for my transaction?* (Decision being:  do I buy online a wee giftie for The Spouse with my card, or should I perhaps join ‘PayPal’?).


of my researches I then happened across this snippet which I quote—

PayPal’s partner MasterCard ceased taking donations to WikiLeaks in 2010, and PayPal also suspended, and later permanently restricted, payments to the website after the U.S. State Department deemed WikiLeaks activities as illegal. Online supporters and activists retaliated by subjecting PayPal and MasterCard, along with other companies, to coordinated cyber attacks.[123]

—which of course led me to that “Eeeeeek~!” reaction I get whenever I spot a blatant  and quite unabashed contradiction.


if you are a product of your upbringing (circumstances & endless propaganda) and you simply can’t see it.

Too few can, I’m afraid, so you aren’t alone there. Just keep on buying them Lotto tickets and guzzling your beloved Soma …


* In the end I opted to use my card. You know something? I’ve often wondered: does anyone ever (r) ever read plough through all the endless screeds, sub-screeds, sub-sub-sub (etc etc ad infinitem) of monotonous unrewarding legalistic self-serving BS jargon? You know the stuff I’m referring to—in the end it can all be summarised simply as “We at (insert name here) declare that we are in no way responsible for anything you do or which is done unto you whilst availing yourself of our services**).

** Which means simply “Just pour your money into our coffers (and Devil Take The Hindmost) (meaning YOU, Bub~!).  Nyah nyah nah nah naaaaaahhhhhh~!

4 thoughts on “CREDIT

    1. When it comes to free speech even the most deluded of Abrahamic religions have my support—so long as the same ‘rights’ are extended to everybody. The moment they are withheld by force—governmental, or otherwise self-proclaimed ‘legitimate’—they cease to be Rights and become mere privileges dispensed at the whim of controllers. Might makes right it seems.

      Good decisions in a ‘democracy’ require maximum disclosure of all the relevant informations. If such disclosure is withheld by the military power the decision making becomes privileged and again you are not a ‘democracy’. Perhaps (I haven’t looked into at all) (no point) Wikileaks was simply honest? Not good … not to worry … God is in His heaven and all is right with the world (in God we trust*)?

      * All others pay cash …


      1. relevant information… That is the key. Was Podestas emails relevant? Was the DNC hack relevant? Wikileaks injected themselves foolishly, and they got played.


      2. Some do that. It’s a favourite sport in some places, Own-Foot-Shooting. Being caught out is the price folks sometimes pay for indulging (divorce courts make fortunes from it).

        But so long as they are free to do it; and if what they said was unadulterated truth? Brrrrr. There was a time in NZ (pre digital) when most small businesses had two sets of books—now it seems that only the gummint does. Not good.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s