We Take Your Freedoms In The Name of Crime

In the Weapon of Choice entry, you saw how the gummit uses "crime" as a reason to continually infringe upon our property rights and freedoms. Well, they are at it again, and this time in the U.K. And they are targeting children.

The "Home Office" is planning to target and track the children of convicted criminals to "prevent them following their parents into a life of crime."

They base this on a study which showed "children with criminal fathers and "under-achievers" who grow up in local authority care have a significant chance of turning to crime themselves."

See that! Children of criminals AND under-achievers (so they have lumped them together) who grow up in LOCAL AUTHORITY CARE (not the care of their criminal parents). So it is really the gummit's fault then, isn't it? Because the gummit is the one doing the raising. So if these children end up in jail in the future, it cannot be blamed on the parents because the child was raised by the gummit.

Also, how is an "under-achiever" determined? By income level? If so, then each year the gummit can change the income level which they use to determine someone is an under-achiever, and thus ensnare a larger group of people into their "tracking net".

And, what is meant by "significant chance"? That seems quite open to interpretation, to me.

Currently, the number of children with fathers in jail is about 125,000. And that is how many the gummit wants to track from birth all the way through life!!!

And yet, they also acknowledge that maybe only 65% of those kids might end up in jail.

So they are going to infringe upon the rights of all, in the delusion of helping the 65% who might end up in jail.

The danger of allowing them to do this is, they can then turn around and say, we need to track ALL children to help those who would end up in jail but who have no previous jail connections - the remaining 35% of the criminal numbers who don't come from criminal parents.

To add to this, they will, of course, require another department and the appropriate staff to do the tracking, and offer "courses." All of this will mean a bigger gummit. Which means more money needs to be stolen from the value producing members of society.

And we still aren't done because in a move direct from the department of "how silly can you get", children five and younger will stay in jail with their mothers!!! Yep. Innocent children who have done nothing wrong will now be jailed like a criminal. So their unfit mothers can raise them.

For fuck's sake. Those politicians need their heads read. Seriously. They have to be a few pennies short of a dollar to come up with this shit. Putting kids in jail when they haven't done anything.

=====

If a police officer has the power to just up and ask you for photo ID, you immediately picture German SS guys and a police state, don't you?

Well. It is HERE and NOW. In the U.S., airlines ask for photo ID before letting you get on a plane.

Yeah yeah... if you have nothing to hide and more bullshit.

The point is... these are all little baby steps. Once you accept one step you cannot deny the other step. For the argument cannot be refuted anymore. After all, you accepted it before, right?

Think the kids being tracked thing. If you agree to that, you are agreeing to having YOUR children tracked. Maybe not right now, but eventually. Because ALL laws always creep to cover the innocent people. You cannot have a law that just tracks children of criminals. It will become all children "just in case" and you have lost your freedoms and rights.

This is the same. If you submit to showing a photo ID to board a plane, you are allowing them to expand the law. It will be photo ID to board a train or bus. Then a photo ID to enter an airport. Then a photo ID randomly requested "just in case."

Beware the creep of the gummit's infringements.

Why "The War On Terror" Can NEVER Be Won

We will never win The War on Terror for two reasons...

Reason # 1: Terror is a feeling. Thus, the War on Terror is a war on a feeling. The gummit might as well call it "The War on Anger" for all the good it does.

Of course, if it was "The War On Terrorism" than that might be a different matter. BUT, by calling it Terror and not Terrorism, the door has been left open to interpretation. Otherwise, the gummit would find it hard to do many of the things they are doing, and have planned to do, because WE know what is and isn't terrorism. But terror, that is a different story left up to the gummit to define.

Reason # 2: The Arabs have a completely different way of fighting to our way. And it is a method which we cannot overcome - ever. Because whether we win or lose (as far as we see it), we lose as far as they see it.

To fully understand this you need to go back over 1,000 years. Because, believe it or not, that is how long the war has been going on.

Yep. We need to go back to the Crusades. That is when it started and it has been going on ever since.

Picture the middle east full of Muslims. Minding their own business. Now imagine those people being invaded by Christians who lay claim to the same holy lands. (This is as far as the Muslims are concerned.)

The Muslims quickly learned that the way to win was to wear the other guy down - no matter how long it took. A fighting style totally opposite to the western way of fighting - get in quick and conquer.

An example is during the crusades, the Muslims simply laid siege to a city by surrounding it and not allowing anything in or out by land. Eventually, those inside simply abandoned the city and fled via sea.

Fast forward to the first Gulf War. The "alliance" went in, bombed Saddam to bits, chased him out of Kuwait (while never actually telling us the real reason of WHY Saddam was in Kuwait in the first place), and even chased him back into Iraq a bit. At this point, after what we would consider a win, we withdrew our troops and negotiated a truce.

As far as the Arab world was concerned, Iraq, under Saddam, won.

How so?, you ask.

Well, you need to understand their fighting style to understand their mindset.

Consider this: If you are getting beat real bad, to save yourself you will surrender and negotiate a truce, won't you? Hence, those who first choose to stop fighting and push to negotiate a truce must be those who are losing, or who do not want to fight anymore.

From the Arab point of view, Saddam fought The Great Satan (the U.S.A.) and The Great Satan gave up. Therefore, Saddam won.

This is just as they have fought for the last thousand years. They wear you down until you give up.

Now think of the recent attack in Iraq which saw Al Sadr get injured. After a few days of fighting the U.S. stopped fighting to negotiate a truce.

This sent a signal to Sadr and his followers, that the U.S. had had enough and didn't want to fight anymore. So Sadr has faced up to The Great Satan and also won - because The Great Satan is the one who wanted to stop fighting first. This will have the effect of strengthening Sadr's support.

What this all boils down to is... the moment the west pulls out of Iraq - no matter how many years have gone by - then the west will be seen to have lost.

It doesn't matter that to us, we are showing mercy by not killing them all. To THEM, we didn't want to play anymore and ran away - thus they have won again.

If we go in and kill them all, then we make them more determined.

So either way you look at it, we are doomed. We cannot win, ever. And all because we have a completely different view when it comes to fighting and winning.

We dislike wars of attrition. But that is how they have fought for over a thousand years - with success I might add. And they are quite okay with a fight taking ten or twenty years, or more.

We with the big military might can brag at how quick we can do something (at points and times of our choosing), but the mighty do not win guerilla wars. And certainly not ones where any withdrawal of troops is thought of as admittance of defeat.

See. This war doesn't depend on what we think winning and losing is. It depends on what the Arabs consider winning and losing is.

Look at Afghanistan when the U.S.S.R. was there. For ten years or so they tried to control that land. For ten years the mighty faced the determined. The determined won because the mighty fled.

And every time that kind of thing happens, it strengthens the resolve of the Arab fighters, and proves to them once again that their fighting style is one that always leads to victory.

We don't hear much about the goings on in Afghanistan anymore. But rest assured, fighting is still going on all the time over there. The country is far from being a peaceful democracy.

When Baghdad Bob said the Americans were walking into a quagmire, he was speaking the truth as a Muslim Arab with a Muslim Arab mindset. He knew, with the certainty that comes with a history of always winning by wearing the other guy down, that the main fight might be over but the attrition war was only just beginning.

So why won't the Arabs ever give up?

Simple. We are infidels on their holy ground, in their view.

The reasons for our being there don't really matter, to them. They have given their mind over to religion (there's bloody religion coming into it again). And accordingly, we are thus not welcomed there. We are the enemy.

And if, at some point, we finally get the hint and leave their lands, or finish the task and leave their lands, the result is the same. We have stopped fighting and left their lands and so we have given up and they win again, in their eyes. And one more time their method of fighting comes through with a victory, as far as they are concerned.

When you are fighting an enemy who thinks this way, and who believes that determination of purpose always wins out in the end, and who is willing to go out of their way to die to that end, you are fighting a fight you cannot win. Because win or lose, you lose, in their eyes. And how they think of it is all that matters.

=====

There has been some question about WHY the Iraq citizens do not help the U.S. forces more than they are. And I'd like to address that now...

Think back to France under the German occupation. Imagine yourself as a French person. You know there is a resistance movement and you know there is an occupying force. You know the occupying force will not be there forever, so will not go out of your way to help them achieve their goals - even if their goals are good - because whomever comes to power after they are gone will remember what you did. And at that point your life could end - it might even end at the hands of the resistance fighters before the occupying force has left.

In the same vein, you will not actively help the resistance because you don't want to be thought of as "the enemy" by the occupying force.

Hence, you tend to not want to get involved and just get on with your life. Offering no visible support for either side. And only minimal behind-doors support when forced into it by either side.

This is the predicament of the Iraq citizens. As far as they are concerned, and knowing how their way of fighting always wins in the end, helping the occupying infidels could make life hard for them in the future. While helping the resistance now could be dangerous for them now. So they visibly do nothing for their own safety sake.

The Weapon Of Choice

Like Morpheous said in "The Matrix", it is all about CONTROL. And as long as we think we have a choice, we are placated - even if no real choice exists. And in those instances when we really do not have a choice, the powers that be (government) use a reason that people do not feel is good to argue against.

A while back, the airport of the city I live in, decided to charge passenger buses a fee to drop off passengers and pick them up again. And, they gave all such businesses until the end of the month to ante up or be refused access to the airport.

Picture the owner operator of the small 8 seater mini-bus who would transfer passengers between the airport and their hotel accommodation. Suddenly, this small business operator is being asked to come up with $2,500 within 3 weeks, or risk being put out of business.

Understandably, there was an outcry at such a fee.

So...

The airport authority in their wisdom and graciousness, allowed such businesses a CHOICE. They could pay the yearly fee upfront as had already been ordered - OR - they could pay $2 "per entry" to the airport grounds.

Like the good little sheep they are, the businesses opted to pay "per entry" to the airport.

Notice the beautiful manipulation used. The airport authority turned it around from an argument based on being charged to do what was once free, to businesses clambering over themselves to pay every time they went onto the airport grounds. They turned it around from "pay vs no pay" to "pay a lot upfront now vs a little each time." And the businesses fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book. Not asking IF but WHICH.

The businesses were given the illusion of choice, where in reality no choice exists. For a true choice would be to pay or not pay. But that choice does not exist. Only the illusion of choice - which way do you want to pay.

Another example of this tactic being employed by the gummit (government) is that of taxes. We appear to have a choice of "how much" tax we pay, by fact of having tax deductions. But we only have the illusion of choice, because there is no "pay tax or don't pay tax" choice. Like the airport example, the option of paying or not is not there, only how much to pay and how it is paid.

Another example is that of the gummit itself. Again, the illusion of choice is "which party do you vote for." Where a true choice would be "have a gummit or not have a gummit." Because there is no "no gummit" option, we have the illusion of choice.

These Choice Illusions are all around us.

But that is just one technique used to control the masses of sheep. Another... and this is the biggie... is to fight crime.

Think about this...

Why did we in Australia have a national identification system forced onto us (the Tax File Number)?

To stop people avoiding paying taxes - which is deemed a crime.

You see, according to the gummit, it is a crime to keep what you earn. It is a crime not to give up part of your life energy to the gummit. It is a crime to not pay your "tax on effort" (income tax). I mean, how dare you Mr and Mrs Hard worker just trying to make a go of your life, not sacrifice a good portion of it to the gummit. And how dare you not do so while other sheep do give their prescribed amounts to the gummit. Why, you must be some kind of villain to want to keep all you earn.

And so to catch the vile people who don't think it is right to be turned into a serf from the middle ages sacrificing part of their life to the lord, the gummit makes "not paying taxes" a crime. And to stop those people dead in their tracks - the dirty crooks they are - we get a national identification system which sees us unable to open a bank account without our ID Number, unable to get a job without our ID Number - unless we are willing to pay 50 cents on the dollar in tax.

Effectively, the gummit also thus plugs right into our bank accounts. So there is nowhere to hide money. If you put money into a Term Deposit and don't declare the interest, the gummit will send you a letter alerting you to the fact you didn't declare the money, and telling you how much you owe them. And they will know of your undeclared income because the banks tell them!

Of course, to FORCE people to comply with their tax on effort, they also make it a rule that the tax is taken out of your income BEFORE you get it. Otherwise you might not pay. And this task is FORCED upon your employer.

All in the name of stopping "tax cheats" - as the gummit likes to label good hard-working people who do nothing wrong and only desire to rightfully keep what they diligently earn.

Think of your other freedoms which have been taken away to prevent the crime of terrorism. Such as new international banking rules and laws. And the rigmarole of sending a parcel overseas.

Think of the property right infringements due to "the war on drugs." Such as the "right" to open packages to see what you are bringing into the country.

And the "customs" even have scanners that can look inside a shipping container to see if there is anything "illegal" in it. And remember, the definition if "illegal" is something/anything which is brought into the country without gummit approval. And often, those things are illegal because the gummit has no control over them.

Two examples are drugs and firearms.

We must "protect the children" the pollies tell us. As if their infringing upon the activities of ordinary citizens will prevent drug smugglers. We all know it's a load of B.S. but the sheep buy it.

We cannot allow guns into the country because...

The gummit views that doing such could be a threat to it and it would lose control. Remember, the gummit wants to know where all the guns are. So any cop can plug your address into the car's computer and know whether you have guns in the house.

Hey. But it's all to stop crime, right? We all know it's a load of B.S. but the sheep buy it.

Everywhere we turn, the gummit takes away our freedoms and infringes upon our property rights all in the name of fighting crime. And who will argue against that? After all, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, right?

Following that logic is dangerous. Because ultimately it leads to CCTV installed in our homes - to prevent crime. And if you have nothing to hide there is nothing wrong with that, is there?

Now let me "let you in" on another hush hush the gummit doesn't want you to know...

Even if the gummit has rules which prohibit its intelligence agencies from spying on its own citizens, there is no rule preventing another country's intelligence agency spying on you on behalf of the gummit.

So even if laws prevent the CIA spying on U.S. citizens, nothing prevents M.I.5 or A.S.I.O. from doing the spying and passing the information on to the C.I.A. or whomever wanted the spying done.

There is a law in the U.S. which prevents the gummit from actively gathering data on its citizens. Fine, the gummit lets other companies do that for them then just buys the data. Mission accomplished without breaking the law.

Want to know another law you could break? Bringing something into the country ABOVE a certain value and not paying tax on it. Never mind that the item is not available in Australia and buying it overseas is the only way you can get it. You will be taxed accordingly "to protect Australian business" - even though no business will be effected by you bringing the item into the country.

So to fight the crime of bringing things into the country without paying tax on them, the gummit routinely opens your stuff to check it out. How's your privacy feeling? How does it feel to be treated like a criminal for doing nothing that hurts anybody?

These two weapons... the "illusion of choice" and "fighting crime" are two of the many weapons the gummit uses against its citizens. Coupled with the weapon of fear - the fear of getting into trouble and spending time in the big house - the plebs are kept under control.

Herd Immunity

Following on from my previous entry I need to address the concern some people have with being armed.

In the health sciences there is a term known as Herd Immunity. Which alludes to the fact that, even if there are some members of the herd who are not immune to a particular bug, the fact the rest of the herd are immune will prevent that bug from spreading to infect those who are not immune.

The same principle applies to armed citizens. Even if there are some members of the herd who choose not to arm themselves against criminals, the fact the other members of the herd are armed will prevent the criminals from attacking those who are unarmed - because the criminal doesn't know who is and isn't armed.

This lesson would be a good thing for the anti-gun crowd to understand. For it means, they could choose to be disarmed while benefiting from the crime-immunity granted by the citizens that are armed.

Instead, the anti-gunners want to use the government to infringe upon my property rights and take my guns away. If they (the anti-gunners) tried to do it, they could get hurt an would be guilty of a crime. But by tricking the government into doing it, the very same thing is suddenly alright. And the anti-gunners can thump their chests and walk around wearing their good guy badges. And after the crime rate increases, they can whinge about not enough police - even though police never prevent crime and only respond to crime AFTER the fact.

Or they can complain about needing even tougher gun control. Never once acknowledging that criminals do not comply with gun control rules - only honest people do.

Then when crime increases some more, they can blame the state of society, or violence on TV, or video games, or whatever bogeyman they conjure up this week.

Does gun control actually work?

That depends on WHY you want gun control.

Ask Stalin and Hitler whether gun control was good and you get a resounding YES. (Hitler's innocent "gun registration" turned into gun confiscation). Ask Gaddafi and Castro whether gun control works. After all, an unarmed populace can do little to fight back when you send the armed troops in.

So if you want to subjugate the population, then gun control works very well. But for preventing crime, it fails miserably.

So besides needing to have armed citizens to prevent crime, armed citizens also prevent the government taking advantage of the people (which is also a crime, but one committed by government sanctioned criminals officials).

The founding fathers of the U.S. understood this point which is why they had "the government shall not infringe upon your right to bear arms" in their constitution.

Notice the importance of the wording. It isn't just a "right to bear arms" but a right which "the government shall not infringe upon."

As this relates to crime...

While everyone is running around like a chicken without a head, trying to deter crime by increasing punishments, the simple solution (arm the victims) is the only proven workable solution.

Think of it from a criminal's point of view. They want to attack you. Would they rather...

A) Attack a person who is armed

or

B) Attack someone who is not armed

It doesn't take a genius to figure out a criminal would rather attack an unarmed person.

Compare this to the current state of affairs...

Don't do a crime otherwise you might get such-and-such punishment IF you are caught.

And when the crime is committed, the people complain about needing even harsher punishments. As if existing punishment isn't enough and great punishment will make them think twice.

We respond to direct stimuli. Which is to say, do something and get a reaction.

Hence, attack an armed person and get hurt and you won't attack another person again.

But as it is now... attack another person knowing they have no weapons to hurt you, and the cops can't ever catch you anyway so no amount of punishment IF caught will do anything - which can just be negated anyway with plea bargains and other excuses.

It is not increased punishments that stop crime.

It is not increased crime fighting powers (read - removal of freedoms and infringing upon property rights) given to those employed to protect us (police) that stop crime. The police don't prevent crime, they only respond AFTER crime has been committed.

It is arming the citizens and allowing them to arm themselves that will prevent crime.

Of course, the government doesn't see it this way. They think (or maybe pretend to think) that by passing a law prohibiting the carrying of a weapon, the criminals will abide by that law. But we should expect nothing more. Because the more disarmed the population is the easier they are to control should they not like something the government is doing.

It is this very aspect of the "power in charge" which led to the development of the martial arts weapons we know today. Those in charge banned the citizens from having weapons. The only way to protect themselves from thieves and robbers was to improvise weapons from farm tools.

So it is rather ironic that our government should now also ban those weapons.

Imagine my surprise to find out, to get a pair of nun-chucks I need a letter from my martial art instructor indicating I need them for that part of the art's training - PLUS - a permit from the police!

What the hell is that about? Specially when I can just up and buy a machete from any hardware store and a camp axe from any disposal store. And I can do so without any darn permits or letters.

Imagine my further surprise to find out, I can only learn a martial art weapon after doing an art for three years!

It seems to me, no-one wants people to be able to defend themselves properly. Good thing for me I already know three arts plus how to turn any household item into a weapon. But how about other people? How about Joe and Jane citizen? Do they have to allow themselves to be at the mercy of the criminal element because our government will not allow them to defend themselves? It certainly seems that way. Specially when our government removes the right to bear arms for self-defense purposes.

But I digress. The point is, the crime problem can be solved by allowing the citizens to arm themselves however they see fit. And allowing those who do not want to arm themselves, to benefit from the herd immunity afforded by those who do choose to arm themselves.

Crime Culture

A reader asked some intelligent questions to think about...

In recent times crime in major cities of Australia has become a severe problem. A lot of these crimes are alleged to be of ethnic background (mainly middle eastern type young males).

Do you believe this is a cultural thing, or do you believe that these gangs of young males are taking advantage of soft Crime fighting policy?

Do you have any ideas on what type of punishment could be implemented for these gang related crimes?

Ok. I see this as multiple questions about the same thing, with one real cause/solution. Kind of like the blind men who went to visit an elephant - one felt the leg and thought elephants were like trees, another felt the ear and thought elephants were like manta rays, another felt the trunk and thought elephants were like thick snakes, etc.

Which means, as far as the question is concerned, the cause of the crime and the solution to preventing it, lie in the very same thing. But solving crime and removing it from our society will not be achieved because the underlying cause is not the visible and claimed cause. Also, no-one in government will admit to the true cause - as revealed further on.

Malcolm Gladwell (author) contends that crime is like a disease - it is contagious and has a tipping point at which time it results in an outbreak. If you can decrease crime to below the tipping point, crime will disappear on its own.

I somewhat agree with him in that it is contagious, and will show how it is so a little further on, but tend to disagree with him that we can rid crime entirely by reducing it to below the tipping point level.

First, the disease-like nature of crime and why it appears to be cultural...

Science claims many diseases are inherited. That is, passed on from mother/father to child via genetics. What science fails to acknowledge is that due to such close contact between newborns and their parents, disease causing bacteria can be passed along - as can lifestyle habits.

For instance: If mom/dad are large sugar consumers - cakes, ice-cream, candy, soda (Coke, Pepsi, etc.) and other sugarized foods, mom and dad will eventually become diabetic as their pancreas ceases regulating blood sugar with insulin - due to the constant stress put on it because of eating all that sugar loaded food. Mom/dad will pass their diet habits onto their child. The child will eat loads of sugar and develop diabetes. Doctors will say they inherited it in their genes, while in reality all they did was adopt their parents' eating habits.

Another example is asthma. There is much research to suggest asthma is caused by contaminated air in the environment and/or tiny ascaris worms. The worms can be passed from mother to infant through breast milk! So the mother can pass on a worm infestation via breast milk, and because the baby grows up in the same household as the parents, whatever caused breathing problems in mom/dad will likewise cause the same problems in the child. It will be blamed on genetics.

This mistaken cause is the same type of mistake made which leads to saying crime is culturally based and which says crime is part of an ethnicity culture.

A child of that ethnicity taken out of the ethnic group - and particularly those elements committing the crimes - will not become a criminal. And they won't become a criminal because they are not in an environment conducive to catching criminal behavior.

We are governed by our instincts. As much as we like to think we are so intelligent and control our world. The reality is, we are more controlled by our instincts than we think.

One large part of our make up is our inbuilt protection. This inbuilt protection does not want us to do anything which could be a danger. And things that could be a danger include anything and everything we have not previously experienced and learned to be safe. So to protect us from harm, we feel a pause. A hesitation to proceed. Designed to make us THINK about what we are about to do.

This factor is used by police. They generally know, a man doesn't wake up one morning and become a rapist. There is something in the past of that person which leads up to the rape. Baby steps. As each "hesitation" is overcome without adverse effects, it became "ok" to do.

A youth doesn't start committing purse snatching on its own out of the blue. It might start with urging from friends to take a few items from K-Mart. The hesitation experienced will be gotten over because of the pushing of the youth's group of friends. Once the minor crime is committed, and maybe even several times, without being caught, the hesitation disappears. Only to reappear when a larger crime is on the making.

The little "crim" might go from K-Mart theft to stealing purses from bags at nightclubs while women are on the dance floor, or stealing purses while people are swimming at the beach.

This will slowly progress in scope and daring until it culminates in physically taking the bag off of the woman and running away. And this act will likewise continue, as long as the felon is not caught and punished, until physical assault takes place to take the bag away.

And this progressive behavior is most often part of the environment the person keeps. Unfortunately, as these criminals are the total environment from birth, the child knows no other way and sees this kind of criminal activity as a way of life.

To fully understand this concept, think of religion.

If you are religious, the chances are that you were indoctrinated into the religion BEFORE you had your own reasoning powers. The religion became a part of you at a time when your brain is not capable of independent thought and relies on its parents to decree what is right and what isn't.

This is why children believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Being force-fed religious dogma from birth, the child has little chance for alternate thought. It is only when that child can be removed from the constant feed of religion, that independent thought can take place.

Consider this: If children were NOT forced into accepting a God and were, instead, raised religion free until they were 15 years old, and then given the choice of studying religion, would anyone believe the stories the various religions tell? Or would the uncorrupted mind refuse to believe the far-fetched stories the religions tell? (I think the latter, and that the religions know it, which is why they try their darndest to capture the young mind before it is capable of true independent analytical thought.)

Anyway. In the same way that religion corrupts a young mind, a young mind can be brought into the fold of crimelife.

Also, as a species, we tend to follow each other. Again, this is a past survival mechanism. A youngster hanging around criminals will become a criminal. Which is why it is so important to mind the company you keep.

Now this addresses the surface reason of crime but not the underlying reason. And that will come further on - and it has nothing to do with your level of financial soundness as the lefties are always trying to have us believe.

How this relates to a tipping point is like this: Small crimes always lead to bigger crimes. The more crime there is, the more widespread it is, the greater its influence on the surrounding youth.

The idea to stop crime is to thus stop the minor crime. Attack graffiti with a vengeance and you will see a drastic decline in other crimes within the same area. This does appear to work, but requires a zero-tolerance policy. And those kinds of policies are akin to police state policies.

And its real reason for working could, in fact, be due to the 80/20 principle.

The 80/20 Principle is the name of a book by Richard Koch. It is also sometimes known as the Pareto Law. Which basically says:

80% of outputs are produced by 20% of the inputs (and the remaining 20% of outputs are produced from 80% of inputs)

80% of consequences have 20% causes

80% of results come from 20% of effort (while the remaining 20% of results come from 80% of the effort).

Applied to crime is means: 80% of the crime is committed by 20% of the criminals.

Thus, if you can get a good portion of those 20% off the streets, crime will decrease dramatically.

Other normal solutions to crime include passing on responsibility...

E.g. A person is caught spray painting a person's fence. The criminal has to buy the paint and paint over the fence, instead of the slap on the wrist they get now.

...increasing punishment...

E.g. A person is caught spray painting a person's fence and must pay a bigger fine, or do more hours of community service (but this never works so it is a pointless gesture - even the shithole Saudi Arabia with beheadings and hand choppings can't deter crime).

But these do not attack the problem at the root.

Some say it is based on a certain ethnicity. And it could certainly appear to be so. However, the media is highly skilled at zeroing in on one group and not another. (Remember, the media is about pushing their leftist agenda while selling papers.)

Consider how the media is going soft on John Kerry during his campaign for President. Kerry is a huge "flip-flopper" on almost every major issue there is, yet the media is NOT calling him to task on it. They are NOT asking him why one week he takes once stance on an issue and reverses his stance without explanation the following week.

Consider the media bias in Iraq. There are actually good things going on in Iraq, but the media focuses on the bad. And this becomes more evident when you cross reference the Iraq conflict with the Yugoslavia conflict. During Kosovo, the media only showed how the Serbs were doing wrong by the Albanian Kosovars. It gave the impression they wanted to give, that the Serbs were bad and going in was right. Yet, that same media shows nothing of the heinous crimes Saddam perpetrated on his own people.

In this fashion, the media can make it seem one ethnic group is worse than another ethnic group.

Here is another example. The city in which I live is a tourist magnet. It has a population of some 400,000 people. Yet, most of those who live here (and almost all the tourists) are kept in the dark about the murder rate in this city. A murder rate which is comparable to many cities in the U.S.A. and a rate which sees a person murdered here every nine or ten days! In all the time I have lived here, I have not seen a single murder story in the local paper. Giving the inhabitants of this city (and the tourists) an impression that murder doesn't happen here.

So if the media chooses to only report crimes committed by middle east people, then it will appear there is an epidemic of crime being committed by middle east people. (Note that the police can also choose to only apprehend/charge people of a certain ethnicity and thus give flawed crime numbers too.)

Ask yourself, if you know that Aboriginals are committing a lot of crime, why isn't the media reporting it?

Why didn't the media report the criminal records of the Abo who died running away from the police recently? Instead, they painted this picture of how wonderful the boy was and how bad the police were.

Another element to the appearance of crime belonging to a certain ethnic group is based on the nature of ethnic groups - based on our natural instincts. Which is to say, "like people" tend to live together in the same community. They thus lower their defenses around each other. And are more open with each other than they would be with other people.

Throw into this the nature of a criminal to "covet what he sees" and you have a lot of crime being what I call "inside jobs" - because it doesn't make sense for a criminal to commit a crime against someone they do not know, on the off chance they might maybe land a good score. Hence, the criminals commit crimes on their own kind. (This is mainly break and enter crimes.)

Now all this leads us to the true, primary cause of crime, and that is

The Government!!!

Yes. You read that right. If it wasn't for the government, there would be no crime. And for many reasons...

Reason # 1: The government decides what is and isn't a crime. This is obvious but needs to be stated. At any moment in time, what used to be ok can become illegal, all because the government says.

Case in point. It used to be ok to own a shotgun with a four or more shot magazine capacity. One day the government decided that it was not ok. Overnight it became illegal to own such a gun, and anyone in possession of such a firearm became a criminal guilty of a crime. Guilty of possessing an illegal firearm. Even if they never used it for anything they became guilty of a victimless crime. And our governments have loads of victimless crimes they can charge you with.

Reason # 2: The government disarms the citizens. This follows on from reason # 1 and means the criminals (who do not obey the government anyway) know the citizens are unarmed and easy pickings.

A while ago in Brisbane Australia, the government decided that carrying a knife of any length was illegal. And if you were caught with such a weapon you were guilty of possession and carrying of an illegal weapon. Suddenly, people going out for the night who might have carried a small 2 inch folding knife, had to leave their protection at home. The crooks now knew that the chances of any potential victim having a weapon for defense were slim, so could attack with impunity as they saw fit, without fear of getting hurt.

In every jurisdiction throughout the globe where the citizens get disarmed by their government, crime goes UP! And where the citizens are allowed to protect themselves and carry concealed weapons, crime goes down!!! There is not one jurisdiction that shows a drop in crime with citizen disarmament. Not one. Yet there are plenty of jurisdictions that show a drop in crime with citizen armament.

Violent crime in the U.K. has skyrocketed out of control. The citizens of the U.K. are prohibited from any kind of weapon for self-defense. The crime rate has gone up in direct proportion to each citizen disarmament over time.

The police are powerless to stop crime. They never do. All they do is raise revenue by booking people for victimless crimes like speeding and not wearing a seatbelt, and take statements AFTER crimes have taken place.

Here is how my local cop shop works: Officers arrive for work, are assigned a car and partner for the shift. Are also given a "job sheet." This job sheet usually entails a list of business owners to call on and citizens who have either reported a crime or had a crime committed against them. Those tasks can take the whole shift to complete. No time for "stopping crime." Sometimes they make time to set up a Random Breath Test - to fulfill their weekly quota which is written on a whiteboard in the officers room - and will pull over car after car for four hours until their quota is done. No time for stopping crime. Sometimes they respond to traffic incidents and breath test the drivers and take statements. No time for stopping crime. Sometimes they direct traffic at broken down traffic lights. No time for stopping crime.

Whatever you do, don't tell the normal citizens that the police do nothing to stop crime and only respond to crimes committed, or book citizens for victimless crimes like speeding. It would shake the trust the citizens place in the cops and they might actually do the smart thing and take responsibility for their own protection.

Side note: Here's is how to stop hijackings. Remove all airmarshalls. Screen only for firearms. Allow the rest of the passengers to arm themselves with knives. Even give them knives as they board. Or give them knives in the seat pouch. No small group of wannabe hijackers is going to take on an aircraft full of armed passengers.

Consider Switzerland. They have national service. So everyone in the country knows how to effectively use a firearm. Each home is required by law to have a firearm. The crime rate in Switzerland is almost zero. Criminals are basically cowards who prey on the weak and unarmed. Those kinds (weak and unarmed) are not common in Switzerland.

Imagine, as well as reading and writing and learn-to-swim classes, school also conducted self-defense classes. Criminals would think twice about attacking someone because they might get hurt.

And armed citizenry sees a reduced crime rate. (Yes, it makes it harder for the government to enact total control if needed. That's why an armed man is a citizen and an unarmed man is a subject.)

Reason # 3: The government is the grand-daddy criminal and teaches everyone else. This is not so obvious and will need explaining.

The entire basis of our governmental system is one of theft. The government infringes upon our property rights (what is ours, what we earn, what we create, what is given to us and what we buy, is all our property). By taking money (in the form of taxes) from value producers without our permission, the government is infringing upon our property rights (what we earn is our property and they take what we earn).

They then give this money to value destroyers and leeches. Teaching those destroyers and leeches that infringing upon property rights is ok.

In my opinion, the government's only mandate is to PROTECT our property rights. Yet, we cannot expect much protection from a government when said government is the first to infringe upon those rights, can we?

Let's face it. If you do not pay your yearly property tax of a few thousand dollars, the government can just waltz on in and take your house away from you whether you like it or not and even if you own it outright and it's worth $2 million. And there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. A classic example of the government infringing upon our property rights.

By operating the welfare state it does, the government endorses property right infringement. After all, what is the difference between the government taking from us and giving it to bludgers, and bludgers taking it from us directly, when either way it ends up in the pockets of the bludgers? One way is considered legal (the government way) and other is considered illegal (the bludger's direct way).

The bludgers see this. They might not know it as "property right infringement". But they understand the concept and workings of it. They feed off of the government who takes what it wants when it wants, without so much as a "by your leave."

Just like a child learns from its nurture givers (parents), so too do the criminals and ne'er do wells learn from their nurture givers (government).

This means, to get rid of crime, on top of arming the citizens, instigate a foundation of property rights. As the current government infringes upon property rights, it also means getting rid of the government and replacing it with one that respects property rights. Thus, the only crimes which would be committed would be those that infringe upon another person's property rights. And because such a society would automatically mean "responsibility to the responsible," then those doing the infringing would be those paying retribution (unless forgiven such retribution by the person whose rights were infringed upon).

Due to these aspects - no governmental nurture giver infringing upon the property rights of the citizens and arming the citizens - the bludgers and criminals would be forced to get off their butts and make a go of it if they wanted to live, for attacking a citizen could be painful. Crime would reduce as a matter of consequence of this. Problem solved. But, because the current voting system is based on "mob rule" and the welfare bludgers vote and the rest of the left wants power (which is also achieved by disarming the citizens), the current system will not be removed in the near future and so crime will continue.

And They Call Themselves Athletes

Gob-smacked. That is what I was as I saw many of Australia's supposed elite male Olympic cyclists buying caramel coffee (with cream) in Starbucks and sitting and drinking it, less than one hour before their 200+km road race.

And then, when the race was over and they were totally buggered, they remarked how they were looking forward to a beer.

Exsqueeze me!?

Caramel Coffee and Beer!?

What kind of top athlete drinks either of those beverages?

I bet Lance Armstrong doesn't have a Starbucks before hitting the road in the Tour de France - which he has won six times. And I bet he doesn't have a few beers after the day's racing is done. I bet he treats his body like the high-performance machine it is and gives it only premium consumables.

In my competitive tennis days and mixing it with some of Australia's best, I never saw any top athlete having a coffee or beer. Water, fresh juices, etc., is what they drank. The other stuff interfered with their body's ability to perform at elite levels so they avoided it.

Recalling interviews with the elite of the sport, to the questions of "Do you drink coffee?" and "Do you drink alcohol?" the answer was always NO.

Look at the condition of the Aussie male cyclists after the race. They looked terrible. Yet the winner looked relatively fresh. I bet the winner doesn't drink caramel coffees and beers.

It's no wonder the Aussie cyclists didn't do better. Their body has to deal with too much crap all the time for it to be able to perform at top-of-the-top levels.

Apart from the cyclists drinking this garbage stuff, the coach of the team has a duty to get the athletes into top shape. So to allow those under your charge to defile their high performance machines with performance inhibiting substances, is negligence.

The coffee interefers with the regular beating of the heart - something an athlete in a cardiovascular sport certainly needs to have functioning in perfect rhythm. The cream increases mucus, which interefers with oxygen absorption into the body - something an athlete in a cardiovascular sport needs an abundance of. The alcohol puts unneeded stress on the liver, dehydrates the body and messes with the brain. The carbon dioxide in the beer increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the body, which means less oxygen being able to be carried around by the blood - carbon dioxide is carbonic acid in the body and it is a toxic waste substance.

What are these morons thinking?

You see the guy who won. He looked good. Fit and strong. The runners up didn't look so good. So at this super elite level it is a matter of body conditioning. The person with the best condition wins. The person who allows their body to be in top shape, wins. Drinking coffee and beer is NOT conducive to keeping your body in top shape. (They might be a heck of a lot better than most other people. But there is a world of difference between top and "not quite at the top but blood good anyway." And its the difference between winning and coming second.)

Take the Aussie woman cyclist who won the women's road race. After the race she looked fresh as a daisy. Fit. Healthy. In top shape. I bet she doesn't drink caramel coffee before the race and beer after.

Granted. The women didn't have to ride as far as the men. But it is all relative. They knew they didn't have to ride as far, so didn't have to stretch their energy out. Plus, if you saw the race, you would have seen the effort she put in to go from the main group of riders into the leading group of riders. And the effort she put in to break away from that leading group of riders. And the effort she put in to pull away from the other competitor near the end. And of that other competitor, she looked totally spent. As I said, the difference between second and first can be huge. It's a matter of conditioning.

And drinking caramel coffee and beer is not good conditioning for any athlete who wants to compete at the top level. But why does it take little ol' me to point this out? I thought that's what all the nutritionists at The Australian Institute of Sport get paid the big bucks for.

The Ignored Travesty And Shame Of The Olympic Games

The Olympic games has a dark and dirty secret which the mass media says nothing about. And considering the leftist leaning of the mass media it is not really too surprising.

I am talking about the tendency for Arab countries to have NO female athletes.

Saudi Arabia came on in to the stadium sans women - even though they claim women play such important rolls throughout their society.

Iraq didn't have any women that I could see.

Qatar was also womenless.

And why does it take a regime change for Afghanistan to have its first women athlete EVER!

Even communist countries like China have female athletes (as did the former U.S.S.R.). So the leftist part of the government's politics isn't really anything to do with it. That just leaves religion as the cause.

Yep. The Islamifascists who rule those Arab countries with an iron fist, consider women are second class citizens worthy only of doing what a man tells them.

Look at the shit hole Saudi Arabia (I can call Saudi Arabia a shit hole because I am not a leftist who sees no wrong in anything left. I can call Saudi Arabia a shit hole that abuses women because that it what they do. I can call Saudi Arabia a shit hole because I don't care about being politically correct and am not concerned I might upset someone - like who would I upset anyway besides shithead Saudies who abuse their women?). In that forsaken place in the desert, women aren't even allowed to drive for fucks sake. Yet, we are supposed to believe women are considered equal. If so, then where's all their female athletes?

What gets me is, NONE of the femi-Nazis mentioned the abuses that go on in that country. NONE of the femi-Nazis bring to our attention that their are no women in the Arab country teams. It is like the left does not want to acknowledge the ABUSE that goes on in those countries.

It is good that Afghanistan NOW has a woman athlete. But why did it take the removal of an oppressive government for that to happen? Yes it was a good moment seeing that female athlete walking in. But it is a hollow moment. For while that woman was cheered, the other oppressors were not brought to task for their anti-female ways.

I still ask. Why are the feminists quiet on this? Why? Why is it up to ME to bring this to light and say something about it?

Could it be that what they (the feminists) go on about isn't really their agenda at all? Could they be the typical hypocritical lefties? Ultimately out for some kind of control or "good guy badge"?

Well. Whatever the reason for their silence - and the silence of the other media - *I* will not be quiet about it and sweep it under the rug like the others. *I* will make a noise while the feminists keep silent.

And now YOU know about it too. And I hope it pisses you off. Not that I expect you to do anything. But to keep a check of yourself before you praise that such countries are there at all.

How about an Olympics boycott for countries that do NOT allow females to participate? Works for me. And the International Olympic Committee (or whatever they are called) had previously banned Iraq for the bad treatment of their athletes. So why does it have to stop at athletes. How about banning a country for the bad treatment of its people in general?

Once again, this is another example of how religion fucks things up.