.. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment