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

 

Denying Gay Marriage for Power’s Sake

Jun 29, 2011 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Democracy, Legal, Lifestyle & Life, Love, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Values

Denying Gay Marriage for Power’s Sake

Sir Roger does not wish to marry a man but . . .

 

To put it another way, while Sir Roger and Dorothy have many good friends in common, Dorothy and Sir Roger are not Facebook buddies. And Sir Roger does not think that his personal preference for his own life is of any moment or interest whatever in what another human “should” or should not do or be permitted to do, particularly in the area of human personal relationships. It is quite simply none of Sir Roger’s bloody business. Sir Roger’s opinion is irrelevant. So, very much, is Julia Gillard’s. Even more so is Tony Abbott’s.

Sir Roger was shocked this evening, however, to hear a Labor Party heavy claiming on the 7.30 Report that Labor shouldn’t approve gay marriage because if it did Labor would lose 10-15 seats in Queensland.

So stuff doing what’s right. It’s all about staying in power.

Now, Sir Roger can understand that a political party would argue that you have to win seats to form government.

The question is, to form government to do what exactly?

The answer can’t be to form government in order to stay in government. Nor can it be simply to keep the other mob out. There is no vision, leadership, or social progress in that. It is morally bankrupt.

The point of winning the privilege of forming a government is so that you can do good things, so that you can do what’s right, not just so that you can be in power. You don’t sacrifice what’s right on the altar of Power.

This Labor backroom zombie has, like almost the entirety of the Labor machine, lost sight of what it’s all really about and what really matters. It’s people like him — once again, basically the entire Labor machine — who are responsible for the decline of the party. They’re not going anywhere. They’re just clinging to power.

The other question is, why a gay or lesbian person would want to be “Married”, other than the financial/legal benefits? If they want to publicly affirm their love for each other in front of their friends they can do that already and more cheaply than a full-on wedding. Why would they want to ape the straight community’s rituals? Why would they want to be just like stuffy old straight people, or like Mum and Dad? It would surely be easier to pass legislation that confers non-discriminatory economic/legal rights on all people. If the big problem for straight people is just calling it “marriage”, why not just call it something else?

Of course, legislation that confers equal, non-gender-specific economic/legal rights on all people in whatever combination of relationship, where it is not in law now ought to be.

But as Sir Roger says, it’s none of his bloody business and the government(s) should stand away and get out of our bedrooms. Their job is to manage infrastructure like education, police, power and health and not to legislate morals. After all, being politicians they can hardly claim the high moral ground. In most cases in every party they are among the least moral and most dishonest (let’s just say “sleazy”) members of the community they are supposed to serve.

Just look at Tony Abbott.

 

 

David Hume

May 7, 2011 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Democracy, Education, Freedom of Speech, Media Values, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Science Values, Values

David Hume

. . . and so to the democracy that we enjoy today

David Hume, hero of the Enlightenment, father of skepticism, linchpin of democracy and human rights and freedoms,

Happy 300th Birthday! 

 

Sir Roger has some slight understanding of how Hume felt when he said this:

“ Here am I who have written on all sorts of subjects calculated to excite hostility, moral, political, and religious, and yet I have no enemies — except, indeed, all the Whigs, all the Tories, and all the Christians.”

Although the great Hume had many antecessors and successors his work in its clarity, rigour and accessibility was crucial to the flourishing of the Scottish Enlightenment and therefore to the rights and freedoms, to the political and social foundations – and so to the democracy – that we enjoy today.

Our system is not obvious and it is not “natural”. It is better than any other so far tested but it could disappear in a moment if we take our eye off it, if we do not cherish it and care for it and fight for it. As they say in another context, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.

“ Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.

In fact, the price of freedom is internal vigilance.

There are those who dream of its collapse – not only those who want a caliphate but also those who wish to arrogate power to themselves, those who arrogantly believe they have greater wisdom and greater value than others, those who feel entitled to rule . . .

“ It is seldom, that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom, that it must steal upon them by degrees, and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes, in order to be received. But, if the liberty of the press ever be lost, it must be lost at once. The general laws against sedition and libelling are at present as strong as they possibly can be made. Nothing can impose a farther restraint, but either the clapping an Imprimatur upon the press, or the giving to the court very large discretionary powers to punish whatever displeases them. But these concessions would be such a bare-faced violation of liberty, that they will probably be the last efforts of a despotic government.

. . . and those (some in one of our mainstream political parties) who dream of a latterday christian theocracy. It is these people, invariably committed christians and most often “practising catholics”, whom you will hear increasingly – and chillingly – talking about the “failure of the Enlightenment” and the “failed ‘experiment’ of democracy”.

Hume, prophetically, has something to say about them as well.

“ In all ages of the world, priests have been enemies to liberty; and it is certain, that this steady conduct of theirs must have been founded on fixed reasons of interest and ambition. Liberty of thinking, and of expressing our thoughts, is always fatal to priestly power, and to those pious frauds, on which it is commonly founded; and, by an infallible connexion, which prevails among all kinds of liberty, this privilege can never be enjoyed, at least has never yet been enjoyed, but in a free government.
…

Survey most nations and most ages. Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact, prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are any thing but sick men’s dreams: Or perhaps will regard them more as the playsome whimsies of monkies in human shape, than the serious, positive, dogmatical asseverations of a being, who dignifies himself with the name of rational.
…

Hear the verbal protestations of all men: Nothing so certain as their religious tenets. Examine their lives: You will scarcely think that they repose the smallest confidence in them.

And so Sir Roger recommends the following on David Hume’s 300th birthday:

“ Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous…A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.
…

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Happy Birthday, and thank you, David Hume!

 

Bankruptcy & Lies

Sep 20, 2010 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Religious Values, Values

Bankruptcy & Lies

Paedophile Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe

 Pope Shocked. Shocked!

 

I wish I had written this, because I agree wholeheartedly with what she says. I wish I had written what she wrote but thank goodness she did. Joan Smith’s whole article in the Independent is more than worth a read, it’s almost compulsory.

“ I’d be happy never to write another word about Christianity, Islam or any other supernatural belief system if their leaders didn’t keep telling me that their ethics are better than mine.

I wish she didn’t need to write it, because as much as I wish the whole appalling human waste of time, money and human effort that is religion would go away so that I didn’t feel the need to talk about it; much as I wish the whole lying, damaging, dangerous, manipulative, greedy, exploitative, self-serving, illusory, entirely man-made pretence would disappear,.. it doesn’t.

The other day in Britain Ratzinger said,

“ I express my deep sorrow to ze innocent victims of zese unspeakable crimes, along viss my hope zat ze power of Christ’s grace … vill bring deep healing and peace to zeir lives,” acknowledging “ze shame and humiliation vich all of us haf suffered because of zese sins”. He expressed his deep sorrow but did not, of course, as he never has been able to, apologise on behalf of the church.

You would have to think, hearing or reading this, that the church was moving heaven and earth swiftly, deliberately and remorselessly to repair the damage, to bring the perpetrators to justice and to bring recompense to the victims. But no. The utter bankruptcy of his crocodile tears is obvious. at the very moment he was weeping for victims of these unspeakable crimes one perpetrators former <strong>Bishop of Bruges

At the very moment he was weeping for the victims of these “unspeakable crimes”, one of the perpetrators, the former Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, who repeatedly abused his nephew for 13 years – starting when the boy was just 5 years old and Vangheluwe was a priest and continuing after he was made a bishop – was comfortably untouched by the church.

Even five months after he was exposed and resigned.

Indeed he had been protected by the church in Westvleteren Abbey. It is reported that on 12 September he announced that he would leave the abbey and “as of today, I will contemplate my life and future somewhere hidden”.

Of course he will.

Somewhere safe from accountability.

The church takes no action. It just expresses its deep sorrow. And Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Inquisition, always allowed this as policy.

The church is morally bankrupt. And it lies. Specifically, Ratzinger lies (breaking the commandment against bearing false witness).

As Joan Smith says,

“ “The revelations for me were a great shock and sadness,” he told journalists during his flight from Rome to London. I couldn’t help wondering why he was shocked; after all, in his previous job, he was the Vatican official responsible for investigating allegations of sex abuse. Indeed, he’s been accused of a cover-up after writing a letter in 2001 to every Catholic bishop, asserting the church’s right to hold its inquiries in secret.

Sir Roger, with all his faults, is more moral and ethical than the pope. He, an atheist, is more christian than Ratz is and cares more about human beings than he does. Sir Roger, for example, is not complicit in the deaths of millions in Africa because of some hocus pocus about birth control and condoms – he is not complacent about massive suffering for the sake of some wacky, untestable theory about “saving people’s ‘souls’”. (And all right, he admits he may be slightly less humble than Ratz.)

So, as Joan Smith says, don’t lecture us on morals, Ratzinger.

Here’s a taste of a fresh (and mercifully short) Hitchens piece in Slate which is worth reading in full:

“ As we have recently been forcibly reminded, the Roman Catholic Church holds it better for the cries of raped and violated children to be ignored, and for the excuses and alibis of their rapists and torturers indulged, and for a host of dirty and wilful untruths to be manufactured wholesale, and for the funds raised ostensibly for the poor to be paid out in hush money and shameful bribery, rather than that one tiny indignity or inconvenience be visited on the robed majesty of a man-made church or any limit set to its self-proclaimed right to be judge in its own cause.

 

r’Amen !

Let Us Prey

Sep 18, 2010 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, OzPol Values, PedoPriests, Religious Values, Values

Let Us Prey

Sunday Sacrilege — Early Edition

 

 

 

Leader of the World’s Largest Organised Paedophile Ring Visits Britain

The leader of the world’s largest organised ring of paedophiles has been greeted by Queen Elizabeth with all the courtesy and panoply that the British could gather in her eagerness to do appropriate honour to the celebrity confidence trickster¹ who leads an enormous, globally-tentacled society of professional rapists and child molesters which enjoys worldwide political patronage, legal protection and financial privileges.

 

 

 

Cue Geoffrey Robertson:

“For 30 years, as Cardinal Ratzinger, from 1981 on, he was in charge of what to do about paedophile priests and he declined on the whole to even defrock them,” Mr Robertson said.

[ … ]

Mr Robertson also argues that the Vatican should stop protecting paedophile priests by abandoning canon law – the laws and regulations made and adopted by the church.

“Canon law is not law at all,” he said.

“It has no punishment. The problem with the church is that it’s been treating paedophile priests as sinners and not as serious criminals.

“Canon law is a medieval procedure. There’s no cross-examination, there’s no forensic testing and it’s run by priests who judge priests so not many get convicted.

“It’s a biased court, and … there’s no punishment. The Pope even said last week that he thought penance was quite sufficient for child molesters.

“[Penance] means being asked to go away and pray for your victims.

“Of course, victims don’t want their abusers to say prayers for them. They want justice and they want to make sure the abuser doesn’t offend again.

“Canon law is hopeless. The church has got to give it up if it’s going to deal with this massive crisis.”

Thousands of catholic priests, ordered to do penance, are reported to have rushed to their cells, fallen on their knees and begun to pray for little boys.

Reacting to the first remarks of the Pope on his state visit, the British Humanist Association has expressed its disappointment.

‘The notion that it was the atheism of Nazis that led to their extremist and hateful views or that somehow fuels intolerance in Britain today is a terrible libel against those who do not believe in god. The notion that it is non-religious people in the UK today who want to force their views on others, coming from a man whose organisation exerts itself internationally to impose its narrow and exclusive form of morality and undermine the human rights of women, children, gay people and many others, is surreal.’

An Open Letter to the Pope has been signed by 50 British “celebrities” and intellectuals including Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Baroness Blackstone and A C Grayling, along with lots of Drs, Profs, Baronesses and Sirs. The letter is at the British Humanist Association website. Here are the main points:

The Pope is a head of state and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:

  • opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of AIDS
  • promoting segregated education
  • denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women
  • opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people
  • failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.

 

Meanwhile Queen Elizabeth has met the Pope and kissed papal arse … sorry? … sorry, kissed the papal ring.

And here’s the excuse of His Saintliness, as well as the head of the British chapter of the paedophile ring:

Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged flawsa in the church’s handling of the child abuse scandal as he as arrived in Scotland for the opening of his four-day visit to Britain.

The head of the Catholic Church in England, Bishop Vincent Nichols, also addressed the scandal as he waited for the Pope to arrive in Edinburgh.

“We have said, I think quite consistently, ‘Yes we did let you downb. Yes, we did. We did not get these things rightc,’” Nichols said. “But we’re learningd, and I hope everybody is learning that child abuse is not an easy thing to deal with, and we all have to deal with it, sooner or latere.

“We’re learning and we’re in a good placef. And anyone who entrusts their children or their elderly people to the care of the church can be quite sure that they’re safeg.”

 Notes:

The two greatest liars, sophists and spinners internationally (now that Bush’s Press Secretaries are out of a job at the White House) are Israel’s Mark Regev and the Catholic Church corporately. Note how Ratzinger and Nicholls have done it here.

PR Trick #1: “Reframe” the problem from shocking to mild and even forgivable.

a. “Flaws?” It’s not that serious, it’s merely a flaw. We’ll just get O’Brien in to fix that little crack (Oh, no, for god’s sake don’t mention little cracks! It makes me think of rock spiders.)

PR Trick #2: Admit to and show touching contrition for a much lesser crime, for which the penalty is, you know, penance, not prison. In Rugby League the usual script is something like [strike out whichever does not apply]: “I’m real ashamed of meself. I know I shouldn’t of done it. I let me wife down, I let me kids down, I let me family down, I let me mates down, I let me club down, I let me fans down. I let meself down. All I can say is it was out of character. It wasn’t really me. Now I wanna put the past behind me so I’d like youse all to respect me family’s privacy so we can hopefully get back to living a normal life.”

b. “We let you down.” No, you didn’t “let you down”. You buggered little boys up the arse. You did it constantly, systematically and systemically. You knew about it. People at the highest levels in your paedophile organisation knew all about it. You didn’t do anything about it. You concealed it. You protected the perpetrators. Constantly, systematically and systemically and as a matter of official policy. You protected each other from any consequences and you moved your rapists to other parishes full of juicy crops of fresh new innocent little victims. (You know they want it.) There is no difference between you and your paedophile ring and any other paedophile ring – except that other paedophiles often get to go to prison and the Queen of England doesn’t welcome them with gifts.

c. “Get these things right?’ Yes, of course it’s not about a systemic corruption of everything your organisation pretends to stand for, it’s a simple matter of minor adjustments to “get things right”. Really, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

PR Trick #3: Say you’re already taking steps to fix the problem, and that you’re already improving, as long as that doesn’t involve anything anyone can test.

d. “We’re learning.” Of course, learning is good, education is good, everyone knows that, so if you do education that means you’re good and we forgive you. And this way you don’t have to actually do anything that we can see.

PR Trick #4: Identify with your audience. Insist that you both share the same problem. This way you can suggest that they are no better than you are. This way they should cut you some slack. “Hey, deep down, everyone’s a paedophile, aren’t they?”

e. “Child abuse is not an easy thing to deal with, and we all have to deal with it, sooner or later.”

We “all” WHAT!!!????   No we don’t. You do. Contrary to what you seem to think, most of us aren’t even vaguely tempted to sodomise boys as young as two, or to rape little girls. You have to deal with it. And you don’t.

PR Big Mistake #1: Don’t tell people your personal comfort is important. Remember BP’s Tony Hayward saying “I want my life back”? The guy who was spotted having a nice day out sailing during BP’s biggest crisis? Where is he now? Siberia.

f. “We’re in a good place.” No you’re not in “a good place”. You’re in a bad place. You’re in hell. You as an organisation bring hell to young, trusting, powerless people. You are evil people.

PR Big Mistake #2: Never claim anything that everyone knows is a lie.

g. “Your children are safe with us.”One thing we know for sure is that no-one is going to trust you and your paedophile organisation with their children. We know they are in danger and we know that your paedophile ring will protect the perpetrators and not the children and that you continue to delay taking the action which is required. Your offers of counselling and prayer are laughable, cheap and totally free of accountability. We know who  and what you are and you should not tell us our children are safe with you. That’s what you told us before and then you went and fucked our babies.

 

in nom-nomine patris et filii succulenti …..

 

Time Magazine reports the latest Catholic buggery news:

In the past few months, harrowing tales have emerged from almost every congregation in [Belgium] about priests raping and assaulting young parishioners. This week … church investigators published an explosive report on 475 claims of sexual abuse over a 50-year time span.

[ … ]

The commission, headed by respected child psychiatrist Peter Adriaenssens, found that most of the cases concerned young boys and teenagers, but there was one incident involving a 2-year-old boy. Assaults on boys usually ended by the time they were 14, but abuse of girls — who accounted for about a third of all the cases — sometimes continued into adulthood, the report found. About half of the abusers have died, and 13 victims are known to have committed suicide.

[ … ]

The bulk of the revelations in Belgium were triggered by an especially shocking case involving the veteran bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, who resigned in April after admitting to raping his own nephew in the years between 1973 and 1986. Vangheluwe’s confession came just before his nephew was expected to go public, and that appears to have motivated other abuse victims to come forward and contact Adriaenssens’ commission.

At the same time, the church seemed to confirm widespread suspicions of a cover-up when Léonard’s predecessor, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, was caught on tape urging Vangheluwe’s victim to keep quiet. As for Vangheluwe, he is still part of the priesthood and is staying in a monastery near Bruges. The Vatican — which has the ultimate power to defrock bishops — has yet to impose any disciplinary measures on him.

The Catholic Church promotes the power of prayer. It purveys a brand of metaphysical legerdemain which posits a god which can — from its place in some imaginary immaterial dimension which is separate from the physical universe — see what every single person in the world is doing and hear every prayer that is prayed and answer every single one of those prayers by controlling the natural laws of the phenomenal world to materialise the supplicants’ desired physical outcomes.

“And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”

Matthew 21:22

 

All things. Whatsoever. Ye shall receive.

This is the sacred, unqualified, unconditional promise of the church. The “divinely inspired” word of god. The very words of Christ himself.  It cannot be parsed, or modified, or analogised. Whatsoever ye shall ask; no mention of “as long as it’s reasonable, or you’re not being greedy, and if we have it in stock”.

It is in stone, immutable and undeniable. According to them. And they swear the bible is 100% authentically written by this god (or his various ghost-writers).

If I want a Ferrari I can have it.

If I want a 15-inch dick it’s mine overnight.

So you can imagine thousands of tormented priests around the world on their knees every night praying to the lord jesus and whatever other supposed saint they can think of to make them stop drooling to sodomise little boys, praying that their dicks might fall off, or anything, anything, to stop them sinning and harming people, to save them from hell.

But it doesn’t work. Their prayers aren’t answered.

So apparently:

  • The bible is bullshit.
  • Or there’s no god.
  • Or he’s not as clever as they claim.
  • Or of course there’s that rider: “believing”. Do their prayers go unanswered because they don’t truly believe?

In that case the church is a secular international paedophile ring no different from all the others, and catholic “priests” are no different from your ordinary neighbourhood child rapist.

So which is it? The bible is bullshit? god is bullshit? or priests don’t believe all that bullshit? It has to be one or more (or all) of these.

 

And just a related local political note:

 

 

The local representative of the worldwide patron of the paedophile ring is the fatuous, unctuous and cavernously stupid Cardinal Pell who is the moral mentor of Tony Abbott, MHR

Just saying

 

 

¹ Confidence tricksters of course don’t need to own the bill of goods they “sell” to their victims. But a disgruntled victim might want to extract revenge, or get their money back, or call the police.
The brilliance of the religious confidence tricksters is that the very absence of their product is its major selling point and they never have to deliver any product at all.
“You will get your reward in heaven.”
So you have to die to take delivery of the goods.
If I’m right?   Another satisfied customer.
If I’m wrong?   You’re never coming back to get revenge.
Meanwhile I’ve got your money! (and access to your little children) —here and now, where it counts.

Who wouldn’t start their own religion if they had no conscience at all?

 

UPDATE:

At the risk of offending against Godwin’s Law, we note that the man whom christians constantly claim to have been an atheist was in fact deeply and fanatically christian as you can read at Pharyngula. For example,

“ I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]”.

But Hitler also said this, which explains something about catholicism:

“ For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? … Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas… it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith.”

[Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

 

 

Tony Blair: All the Perfumes of Arabia

Sep 5, 2010 | Australian Values, Corruption, OzPol Values, Religious Values, USPol, Values, War

Tony Blair: All the Perfumes of Arabia

 Doctor: What is it he does now? Look, how he rubs his hands.

Gentlewoman: It is an accustom’d action with him, to seem thus washing his hands.

Foul Whisp’rings Are Abroad

 

S ir Roger has been listening and reading about Celebrity War Criminal Tony Blair’s 720 page excuse for his inexcusable war crimes, TONY BLAIR: A JERK.

And, as he listens and reads, Sir Roger’s mind is flooded with lines from Shakespeare’s Macbeth.

“  Macbeth:
What hands are here? Ha! they pluck out mine eyes.

Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood

Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather

The multitudinous seas incarnadine,

Making the green one red.

[ … ]

Lady Macbeth: 
Yet here’s a spot.

Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why, then ’tis time to do ’t.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?

What, will these hands ne’er be clean?—Here’s the smell of the blood still; all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh!

Wash your hands, put on your nightgown; look not so pale.

I tell you yet again, Banquo’s buried; he cannot come out on ’s grave.

To bed, to bed! there’s knocking at the gate. Come, come, come, come, give me your hand. What’s done cannot be undone.


Exit.


Doctor:
Foul whisp’rings are abroad; unnatural deeds

Do breed unnatural troubles; infected minds

To their deaf pillows will discharge their secrets.

More needs she the divine than the physician.

God, God, forgive us all!

… except Tony Blair, who “loves not Caesar less but loves Rome more”.

Yet do I fear Blair’s nature; It is “too full o’ the milk of human kindness” to be authentic.

In fact, what Blair has done, has endorsed, has pursued, has prozelytised for, has lied through his teeth for and has conveniently forgiven himself for is, simply, unforgivable.

And on top of all this, of course, what he did has made the world a much more dangerous place for the rest of us.

He says that he has wept for those he sent to their deaths and that he was truly upset by those who died. But if he were truly sensible to, and authentically sorry for, the horrors for which he is personally responsible for inflicting on so many thousands of people he would by now have gone completely mad, leapt naked into a pit of thorns and snakes, covered himself in ashes, and begun flailing himself with chains, because the horrors he has for political expediency visited on, in fact, millions, are so awful that it is impossible to grasp their true enormity, ugliness and inhumanity.

Blair’s simpering, smirking, self-congratulatory, self-indulgent, self-promoting self-forgiveness is insufficient. It is as shallow as Lake Eyre in a drought and as intelligent as a dead slug.

 

 

Here’s the smell of the blood still; all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand

 

 

 

“  And also with bloodied hands of course the vile Bush and Howard (and by extension those who endorsed them, up to and including Pell). There is another, the one man who probably had the power to stop the madness but chose to be its champion – Rupert Murdoch.
~ Wanderer