and when they were bad, they were horrid [US&Z *rogue* regimes - propaganda, black- & psy-ops = lies]

.. the 'winning' ...

  .. doesn't really end ...

    .. until the gloating is done

Subtitle, 1: Out of the mouths of babes - err, crooks.

Subtitle, 2; Q: Who's to blame?

Thesis: Those who murder for spoil have zero qualms about lying; proof = no-one (in their right-mind) admits to crime, so lie the guilty ones must. Lying is per definition done to deceive, and when deceived by politicians, voters may not make properly informed voting decisions at least in the lying context, and not at all if the credibility of the candidate is deemed vital (what else? Vote for a liar?) Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward, we in Aus had the super-cynical mantra "All politicians lie!" imposed upon us - the 'all' may tend to hyperbole, but the particular was repeatedly demonstrated (i.e. the baseless 'Saddam uses people-shredders!' allegation = 'misleading the house' - and with it, the country) - why is it so? No worthwhile project ever requires propaganda-camouflage, yet we are continually being assaulted by lies. The lies are organised around 'narratives,' to keep them on-song and (often imperfectly) non-contradictory, like the lame fog-of-war 'extenuations' recently deployed; the 'lie-cloud' forms the pushed-propaganda paradigm = the perpetrators' own created perversion of reality.

The 'standard' crimes are cheating, theft and murder; lies are both the gateway and a give-away to criminal depredations.

-=*=-

Trigger article:

 - TOP NEWS -
Israeli Troops Fire as Marchers Breach Borders
  «Israel's borders erupted into deadly clashes as thousands of Palestinians marched from Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.» 
[nytimes/eml]

Note the nytimes' language; "Breach," say. It is a 'biased' term[1] with ideological/aggressive 'baggage,' also with its alternates[2], a more neutral and simpler 'crossed' would work better = be more accurate. But propaganda uses such 'coloured' terms for the desired (usually as here -ve) effects, although the opposite = +ve also occurs; i.e. "Land of the free, home of the brave." Oh, yeah: Free as in free to be denied medical treatment without a credit card, and/or to have their jobs shipped o/s, brave as in shooting unarmed civilians - not 'just' ObL, but the 100s of 1000s if not millions who have been killed/slaughtered as hapless 'collaterals' resulting from US wars for spoil. Here, the hyped +ves are actually -ves; more lies.

Comment 1: The headline is enough at the moment. 'Normal' people, even if traumatised by 63+ bloody years of murderingly violent dispossession and oppression, are nevertheless assumed to be non-idiotic; any demonstrator carrying anything that even remotely looked like a weapon would be seeking their martyr-hood in a hurry. Ergo, we can assume that the 'invading' Palestinians were unarmed, and were carrying out a peaceful demonstration; perhaps calling out "Return *our* land to us ELO/Os, the erstwhile legal owner/occupiers! - Observe UNGA181 & UNGA194, like you *promised* to, in UNGA273!" Also possibly "All AIMs4S (and descendants) to return to whence they came!"

Comment 2: Some say that Israel sits on stolen land; can we confirm/deny? Generally, land&property are alienable (adj. Law able to be transferred to new ownership [POD]), the 'normal' way is by *voluntary* exchange; $s for soil, say. UNSCR242 includes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Under the principle of "A fair exchange is no robbery," Q: Why are the Palestinians still trying to get their improperly alienated land/property back = revested (reinstate, restore, return)? More: "Revesting and restitution of property on conviction." (Aye, there's the rub: Actually achieving justice.) IMHO, 'confirmed.'

Comment 3: No burglar or violent home-invader may declare him/herself independent of justice; no alien invaders may ethnically cleanse via genocidal attacks - and remain 'legal' - let alone moral. Latest with the vile Deir Yassin massacre and such-like terrorist attacks (similar continuing down to today - or if not exactly today, then some immediate yesterday and tomorrow), the UN should have halted the crime that is the Zionist project (the UN did attempt a recovery with UNGA194, sadly failed = lack of application); *unless* the UN gets serious and stops wars & injustices, THEN it is what it appears to be, namely a total sham and worse, actually in the service of - *rogue* regimes, see the current neo-colonialist, UNSC-sanctioned attacks on Libya. As I wrote on 20Mar'11 in Shockin' Whore Mk2, it's Iraq (murder for oil) all over again, this time in slow-motion (AusBC: "Britain wants NATO to ramp up attacks against Moamar Gaddafi's regime in Libya by attacking electricity grids, roads and even oil supplies.") Me: Gives new meaning to 'revolting.' These *aggressive attackers* are out of all control. Why? Who lets 'em? Not me, matey.

-=*=-

Propaganda is old; a mini-review:

This story may begin with a deployed lie: "Making the world safe for democracy!" This was a 'mantra' used by Wilson during WW1 to 'convince' the US public that joining the war against "the Boche" was a good idea. Water well under the bridge, but the real questions are two: Why did Wilson have to 'sell' the war anyway, with the 2nd, more sinister Q: Why did Wilson himself want war? A: Same-old same-old, see the modern, wicked M/I/C/4-plex; this tiny minority gets *richer*, while lots of the cannon-fodder gets *killed*, not to mention the squillion *innocent* collaterals. The significant thing is that Wilson's "Making the world safe ..." was a trick then, as it still is a trick today; proof = it's still being deployed. But it's not 'merely' a trick; it's also a lie, easily proven: A tricked = deceived electorate cannot vote 'straight' (hence the derived jibe: JWHoward ‘couldn't lie straight in bed.’)

Bernays was fascinated by the Wilson mantra, and even more so because of its effects. He was sooo fascinated that he turned it into a career, morphing 'propaganda' into PR = public relations, because of the extremely negative connotations of propaganda; usually rotten lies. Bernays was successful; perhaps his most infamous stunt was convincing women that they could smoke tobacco & get away with it. Note that a lot of "convince ... get away with" is still going on.

To illustrate some negativity here, consider this:

  «In his 1928 book, "Propaganda," he wrote:
"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."» 
[frugalmarketing/John Forde]

Comment: As for an electorate deceived, so for one 'manipulated.' Bernays based his thinking on some of Freud's work, he of the 'un- and sub-conscious.' The theory went that the 'free' masses, with their unconscious drives would (somehow??!) run amok, so the masses could not be allowed to be free, and that meant crippling 'democracies' by the aforesaid manipulations via deceptions = propaganda = lies. A neater, more self-serving policy could hardly be imagined, proof = this one is still 'running,' and how.

Next bit:

  «First is simply that this kind of deeper selling to the subconscious can be used in all kinds of ways, not all of them good.
Joseph Goebbels, for instance, would later use another Bernays book, "Crystallizing Public Opinion," to sway desperate Germans toward Hitler's murderous agenda.» 
[frugalmarketing/John Forde, ibid.]

Which leads directly to "The Big Lie."

[Pause, for reflection...]

Q: OK, how big?

A: Humongous!

-=*=-

A "Big Lie" doesn't even have to be prima facie 'believable' - just as long as it has enough 'shock value' to 'flip' the listeners into an *emotional*, outraged state. It's the essence of Freud's 'un- and sub-conscious' but in reverse; recalling that 'belief' is done in the absence of *evidence*, here 'belief' is invoked (via lies) in the absence of *intelligence*, any available intelligence having been *switched-off* (another 'novel' = newly deployed propaganda-construct) - by the emotional shock. Example: Dumping babies out of incubators to steal such incubators away, abandoning the babies to death on a cold, stone floor. The story was 'presented' (= conduited, assisted) by the MSM as 'news' = truth - but was later proven false, demonstrating the 4th Estate's corrupt & venal modus operandi. Example: Saddam's totally non-existent WMDs. Example: Libyan snipers, firing on innocents from roof-tops. Example: Women (wives!) as 'human shields.' Example: IMF chief rapes hotel-maid. Q: Are they mad? A: Yes; those who murder for spoil have zero qualms about lying. And they can do all of these viciously criminal things because they are psychopaths, possibly resulting from faulty socialisation, *OR*: Are they deliberately, malevolently 'produced' by deliberate 'manipulation' of their 'un- and sub-conscious' *immature* minds? Whatever; vile monsters is what they are.

And apart from their murders for spoil (Zs = soil, US = oil), they are killing our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere, by revving-up CO2 production, instead of going sustainable.

I realised the other day that I keep asking questions like "Why," precisely because we're all being kept mostly in the dark - by being told outright lies, as well as having critical info withheld. Q: Why? A: Beats me (rich getting richer in the face of utter catastrophe tends to 'flip' me into an *emotional*, outraged state) - and that ain't too flash, I'll tell ya - 'for free.'

-=*end*=-

PS; Q: Who's to blame?

A: All the liars.

The M/I/C/4-plex = Military, Industrial, Congress (US for 'parliament'), the 4th Estate = corrupt & venal MSM + AusBC et al..

The I/J/Z-plex should be self-explanatory; criminal key is Zionism.

The AIMs4S = alien/aggressor invading-murderers for spoil.

The schools producing the psychologists = PR-types.

The schools producing the economists = banksters.

The sheople for their damnable 'incuriosity.'

But not me; I see the evil, and blog it.

It's the best I can do - and you?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] breach  -n. 1 (often foll. by of) breaking or non-observation of a law, contract, etc. 2 breaking of relations; quarrel. 3 opening, gap. -v. 1 break through; make a gap in. 2 break (a law, contract, etc.).  step into the breach help in a crisis, esp. as a replacement. [Germanic: related to *break] [POD]

[2] breach verb
1 the river breached its bank
BREAK (THROUGH), burst (through), rupture, force itself through, split; informal bust.
2 the proposed changes breached trade union rules
BREAK, contravene, violate, fail to comply with, infringe, transgress against; defy, disobey, flout, fly in the face of; law infract. [New Oxford Thesaurus]