-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 2:10 AM
To: Michael
Subject: RE: shitegeist


im just trying to work out who the fuck these 50% are. i dont really think that we have rt wing xtians here in oz either. or any militia. no wonder i dont understand any of it. oz has plenty of small c-onservatives - church-going xenophobic homofobes - but i dont think there is any christian movement. at all. (i think we have only a small muslim population as well)

no wonder nothing makes sense to me. i havent the slightest framework for considering christo-fascists ashcroft/robertson/falwell outside of labelling them 'looney' - and i cant begin to get my head around the apparent legions of fans. of course, its a truism that fascists must have a cheering base - and it mite as well be religious as any other. i guess im not the first atheist to struggle with the issue... praps the cause of the cognitive dissonance is that i struggle to overthrow the idea of america being the ideal of secualrity, and its actually a theocracy. oddly, i was more comfortable throwing out the notion of america as a democracy - perhaps that fallacy is more observable. and id be happy to accept that people are brainwashed by fauxnews - but the whole theocracy thing completely throws me. 'in god we trust' on the currency and elsewhere prolly should have given it away...

to that extent, i guess the idea of the 'liberal media bias' (which i hitherto thought was just a clever gop trick) actually makes sense - the christos are so extreme, that the 'average' gets dragged so far rite that anything without liberal 'bias' would be unprintable.
and the nyt is sposed to be the posterboy for liberal bias - u can watch the talkingshreds on fauxnews snigger at the nyt all day. this from a paper headlining with brooks safire friedman miller (and jayson blair gets in trouble!). its astonishing to me that the nyt can even have these people appear in the paper, let alone the paper being a liberal bastion. am i wrong??? i dont mean to just throw names around to prove a point - but the actual articles they write are just disgusting. it doesnt feel to me like its just a matter of personal opinion, but i guess the xtians say the same thing. but thats not true either - these people write inciteful (provable) lies. again and again. they could all walk straight into a job with the rabid wsj oped team. do u know these people @ wsj oped? peggy noonan et al are just vile. http://www.opinionjournal.com/ i dont know if the rest of the wsj is as corrupt, but the oped is foul.

to me, it seems like these people (and systems) are all absolutely corrupt, i dont really think its a matter of opinion or anything - it *seems* to me that im being objective - i dont feel that i attack them for their opinions, but rather the fact that they lie lie lie. intentionally. it looks to me like pure propaganda - and ive been watching a lot, for a while. its not just that i disagree with them, it that they lie to achieve a purpose. thats just fundamentally wrong in a democracy in any sense. if u have a purpose, then tell the truth and put it to the test. but if u lie, and people die, it gets me angry.

lets remember, on the anniversary of the iraq invasion (incidentally fox is now calling it an 'invasion'), that it wasnt a fuckup that they didnt find wmd, they knew in advance. and we knew in advance. and they knew that we knew in advance. it was obvious in realtime that powell was telling lie after lie in the UN that horrible day. its not that things didnt turn out as he outlined. he knew every word of it was wrong... and he knew it was a complete lie when he said 'none of this is speculation, its all fact' can u imagine the cajones required? and without shame. what else are they capable of? and the 'liberal' media just kept regurgitating it. at about the same time, cnn ran what they called a "transcript" of blixs speech - but they omitted the paragraphs where he criticised powells testimony - in a transcript! what a fucked up world. everything was a lie - its difficult to mention them all without giving a list that becomes irrelevant noise - praps my favourite one is when they quoted repeatedly some iraqi defector (not one of chalabis) - i think he was saddams soninlaw and was in charge of the weapons program - he told them about all the gazillion tons of xyz that powell quoted that day - and he was right. he also told them that he had destroyed it all in 95 or some such. the americans *only used the first part of his testimony* (the guy was killed when he went back to iraq). the same guy! an unimpeachable source and they dont mention that he had destroyed it all. and it wasnt like it was a secret - i knew about this and all the other dodgy stories in advance - and its not like i have an inside view. all the stories are in the mainstream press - it just takes a bit of time to put them together sometimes. and then u get miller popping up on the front page with aluminium tubes and drones and iraqi scientists she could see in the distance with a baseball cap. liberal media! liberal is such a nice word these days - i think it means antibush antiwar antigod. or french looking. or left. i never in my craziest dreams thought that i could ever be described as 'left' - what an odd world. in fact, i dont even think that i am political - let alone partisan. i dont like people lying to kill others and to take over the world. is that politics? i dunno. prolly.

maybe i just like to rant