Diversion tactics, Howard talks up terror : Melbourne Indymedia

First it was the Lucas Height nuclear reactor Willie Brigitte was alleged to have been planing to blow up. ASIO alleged to have found some type of map as evidence late last year.

Now it’s allegedly army bases in and around Sydney reported by the corporate media terror cell the un-Australian Newspaper who has links to Four Walls and other television terror networks linked to ASIO, Howard and the French intelligence agency.

Diversionary? The first alleged target Lucas Heights was a backfire and too controversial because it meant that the fear created would have been overwhelmingly in support of moving the Lucas Heights facility. The authorities made a mistake by choosing the facility as a target and needed a new plan realising they had made a mistake.

The second diversion is that you are meant (the Australian public) to believe that the government made a mistake by not acting on the alert sent by the French Intel and now they have to fix it up by introducing more draconian terror legislation.

The Opposition and corporate media barking like dogs about how authorities did not acknowledge act or detain Willie Brigitte

Such a cleaver diversion opening the gate for Ruddock who now insist we need greater powers after his agency has supposedly now failed to save Australians from a terror attack.

So the Australian government contact the French and call for their intelligence agency to make more comments to satisfy the argument that Australia made a mistake.

We wake up to the news that ASIO were on holidays and therefore never got the message in September 2003, that Willie Brigitte was dangerous. Now we have two more victims for Howard to exploit here in Australia.

The un-Australian: POLICE attempts to lay terrorism charges against two Sydney associates of Frenchman Willie Brigitte are being blocked because crucial intelligence gathered by ASIO cannot be used in court.

The un-Australian go on to say other things about the associates without supporting what they say with any evidence.

Similarly Four Walls tonight will be full of rhetoric and hearsay that’s all folks!

So all you terrorists come on down! Australia is talking up terror and Howard needs you!

The un-Australian: Police do not have the same powers as ASIO, which can use telephone intercepts and information from foreign spy services, and must instead use ASIO's intelligence as a resource from which they build a case using less intrusive methods.

The ABC's Four Walls program part of the propaganda machine for Howard is pumping up Terror for Howard in the WAR ON LIBERTY tonight after 9’s Sunday program yesterday sneaked in the door before the well advertised first show for Four Walls this year.

Word of warning! Don’t believe a word they say and go tell your friends that once more we are being lied too. By the Liar-Birds who want you to live in fear.

Four Walls has alleged to have obtained excerpts of the French interrogation of Brigitte's Australian wife, Melanie Brown, who was detained by counter-terrorism police when she arrived in Paris to visit her jailed husband.

But the French have delivered Howard’s wish to the ABC another dossier about terror to further promote the governments electioneering prospects once again these are just lies.

One doesn’t have to wonder about "everyone’s ABC" because Howard owns the place especially Four Walls and in cooperation with 9’s Bad day on Sunday and 60 lies a minute.

As reported by The Australian last November, Brigitte and his associates were strongly suspected of having turned their gaze towards important strategic and military installations such as the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor.

Brigitte was arrested on October 9 and the circumstances of his eventual capture became the subject of a political row yesterday, with the federal Opposition accusing the Government of covering up a four-day delay in acting on a warning from the French.

The warning was received at 11pm on Friday, October 3, but not acted on until the following Tuesday after the Labour Day weekend.

"Clearly, that is a cover-up," said Opposition homeland security spokesman Robert McClelland. "It is a cover-up because they knew it was a monumental stuff-up."

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said ASIO's watch office had made a determination that the referral could wait until all decision-makers were back at work.

Mr Ruddock's spokesman said the delay had had no adverse consequences.

THE DOG: Is the Opposition that stupid that they would play right into the hands of their co-offenders? You bet. As for the corporate media and Howard’s ABC! Time to get on the right side of the Australian people who tell the truth and stop wasting taxpayers dollars on Howard’s propaganda.

Brigitte release 'imminent for lack of evidence': lawyer
http://www.geocities.com/nswcn13/archive04/2004a13.html

Brigitte's alleged attack!
http://www.geocities.com/nswcn13/archive04/2004a18.html

If his own lawyer, who was interviewed on Channel Nine's 'Today' show this morning, is to be believed, one of Willy Brigitte's associates used faked company identification to shop around for chemicals that could be used to make a bomb.

Obviously nothing suspicious there.

Dear Greg, you live in Sydney right? Would you be an absolute darling and pop around to spinifexes bridge that he lives under and drive the point home to him that we don't like his demeted babblings here?
Thanks in advance
pr.

Well PR I can tell you that he too is entitled to his opinion.

But when he is locked up for something he didn't do then contacts Justice Action for some caseworker to dig him out of prison the person will realise like all of us that there is no defence unless you're Kerry Packer or Rene Rivkin.

That’s how people change!

You just got to believe that people are learners until they fall prey to the system who wants to use you like rag to wipe their dirty arse on regardless if you committed a crime or not.

Dearest Gregory

If you want to see real "demeted babblings", it's worth noting that Professor Rat by his own admission is a state certified lunatic.

You should see some of the stuff he writes.

Anyway, Willy is a pure as the driven snow, I am sure.

And he is entitled to the benefit of any doubt.

But now that he and his buddies have all started fingering each other, I guess they'll all have to get separate lawyers - instead of acting through the one advocate.

Conflicts of interest and all that.

Getting interesting, isn't it folks?

Does Pr's medical record really have anything to do with your "demented babblings?

Is this Manly ratepayer funded spray in the real interests of Manly ratepayers?

Do your writings always support the status quo?

Do your ramblings aways attack any perceived underdog, the poor, imprisoned and disadvantaged in society?

Does your work invariably encourage authoritarian regimes and figures of a right-wing leaning, Spinifex?

First off, people please do not use the news wire for unessecary bitching that goes between Spinifex & his enemys. He may not be right, he may well be a complete fool but he too has his opinion & has the right to voice is word. Instead of just saying he is a fool & doesnt know what his talking about, like i seen many people doing in this & other threads, how about you prove him wrong if he is in fact wrong or just except that gee! maybe someone else has a different opinion.

Also i dont know where u come from but i think the program your reffering to in this article is "Four Corners" and not Four Walls. Good try though. It was a handy article though and just remember people that ABC is government owned so i wouldnt put it past them doing a little bit of 'propaganda' work for the Liberals or Labor if they held government. Just another reason to watch Dateline on SBS :)

quote:
==================================
Is this -->Manly ratepayer funded spray --> in the real interests --> of Manly ratepayers?
=================================

Can you read, "Meshuggah "?

Do you know anything about Game Theory and Ethics?

Meshuggah dont waste your time with him, you can never have a conversation/debate with him as he only knows how to rant and spam.

If you think he's just like this on here then think again, i remember when he attened An MIM meeting once he just started ranting you couldnt even have a converstation with him, it was quite funny to watch he interactions with other members ROFL......

Better just to iggnore him and if you see his spam email the collective at: mim(at)antimedia.net put
"MIM NEWSWIRE SPAM" in subject heading and they remove it pronto.

Someone

LOL good critisim there. He is a tool but maybe if he wasnt feeling so threatened by all us intelligent Left Wing people he would accually try to debate. Good point though, he cant win unless he just talks to himself so just so he can live his happy little life let him rant & rave to himself and leave the real debating with those who are of a higher intellect.

You lot kill me, let spinefex & co rant and rave all they like ! You either agree with them or you don't.
I personally think the article is a good one and agree with it, but remember free speach? So if you agree with them, "great", and if you don't , well just sit back & have a laugh! Remember, it takes all sorts !
Great article. " Martin " !
( Diversion tactics, Howard talks up terror), let's get back to it then...

[IMC-Editorial] RE: "honestreporting" correction
Chris Parsons Chris.Parsons@manlycouncil.nsw.gov.au
Fri Nov 1 17:43:11 PST 2002
Previous message: [IMC-Editorial] URGENT PRESS RELEASE
Next message: [IMC-Editorial] book moblie
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Perhaps you should post prominent disclaimers on your web pages. I went to you web site and to me, too, it just looked like some frothing anti-Semitic creep doing a bit of opportunistic Jew-baiting in cyber-space. Not an on line libertarian committed to free (if somewhat naive) speech.

**-----------------------------------------------------------------------**
Disclaimer:- This email and any attached files are intended solely for the
use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential
and/or subject to legal privilege / copyright. If you receive this email
and you are not the intended addressee (or responsible for the delivery of
the email to the addressee), please note that any copying, distribution or
use of this email is prohibited and as such, please disregard the contents
of the email, delete the email, and notify the sender immediately.
Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and are
not necessarily the views of Manly Council.
**-----------------------------------------------------------------------**

Are these Manly Ratepayer funded activites kosher with we of "the so-called leftist"?

Nice one, "Game Theory for Beginners " as I'm a beginner you might want too spell it out for me .

C.mon Chris, tell me off good & proper and be sure to let us all know what it is that got you so , (Manly) ?

No probs, WW. I forgot to mention that I was impressed when you agreed that an anti-theist argument I posted had merit, and that you did so as a theist (obviously libertine) after a fraud claiming to be an atheist accused me of demonstrating a "lack of empathy" for daring to criticize religion. Thanks for that! - and keep up the good work!

The following related extracts are from an unfinished collection of handy Cognitive Tools to help assess and select for explanatory fitness. "Subverting Faith" explains why we have no choice but to rely on experts, but why we should always maintain a healthy suspicion of their motives - and what happens when we don't. It isn't quite game theory, so you can skip to the following two extracts on reciprocal altruism and the evolutionary explanation for emotions if you prefer. But you must start by playing a few quick games of the Prisoner's Dilemma before you continue. Good Luck!

[One] reason we are so-so scientists is that our brains were shaped for fitness [to the peopled environment], not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not. Conflicts of interest are inherent to the human condition, and we are apt to want our version of the truth, rather than the truth itself, to prevail.

For example, in all societies, expertise is distributed unevenly. Our mental apparatus for understanding the world, even for understanding the meanings of simple words, is designed to work in a society in which we can consult an expert when we have to. The philosopher Hillary Putnam confesses that, like most people, he has no idea how an elm differs from a beech. But the words aren’t synonyms for him or for us; we all know that they refer to different kinds of trees, and that there are experts out there who could tell us which is which if we ever had to know. Experts are invaluable and are usually rewarded in esteem and wealth. But our reliance on experts puts temptation in their path. The experts can allude to a world of wonders—occult forces, angry gods, magical potions—that is inscrutable to mere mortals but reachable through their services. Tribal shamans are flim-flam artists who supplement their considerable practical knowledge with stage magic, drug-induced trances, and other cheap tricks. Like the Wizard of Oz, they have to keep their beseechers from looking at the man behind the curtain, and that conflicts with the disinterested search for the truth.

In a complex society, a dependence on experts leaves us even more vulnerable to quacks, from carnival snake-oil salesman to the mandarins who advise governments to adopt programs implemented by mandarins. Modern scientific practices like peer-review, competitive funding, and open mutual criticism are meant to minimize scientists’ conflicts of interest in principle, and sometimes do so in practice. The stultification of good science by nervous authorities in closed societies is a familiar theme in history, from Catholic southern Europe after Galileo to the Soviet Union in the twentieth century.

It is not only science that can suffer under the thumb of those in power. The anthropologist Donald Brown was puzzled to learn that over the millennia the Hindus of India produced virtually no histories, while the neighboring Chinese had produced libraries full. He suspected that the potentates of a hereditary caste society realized that no good could come from a scholar nosing around in the records of the past where he might stumble upon evidence undermining their claims to have descended from heroes and gods. Brown looked at twenty-five civilizations and compared the ones organized by hereditary castes with the others. None of the caste societies developed a tradition of writing accurate depictions of the past; instead of history they had myth and legend. The caste societies were also distinguished by an absence of political science, social science, natural science, biography, realistic portraiture, and uniform education. Good science is pedantic, expensive, and subversive.

Cosmides and her colleague John Tooby have argued that the human mind is specially adapted for detecting social cheats - that is, people who do not fulfil their social obligations or abide by the rules that society has evolved to enable it to function smoothly.

Their argument is based on the assumption that when the human brain evolved into its present form some time late in the late Pleistocene 200,000 years ago, it evolved mechanisms for handling the really important problems of everyday life current at the time and these problems were the social ones of maintaining the cohesion of our social groups. The crucial problem that our ancestors faced, they suggest, is that of the free-rider, the person that cheats on social conventions by refusing to repay debts or abide by conventional rules. It is the person who repeatedly borrows coffee from you and never pays it back, who never buys a round of drinks when out with groups, who begs favours without returning them; it's the one who parks in the no-parking area so blocking the traffic for everyone else, who grazes more cattle on the common pastureland than he is entitled to by the conventions of the village, who avoids paying quite as much tax as he ought by exploiting some ingenious loop in the law, who steals your property instead of working to earn the money to buy his own. It's what Garrett Hardin termed the 'tragedy of the commons': the fact that it invariably pays everyone in the short term to cheat just a little on the system even though in the long term they would all do better to co-operate with each other by adhering to society's rules.

Cosmides and Tooby's argument builds on earlier work by the evolutionary psychologist Robert Trivers who suggested in 1971 that what he termed 'reciprocal altruism' was an evolutionary viable strategy in a Darwinian world. It's the I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine principle. The only problem is that it is rather susceptible to cheats who enjoy their backs being scratched, but then refuse to pay the debt. Despite this, reciprocal altruism can, nonetheless, be a successful strategy providing the mutual advantages are beneficial and there is some kind of mechanism for detecting and punishing cheats. Generally speaking, the critical requirements are that you have the opportunity to meet repeatedly with the same prospective partner and that you have the ability to remember who did what the last time you met.

In such contexts, the best strategy turns out to be a very simple one. In the technical literature of evolutionary biology it's called 'Tit-for-Tat' (or TFT for short). It involves behaving co-operatively the first time you meet someone and thereafter simply behaving in exactly the same way as your oponent did on the previous occasion. If your opponent refuses to scratch your back after you have scratched his, then next time you meet you should also refuse; if he scratched your back last time, then you should scratch his next time. It's an extraordinarily simple rule of behaviour, but it works better than any other, as the biologists Robert Axelrod and Bill Hamilton convincingly demonstrated when they held an open competition for solutions to this problem. Axelrod and Hamilton invited game theorists and other mathematicians to submit strategies (or game rules) for playing this game and then ran the rules against each other in a computerized tournament. Each strategy was played against every other strategy many thousands of times, and the strategy that consistently won was the simplest of them all, TFT.

The problem with TFT is that it depends on your repeatedly playing against the same individual. In a one-off game, cheating always pays. If you can arrange your life as a series of single encounters, then cheating on a social convention is a very profitable strategy. Once way for cheats to engineer this is to be constantly on the move, always one step ahead of the individuals that have rumbled their cheating ways. The Swedish biologists Magnus Enquist and Otto Leimar were able to show mathematically that free-riding becomes an increasingly successful strategy as both the size and the patchiness of the population increase. The more the population is broken up into small discrete units that communicate rarely with each other, the more easily free-riders can survive because they can move on to another group each time their cheating habits are discovered. These are obvious features that are particularly characteristic of human societies, both traditional and modern.

So, argue Cosmides and Tooby, humans have evolved minds that are especially sensitive to those who cheat on social rules. Humans live in a particularly social world: the social world has, if you like, been our primary evolutionary adaption, our way of solving the Darwinian problem of survival and successful reproduction. Our survival in the ecological world depends crucially on the success with which we co-operate with each other, for in the natural world we are beset not only by the conventional array of predators but also the marauding bands of humans searching out opportunities to prey on the unsuspecting. Nonetheless, so long as most people co-operate and abide by the rules, it will always pay some people to exploit them and become free-riders.

Co-operation occurs in a great many contexts in human society. In most hunter-gatherer societies for example, the produce from a hunt is always shared around the group. The hunter brings his kill back to the camp where it is divided equally between all the families present. Hunting is a risky business, in which successful kills occur at infrequent intervals and meat-sharing probably serves to minimize the risk that any one family will have to go without for any length of time. It seems to be a classic example of long-term reciprocal altruism: I'll let you share in my good fortune now, providing you let me share in yours later when I've been unsuccessful. But hunters always have the option of cheating because they can eat some or all of the kill while still out in the forest, and sometimes they do just that. The trouble is that if too many hunters behaved in this way, the benefits of sharing the meat would be lost. So the practice is frowned upon as morally reprehensible, and offender risk finding themselves socially ostracized. All societies use smear campaigns and snide remarks to enforce the social graces. And we are ever watchful to see that the rules are being adhered to. (at least by everyone else, even if not always by ourselves).

LIKING is the emotion that initiates and maintains an altruistic partnership. It is, roughly, a willingness to offer someone a favour, and is directed to those who appear willing to offer favours back. We like people who are nice to us, and we are nice to people whom we like.

ANGER protects a person whose niceness has left her vulnerable to being cheated. When the exploitation is discovered, the person classifies the offending act as unjust and experiences indignation and a desire to respond with moralistic aggression: punishing the cheater by severing the relationship and sometimes hurting him. Many psychologists have remarked that anger has moral overtones; almost all anger is righteous anger. Furious people feel they are aggrieved and must redress an injustice.

GRATITUDE calibrates the desire to reciprocate according to the costs and benefits of the original act. We are grateful to people when their favour helps us a lot and has cost them a lot.

SYMPATHY, the desire to help those in need, may be an emotion for earning gratitude. If people are most grateful when they most need the favour, a person in need is an opportunity to make an altruistic act go farthest.

GUILT can rack a cheater who is in danger of being found out. H.L. Mencken defined conscience as "the inner voice which warns us that someone might be looking." If the victim responds by cutting off all future aid, the cheater will have paid dearly. He has an interest in preventing the rupture by making up for the misdeed and keeping it from happening again. People feel guilty about private transgressions because they may become public; confessing a sin before it is discovered is evidence of sincerity and gives the victim better grounds to maintain the relationship.

SHAME, the reaction to a transgression after it has been discovered, evokes a public display of contrition, no doubt for the same reason.

Reverse-engineered by Robert Trivers, from How The Mind Works, Stephen Pinker, 1997 (pp405-406)

No worries "Game Theory ", thanks for the clarity above.
The article of your's that I thought had merit was basicly on religion. Yes I do believe in God, but I should have been clearer on what I thought had merit in your article.
Sorry about that. What I agreed with in your article was the negative things that religion has & still does have in this world of ours. As for the belief in God, well thats self explanatory & for me an entirely different matter. Anyway ,
peace :)

The true terrorists are our power hungry politicians and religious leaders that hide behind a shield of hierarchial significance, using fear as a mode of control to conceal their true deep seated insecurities for acceptance and a potential threatened locus of control** in this day of rapid change.

War on Terror - should respond to psychological terrorism.

Particularly for persons and groups who use undue fear as an aims and a means to obtain victory over peoples minds in order to achieve political or other powered goals. Obviously because direct military victory is not possible.

Terrorism defined:

Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat/intimidation thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

- http://www.ecis.org/finance/paisdefin.htm

*hierarchial significance* (a constructed notion - see sociology & history texts on culture, power, identity and nation )
** the extent to which one feels in control of their life

Just a thought - Game theory? To inflict shame and fear to establish Prisoners Dillema outcome?

Note that shame is a by product of fear - fear of acceptance which stems from the intrinsically human need for affiliation (to have meaningful relationships "sense of belonging"). It does not necessarily indicate guilt for a particular action. Rather perceptual processing of an event might trigger neuro-associations to a deeper level of inadequacy and thus punishment expectancy. A trait commonly seen in maladaptive perfectionists. Being imperfect is a big enough sin to warrant great intensities of shame and fear.

I know "random"