Assessment of Current Australian Politics

Sep 18, 2011 | Australian Values, Democracy, Immigration, OzPol Values, Racism, Religious Values, Terrorism, Values

Assessment of Current Australian Politics

 

Executive Summary 

  

Sir Roger has been absent from his adoring public. He has been busy, of course, and apologises from the bottom of what is left of his heart; from what is left of Australian politics by the Australian politicians who have mercilessly and inexorably broken it.

Sir Roger has made a deep study of the state of Australian politics over the last few weeks and the Executive Summary of his report is one line:

Bastards, cunts and ferals.

All of the politicians making public statements in Australia now are liars and dissemblers, desperately competing to be the first to dig Australian politics to the bottom of the political sewer.

They are weak, gutless, fear-driven cowards.

And they all seem to be trembling with terror in front of the toxic opinions of the deranged, ignorant, selfish, self-loathing, self-soul-saving, racist, hate-mongering, xenophobic Christians of Sydney’s west and Melbourne’s army of lip-service christian bogans.

Perhaps Judy Davis said much better (and more kindly) on the 7.30 Report on Thursday night:

“ I just wish that the politicians would have the courage to say what they believed was right, and if necessary walk away, just walk away from all the glory of office for the sake of what they believe is true. And I think that’s what the public wants.

Yes of course it’s exactly what the public wants. But they’re not going to get it.

Are our politicians really the best we can get? Do we really deserve this bunch of cheats and liars, dick measurers and gutless wonders? Are these bastards, cunts and ferals really a true reflection of who we are as a nation? Is this today’s high point of Australian politics?

And now Sir Roger needs to lie down with Johnny, or Jim and try to forget.

 

 

END OF: Assessment of Current Australian Politics

 

We Came For Peace

Jun 4, 2010 | Australian Values, Racism, Religious Values, Terrorism, Values, War

We Came For Peace

“We came for peace,”

said the commando, one of the first Israeli soldiers to board the Mavi Marmara.

”They came for war.”

How you can tell “we came for peace” is that we came in the dark of night in warships and armed rigid-hulled inflatable boats, and rappelled down from military helicopters.

How you can tell that the flotilla “came for war” is that they had boats filled with food and supplies that would have been appropriate for a struggling, broken down, hungry, besieged population whose land we progressively steal.

So now you can tell who the real terrorists are.

They’re the people who believe in non-violence, humanitarians who are committed to the welfare of others, people who empathise with the pain of others and who try to do something to alleviate the suffering of others in the world.

So, you know, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Médecins sans Frontières, UNHCR, World Vision etc. etc.

I mean, that’s obvious, isn’t it? Just like Mr Fish says:

 

 

I mean, you know, let’s be clear about who are the professional victims here, right? You just have to understand that whatever the situation and whatever action we take however brutal and excessive, Israeli is always the victim, okay? Anyway, the White House will make sure no-one never has to find out what really went on. They’re okay with us “investigating” ourselves.

 

 

 

Shalom

Israel’s Bogus Claims

Jun 2, 2010 | Australian Values, Democracy, Economic Values, Racism, Terrorism, Values, War

Israel’s Bogus Claims

 

[About Article 67(a)]

 

Israeli spokespeople are cheerfully quoting the “San Remo Agreement” or the “San Remo Accord” as if it gives their recent action legitimacy; that Article 67(a) confers on them the special right to board civilian craft of other countries in international waters if they are threatening to run a blockade.

But it does not and you’ll see why.

The actual title of the San Remo “Agreement” is San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994.

The first doubt you might have is whether there was “an armed conflict at sea” before the Israelis dropped from the helicopters onto the civilian ferry and other craft.

It is true that the Manual initially seems to offer some legitimacy:

 

Article 67 (a) says:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

This is the one paragraph that they quote because it suits their purposes. But wait, there’s more. It goes on to say:

(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;

(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;

(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

 

68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.

 

69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.

Paragraphs 38-46 say:

Part III : Basic rules and target discrimination

Section I : Basic rules

38. In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:

(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or

(b) are indiscriminate, in that:

(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or

(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

43. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.

44. Methods and means of warfare should be employed with due regard for the natural environment taking into account the relevant rules of international law. Damage to or destruction of the natural environment not justified by military necessity and carried out wantonly is prohibited.

45. Surface ships, submarines and aircraft are bound by the same principles and rules.

Section II : Precautions in attack

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;

(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;

(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and

(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

All of this is in a context of warfare and one is not at all sure that Israel is in a state of declared war with the Palestinians. Or with an international bunch of peace activists.

The rules about Blockades are:

Section II : Methods of warfare

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

So Articles 102 and 103 expressly forbid the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

All of this makes the mendacity of the Israelis starkly clear. Particularly the oozing, excremental (and happily ex-Australian) Regev.

And they are relying on you and me not having read the whole San Remo Manual which they flash so briefly and so nonchalantly.

Shame on you, Israel! Big Shame!

And big international lawsuits ahead.

 

Bertrand Russell & The Life of Brian

Jan 8, 2010 | Australian Values, Democracy, OzPol Values, Racism, Religious Values, Terrorism, Values, War

Bertrand Russell & The Life of Brian

 

 

Bertrand Russell’s grandmother’s favourite Bible verse was this:

“ Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.”
(Exodus 23:2)

We can think of a lot of people we would like to see taking that to heart. The ones with special vests and exploding underpants1, for example. Christian missionaries and evangelists, for instance. This is how it works:

Perhaps these words from Bertrand Russell will enrich and enwisen(!) you as they do Sir Roger.

30 years ago Russell said of the “Palestinian problem”:

“ The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state.
The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased.

 

How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict.

 

No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate?

 

A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East.

 

We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. […] What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy.

—Bertrand Russell , 31 January 1970

How quaint! Look how much has changed in the 30 years since Russell made that statement!

… What? …

Yes, so the only thing that has changed is that the problem has become worse. The situation in Palestine now inexorably drives and inflames global politics. 9/11, Afghanistan, the rise of islamic fundamentalism all feed from this one trough. Not any amount of cosmetic or diplomatic pretense, no “negotiated compromise”, no artificial “roadmap to peace” will make any difference at all.

The problem is not on the surface but in the poison in the system that causes the inescapable and constant eruption of the angry, putrid, existential carbuncles that are likely to haunt this century as they have the last 50 years.

The Israelis know this (as do the Americans, of course) but they are willing to watch — no, force — the rest of the world to pay the price for what they believe is their god-given right to their “promised land”.

Religion.

Always a force for good.

Without it we wouldn’t know what was the right thing to do.

 
 

Here’s how Russell summed up his life at the age of 84:

“ Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.

 

I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy—ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness—that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it, finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what—at last—I have found.

 

With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.

 

Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a hated burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.

 

This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me. 

 
  ¹ Just a question … if a person’s exploding underpants actually do work, are the 72 virgins of any use to him in heaven? Just another question? (Okay, just a few more.) If a suicide bomber is a woman does she get the 72 virgins as well? How does that work? Does she have to fuck 12-year-old muslim boys (given, after all, that only muslims are allowed into heaven)? Does she really want to? If a muslim is male and over 12 and is still a virgin surely he’s gay? Does she have to fuck him? Does she want to? Will he let her? Or do female suicide bombers have to be lesbians? Are there enough muslim virgins in heaven to pass 72 around each suicide bomber? They must be getting younger and younger nowadays. Are the virgins forced to be fucked by suicide bombers? How would that not be rape? Or is rape okay in islam?

Sir Roger’s optimistic feeling about suicide bombers is that the dickheads are doing the rest of the world the favour of removing themselves from the gene pool. It can only get better, right?

Lolcats With a Vengeance

Nov 17, 2009 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Global Warming, Immigration, Lifestyle & Life, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Religious Values, Science Values, Terrorism, USPol, Values, War

Lolcats With a Vengeance

Sir Roger is despondent

 

After all the hard work of so many people Australian politics is looking like Howard Lite, iSuck 2.0 déjà vu all over again. Boat people – “Aaaaarrrggghh! Foreigners! Tough on Queue-jumpers [but not on the causes of queue-jumpers]”.

“Let’s pretend to be doing something about climate change. We have to do something. We have to do something. I know! Let’s play tiddlywinks! That’s “something”. Hey, youse guys, the world is going to burn to a cinder unless we do something about it! So what we’re doing is, we’re playing tiddlywinks. If you don’t play tiddlywinks too, the world is going to burn to a cinder.”

“Okay, well, um … wait on … we don’t believe in tiddlywinks but we’ll play if Johnno and Wayne don’t have to play but you promise they will win.”

“But if Johnno and Wayne don’t play the world will burn to a crisp! No-one will win!”

“Okay, well…well…well get fuckin’ stuffed then! Let the world burn for all we fuckin’ care! … Fuckin’ lower class upstarts! Fuckin’ fairy eggheads!”

Palestine.
Israel.
Obama (what a fucking disappointment).
Russia.
Burma.
Sri Lanka.
China,
Tibet.

Fucking arrogant, corrupt and criminally-incompetent Indonesian politicians, bureaucrats, police and judges.

Walls everywhere.
Hatred.
Religious madmen in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia.

And the United States, which is terminally fucked in the collective head.

Democracy movements being crushed everywhere.

Freedoms, rights and privacy being shredded even – especially – by the good old Brits, eh, what?

Stupid global refusal to listen, based on creaking, long-ago-discredited, Industrial-Revolution-era social-political-religious theories that date back – even in their most recent versions – more than 200 years in the West, and on 4000-year-old, crazy, murderous, hate-filled, tribalist, racist, desert-engendered cruel religious fantasies in the rest of the world.

The hopes of “peace and love” from the last five decades crumbling like the naïve hallucinations they so pitiably were.

Young people who will “look after” things in a few years unable to think or care about anything but how some fake and shallow, talentless celebrity flashed her cunt, and what eyeshadow to wear …

And the people who actually care. the people with answers, who could possibly do something about it all, are sneered at and ridiculed.

It’s enough to make you want to just give up and forget it all and look at some funny cat video.