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]