Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Phil Kendall, I do a lot of figuring all the time, and I read that McGeough article over a week ago. Now, how many millions of women/girls are in Iran? Answer: 30+ million.

As I suggested earlier, to generalise from the experience of a few thousand upper-middle-class women, while ignoring the overall trend of abuses, is staggering willful myopia.

Phil Kendall, thanks for the leg-pull about taunts and insults, everyone needs a good laugh now and again.

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on the Bone article. The author presented more than merely a "shred of truth", but you clearly aren't interested.

As to your charge of "gushing" - GUSHING? - "on behalf of the poor, downtrodden Iraqi women who, when they get the chance get a surreptitious nose-job." That you'd generalise so thoughtlessly and ignorantly from a small section of an overall oppressed group. That you regard concerned advocacy for such an oppressed group as "a deplorable tendency in WD". This is quite staggering, Phil.

I'm guessing that liberal elements within Iranian society and elsewhere can expect no support from enlightened souls like Phil Kendall. Go figure!

Hell hath no fury like a wo/man - err, a person scorned (wasn't me, Gov; I've got at least 10 witnesses to say that they didn't see me there at the time!)

G'day Jacob A Stam re: "Nice planet, shame about the 'sheople.'"

I was in two minds as to whether I'd respond to Jacob's taunts ('necessarily involves some airing', 'need no lectures' and 'enlightened people like you') and insults ('finer minds than yours.')

But then, why should I allow myself to be browbeaten?

-=*=-

Jacob, my objection to the referred-to article [R2A] is that it contains more than just a bit of wicked and deliberate propaganda. As such, the authoress is to be roundly condemned, and no notice taken of her or her article. Oh no, no attention at all - the principle of 'there's no such thing as bad publicity' applies. Not to mention that the propaganda is to soften the sheople up for a possible war on Iran; truly serious, potentially mass-murderous stuff.

I also mentioned that 'good' (actually, bad ) propaganda often has a shred of truth around which to arrange the lies; and so it is with the R2A.

Then (en passant) I must remark on a somewhat deplorable tendency in WD (not practised by the more sane) of gushing, in this case on behalf of the poor, downtrodden Iraqi women (who, when they get the chance - get a surreptitious nose-job. (Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey.") Moving on...

Jacob: "Go figure!" - if you wouldn't mind - if there's to be any future communication from you-to-me, could you please use 'standard English' as defined in the POD, say, as opposed to Webster's or (spit, spit!) US-inspired TiVi-talk? Thanks in advance. Also, noting your "won't be drawn into further discussion," unlike in Iraq, say, the MSM were not toadally® hampered and the wholly disproportionate destruction, mayhem and mass-murders inflicted illegally on Lebanon by the risibly-called IDF were all too easily visible; the MSM had to try to look somehow 'responsible'. Hence your perceived 'bucketing' of Israel (more usually referred to by me as "the US' illegitimate sprog.") But however much Israel "copped a hiding" in the press, it wasn't at all shy about putting its side through Hollywood-style spokespersons, or getting other sympathetic phraseology used by 3rd parties (who really should try much harder for impartiality - like the AusBC, say); see elsewhere for examples since I can't be bothered with this topic anymore.

-=*=-

This brings us to 'sheople.' I define it thusly: a contraction of shame(less) and people[2]. As well as sheople, I have previously wondered about whether one or more deviants 'in here' are doing it for 'the money or the box' (ie love)? Some of the right-whinger apologist/activists' opinions seem so unhinged as to defy any rationalisation - but then the penny dropped, when I found this article[1] over lunch. Fits in nicely with Jacob's TiVi-talk, too.

-=*=-

[1] Stop television unravelling your reality
19 August 2006
Michael Bond
Magazine issue 2565

Feel vulnerable to terrorist attack or nervous about travelling? There's an easy fix, says Michael Bond - switch off the TV.

Depending on who you listen to, it makes you more violent, increases obesity and consumption of tobacco and alcohol, encourages risky sexual behaviour and leads to greater social isolation. If you still aren't convinced of the dangers, try this one: the way television covers current affairs so distorts your sense of reality and the risks you face that you end up living a fantasy life.

You may not realise it, but your ideas of the world and the decisions you make - how to travel, where to live - are heavily influenced by what you see on news programmes. Since they are a poor reflection of what's going on, you end up making poor judgements. People running governments are no exception: they pass policies based on false realities. This is not a neo-Luddite manifesto: there's plenty of research to back it up. First, though, why pick on ...

[NS/subscription req.]

-=*=-

[2] There has been some discussion, as to whether it's 'sheeple' or 'sheople'. I think 'sheeple' didn't quite 'cut it'; the dominant image is of a harmless woolly-Dodo wandering (relatively) aimlessly along, perhaps in conscious search of feed or wardah® or simply at random, with a string of compliant others peacefully plodding along after; so many or so often that they wear a narrow little path for themselves across the field.

On the other hand, 'sheople' could be a contraction of shame(less) and people; shame because of the way that they abuse their intellects (zombie-ing out in front of their TVs), shameless because of knowing exactly what they like (zombie-ing out in front of their TVs) and shame again for thinking that's all there is ("Der - what else is there - except zombie-ing out in front of TV?") Since they're all looking roughly in the one direction ('watching' might be stretching the applied mental effort), they are not exactly plodding along in line - although that's admittedly what they mostly do when they're on their way to vote.

There has been some discussion, as to whether it's arrogant to call any voters either 'sheeple' or 'sheople', mostly from our more rabid right-whinger 'friends' in here. (They think that all 'lefties' are wandering Dodos but (some less than others) are often too precious to say so; but since it's more usually notional 'lefties' (I'm just anti-war, anti-rip-offs) using 'sheeple' or 'sheople', the right-whingers think they might be 'getting the finger' and so they begin to spit, rant and rage.)

I myself have deployed 'sheople'; I do so based on observation, see the TV story described herein and any elsewhere.

Well Phil, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Bone article. To the other points you've raised, just a few random thoughts...

Yeah, the "bad bits" tend to get a good airing, however it's also the case that there are 'progressive' forces in places like Iran, and these often also get an airing, even in the MSM. These progressive forces can be helped by people in the West putting their case - which, however, necessarily involves some airing of the bad bits.

The six-figure civilian losses in the Iraq war/debacle is indeed cause for shame - and war crimes indictments, but I won't hold my breath. About all that, I need no lectures from you. One can only do what one can do.

On that point, I'm still not clear on the solution you're proposing. Is the strategy for enlightened people like you to shame, cajole or otherwise somehow persuade the 'sheople', the slumbering masses, into becoming ... well, people like yourself?

The problem of truth v propaganda has been wrestled with by finer minds than yours, and certainly than mine. Yet we're still where we're at. The MSM is indeed culpable to varying degrees in promoting certain elite agendas.

But consider also that in the recent Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, Israel copped a hiding in much of the media, 'allegedly' some deserved and some not. And this from an allegedly pro-Zionist-dominated MSM? Go figure! Just a thought, mind, but I won't be drawn into further discussion with anyone on the Israel/Arab thing at this time.

Oh, and yes, the Howard "human shredding machine" episode. Sadly no one seems to care, apart from you, me and relatively few others. Besides the fact that he's been needed by the nation on an ongoing basis to keep interest rates low, Our Fearless Leader has a whole repertoire of 'outs', as you well know - national interest, fog of war, intelligence 'failures', Weberian dilemmas, etc. etc. etc. He will never be nailed on that.

Give you a break, Phil? No worries, you can always skip to the next comment if you find my humble opinion too much to bear.

They say gentleness is one of the fruits of the spirit, Hamish. It's a pity - I've been trying to be hard-boiled and cutting. Who would have thought my true nature would shine through? On the fear of freedom I'm reminded of what Dostoyevsky said: Men don't want freedom. If you gave it to them they'd throw it back in your face.

G'day Jacob. I needed only to go on your own sample; anyone including 'the wearing of burkas' being forced 'on the West' toadally® disqualifies their piece as serious commentary.

Further from Bone: "You know, before you get there, that at the Melbourne Writers Festival starting this weekend the principal hate figures are going to be Bush and John Howard. You know there will be many sympathetic references to David Hicks but probably none to Ashraf Kolhari, ..."

Note the Luntzian frame-setting: "the principal hate figures..."

What we have here once again, is the demonisation of the next putative 'enemy,' by fair means or foul - and especially, with GWBush&Co, by foul, with the rags from Murdoch in full foul cry.

Specifically, like what's-his-name's hanging of teenage boys from cranes we have the bad bits being forced down our necks by a) the thieving war-crazies and b) the corrupt MSM. They 'rev the sheople up', till the sheople too start baying[2] for, whether A-rab's or Muslim's if not both, but certainly oily blood. 10s if not 100s of 1000s have been 'pink-misted' for Iraq's oil (well over a 1,000,000 dead if you include the 90's sanctions), how many will it be for Iran's bloody oil?

Then the military steps up - acting on ostensible 'LEGAL' orders (Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey.") - and the thieving slaughter begins. Mass-murder for spoil, next possibly in Iran, following Howard's "human shredding" in Iraq job (read all about the state of play there here, SMH/McGeough Aug 26-27 News Review pp29 "Mission failed.")

Like I said earlier today, 'good' (actually bad, of course) propaganda will contain a 'grain' of truth as a 'hook' for the lies. What they are showing is (alleged? - see 'human shredding') atrocities - it may well be that 'Muslim sisters need our help' - but not via bullets and bombs.

As they say in the flicks, Jacob, gimme a break - please.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] propaganda n. 1 organized propagation of a doctrine by use of publicity, selected information, etc. 2 usu. derog. ideas etc. so propagated. propagandist n. & adj. propagandize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing). [Latin: related to *propagate]

[2] bay5 —v. bark or howl loudly and plaintively. —n. sound of this, esp. of hounds in close pursuit.  at bay cornered, unable to escape. keep at bay hold off (a pursuer). [French bayer to bark]

[3] Mission failed:

THE plans are a state secret, so just where Starbucks and Krispy Kreme doughnuts will be is a mystery. But as the concrete hulks of a 21-building complex rise from the ashes of Saddam Hussein's Baghdad, Washington is sending a clear message to Iraqis: "We're here to stay."

It's being built in the Middle East. But "George W.'s palace", as Iraqis have dubbed the new US embassy, is designed as a suburb of Washington.

An army of more than 3500 diplomatic and support staff will have a sports centre, beauty parlour and swimming pool. Six residential blocks each will contain more than 600 apartments. The prime 25 hectares were a steal - actually a gift from the Iraqi Government. And if the five metre-thick perimeter wall doesn't keep the Iraqis at bay, then the built-in surface-to-air missile station should.

Guarded by a dozen gangly construction cranes, the site in the heart of the Green Zone is floodlit by night and is so removed from Iraqi reality that its entire construction force is foreign.

After almost four years, the Americans still can't turn on the lights for Iraqis, but that won't be a problem for the embassy staffers. The toilets are the same: they will always flush on command. All services for the biggest embassy in the world will be self-contained and operate independently from the rattle-trap utilities of Baghdad.

Missing link (from 'border into bizarre?' above): SMH/Coultan Aug 26/27 News pp19: "The terrorism theory Bush refuses to hear".

Thanks Ian for providing the link to Pamela Bone's article, which I'd intended to do but obviously overlooked (have to try not to do more than 2 or 3 things at once in future).

G'day Phil. Nah, no leg-pull intended, I was being quite serious.

I'm perplexed that you identify Bone's line about "our granddaughters wearing burkas" as being the "central concern" of the article. Did you actually read the piece? For instance, tell me: Who is Homa Arjomand?

The "central concern" I took from Bone's piece was that Western intellectuals have by and large failed to speak out for the rights of oppressed groups, particularly women, in countries such as Iran. Moreover, that there's a worrying trend to ignoring or even excusing egregious abuses due to the overlap of the interests of critics of the West, in particular the USA, with the interests of the leadership, say, of Iran.

As I said, readers of Bone's piece may agree or disagree with certain angles. I, for one, don't believe "our granddaughters" will ever be forced to wear burkas, simply because people in the free West will never tolerate the affront to human dignity.

Having said that, I can certainly see Bone's point. Any accommodation of fascism or medievalism by Western culture is the beginning of the end of the freedoms we cherish as a culture. Maybe Bone's "burkas on granddaughters" line tends to alarmist rhetoric, maybe not. I can see the argument for the former, but this argument misses the point.

Phil, I share your concern about the war drums beating not too distantly, and I echo your plea of "stop the killings / no war". That extends to stopping the killings of people such as Ashraf Kolhari and Atefah Sahaaleh.

I only ask that we can be grownups and countenance a more nuanced view of the bigger picture, where the rights of oppressed groups can be defended, while not supporting the pronounced fascist/medieval tendencies of certain governments, and while also saying "No" to another choreographed slaughterfest. That makes the challenge more difficult, of course, but surely not insurmountable.

Incidentally, your own colourful and incendiary rhetoric begins to resemble that of another frequent commenter hereabouts. I reject, in particular, your characterisation of Bone as a purveyor of foul, depraved propaganda. Still, I guess it's your right.

 

So feel free to disagree with a subtle nuance here or there in the above piece - Bone would expect no less of you, I reckon - but there's no denying the central concern of which she so passionately writes. Is there?

G'day Jacob.

Q: "there's no denying ... Is there?"

A: Depends.

Bone:

if fighting to prevent the possibility that my granddaughters - our granddaughters - will one day be forced to wear a burka makes me right-wing, then right-wing is the label I'll have to wear.

Jacob, if Bone's "central concern" is the threat of anyone here being "forced to wear a burka", where 'here' means the current 'Anglo Axis of Evil' (AAoE) aka the US, UK and Aus, then (IMHO!) Bone (and you?) have truly crossed the border into the bizarre.

The propaganda thread (threat?) behind this particular bit of idiocy is that some Muslims somewhere (actually, à la GWBush&Co; Rove, Luntz et al. it's all Muslims everywhere) wanna establish a so-called 'Caliphate', an' that world-wide, with forced adoption of Sharia law - or some such, including the above 'burka wearing'.

My summation of this particular foul bit of propaganda is: pure and unadulterated bullshit. The idea is toadally beyond 'ludicrous' (adj. absurd, ridiculous, laughable [POD]) - and completely insane with it. The sole objective of this foul propaganda is to scare the sheople so that those sheople don't notice the mass-murderously thieving crimes being perpetrated 'in their name.'

It is a measure of the intellectual bankruptcy and utter depravity of the authors of this sort'a propaganda, and similarly a measure of the utter depravity (along with complete ignorance, and dereliction of all democratic duty) of any audience who might swallow it - but what of any 'activist/apologist/agent' who tries to push this filthy bullshit further?

Sorry, Jacob, but if you believe any of that sort'a stuff, then (IMHO!) there's not much hope of you ever recognising the 'shining light of truth,' even if it came up and bit you. ("Subtle nuance?" Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey.")

Unless, of course, you were being just that slight bit sarcastic; trying to perpetrate a bit of a leg-pull, eh Jacob?

-=*end*=-

PS See SMH/Coultan Aug 26/27 News pp19: "The terrorism theory Bush refuses to hear"

His project [Pape's Dying to Win], studying suicide terrorism, was partly funded by an arm of the Pentagon. So is anybody in the White House listening to him? Apparently not, if you listen to George Bush's frequent speeches about the "war on terror".
Although the US President recently had a small epiphany about foreign policy - no more cowboy statements like "Wanted dead or alive" - he has not changed his rhetoric when it comes to the "war on terror". Mr Bush speaks in terms of good versus evil, says that the terrorists hate us because of who we are, and that in waging the war we are defending freedom.

GWoT fallacy: "They hate us for our freedoms!" I've said it before: they hate us for our (i.e. the AAoE) rip-offs and outright mass-murderous thefts. There may be some (minor!) religious component, and there are certainly some rabid religious types running around (on both 'sides!' - even fascist ones, also on both 'sides!'; 'good' propaganda will contain a 'grain' of truth as a 'hook' for the lies), but as Pape tries to show (IMHO convincingly), the main-driver is massive, invasive and thieving injustice often including murderous force. Anything that does not acknowledge truth, and in the current context these specific truths, is in the first instance propaganda designed to deceive and therefore, in the 2nd instance by definition, lies.

What is required is all 'pushed-paradigm propaganda' blinkers off and consider what is actually happening 'out there' in the real world. For example, it may well have been that bin Laden (with or without al-Qaeda; who cares?) really was behind "9/11" and his motive was to eject the US from Saudi Arabia. Voila! It was done; the US is (even if only incompletely on its way) out of Saudi Arabia. In which case, bin Laden 'won'.

Right-whinger fallacy: "If you're not pro-A, you must be pro all anti-A." I've said this before too: this is boorishly false, requires no answer except utter condemnation of any right-whinger who 'plays' this filthy false-logic ploy.

In the light of these two fallacies, consider Ian MacDougall's:

The left-right divide is becoming increasingly irrelevant these days, in no small part due to the fact that so many people on what is commonly regarded as the Left come out in street demonstrations along with supporters of Hezbollah, the Iraqi “resistance” and kindred political formations, of extreme social conservatism.

I personally wish most fervently for a) a "Fair go, ya mugs," b) stop the killing and c) "NO WAR!"

(Partially) because the illegal invasion of Iraq war was 'brought to us' by B, B & H, I'm anti-them. (Partially) because the rip-offs and mass-murderous thefts are being perpetrated most horribly by the US and its illegitimate sprog Israel, I'm anti-them. Most certainly, these last two (the US and Israel; the US for oil and Israel for land, wardah) are responsible for the worst atrocities possible, i.e. hideous mass-murder for spoil, so I'm especially anti-them. BUT: all this does not mean that I'm pro all anti-them. I might find myself in the same demo f'rinstance, even sharing some 'common cause' - but it does not mean that I 'support' any, let alone all, of the anti-thems. Geddit yet?

Might as well end on another reiteration 'high-point': Fair go, ya mugs, stop the thieving and mass-murderous killing; NO WAR!

The left-right divide is becoming increasingly irrelevant these days, in no small part due to the fact that so many people on what is commonly regarded as The Left come out in street demonstrations along with supporters of Hezbollah, the Iraqi “resistance” and kindred political formations, of extreme social conservatism. Though the majority of Muslims would probably qualify as ‘anti-imperialist’ in traditional left terminology, they do not at the same time espouse liberalism. We know where the vociferous and street-inclined Muslims are on cartoon depictions of The Prophet, but where are they on individual rights in the Islamic world, particularly in Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Lebanon and Syria? The Taliban-JI-al Quaeda-Wahabbist ideal of a caliphate governing the entire Islamic world with Shia law (to be extended to full world conquest or conversion) is close enough to the vision of the European fascists as to justify the term ‘Islamic fascism’.

But let me emphasise: the fact that there is a fascism based on the Islamic religion does not mean that any Muslim is automatically a fascist.

The Left in Europe, Australia and America opposed the Falklands War, the 1991 Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War, and in doing so found itself joined by some pretty dodgy supporters. Not just blood drenched individuals like General Galtieri of Argentina and Saddam, but their fascist followings. How does one support Argentina against Thatcher without supporting Galtieri? How to oppose the Iraq War without supporting Saddam? How can one square a circle? How many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Unexpectedly, the western Left went into decline after the Vietnam War. In Australia, the traditional Right went into ascension in both major political parties and in the society nationally. Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard have all been expressions of this. But since September 11, 2001, and particularly on Middle Eastern issues, there has been a steady turnaround. With large Arabic speaking and Muslim populations in European, American and Australian cities, the Left has started to catch a wave of mass support, or at least get a feeling that it is doing so. Witness this article from Ozleft.

The Enlightenment, which began in Europe as a movement against unjustifiable aristocratic privilege, went on to take hold in North America, and has held on there despite the attempts of some pretty dark forces to stamp it out. It was temporarily defeated in Western Europe in the period 1918-39, but rose again to brilliant heights in the post WW2 period, and even began to shine faintly in that corner of European mediaevalism known as the Iberian peninsula, and in the former colonies of Spain and Portugal in the Americas.

Unfortunately, the Left has never seen The Enlightenment as its true, uncompromisable base. What was easily accommodated by left Social Democracy has never sat easily within the agenda of the various sects of the ‘revolutionary’ (communist, Trotskyist etc) Left, mainly because nobody has been able to show how centralised economics can possibly avoid centralised politics. Is it so surprising, therefore, that the ‘anti-imperialist’ partisans of centralised politics and economics should find common cause with the partisans of religious centralisation, and that authoritarians of the radical ‘left’ and the Islamic ‘right’ should find common cause and go marching down city streets chanting the same slogans, with each lot seeing the other as useful allies for the moment?

Solomon, I've always respected your softness. It's a quality I've never been famous for, but I do hear your reminder of the virtue of civility. My purpose most certainly is to engage rather than head-kick. There is a point, like trying to argue with a Christian evangelist, where it is no longer possible to engage, and I have learned to identify that point to avoid enormous frustration, time-wasting and, well, head-kicking. Nevertheless, I hear your wisdom and if it reminds me to be a bit more civil, then you've done good.

Cheers Michael, Mark and Tony for your thoughtful replies.

I'll take the opportunity to endorse the book you mentioned Tony, Erich Fromm's The Fear of Freedom. Bloody interesting and compelling stuff.

I heard a story about that book which I've never had independently verified. The story was that the US Government (the CIA even, maybe) commissioned Fromm, a famous theoretical psychiatrist, to write a study on how it is that fascism could come about in a social democracy, as it had in Germany. Fromm's conclusion was that social democracy (ie including the USA) had an inherent tendency toward fascism, and that rather than the pendulum that many theoreticians visualise, between Left and Right, say, that social democracy was really a ratchet, remorselessly and inevitably stepping toward the Right over time. According to the story, this report was buried by the US Government, so Fromm rewrote it as, The Fear of Freedom.

Can someone tell me if this story is true, or is it bullshit?

My thanks to Hamish for another fresh breeze of reason. Always a pleasure to read you, me ol' namesake.

Apropos of one of the themes that have emerged here, I recommend the column in today's The Australian by Pamela Bone. Of which, a brief extract (not even the best bits, but for brevity's sake):

To say Bush is not the wise statesman the world needs is a large understatement. Of course women are entitled to oppose US foreign policy or to consider Israel's response to Hezbollah attacks disproportionate. Yes, the prolonged detention of Hicks without trial goes against standards of democracy. Yes, we must be vigilant, in fighting the war on terrorism, that we do not lose sight of the values we are supposedly protecting. Of course we must criticise our own.

But when we criticise only our own, when we talk only about the present and past crimes of Western societies, doesn't this give comfort and encouragement to the suicide bombers? ...

Most of us 1970s feminists are grandmothers now. Lifelong socialist and humanist that I am, if fighting to prevent the possibility that my granddaughters - our granddaughters - will one day be forced to wear a burka makes me right-wing, then right-wing is the label I'll have to wear.

Nah, she ain't no right-winger. Bone supported the Iraq invasion, and while I can disagree strenuously with her on that, she is one of the few, left or right, for whom I will always respectfully hear out her case.

So feel free to disagree with a subtle nuance here or there in the above piece - Bone would expect no less of you, I reckon - but there's no denying the central concern of which she so passionately writes. Is there?

I think perhaps I was simply having a bad morning, Hamish. I think you should talk as you like, and, in the latter part of my comment I leant towards the idea that this is the only way forward. I'm a little concerned that Webdiary seems directionless now, it doesn't seem to know what it is here for anymore, or seem to be going anywhere.

When I say "purposeless self-expression" I didn't mean that your comments were devoid of content – clearly they aren't – but that if you set out to head-kick, rather than to engage, then it isn't going to achieve anything. I think perhaps I was shocked at the realisation of how much Webdiary has changed. There used to be a strong movement towards "civility", and to achieving something more than the usually slanging match that goes on between opposing groups. If you're just now going to "let her rip", then what happens to the old ideals? However, as I said before, it would seem to me that there really isn't any other way forward. I think we're beyond niceties now. The moment has been lost.

I reckon Hamish has every right to be angry. I am. The hard Right has been getting very well organised now since the Nixon years and well and truly left, the Left behind. They are better funded in the US and I think they vowed never to allow one of their own to go down like Tricky Dickie did, ever again. Their tentacles have spread everywhere throughout the world. Under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the conditions were created for them to become truly global and corporatised.

This numbers game of who has killed more is just that, only numbers. Although I may not have agreed with, say, the IRA's methods, the British establishment was utterly ruthless. In fact, the IRA have shown that a small group of determined men can eventually win no matter what you call them – “terrorists, freedom fighters etc".

I still like you, Hamish, though, from memory you were never all that polite. Tell me this isn't another sign of Webdiary's ongoing deterioration. Is it not a "professional" organisation anymore? What happened to engagement across conflicting groups, rather than purposeless self-expression? Don't answer that. I know what happened, it died of inertia.

I read today that Beazley has taken a "swipe" at Keating, over his decisions on interest rates. Perhaps now, after everything else the non-Howard world has tried, ever-increasing honesty might be the only path left to us.

I have come to this late. Lots of laughs from the interpersonal arguments!

Having skimmed through it fairly quickly I’ve lost track of who said what but the suggestion that when a group/committee began discussing something it was more likely to happen amused me greatly. It is my experience that if you want to stop something dead, you get a committee onto it!

I can even provide an example. At a coffee house where long years ago I often sat all night and drank coffee, you can still find the now grey beards, with their walking frames who still mumble on about whatever it was that they were going to do way back then to save the world, between their naps as they dribble into their coffee — or perhaps it is now warm milk!

But to the issue!

Why, if one wanted to blow up something, would one go to all the bother and expense of getting onto an airliner?

From a purely practical point of view, blowing up an airliner away from the airport is really an ineffective option. It kills a relative few. It wouldn’t be more than a few days’ wonder. There is no mess to clean up. There is very little economic effect. Of the total population only a relative few fly.

However, imagine blowing up the airport, well the check in desks and lounge, anyway. Much, much more simple to do. Kill far more people. Leave evidence that could not be quickly cleaned up. Have a far greater economic impact.

The real question is why the belief that it takes a large group of people, lots of money and months of planning if anything really devastating is being planned?

Anything from two to six people, assuming that you intend getting out alive, very little money, nothing that is not readily available, a maximum of three or four weeks organising/planning would be all that is necessary for serious, competent people.

Every time Bush, Blair or Howard has a dip in popularity we have a ‘terrorist plot’ discovered. Of course details cannot be released, and the trial will be in a closed court, because of security issues.

I will believe them genuine anytime the sun rises in the West.

There is a common misconception that those on the left or right of the poltical spectrum all travel in unison. l deem myself an aging hippie now much further to the left than I ever was when I was young yet my closest friend is a life long paid up member of the Nationals , thinks John Howard is a twerp yet votes for him and rails against "dole bludgers", much to my chagrin. (I never supported the IRA especially after a friend was killed by the Harrod's bomb).

The reason I see many parallels happening in western governments with fascism-and I accept that Islamic facism is also on the rise, is that as a Jew I have been particularly studying in depth the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany for about 3 years now and I can see that the German people really were unfairly blamed for Hitler's rise for a long time. The main problem-it's though the movement has a life of it's own with the whole of politics moving sharply to the right at an unstoppable pace.

I've quoted Tariq Ali here before. He is an elder of the Arab Left. Ignore him if you want for the sake of your reflexive anti-Americanism, but then you can ignore me too. That goes for you too Roslyn, and others. I really am sick of your filthy seperation of your values from your political praxis. Do you believe in equality? Freedom of speech and the press? Gender equality? Freedom of sexuality, religion etc? Now look at who you're supporting. I am apalled. And don't give me the "I'm not defending them" line and then go on to defend them. It's not funny any more. The self-parody is now just horror.

Do you run around defending Howard from things people say about him if they are lies? Is that how you focus your intellectual energy? Obviously not, and nor do I, because I've only got one life and he's not the political force I support. But you do spend enormous energy defending some of the most evil political forces in the World today. I don't even care if you're correct here and there (it's a propaganda war so you no doubt are), but you are so often so wrong, which consistently reveals a very real political bias toward these ugly forces. Believe me, they love you, even whilst they have utter contempt for your values.

...

Ali describes how the Left delivered Islamic fundamentalism to Iran. These "useful idiots," including Foucault, one of the most incoherent and damaging thinkers ever to grace a toilet seat, got to go home to Paris, London and Berlin. The Iranian lefties were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured and killed. Good one. Do you think we should learn from that Michael, or not?

I know you're not talking to me anymore, Hamish, but for what it is worth, I think this is among the most intelligent stuff I have read, not just on Webdiary, but anywhere, in ages.

And I can understand your despair. Believe me when I say that. I haven't read Tariq Ali since the seventies. I guess I thought I never would again. Not even an article in a newspaper.

But I'll be in Brisbane tomorrow and I'll find the time to buy the book you have mentioned. Obviously such a title would be unavailable at any price around here.

I use the term "Fascist Left" in a similar sense to the way I use "Islamofascist", "Islamist Fascist" etc. To distinguish the fascists from the rest who may bear the tag "Left". I am not saying the "Left" is fascist anymore than I am saying Islam is fascist.

As far as I am concerned, anybody who says anything that infers that Hezbollah, IJ, Hamas suicide murderers and all the rest are "freedom fighters", or just like the "French Resistance" or that Israel is a "Nazi state" or any of that whole filthy mess of "rhetoric" is either a fascist, a fascist apologist, a Quisling or at best an appeaser. I don't care whether they call themselves themselves "Left" or "Right". I make no distinction. Often there is no distinction to make, or if there is, it is irrelevant.

"Left" and "Right" are terms that I only ever use in quotation marks, in any event.

If you have been using the term "Islamic Fascism" for ages perhaps it was you who inspired G Bush to take up the term. let's hope he can at least pronounce it correctly from now on.

Oh dear - so now we know. You were once a "leftie" and have reformed. Just like the Neocons. I thought there were many similarities.

I'm pleased to see you agree: "The similarities between now and the thirties is striking. Right down to the treachery, denial and Quisling cowardice of the "pacifists" and "intellectual" "Left"." I do hope you include in the "left" the thousands upon thousands of German Communist Party members who were either murdered by the Nazis or sent to concentration camps for speaking out, along with others who belonged to democratic style parties and Trade Unions, the traditional leftist thinking University Professors who spoke out and had their careers destroyed or were forced to flee the country along with great minds like Albert Einstein - a committed pacifist.

We could also include the various Resistance groups that sprung up in Poland, France and the Netherlands (left leaning countries) risking their lives and their families lives who often suffered dreadful torture when caught and then executed.

I suppose, as it was a Communist country, albeit run by a murderous tyrant, we should also include the millions of ordinary Russians who gave their lives without which we wouldn't have defeated the hard right Nazis.

I don't believe I've encountered a "pacifist" for many years now, since the Vietnam War, just a  lot of people who think the current invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were a huge mistake - they being in the majority now in the US and indeed, were always in the majority in Australia and the UK before the illegal invasion.

As to "appeasers," this reminds me of a letter I noticed just after the invasion of Iraq written to the SMH by an extremely nice lady I have met but who is a committed Howard supporter. She said simply, "Britain had its Winston in its hour of need, thank God we have our own J Winston Howard." Rather cute I thought if somewhat meaningless as Britain declared war upon Germany after they invaded Poland and re-neged on a promise given to Chamberlain who had vainly tried to prevent a war but was labelled an appeaser for no good reason. With 9/11, we just tagged along in an undeclared invasion of two countries who hadn't harmed us, killing untold thousands of the citizens.

Speaking of denial in the 30's - I wonder if we should include the many in the powerful corporate sector of Great Britain who wholeheartedly agreed with Hitler's methods especially when dealing with troublesome Trade Unions, publicly applauding his efforts in print and ignoring the handful of mainly American journalists who told the real story of Hitler's cruel schemes. Thank God eventually, the greatest US president FDR- labelled a dangerous "leftie" by his upper class social contemporaries for ushering in the greatest social security schemes ever seen on this planet, was never in denial and engineered the US into WW2.

I haven't really taken note of the word appeaser until a few years ago when Iived in the Ryde electorate and one of those glossy pages of electorate news published by the local MP John Winston Howard came through the letter box and contained a double page spread about how he would never sanction a war merely to remove a leader but we could not appease the dreadful Saddam Hussein because - and what followed was the most extraordinary list of an arsenal of deadly germ warfare that could wipe half the civilised world. Howard assured the handful of voters who actually read these annoying leaflets that he had been reliably informed that such things existed by our security forces, The rest is of course, history.

At your recommendation, Richard Tonkin, I hired V for Vendetta yesterday. Natalie Portman's schoolgirly voice was its greatest weakness. (Nothing against girlies, as such, since Joanne Whalley in "Edge of Darkness" was pretty good.)

I thought its final scene was a plot blunder, till I considered some of Tehran sharpens its sword:

... Third, Iran wishes to remind the US that in a repeat of the fighting techniques used by Hezbollah against Israel, the strategy of a weak power is very much alive, if it were to face the overwhelming military prowess of the superpower. That strategy entails creating chaos, mayhem and destruction...

No good can come from pursuing totalitarianism with its own tools of "chaos, mayhem and destruction".

From China's steaming ship exports:

... China is now the world's second-largest crude-oil importer, and imports account for 43% of its consumption. But more than 90% of its oil imports are currently transported by foreign oil tankers, according to a report by the Shanghai Securities News. The setup is both economically and strategically unsound, it said.

I predict Iranians will enjoy a good supply of cheap whitegoods and plasma screens.

Do Israel's lobbyists in the US have a Plan B, if George Junior refuses to talk to Iran?

In the past two or three weeks I have noticed that George Bush, Tony Blair, a number of the right's leading lights and now Geoff Pahoff have picked up the term "Islamic Fascism". It's a neat trick and nicely dillutes the so-called Left's use of the term Fascism to define what many of us believe is creeping up on us slowly.

Not in the way it did in 1930s Germany and Italy - although if one was to read the definitive book on Hitler's rise The Third Reich In Power by Richard J Evans who did exhaustive research that included years of trawling through Germany's great capacity for keeping government records, there are numerous startling similiarities between what happened from about 1932 onwards, and the manipulations of present day Western governments.

One of the tendencies now is that because many of us dare to question the validity of the information given us by so-called "official" sources, (and that now includes the majority of the American public when it's coming direct from George Bush's mouth) such as expressing skepticism about some supposed terror plots, that we also believe we aren't under attack from terrorists. It is just another of the great lies perpetuated against those who question their governments and in particular, ones who have lied to them repeatedly. Certainly John Howard, Tony Blair and George W Bush fall into the category of serial fibbers. Why the hell should we believe anything they say?

Not only do I and many of my leftie friends believe we are under some sort of threat from Islamic fundamentalists, we are also fearful that those who currently lead us are showing themselves time and time again to be utterly incompentent at dealing with such threats and even worse, apparently intent upon inciting furher acts of terror against us.

Well, somebody has to cop the rap for Yo Blair's support of the neo-con US war mongers. My money is on a muslim minority group whose votes Tony can do without. It's a classic power ploy - set em up to fail, then watch'em fail and say "see, I was right". A bit like torturing someone until they say "OK OK I was plotting to kill you" then you say "I knew you were".

My favourite at the moment is Herr Secretaty John Reid, who a day or so before the arrest of the so-called UK bomb plotters, was pounding people in the UK with "if you want the police to protect you from terrorists, you must surrender your civil liberties (sic.)". Now there's a win-win argument - the government and the police come out looking like heroes while increasing their powers. Now I better go off and get my biometric passport.

Ah well. Never mind fellas.

Soon you will be living under a fascist regime, just like the Europeans, again, if the "Left" gets its way. And then you will never have to worry about the quality of the media again. Just a taste of what to expect:

Here is an image from a Hezbollah web-site based in Iran that purports to show the Israeli warship hit by a missile a few weeks ago:

  

And here is a picture of the sinking of the de-commissioned HMAS Torrens off the coast of WA as published in Defence Industry Daily, after being hit by a torpedo fired by an Australian submarine:

Ah what the hell. It's the greater truth that matters, right? Isn't that what the "Left" is all about these days?

The deterioration of the Australian printed media is alarming. As Jenny Hume points out - the story in the SMH of a working girl trawling through garbage bins which appeared to be more about her relationship with a lawyer but just adds gravitas to the trashing of a former Judge's reputation before all the facts are known. (I should imagine today there are hundreds of nervous husbands - that may include some journalists, on the Northern Beaches shredding credit card slips).

No doubt this story will be splashed accross News Ltd's Manly Daily and given the prominence it deserves and if any reader is in the slightest doubt that a brothel exists in the middle-class suburb of Balgowlah they only need to turn to the Daily's classifieds and find adverts offering such services. The name of the author of this trash gives a clue to  what I now think of the once great Fairfax stable - Tim Dick. Why we are reading this garbage along with tales of a swimmer's ballooning (or perhaps not) weight?

It's the dumbing down of the media and it really is scary. Anything can pass as "news" and gossip, rumour and innuendo is presented as fact until the general public, more concerned about the sport's results absorb enough of it to believe they will only be saved from the impending doom that will descend upon them by re-electing their current bunch of pollies.

It continues with so-called "opinion" pieces by self appointed spokespersons for whatever - the Devines, Akermans etc or again as in today's SMH, Gerard Henderson who rants on about who appointed the learned Judges who granted Jack Thomas's appeal. He infers the decision was political whilst carefully avoiding to mention he himself was a Howard advisor. His last paragraph is a real doozy:

"The Thomas case outlines the division between civil libertarian types (trial lawyers, artists, humanities academics, comedians and the like) who focus on legal process and others who take terrorists at their word and regard them as a genuine threat to democratic societies".

There we have it in a nutshell according to Henderson. Is this man for real? He overturns our entire legal history because he puts forward a thesis that as a lower court found the man guilty it should be left at that. Appeals courts have no place according to Henderson.

The vindictive and nasty pursuit of Jack Thomas by authorities again worries me as I do believe that the majority of those who work in the AFP, ASIO etc and even the Victorian police despite their dreadful history of association with mafia style gangs - are made up of honest and hard working men and women who only want the best for our country. But so was the German civil service in the early 30s.

If they continue their outragous prosecution of Thomas, based on a some TV show comments of having met Osama Bin Laden and taken his cash, it may finally open the way for the prosecution of the glove puppet known as George W Bush who not long before 9/11 hosted a large group of the Taliban government at the White House although did not take cash from them, rather gave them a bundle of dollars.

Tony Phillips is correct when he says, "how do we tell if there was a serious bomb plot?". I go further and ask, "What is really being planned under their noses while the authorities are hopelessly tied up spending millions of dollars pursuing non-entites across the world?".

The dreadful outrages of 9/11 and the Spanish and English train bombings clearly show these authorities are not quite on the ball. Politicians - who should all be held legally accountable for the lies they perpetuate (along with journalists) are hopelessly mired in using every single tragedy for their own benefit, pressuring security forces to come up with something, anything to make it look like they are doing something.

Meanwhile the person supposedly masterminding all this, Osama Bin Laden (does he really exist?) roams free.

Cooee to out the back'a Whoop-Whoop (we don't call Wagga Wagga 'Wagga'); I'm attempting humour: G'day JH.

You may or may not have set 'scripting' off; your choice. But some MSM pages are 'active' even without scripting; I have in mind The Age and SMH opinion-indexes for example, ABC 'Justin' and looks like most of The Australian. These pages (or perhaps ads on them) do an 'automatic refresh' or some other action, but whaddo I know? To stop such 'shenanigans', {L-click} the page (to set it active; headline if 'greyed' changes to normal colour) then strike {Esc} twice relatively quickly (the second might be 'just for luck'.) That might stop some 'error reports' being required. In any case, it is not advisable to allow any program to sent an error-report, to MS, say: too much of your (line, if not living) time could be going to waste.