The Sham Of Government Revealed

There are those who fully understand the duplicity of government. And there are those who think western democracy is the be all and end all of how freedom should be.

I'd like to reveal how phony government is by using their own words/actions against them as they are currently being reported in the news.

Over in England the government has been trying to ban hunting with dogs. Those of us who know how government works know that this would just be a leg in. And soon to follow would be a ban on hunting with certain firearms. And then all firearms. And so on until no firearms are needed for anything.

Anyway. Twice now the government has passed the bill and put it through to The House of Lords for final approval (In Australia this would be like the house of representatives passing a bill and putting it through to the senate for approval). And twice the bill has NOT been passed by The House of Lords - the second time they added an amendment to make it a half hunting ban, which the government rejected.

Well, the government is about to put the bill to The House of Lords for the third time. If they do not pass it this time, the government will enact a provision and FORCE the bill into existence.

This reveals two things...

Thing # 1: Bills are passed under coercion. If you don't pass the bill then we will pass it anyway so you might as well pass it.

Thing # 2: It doesn't matter what The House of Lords does or says, the government will pass whatever laws it wants to anyway. Which means the entire effort of putting things through to The House of Lords is a sham. The House of Lords is just a rubber stamping group.

And this reveals that the government is NOT answerable to anyone. They do as they please. They pass laws as they please even if half of parliament does not agree with them and the approving body does not approve them. They have supreme power.

In Australia, if the Senate does not pass the bill three times, both houses of parliament are dissolved and we have a general election. And while this seems like a better check and balance, it still sees laws being passed under coercion - as those in the Senate may not want to risk losing their seat in an election and so will pass the law. After all, it is like being asked to do something by your boss with the addition of, "If you don't do it, you are fired and will have to re-apply for your job just like everyone else who will apply once the ad in the paper comes out." And under those kinds of threats, you will likely do as you have been asked.

So while we, the public, are presented with an illusion of checks and balances, the reality is that there are none. And the government of the day does as it damn well pleases. No correspondence will be entered into.

Do you still think you are free?

Media Scumbags

I was not going to comment on it. I felt others were doing all the commenting needed. But I've finally had a gutful and need to say something. Because frankly, what I am hearing just fries my pumpkins...

Sometimes I wonder if Aliens have abducted me and put me onto another planet full of morons called Stupid Earth. Because surely, normal supposedly sane people cannot possibly think some of the stupid things they say.

In this case it is based around the tragedy which is the Russian School Hostage Saga. And in particular, the liberal media's cries for an inquest into the failings of Putin, and the claims he botched things up and blah blah blah.

Where is their outrage at the murdering BASTARDS who slaughtered innocent children?! Oh, they get off scott free don't they? We must try to understand them, mustn't we? Oh bullshit. They are SCUM. Worse than animals. Because even animals do not do this kind of mindless killing.

And now they (the liberal media) want Putin to hold meetings with the Chechen TERRORISTS (yes, that is terrorist and not 'rebel' or 'insurgent' or 'separatist' or whatever less-vile name the liberal media continues to calls them in an effort to downplay their true nature) to discuss the situation.

Discuss the situation? They fucking well killed innocent children. Blew them to bits. Shot them in the back. What is there to discuss? There is nothing to discuss. Unless it is how many different extremely painful ways they want to be killed for their desecrations of humanity.

But what's with the liberal media? Jesus Hallucinogenic Christ. There was a never ending front page verbiage about the alleged abuses at the prison in Baghdad. But this... this abomination of an act from less than animal savages... is off the front page after one day. There is no media outrage at them. Their is no mass condemnation by the media. No. It's suddenly the victim's fault.

Well excuse me all to hell. I'm with Putin on this one when he told reporters who questioned him and wondered why he won't meet with the child-killing Chechen terrorists...

Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?

You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers?

You see, the Chechen terrorists want to have Chechnya to be independent so they can establish an islamofascist state like Afghanistan was. Complete with terrorist training camps. And Putin knows this. He also knows that you never negotiate with terrorists.

What is so hard about this for the media to understand?

I just don't know. The Chechen terrorists and the Palestinian terrorists seem to be the darlings of the media. Darlings who can kill as many innocent children and whatnot as they want without feeling the media ire. But god forbid those who were attacked from killing a terrorist because then the media will call you all the fowl names and wonder why you are so brutal.

It is this vast lopsided leaning in favor of child killers that causes me NOT to buy newspapers. Because I refuse to help a company profit that condones such barbaric acts.

I also find it odd that the media is NOT reporting how at least ten of the child-killing terrorist bastards were Arabs! And instead, tries to downplay it and totally ignore it. Even reporting in such a way to give the impression these terrorists just want autonomy and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda and general global terrorism.

If we applied the media logic closer to home, we could blow shit up and then expect the media to push the government into "talks" to find out what we want and to give it to us. Which, of course, would be rewarding such behavior. And is a totally insane thing to do.

Here's a hint you know something isn't right with the psycho-media reporting. When they say, "Many are calling for..." and other similar vague stuff. It usually means many of THEM are calling for something. Because if it was the people specifically involved, then they would say so.

Pay attention to what is NOT being reported. That can give you a lot of clues.

Why Voting Is Useless

Later this year, those of us in Australia and in the US will go to the polls and elect new leaders to "reign over us" - as the British national anthem goes.

Personally, I dislike the fact of anyone reigning over me. And dislike it even more that I get to choose who that person is. I don't want anyone reigning over me in the first place, so I likewise don't want to choose anyone to do it.

Nevertheless, in Australia it is compulsory to vote. If you do not vote you are fined. If you are over 18 and do not enroll to vote you are fine. I call this "voting under duress." And that is no way to run a "democracy."

But what of the act of voting anyway?

Totally useless.

In all the years I have been forced to vote, NOT ONCE has the person I voted for won. Not one single time.

I suppose I am lucky because of that. Because if anyone I had voted for had won I might believe voting is a workable thing. But seeing as no-one I voted for has ever won, I see the system for what it is - a sham.

I think of democracy as six wolves and one sheep all voting on what's for dinner. Because let's face it, the dregs of society and those who would not be called value-producers out-number the value producers. And the way the system works, they vote for any lying bastard who promises to steal money from the value-producers and give it to them. Just like the wolves all voting to eat the sheep for dinner.

Look at Mark Latham's "promises". He is going to increase school spending by $3 billion or some such garbage. Has anyone asked where this money is going to come from? I'll tell you... out of your hip pocket is where, in the form of higher taxes.

See. That's what the lying bastards never tell you. They might be increasing spending here and there, but they never mention where the money will come from. They never tell you they will hit you up for more money until they suck you dry.

Look at the "new baby payment" in Australia. When you have a baby the government will give you $3,000. Oh bully. Just where does that $3,000 come from? From your hip pocket. Even if you are through having kids, money is now coerced out of you and given to the new mothers without your permission. (I don't recall voting for this?)

But I have digressed. This isn't about them and taking your money. It is about the folly of voting.

Ok. Obviously, seeing as no-one I have voted for has ever won, my vote all these years has been wasted. And it would have been more productive of me to stay at home - the outcome would have been the same anyway, wouldn't it?

But what if they had won? Well, seeing as no-one ever wins by one single vote, I could have stayed at home and they would have won anyway. And again my going to vote would have been a waste of my time.

Of course, we then get the "what if everyone thought that way?" come-backs. Ok. If everyone thought that way, no-one would vote and the election would be voided. End of story. The government would not be legitimized and we could get on with the business of business free of the interference of the government.

But the REALITY is, not everyone thinks this way so it is a stupid come back not based in any reality. The reality is, many podies like the illusion that voting gives them. They like to feel they have a choice - without ever fully comprehending they have no real choice.

Let's face it. Our choice at election time is Party A (who will increase taxes over time as they always do, infringe upon more property rights and take more freedoms away, and increase the size of government) or Party B (who will increase taxes over time as they always do, infringe upon more property rights and take more freedoms away, and increase the size of government). The only real difference between the parties is their names and that one party might do it slightly faster/slower than the other party. But make no mistake about it, both parties end up doing the exact same things in the end so it makes little difference who is in power.

The other folly about voting and choosing someone to reign over us is that we cannot control them once they are in. I've already talked about how there is no accountability. And it is true. There is also no "governing" element to keep their excesses in check. They just run-a-muck as they see fit - like ten year boys left without supervision. But these guys have the military might of the country to back up their coercion.

And coercion it is. I am coerced into enrolling to vote. Coerced into voting. And coerced into handing over the fruits of my labor without accountability. The only freedom I have is that which I make for myself. And when that comes to voting in Australia, that means I can vote informal. I can create a new option on the ballot form (The "No Government" option) and mark that as my choice - of course, my vote will be counted as informal but it won't make any difference to the outcome either way.

I know I am not alone in my compulsory voting thinking. And if opinion polls are anything to go by I know at least 40% of Australia thinks compulsory voting is wrong. But like the wolves voting to eat the sheep, the remaining 60% will make sure I am still not free to not bother voting at all, they will vote their archaic system remain in force so *I* have to now partake of the folly under threat of fine.

Come this election I will not be voting for anyone to reign over me. I will go and get my name crossed off as having voted and cast my ballot. But my ballot will be considered informal and in the end it won't have made any difference to the outcome because voting is a waste of time.

If Government Were Private Enterprise

When we flip through a newspaper or kill some channels, we see ads for all kinds of products and services. If a business places an ad which contains false or misleading information, it is guilty of false advertising - and can have its license to trade revoked by the government if the infringement is too great.

The government is not held accountable by those same rules and laws.

During an election campaign a lying bastard can say whatever they want. When they do none of the things they promised they are not held accountable. They do not have their position revoked. They are not fired from office.

Why is that? Why is it all right for a politician to do false advertising while a business cannot - even if the business did it by accident?

Often, if a business does do false advertising, they also print a retraction and apology. You've seen them: "In our Septober 33 ad for men's socks, the advertised price was wrong. It should have been $x" or some such thing.

You NEVER see such a retraction from a lying bastard. But what if you did? It might look something like this: "In the 2004 election campaign I promised to do this and this and that. I have done none of those things. I am sorry."

And if they were honest they would say, "I have done none of those things and I only said I would do them so you would vote for me. I am sorry for misleading you."

If the government were held accountable for their contractual obligations - like every business is - then we would see a new government coming to power three and four times a year because they keep breaking their promises. And while that were going on, the country would plod along just fine thank you very much. How do I know?

Simple. It plods along just fine during an election campaign when government isn't sitting and dreaming up new laws for us to bow down to, and new ways of sucking even more money out of us through creative taxes. If the country can get by without government for a month or so, it can get by without government for much longer.

If government leaves a town the town continues on. But if business leaves a town the town dies. Another sign that government isn't needed.

If government had to compete for the people's business just like any private enterprise does, its inefficiency and lying ways would see it out of business by the end of the month.

Monopolies are illegal, except for the government - which is a monopoly and which can own as many monopolies as they see fit, all backed by force.

One day I would like to see a government held accountable. Where lying bastards are sacked for not performing to their promises. But I won't hold my breath for that to happen - for it would be the same government doing the prosecuting of the lying bastard and kicking him out of office. And once that precedence had been set, then it would equally apply to all lying bastards - no matter how high up the lying bastard tree they are. And we could see our "leader" also sacked for lying - like any CEO would be sacked.

Oh well. I can dream.

Protection Of The People, By The People

ALERT! ALERT! The Terror Alert (sounds like a b-grade horror movie rating system) has been raised to "more likely of an attack than just the other day". The military have been let out of their boxes. All in an effort to get people used to seeing armed men on the civilian streets.

What a crock-pot full of baloney stew.

Imagine you are a terrorist for just a few minutes. You take three years to plan the attack on a building. You are about to go when the city discovers the plan and puts out a Terror Alert. The building you had planned on blowing up is now surrounded by armed men. Do you decide to go ahead with the plan right now knowing full well the armed men might shoot you before you carry out your plan - or - wait three weeks for the armed men to go away and then carry out your plan.

Seeing as you had waited three years already and have very good plans, you will simply wait for the armed men to be called back to their box. Then go do what you had planned to do all along.

You also learn something else. You learn that to stretch the city to its limits, you "leak" many terror threats on many buildings. The city and its box full of armed men cannot protect them all. They cannot protect an entire range of buildings.

As a citizen of the city and one that places your safety in the city's hands, you have a RIGHT TO KNOW if they, the city, actually can protect you. Knowing this allows you to make an informed decision which is good for you - and what is good for you is often good for others too.

If the city says "No, we cannot guarantee your safety" you now have two choices.

Choice # 1: Leave the city. The problem is, all other cities will be the same as the one you are leaving - unable to guarantee your protection. So moving really won't make you any safer unless you move to the country. But once in the country you have the problem of generating income.

Choice # 2: Protect what you can yourself. Take your protection into your own hands - and likewise encourage everyone to do the same.

With Choice # 2, the city does not stretch resources. And each building is responsible for its own protection. Each person is responsible for protecting their home and property. And you end up with the people protecting themselves in small groups which makes it hard for any attacker to penetrate, because everything is protected. And resources are not stretched.

Remember, the police do not prevent anything from happening, they respond AFTER something had happened. Prevention lays in the hands of the people. And when the people realize this, then protection actually takes place.

Imagine the people in your street protecting their own street. It would be a far better protection than hoping and relying on an overworked police force to do it. They have more important things to do like stopping drunk drivers, and putting decoy prostitutes on the streets to catch men who are not hurting anyone and who want nothing more than to have a bit of sex and are willing to pay for it.

Imagine the local shop keepers protecting their little area of town (cluster of shops). And the highrise office building employing a small group of men to protect it. And likewise throughout the city. The people protecting the city. And doing it by only protecting their little bit instead of trying to protect a whole area.

This is the kind of thing the founding fathers knew. It is easier for a few people to protect a building (or intersection) than trying to protect an entire area.

Example: Police being held at bay. One man and a gun can keep fifty to one hundred men away from his property without even firing a shot. Imagine what a city-wide or country-wide version of this would do.

No enemy army would stand a chance. This is why countries like Switzerland have the "every house must have a gun" law. So even though a standing army might be small and pretty well worthless as a force, it won't matter because the entire country is like one big army. Each individual in charge of protecting their turf.

The solution to America's protection doesn't lay in the hands of the lying bastards and their paid goons. It lays in the hands of the people protecting nothing more than their little bit - home, intersection, store, etc. By such narrow protecting you achieve wide-scale protection.