Life is meant to be easy;

Life's road...our choices; our wisdom; our weakness...

In the seventies, Malcolm Fraser, a  former Australian Prime Minister said to the Australian people “Life isn’t meant to be easy.” 

 I do not agree with this saying. I say, LIFE is meant  and should be easy.

 It is the environment people are born into which lets or makes them forget that life should or could be easy.  Materialism has taken the number 1 place in peoples life, to strife for.  Advertisements are thrown at them day and night to buy this and that product like every ones life would depend on it.
 That’s why life is a hard task, pleasures have to be bought, mind you most of the time this pleasure is very short lived and something new must replace  it. This is the elusive perpetum mobile. Is it so important to drive the right car, to live in an appropriate area, to send the children to the right schools, to wear and drive status symbols, this makes life very hard.
Do I care if your T-shirt comes from some designer or from the next op-shop. Not at all I could not care less! Why do you want to pay for a silly designer name with your hard earned money, to fill his bank account, instead of keeping the money in yours and perhaps in time it will pay for a nice relaxing holiday!  In this process of  perpetual buying people have to work harder and harder.

Less materialism would mean less factories  less stress on nature and people.The question is do people want less materialism. Perhaps we have arrived at the point of no return.  The road we have chosen is wanting more and more, pointing towards buying and more buying of the latest gadgets, like the latest mobile telephone,  the latest I Pad  etc.etc.though the one from last month is still working and doesn't  need  to be replaced.

Unless the newest ones,  can be  used to clean your teeth and grill your sandwiches!


There was a time when people could buy only when they had the cash. I was brought up this way and it is still my way.
In simple terms explained  how the change came about;

At a certain time the bankers came together and said  people do not use enough money. We could make a mint  if we implement credit cards so people  use more money which we can lend to them.
The bank card was introduced and people had a fine time in buying what ever they wanted. More goods were produced; globalisation set in, goods were produced in countries were cheap human resources were available.
Now after perhaps 40 years of spending money that was never earned, the natural end arrived in the collapse of the economies. Banks were in dire straits and now came the payback.  People’s tax money bailed out the bankers and the people are sitting on a pile of rubbish they have accumulated over the years, with  cut wages, cut social services, cut retirement money and to the extreme with the loss of their homes and no jobs.
 The banks CEO still sits comfortably in his leather chair on the phone with a Saville Row tailor for a new silk suit and handmade shoes.


©Photo/text Ts

Agapanthus;

For a change come into my garden, the Agapanthus, also called Lily of the Nile are flowering now. The garden is fragrant with the blossoms of the Rollinia fruit tree. Yesterday a soft rain has brought out colours, scent and dancing butterflies. It is always a place of peace and tranquility, the mournful call of the rain bird makes it more so.

Impressions of a beautiful flower..

Enjoy!

Photos/text Ts

Mirror, mirror on the wall... Botox;

What is the last thing you would want to inject into your face? You have heard of Botox, no doubt, and “deadliest poison” is it’s main claim to fame. 
Botox uses botulinum toxin, produced by the bacteria Clostridium botulinum, and it is so deadly, an amount equal to a grain of salt is enough to kill a 200 lb man. In fact, they even suggest that it would only take 4kg, properly dispersed, to kill every last person on earth. Maybe those crows feet around your eyes should be looked at as  beautiful!

Courtesy from ten most. com

Delenda est; next please;

Carthago delenda est; a sad satire;

Cato the Elder (234-149 BC),a persistent advocate in the Senate for the total destruction of Carthage, and associated with the phrase Delenda est Carthago.

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse" or "Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem delendam esse: "Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed" abbreviated to "Centerum censeo", "Carthago delenda est", or "Delenda est Carthago; "Carthage must be destroyed" is a Latin oratorical phrase which was  popular in the Roman Republic in the 2nd Century BC during the latter years of the Punic Wars against Carthage. Carthage, which had been defeated twice before and had a tendency after each defeat to rapidly rebuild its strength and engage in further warfare. It represented a policy of the extirpation of the enemies of Rome who engaged in aggression, and the rejection of the peace treaty as a means of ending conflict. The Roman senator Cato the Elder 234-149 BC was famous to end his speeches with the words Carthago delenda est. 

How far have we progressed?  I am afraid not very far;

This slogan is still accurate and well used;

 per example

Irak  delenda est;

Afghanistan delenda est; 

Libya delenda est;

Syria delenda est;

next please...what about Iran? OK Iran delenda est...next....next...

nearly forgot tiny Gaza delenda est..

Who knows what is cooking and brewing in the kitchens of big business, big banking and  corrupt governments.

©Text/Photo Ts

The Nobel peace prize...a worthless piece of paper;

Since  its establishment, an  award in tatters not as much worth as the paper it is written on; it has been reduced  into a nasty political tool. Instead of honoring the goodness in people, as it was intended to, it is used to honour people with the most slyness, nastiness, hypocrisy, the ones who have started wars, destroyed countries and killed people who have done them no harm.The Oslo Peace committee is a plunder on its own. If it would not be so sad it would be laughable.

A world in tears...

Link  http://titania-threemonkeys.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/nobel-peace-prize-is-farce.html

The Nobel Peace Prize for War

By Michael Parenti

October 19, 2012 "Information Clearing House" -  Those who own the wealth of nations take care to downplay the immensity of their holdings while emphasizing the supposedly benign features of the socio-economic order over which they preside. With its regiments of lawmakers and opinion-makers, the ruling hierarchy produce a never-ending cavalcade of symbols, images, and narratives to disguise and legitimate the system of exploitative social relations existing between the 1% and the 99%.

The Nobel Peace Prize would seem to play an incidental role in all this. Given the avalanche of system-sustaining class propaganda and ideological scenarios dished out to us, the Nobel Peace Prize remains just a prize. But a most prestigious one it is, enjoying a celebrated status in its anointment of already notable personages.

In October 2012, in all apparent seriousness, the Norwegian Nobel Committee (appointed by the Norwegian Parliament) bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize upon the European Union (EU). Let me say that again: the European Union with its 28 member states and 500 million inhabitants was awarded for having "contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy, and human rights in Europe." (Norway itself is not a member of the EU. The Norwegians had the good sense to vote against joining.)

Alfred Nobel's will (1895) explicitly states that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

The EU is not a person and has not worked for the abolition or reduction of standing armies or promotion of any kind of peace agenda. If the EU award looked a bit awkward, the BBC and other mainstream news media came to the rescue, referring to the "six decades of peace" and "sixty years without war" that the EU supposedly has achieved. The following day, somebody at the BBC did the numbers and started proclaiming that the EU had brought "seventy years of peace on the European continent." What could these wise pundits possibly be thinking? Originally called the European Economic Community and formed in 1958, the European Union was established under its current name in 1993, about twenty years ago.

The Nobel Committee, the EU recipients, and the western media all overlooked the 1999 full-scale air war launched on the European continent against Yugoslavia, a socialist democracy that for the most part had offered a good life to people of various Slavic nationalities---as many of them still testify today.

The EU did not oppose that aggression. In fact, a number of EU member states, including Germany and France, joined in the 1999 war on European soil led largely by the United States. For 78 days, U.S. and other NATO forces bombed Yugoslavian factories, utilities, power stations, rail systems, bridges, hotels, apartment buildings, schools and hospitals, killing thousands of civilians, all in the name of a humanitarian rescue operation, all fueled by unsubstantiated stories of Serbian "genocide." All this warfare took place on European soil.

Yugoslavia was shattered, along with its uniquely designed participatory democracy with its self-management and social ownership system. In its place emerged a cluster of right-wing mini-republics wherein everything has been privatized and deregulated, and poverty has replaced amplitude. Meanwhile rich western corporations are doing quite well in what was once Yugoslavia.

Europe aside, EU member states have sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and additional locales in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, usually under the tutorship of the U.S. war machine. But what was I to expect? For years I ironically asserted that the best way to win a Nobel Peace Prize was to wage war or support those who wage war instead of peace. An overstatement perhaps, but take a look.

Let us not overlook Mother Teresa. All the western world's media hailed that crabby lady as a self-sacrificing saint. In fact she was a mean spirited reactionary who gladly welcomed the destruction of liberation theology and other progressive developments in the world. Her "hospitals" and "clinics" were little more than warehouses for the dying and for those who suffered from curable diseases that went untreated---eventually leading to death. She waged campaigns against birth control, divorce, and abortion. She readily hobnobbed with the rich and reactionary but she was so heavily hyped as a heavenly heroine that the folks in Oslo just had to give her the big medal in 1979.

Then there was the Dalai Lama who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. For years the Dalai Lama was on the payroll of the CIA, an agency that has perpetrated killings against rebellious workers, peasants, students, and others in countries around the world. His eldest brother played an active role in a CIA-front group. Another brother established an intelligence operation with the CIA, which included a CIA-trained guerrilla unit whose recruits parachuted back into Tibet to foment insurgency. The Dalai Lama was no pacifist. He supported the U.S./NATO military intervention into Afghanistan, also the 78 days' bombing of Yugoslavia and the destruction of that country. As for the years of carnage and destruction wrought by U.S. forces in Iraq, the Dalai Lama was undecided: "it's too early to say, right or wrong," said he in 2005.

Regarding the violence that members of his sect perpetrated against a rival sect, he concluded that "if the goal is good then the method, even if apparently of the violent kind, is permissible." Spoken like a true Nobel recipient.

In 2009, in a fit of self parody, the folks in Oslo gave the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama while he produced record military budgets and presided over three or four wars and a number of other attack operations, followed a couple of years later by additional wars in Yemen, West Pakistan, Libya, and Syria (with Iran pending). Nobel winner Obama also proudly hunted down and murdered Osama Bin Laden, having accused him---without a shred of evidence---of masterminding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

You could see that Obama was somewhat surprised---and maybe even embarrassed---by the award. Here was this young drone commander trying to show what a tough-guy warrior he was, saluting the flag-draped coffins one day and attacking other places and peoples the next---acts of violence in support of the New World Order, certainly every bit worthy of a Nobel peace medal.

There are probably other Nobel war hawks and reactionaries to inspect. I don't pretend to be informed about every prize winner. And there are a few worthy recipients who come to mind, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Linus Pauling, Nelson Mandela, and Dag Hammarskjöld.

Let us return to the opening point: does the European Union actually qualify for the prize? Vancouver artist Jennifer Brouse gave me the last (and best) word: "A Nobel Prize for the EU? That seems like a rather convenient and resounding endorsement for current cutthroat austerity measures. First, corporations are people, then money is free speech, now an organization of nation states designed to thwart national sovereignty on behalf of ruling class interests receives a prize for peace. On the other hand, if the EU is a person then it should be prosecuted for imposing policies leading directly to the violent repression of peaceful protests, and to the misery and death of its suffering citizens."

In sum, the Nobel Peace Prize often has nothing to do with peace and too much to do with war. It frequently sees "peace" through the eyes of the western plutocracy. For that reason alone, we should not join in the applause.

Michael Parenti is the author of The Face of Imperialism and Contrary Notions. For further information visit his website: www.michaelparenti.org

©Photo/Text Ts

Food for thoughts; The wishing tree;

The wishing tree; 

I wished...

©Photo Ts   Stanthorpe Qld

On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg [banker] confidently declared to the United States Senate: "We shall have World Government [run by bankers], whether or not we like it.
The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff [grew up in a Jewish Rothschild's bankers home], both of Kuhn, Loeb & Company which financed the Russian Revolution [communism] through James' brother Max, banker to the government of Germany.  A world government is a world without borders, national sovereignty, constitutions, privacy, autonomy, individual liberties, religious freedoms, private property, the right to bear arms, the rights of marriage and family and a dramatic population reduction (two thirds). A world government establishes a slave/master environment wherein the state controls everything."



David Rockefeller admits media collusion with his one world plans: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the light of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." 

Today Australians are being indoctrinated without our RIGHT at referendum into the "new international order" agenda.

Other deceptive names used...

"globalist" "globalism" "global governance"

UN rejects water as basic human right

UN Trivia You Should Have Already Been Taught In Public Schools. 

World War 1 was created by design in an attempt to create a world governance body run by unaccountable European bankers called the...

"League of Nations"

The first failed attempt at a global governmental body for the Rothschild bankers to straddle as a political tool to enter into Sovereign nations "privatizing" public owned infrastructures.

Is well under way  and done.

World War 2: Another attempt to create a world governance body...

"The United Nations" (U.N.)

The United Nations Charter (rule book) is a near copy and paste of the Russian Communist Manifesto!

Odd, when you think how long the theater of the cold war was kept going by the masters of  the puppets.

The U.S. land that the U.N. building is sitting on was donated by  banker Rockefeller.

The time has arrived when the puppets slowly get the drift what is happening and how they are manipulated by the 1 % under  the mantel of a mock democracy tacitly agreed by their

governments.

"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea."  - Mahatma Gandhi

Damocles sword;

Dejà vue...

©Photo/Sunrise; my garden;

While western countries bleed to conquer foreign nations the people drown in barbiturates, junk food, junk music, junk movies; dream on and get drunk on junk TV shows.

The sword of Damocles

The phrase has also come to be used in describing any situation with a sense of impending doom, especially when the peril is (or should be, to the astute observer) visible and close at hand—regardless of whether the victim is in a position of power. 

The American president John F. Kennedy compared the omnipresent threat of nuclear annihilation to a sword of Damocles hanging over the people of the world.

The Damocles of the anecdote was an obsequious courtier in the court of Dionysius II of Syracuse, a fourth century BC tyrant of Syracuse, Italy. Pandering to his king, Damocles exclaimed that, as a great man of power and authority surrounded by magnificence, Dionysius was truly extremely fortunate. Dionysius then offered to switch places with Damocles, so that Damocles could taste that very fortune first hand. Damocles quickly and eagerly accepted the king's proposal. Damocles sat down in the king's throne surrounded by every luxury, but Dionysius arranged that a huge sword should hang above the throne, held at the pommel only by a single hair of a horse's tail. Damocles finally begged the tyrant that he be allowed to depart, because he no longer wanted to be so fortunate.


More generally, it is used to denote the sense of foreboding engendered by a precarious situation, especially one in which the onset of tragedy is restrained only by a delicate trigger or chance. Shakespeare's Henry IV expands on this theme: "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

The Roman 1st century B.C. poet Horace also alluded to the sword of Damocles in Poem 29 of the Third Book of Odes, in which he extolled the virtues of living a simple, rustic life, favoring such an existence over the myriad threats and anxieties that accompany holding a position of power.

Some excerpts from Wikipedia 

Photo/Text Ts