thieves!

murderers!

-=*=-

Then:

swindler!

But not 'just'; you eff-n smart-arse!

-=*=-

Consider:

1. The 'Bankster' conspiracy, if such a thing exists.

2. The politicians - on both(!) sides; the corrupt lackeys of (1), or
filthy stand-alones if (1) doesn't exist - IMHO, it does; if it didn't,
it'd pretty-well invent itself... such is the immoral state of mankind.

3. The '4th Estate', the press/media - whose job it is to *inform*, but
whose actual function seems only to propagandise - us, we the people.

-=*=-

Since '9/11', we've been 'had'.

Yes, 9/11 was bad, but:

a) not really all that bad (relatively speaking(**3)), &

b) one could say, that the US 'had it coming' - & that for a looong
time.

But not 'just' since 9/11 - Oh, no!

-=*=-

Dealing with 9/11 1st, there are simply too many 'funny' details which
put the validity of 9/11 as *any* sort'a excuse to wage war into
*extreme* question.

(As if there was ever a valid excuse to wage war; except for 'defence
against a direct attack', I don't see *any*, and I'd go so far as to
say that any & all 'direct attack' possibilities would be totally moot
if the UN was properly constituted, maintained & *supported*. A mighty
big 'IF'!)

Some 9/11 questions that seem anomalous are:

1) The incredible accuracy of the flying. Think: at least one of the
'planes hit a tower pretty-well smack in the middle - from a curved
approach (try that yourself!) We are led to believe that the hijackers
were *toadal* amateur pilots, having practiced in little Cessnas etc,
while saying things like 'don't need to learn to land'; and yet they
then flew with such precision?

2) The fact that NORAD was 'asleep'. Not 1 but 4 hijacks, and as good
as no action from air-traffic control, let alone air-defence? A few
fighters were 'scrambled' - and then given no orders?

3) After being told, GWBush continued to read to his kindergarten.
(What would *you* do? Shout "Shit!" and jump up: "Do something!" - but
no, he just sat there, calmly reading on & on... ?)

4) There's the extreme neatness of how the towers came down, and the
curious case of the collapse of Building 7, hardly touched by the tower
incidents (CIA as tenant/occupants, with lots'a records gone lost...)

5) And the wreckage; some say that the temp. of the fires would not've
been enough to so damage the steel - which was hastily shipped off to
China as scrap anyway; whadda 'bout retaining the evidence from a crime
scene?

6) Just about the only 'planes to fly during the few days' grounding
collected bin Laden family members, who were then allowed leave the US,
basically 'scot-free'?

-=*=-

Well, so what?

Just this: all these curious things make one wanna go "Hmmm". Whereas
it's almost inconceivable that the neoCons would'a been directly
involved, the way it was handled was, to put it mildly, 'fishy'.

Then, of course, there is the fact that 9/11 had abso-bloody-lutely
*nothing* to do with WMDs, Iraq or anything - except, possibly, the US
occupation of, & the rip-offs in, the ME; see below.

-=*=-

So we got the attacks on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Understandable;
the Taliban also 'had it coming', and we believe that some baddies
incl. bin Laden himself might've been using Afghanistan as a refuge -
or actually had 'bases' - or (training) camps, the actual meaning of Al
Qaeda. (al-Qae·da or al-Qai·da n. [Arabic al-qa'ida, the base :
al-, the + qa'ida, foundation, base, feminine participle of
qa'ada, to sit.] Where 'a' is an 'a' with a bar over it.

The US had to respond, to do something, anything; re-arranging some
sand in Afghanistan was about what we expected.

-=*=-

But Bush 'n 'is neoCons couldn't stop there - Oh, no! They just had to
'go for it' - namely, after all the oil in Iraq.

-=*=-

It now looks like the US 'experiment' in Iraq is falling apart. Goody;
can't happen soon enough. But 'on the way' here, we've learned some
'very interesting' things:

1. US/UK meddling. The US & UK have been 'playing games' in the ME for
yonks. More specifically, occupying the lands & ripping-off the oil. It
is thought, that one of the prime reasons for the illegal invasion of
Iraq was Saddam's switching to EUROs. (Apart, that is, from Bush's
madness, and the unsustainability of the murderously vicious
US-inspired UN sanctions regime.)

2. The Israeli land-grab; the Partition of Palestine. The very idea of
kicking anyone off lands that they'd lived on for Oh, say a 1000 years
was/is preposterous. The very least they could'a done was to set out to
*share*. But Oh, no - it had to be the royal order of the boot: leaving
the whole bloody mess hardly changed since then.

3. "The confessions of an economic hitman"(**2). John Perkins has shown
us how it works; basically, lend (World Bank, IMF etc) the savages a
few Shekels until they're over their heads in debt, then use that as
the 'lever' to rip 'em off.

But not just. Any/all mining (not just oil) involves 'royalties';
paying the original land-owners some part of the value of the mined
commodity. The difference between the cost of digging something up &
the 'market' price is termed 'resource rent'; this can be *the whopper*
in the equation. Say it costs $US1 to 'mine' a barrel of oil - about
what it is in Iraq; then you can sell it for $US61, the 'resource rent'
here is $US60. Not too shabby; then you pay the 'sovereign power' (i.e.
us, we the people; this time 'over there') a few measly % - generally
less than 50%; in Aus sometimes 40%, in Venezuela perhaps 18% (so I've
heard; lost ref). In Iraq? Perhaps as low as 5%? Who could argue?
Relative power determines 'how low can they go?' - get the picture? The
miners & other such 'middle-men' clean up (i.e. get the most out of
it); *exactly* what's going on now for oil. Sooo, most of the dough
everyone is paying for oil is landing in the pockets of the oil
producers; wanna guess who *they* are? And as for oil, so all mining.

The total rip-off available from Iraq's oil has been estimated at
$US9,000bio. That was @ say $41 per barrel, now @ $61 it'd be
$US13,500bio; going how high? - you do the sums.

That's a lotta dough; $US13,500bio would be about 27 of Bush's highest
yearly deficits, in cash.

4. "Dying to win"(**1). Robert Pape has shown us who the suicide
terrorists are & *why* they are doing it: an' it basically *ain't* the
Muslims, and certainly not for any Jihad. (Yeah, some Muslims have dark
skin & dream of Jihad, prol'aby have real bad teeth & BO too.) The
politicians (with corrupt press/media support) are selling us a pup.
Suicide-bombing terrorists just want people *out* of their holy- or
home-lands - quite reasonable, or whadda you reckon?

In clear text: all this yammer about Jihad is a red-herring designed to
keep our eyes of the filthy main-game described herein.

5. Conspiracy. Yeah, there is one, all right. If not actually 'hidden'
Banksters, then our so-called 'rulers', the politicians - in service to
the rip-off resource-rent sector (it can't be just for the for the
crooked politicians themselves), & their villainous hand-maidens, the
corrupt press/media.

-=*=-

Apart from the dodgy rip-offs, why does any of this matter?

Well, terrorism could kill *you*, or one of *yours*.

If terrorism was caused by a few/lots'a maddie Jihadists, well of
course, we'd all have to fight.

But while terrorism is actually being *caused* by the actions of our
own 'rulers' and resource-rent rippers-off, by spinning us the Jihad
line (all the while disguising the main-game), they're putting us, we
the people in danger, 'just' for their filthy fat-cat $s. And as we
know, they're already too fat; obscenely fat, so much so that the world
is choking on their smoke.

Everyone, everywhere must live within their means. That means you'n me;
individuals, families, tribes, countries - the whole wide world; it
only makes sense.

Time to get sustainable.

-=*=-

The 'prosperity' of the 'West', more specifically the Anglo-sphere
based 'round the US/UK - & little old Aus - is based on a lie.

The lie is carefully hidden, but it is this: we rip-off the world by
digging up resources for which we do not pay a fair price.

It is the (unfair) proportion of resource rent skimmed off by our
mining companies which supports the obesely profligate US(UK, Aus)
life-style, with the UK having perhaps invented the system & still
being in there as precursors & current accomplices, an' Aus hanging on
for the ride.

(This discussion of 'resource rent' might sound like envy, sour grapes
or (shudder!) some sort'a Marxist moan. But really, daaarlings, the
'nub' is: what is fair? Who really owns - and who should benefit fairly
from, any natural resource?(**4, **5))

The obesely profligate US life-style sets the model for the world; the
end-result being the greenhouse - which could be *toadally*
catastrophic.

And all so unnecessary!

The fat cats have got more, much more than enough - yet they go to war
& kill 10s, even 100s of 1000s to maintain their obesity...

Once more in clear text: we are being lied to. We are living on the
proceeds of theft. This theft is putting us in danger of the ripped-off
rightful original resource owners' attempts to curtail that theft. But
worse than all that, murder is being done in our names, and certain
parts of our society, namely the 'rulers' & resource-rent rip-off
con-artists, are doing it all consciously - and trying to keep it all a
secret.

Just how bad is that?

Boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Is this is a question of morality?

Do we really have to ask how disgustingly immoral it is, to lie, cheat,
steal & murder?

We don't do it at the individual/family level, why should we do it at
the corporate/country level?

You, dear readers, have to make up your own minds. Should we be 'led'
by liars, cheats, thieves & murderers? Remember, that both the Libs &
Labs are up to their necks in the processes here described (plus, of
course, the actual entities doing the work 'on the ground'). For proof
of Lib/Lab collusion, look no further than both Libs & Labs flogging
off the family silver in unseemly haste, demolishing the security of
the workplace for just about all actual workers (as opposed, say, to
those (non-workers?) in the boardrooms & their close proxies who
directly do the rip-off deals), plus globalising also in unseemly
haste, i.e. shipping jobs away, an' that f'rever.

But it's not just a question of morality; with the greenhouse it's
becoming a question of survivability, soon to become frantic.

Without some form of concerted *action*, the rip-offs will continue (as
will the bombings) & we'll all be living (fearfully) in sin, all the
while goin' down the tubes. Hmmm?

-=*=-

Sooo, there is a conspiracy alright; and the 'enablers', the ones'
whose job it is to inform us, we the people - those who should inform
us but don't; those arseholes who spread the bullshit needed to keep us
all in the dark - are the journos, i.e. the likes of, say, Paul Kelly,
Tony Parkinson, Gerard Henderson - or in this case, Emma Tom.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,16362512,00.html

Not just you, Emma, but a majority in the press/media (incl. some/lots?
in the AusBC) are:

not just swindlers, not just smart-arses, but filthy traitors, to boot.

-=*end*=-

PS

It's a matter of fairness, really. Since time immemorial, people have
banded together for mutual benefit. As for the primeval tribe, so the
modern state. We are happy to have police to maintain order, as long as
the laws are fair, the enforcement proportionate and justice is
available to all.

BUT: Although the resource-rent rip-off is *unfair* and needs reform,
B, B & H sending us to war to steal oil is criminal, as is the
collusion of the corrupt press/media.

We need to extend police/order, fair laws, proportionate enforcement &
justice to the press/media, corporate & political spheres.

This implies ethical & responsible regulation, and as Libs & Labs are
as bad as each another, a new political structure, and at the
international level, a fully functional UN is sorely needed.

Only so could we ever expect to live in real peace.

-=*=-

Refs:

**1. "Dying to win", Robert Pape.
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/05/18/opini...

"What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a
specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to
withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to
be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist
organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is
rarely the root cause."

**2. "The confessions of an economic hitman", John Perkins.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/17/1420232

"Well, really, over the past 30 to 40 years, we economic hit men have
created the largest global empire in the history of the world. And we
do this, typically -- well, there are many ways to do it, but a typical
one is that we identify a third-world country that has resources, which
we covet. And often these days that's oil, or might be the canal in the
case of Panama. In any case, we go to that third-world country and we
arrange a huge loan from the international lending community; usually
the World Bank leads that process..."

**3. One point of departure for "relatively speaking" would be the
murderously vicious US-inspired UN sanctions imposed on Iraq; the
deaths of over 1mio people are thought to have been a direct result.
When queried, M. Albright is reputed to have said: "... but the price -
we think the price is worth it."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1519218

Also, this item illustrates both sides being *for* war; in this US case
that Kerry started out pro-, as Clinton was before Bush actually got
around to it.

**4. Oil, gas prices help record profits
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1445894.htm

"The international economy has pumped $40-billion into Australia's
resources sector in the last two years, but while shareholders are
certainly reaping the rewards, Australians don't necessarily need to
own stocks to enjoy the fringe benefits of the global resources boom,
as Brendan Trembath reports..."

This couldn't be called softening the blow, could it? - I mean, this is
exactly what we're discussing, i.e. the resource-rent rip-off. And
where it goes, and who gets it? Apart from the fat-cat CEOs etc, this
article says there's tax-payers (have to pay less - what? Show me the
cut!)), share-holders (dividends - perhaps; but what are the yields?),
workers (more jobs - Oh yeah; out in whoop-whoop?) and last but not
least, home-owners ('cause the mineral boom puts upward pressure on
home-prices - Oh, whoopee, again!)

OK, it's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick, one might
say - but what about if this largess was to be directly shared with us,
we the people? $40bio over 2 years would give each man, woman & child
about $1000 per year, so where's it gone?

"Fringe benefits" is another way of saying 'trickle-down'; but I don't
see too much trickling, over here.

**5. "Resource rent" - referring, say to some mineral, is the
difference between (a) what it costs to dig it up, including some
'normal' profit, i.e. enough dough to cover the costs of exploring,
developing, digging & pre-shipping any particular substance (the
'goods'), including a so-called fair return on capital - in other
words, the price of the substance the mining entity would do the job
for, and be quite happy; and (b) the price those 'goods' actually
realises, at 'market' - say, f.o.b. some ore carrier, tanker or
such-like.

Abnormal profit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_profit

"Abnormal profit, also referred to as supernormal profit or pure
profit, is an economic term of profit exceeding the normal profit.
Normal profit equals the opportunity cost of labour and capital, while
abnormal profit exceeds the normal return from these input factors in
production.

In principle there are three kind of abnormal profit:

Monopoly rent
Resource rent
Intra marginal rent..."

Then:

Resource rent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_rent

"Resource rent is an economic term of abnormal or supernormal profit
which derives from the exploitation of natural resources.

There are two main reasons of the existence of resource rent: The
scarcity of the natural resource and the possible impact exploitation
will have on natural growth of the resource in future (biological
resources). If the scarcity is not reflected in a market price as in a
perfect market, resource rent may be obtained."

-=*=-

Summary: Resource rent is the difference between (a) what a good costs
to dig up and make available to a customer, and (b) the actual price
paid by that customer for that good. The question is, who should get
this (unearned) difference?

a) the digger-upper; already with a fair profit without it, or