now be stopped?

It is said, that in a democracy, the sheople are sovereign.

Shouldn't we now move heaven and earth, to make that so?

-=*end*=-

PS How? Just how can we save our once jewel-like planet?

a) Get a morality, see my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality.

b) Demand honesty, from the MSM (AusBC!), from business and from our so-called leaders.

c) Demand honest representation (or devolve to direct citizen government - by CIRs, say.)

After all, daaarlings, it's 'only' our democratic right.

Just whose country/planet is this, anyway?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] cock-up
noun Brit. informal something done badly or inefficiently: we've made a total cock-up of it [POD]

[2] arguably
Øadverb
these criteria are exceedingly vague and arguably provide too much scope for judicial interpretation
POSSIBLY, conceivably, feasibly, plausibly, probably, maybe, perhaps, potentially; debatably, contestably, controversially.
[New Oxford Thesaurus of English]

[3] psychophantic, from psycho + sycophant:

psycho colloq. —n. (pl. -s) psychopath. —adj. psychopathic. [abbreviation] [POD]

sycophant n. flatterer; toady.  sycophancy n. sycophantic adj. [Greek sukophantes] [ibid.]

[4] hubris
n. arrogant pride or presumption.  hubristic adj. [Greek] [ibid.]

[5] Sun Tzu, The Art of War:

«Ch#1; Laying Plans: explores the five key elements that define competitive position (mission, climate, ground, leadership, and methods) and how to evaluate your competitive strengths against your competition.
Ch#2; Waging War: explains the economic nature of competition and how success requires making winning pay, which in turn, requires limiting the cost of competition and conflict.»

[wiki/Sun Tzu]

stark, raving mad ...

 .. invoking utter despair

-=*=-

The US of A is "The land of the free," no?

"Truth, Justice and the American Way!" - Right?

More of "Free:" free markets, and level playing fields.

-=*=-

But if you don't 'play the game' their way, they will kill you.

-=*=-

Today, 6May'08 is 2,429 days 'down the track' from the equally infamous and enigmatic 'trigger event' known as "9/11." Sooo, what's been achieved?

1. Some Afghani-sand was re-arranged, and the so-called legitimate government of Afghanistan, i.e. the Taliban (themselves not of good reputation), were routed and the country given over to a puppet regime. The fighting continues, invaders against locals. Apart from revenge (a temporary resident, namely one OBL, was thought to have been implicated in 9/11), there was a small matter of the US wishing to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, refer to the carpet of gold/bombs story.

2. Saddam Hussein, by accounts a cruel tyrant/despot (but sometime 'ours') has been executed - under the auspices of another puppet regime, itself a war crime. A minor detail, considering that the operation, "Shockin' Whore," was an illegal invasion now turned brutal occupation, each more criminally murdering than the other. The carnage is terrible - and also continues.

3. The nominal 'justifications' given by B, B & H revolved mainly around lies - 935 of which have been conveniently collected. Their central theme was WMDs, none of which existed - and they all knew that beforehand.

4. The true intentions are more realistically deemed to have been oil-theft (even if 'only' control over) and aiding Israel's quest for a "Greater Israel," all else being commentary (risible democratisation, say. The old saw: you don't free people by killing them.)

5. The true natures of the US, with 'junior side-kick' Israel are now perfectly clear to all who wish to see - and take the trouble to look.

6. As if all the above wasn't enough, both the incumbent US president and presidential hopefuls all threaten Iran with "All options!" - meant is a nukular Armageddon.

-=*=-

All the above, i.e. 1-6, run under the rubric of the so-called "Global War on Terrorism," aka GWoT, but who are the real terrorists?

Suicide terrorism is often alleged to be part-and-parcel of the so-called Islamo-fascist desire to impose a caliphate (including onto us, we of the Anglo/Judaic world.) All I can say, is that if you believe that - well, shame on you. See the reading list #10.

Or perhaps better, see someone's actual suicide-threat**.

Fazit: Unrealised expectations can lead to enormous pain, and so it is with Usrael, the entity formed from the US and its M/I/C-plex plus Israel and its I/J/Z-plex, 'melded' by the neoCon cabal, say, and M-W's Israel Lobby etc., and this entity is the worst criminal/terrorist the world has ever seen, and is ever likely to see. We the sheople® expected to get a peace-dividend after WW2. Didn't happen, instead we got the cold war, the very 1st act of which was the (war crime!) A-bombing of Japan. It is thought by many that the A-bombing was aimed as a signal at Russia - and so the cold war was created. Then, when The Wall came down, we again expected a peace-dividend. Again it didn't happen, we ended up with 9/11 (terrorist or black, false-flag op?) then with Afghanistan as warm-up, the rape of Iraq with Iran possibly next. The behaviour of USrael is not honest - not at all; the exact opposite. The world situation is now worse than at any time 1939-45, almost indescribably worse.

The US has approximately 5% of the world's population, Israel a vanishingly small %. The so-called élite controlling Usrael is thought to be less than 1% of that 5%. Both 'sides' of US politics are as good as indistinguishable, and Israel has never had a government without an (ex?)Irgun, aka Zionist/terrorist component. The US murders for oil in Iraq, Israel murders for land and water in all directions outwards from Israel, itself though by many to be an illegal state.

In addition to immoral & illegal wars, so-called globalised capitalism, mostly US with a UK component, rips-off world resources, paying scant and drastically insufficient recompense to the sovereign resource-owners. Criminality rules - and the excess-CO2 caused climate change, aka the greedastrophe® bears ever more down upon us.

Those who could possibly save us continue on their greedy, destructive - and mass-murdering theft ways.

-=*=-

Most of the world 'stands by,' apparently doing nothing.

Where are the other world leaders on this?

Where are the religions, the Churches?

Where are the honest sheople?

-=*end*=-

**PS the most ghastly suicide-threat of all time?

«...I interrupted her to say: "Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying... You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?"

...Golda replied, without the shortest of pauses for reflection, and in the gravel voice that could charm or intimidate American Presidents according to need, "Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying."»

[Alan Hart/Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews]

[Me, note:] Not so much a threat, more like a promise.

...NYT: «"We had better believe her."»

[ibid.]

[Me:] If that's all true - and, of course, I've no doubts whatsoever on that score, then that makes Israel THE BIGGEST, MOST DANGEROUS SUICIDE-BOMBER threat of *all* time.

Which rather destroys Israel's (and Lobby's) snooty insouciance, I would'a thunk. Plus a whole lot'a other ramifications...

-=*=-

Reading list:

1. "A century of War," Anglo-American oil politics, William Engdahl.

2. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," the inside story of how America turned from a respected republic into a feared empire, John Perkins.

3. "The Shock Doctrine," the rise of disaster capitalism, Naomi Klein.

4. "A Game as old as Empire," the secret world of economic hit men and the web of global corruption, edited by Steven Hiatt.

5. "Hegemony or Survival," America's quest for global domination - and the catastrophic consequences that will follow, Noam Chomsky.

6. "Rogue State," a guide to the world's only superpower, William Blum.

7. "Killing Hope," US military and CIA interventions since WW2, William Blum.

8. "The Great unravelling," the truth about crony capitalism, Paul Krugman.

9. "Stupid White Men," and other sorry excuses, Michael Moore.

10. "Dying to Win," the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, Robert Pape.

11. "Don't think of an Elephant," know your values and frame the debate, George Lakoff.

12. "The God Delusion," the irrationality of belief and the grievous harm it has inflicted, Richard Dawkins.

13. "Heat," how we can stop the planet burning, George Monbiot.

Merkel & Sarkozy fiddle ...

 .. while the planet burns: thanks (but "No, thanks!") to the US.

  subtitle: Merkel & Sarkozy learnt nothing from WW2.

-=*=-

"Don't try to fix what ain't broke!"

True conservatives preserve what's good and works, and dump what ain't good and don't work.

And so it was wrong of Howard (only one among many such wrongs), to construct opposition to an Or-stray'n republic, because the detested English monarchy is less use than a chocolate teapot (aka ain't good), and doesn't do a fing[1] for us (aka doesn't work.)

Moving on. The 30-year reign, of "Greed is good!" (it ain't) has also been shown not to work. Time for true conservatives to dump that as well.

Look around, at the state of the 'States. Shockin'. (As distinct from "Shockin' Whore," what B, B & H did to Iraq - now a brutal occupation equally as murdering as the illegal invasion itself.)

Getting back on track. The 'experiments' of Military Keynesianism, privatisation, globalisation and wholesale export of jobs, coupled to rip-off resource 'harvesting,' more "Greed is good!" (it ain't) and deregulation (and etc.s) - all these things have worked - in a totally negative way - to almost kill a once-mighty nation/economy. If nothing is done then the 'almost' is likely to be replaced by certainty.

Just as Howard didn't listen when we beseeched "No war!" so the politicians 'leading' the US don't listen. GWBush&Co understand only force - when their only weapon is the miliary hammer, then all problems look like nails. And so the US military breeds war. The contenders all scream "All options!" at Iran, threatening a nukular Armageddon.

There appears to be no way of the US getting itself out of its Sloughs of Despond, aka the quagmires that are Afghanistan and Iraq. As if that wasn't bad enough, the US daily threatens Iran with obliteration.

-=*=-

Well, it's gotta be stopped.

No, not by a revolution - the sheople® are just too TV-somatized.

A world-wide boycott, called by non-Anglo/Judaic leaders.

Not even needed to engage the dozing sheople.

Just get up in the UN and condemn...

condemn... condemn... condemn... condemn...

Over to you, Merkel & Sarkozy. And Putin (Medvedev), Hu Jintao - & Ahmadinejad.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] fing = contraction of 'eff-ing thing.' Contrast with SFA.

urgent appeal to world 'leaders,' ...

 .. are you all mad? Insane? Simply lost it?

Note: This message is not addressed to the so-called 'leaders' of US, UK, Aus & Israel; we know that you are all mad, insane and have lost it - looong ago. At least by, if not before, the time that B, B & H demonstrated their (criminal!) insanity by illegally invading Iraq - "Shockin' Whore!" - now turned into a brutal, bloody, occupation. (Never softly; MURDER FOR OIL! Bastards.)

And as for Israel, much longer again, from '47-8, say. If not earlier, King David Hotel Terrorist Attack (1946) anyone?

-=*=-

Back to the non-Anglo/Judaic so-called world 'leaders,' I repeat: are you all mad? Insane? Simply lost it?

If you lot continue to sit on your (fat? Lazy? Corrupt?) arses, it won't be just you who loses it - but likely the whole, wide world, as the GWBush&Co crazies attack Iran.

See our link-wizard's latest ref here, to this.

(For those too lazy to look, get this: the US has already begun 'low-level' war-operations against Iran. But war is war; it won't be too long before it 'hots up.' And if the US goes nukular, that'll be very hot indeed. Kiss-your-arse-goodbye hot, even.)

So now, so-called world 'leaders,' it's time to pull your eff'n fingers out!

Phillip Adams on drugs ...

 .. and other fatal 'leadership' failures

-=*=-

1. Marijuana was not always illegal. Under prohibition, alcohol was made illegal - and created a crime-boom. Prohibition was subsequently reversed. But around the same time, marijuana was made illegal, and - Ta ra! - that created its own crime-boom, which continues to this day.

2. It is considered by many, that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, vide the 'drink-driving' never-ending story. In any case, it is also thought, that marijuana has been used since yonks, without ending civilisation as we know it, either then or now.

3. Then, consider heroin. This could be considered to be where some defining line is crossed; heroin may well be termed unsafe drugs, equally as dangerous as unsafe sex; one can die from either.

Phillip Adams: «Forever afterwards, he would argue against our cruel and stupid drug laws.»

I'm not exactly sure of the relevance of Adams' mention of a young heroin addict's death today, but for me (and the world), the 'tragedy' is not specific to any single 'user' (dead or alive), but to our entire society.

-=*=-

There are at least two points to be made:

1. Despite more than adequate warning (everyone *knows* heroin can kill), some people still try it, and an unfortunate few go on to die from it. (Q: Why?)

2. The 'simple' answer to that 'why' is that *exactly because* heroin is illegal, its supply is both irregular and impure; the hapless user gets the wrong dose and WHAM! (actually, more of a whimper) - dead.

-=*=-

The process of dying from heroin could be called 'evolution in action.' The 'why' of drug-taking in general (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, heroin, 'speed' aka ice; such a looong list) - is because that's what people do.

A note could be made here: drugs of any sort may be considered as a form of escapism. But exactly what is to be escaped from? Perhaps hopelessness; our rip-off oriented society, with globalisation shipping jobs - and with them, entire futures - overseas (and therefore out of reach), may have something to do with it. I mentioned nurture; there is no authoritative "Bringing up Baby" manual. Why not? So people are free to do it by their own, ill informed, trial and error? (With a lot'a error pretty-well guaranteed?) Then, add my perennial: TV. On the principle of "Monkey see, monkey do," over time TV portrays all possible perversions. People are 'free' to incorporate any peccadillo that suits into their 'life scripts' - and this may, often does, include the tendency to become a self-made victim, aka failure.

One of the 'principles' we hold dear, is that it's a free country.

Another way of saying that is "Fair go, ya mug!"

Nobody forces any druggy to take anything; surely one's greatest freedom is to be able to manage one's singularly, far and away most valuable possession: one's own life? (Refer also to euthanasia.)

And following so-called 'free market' principles, so-called 'pushers' are merely attempting to provide a supply to match a demand. That's also freedom, ain't it?

Sooo, following on from that's what people do, wouldn't it be clever - to clean up the drug scene? I don't mean try to put hapless users and their accompanying pushers in gaol, I mean make drug-taking safe: safe from crooks'n cops alike; by reverting to a non-illegal supply of pure drugs at known potency.

(Oh, yeah. Lets have a proper, authoritative "Bringing up Baby" manual. With rational, known-to-work dos and don'ts, including a proper morality to boot, see my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality. And while were doing 'pie in the sky,' banish religion - at least until after "the age of reason," i.e. until any sprog has the mental ability to distinguish bullshit when s/he hears it. No more abusing immature children's minds, no more insidious corruption of the helpless and vulnerable young, no more sneakily insinuating an imaginary, life-long impediment to rational thinking.)

-=*=-

It may or may not be, that some so-called 'Islamofascists' "Hate us for our freedoms!" - but what of governments that arbitrarily convert our rightful freedoms to futile felonies? Boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Note to any relative of some dead druggy: consider that the 'victim' was not so much a victim of the fatal dose, but of his/her personality, i.e. genetics and up-bringing (nature, nurture) - plus the society in which we live, a society dominated by filthy rip-offs, hypocrisy and murdering criminals. Any relative of a dead druggy could consider that it was largely the lousy government policy that resulted in the regrettable death (see Adams' quote); policy coming from the same lousy governments (US, UK, Aus + Israel) that set out to mass-murder for spoil. In short: they don't care who they kill, just as long as the filthy fat-cat so-called élites, already rich beyond avarice, can get ever richer.

The utter, horrendous scale of the hypocrisy! On the one hand, these governments set out to make life miserable for a mere handful of otherwise harmless drug-escapists, causing concomitant collateral dead (that filthy word again: collateral), and on the other (thanks, but "No, thanks! " - to B, B & H) they set out to criminally mass-murder for oil in Iraq; 100s of 1000s if not 1mio+ dead, pink-mist slaughtered by the 'world´s best,' most dishonourable militaries.

-=*=-

There is no doubt in my mind that pernicious, Draconian drug laws create far more problems than they ever purport to prevent; just how clever is that?