We Are One With The Land

Being in Australia I often hear Aborigine comments along the lines of... "We have a special affinity for the land." and blah blah blah. As if the Aborigine, and only the Aborigine, is connected to the land of their ancestors.

My usual reaction to hearing such talk was to scoff at it. To pass it off as just another "we are special, we were here first, we have bond to the land" bunch of gobble-de-gook.

But a few "things" have been circulating around in the unlimited space inside my little grey cells. And, with what surprises me, the claims that the Aborigines feel some kind of connection with the land may not be so "hairy fairy" (as one Aborigine said it sounds like) as it sounds.

This does not mean I think they (the Aborigines) have any special claim for reconciliation money and what have you. It is just that when they say they feel something with the land, it may not be all B.S. and they may actually feel something.

You see. I've been thinking about Europe. Countries such as Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Holland, Poland, Chezkoslavakia, Romania, Finland, Switzerland and so on. And I've been thinking about recent countries like the USA and Australia. And I've noticed something...

*I* feel ZERO affinity for Australia even though I was born here. I feel greater affinity for the countries of my heritage. For no other reason than, they are in my blood going back centuries.

And then I paid close attention to the concept of Patriotism. And I noticed that much of the US patriotism is manufactured.

Think of the typical ethnic people in your community. Greeks for example.

If you know a Greek or a Greek family, you will know of the "marry a nice Greek boy/girl" thing, the parents tells their children.

If you see a bunch of people in a gathering - and those people do not know each other - what you will find is the people of the same ethnicity will stick together.

This was visible on the recent Big Brother show in Australia. The two "wogs" - one was Greek and the other Macedonian - quickly found each other and spent a LOT of time with each other. Wog Buddies, as they called each other.

Lebanese people in Australia will do business with other Lebanese people, for no other reason than they are fellow Lebanese.

The bloodline creates a bond.

People born in Australia - or the US - don't really have a long ancestry with either of those countries (with most people coming into those countries within the last 100 years). Their TRUE ancestry lays in Europe. So any "love" or patriotic feelings they have for their country, is manufactured. (And the govt needs to do that otherwise it would fine it more difficult to control the people.)

Look at the English who live in Australia. Even after 30 years, when an English sports team comes over, they support them. They support the team that comes from their "home land".

Because Australians don't have a home land, we cannot understand and fully comprehend when an Aborigine says they feel connected to the land. We cannot comprehend it or understand it, and even think it is hairy fairy, because we do not experience those feelings.

But consider our ancestry, and we will experience some of those feelings. Those feelings of "belonging" somewhere else. Of being "drawn" back to the country of our ancestry. We will feel, like the Lebanese, more inclined to deal with other people of our ancestry.

None of this makes sense. But it is there. The bloodline creates a bond.

The Truth About The Deficit, The Surplus And The National Debt

You often hear a big ta-do being made about the "Current Account Deficit" and imports exceeding exports. And often in the same sentence, or at least the same paragraph. And you may get the impression that the deficit is a result of our importing more than we export.

If this is what you think you have fallen for the govt's spin. And you are thinking exactly what they want you to think. Because to know the truth would reveal that the govt is at fault for deficits - and not people buying more overseas goods than the country sells to overseas.

To fully appreciate this you need to really know what a deficit is.

A deficit is the shortfall between what the govt has budgeted to spend (and likewise did spend) and what they really got back in from the people.

It is best to explain it with an example...

Lets say the govt thinks it will get in $500 million from the people (Yes, this is a small sum, but it is for example purposes only. The principle is the same). So the govt will proceed to spend $500 million dollars. At the end of the year it will tally up the money is took from the people (by way of taxes) and it only has $400 million. The result is a deficit (shortfall) of $100 million.

This $100 million is then passed on and called The National Debt.

Next year, the govt estimates it will take in $600 million and proceeds to figure out ways to spend $600 million. At the end of the year it discovers it has only taken in $450 million. To everyone's shock, the current account deficit is NOW $150 million. Everyone thinks the deficit has increased by $50 million. And it has, compared to last year. But overall, the entire deficit is now actually $250 million.

This new $150 million shortfall is likewise passed on and added to The National Debt. Bringing the National Debt's total to $250 million.

The year after, the govt estimates it will bring in $650 million and proceeds to figure out ways to spend that $650 million. At the end of the year it discovers is has brought in $550 million (a $100 million shortfall). Everyone thinks the govt's smart money management has brought the deficit down from $150 million to $100 million. Without realizing this deficit is a NEW deficit.

This new $100 million deficit is passed on and added to the National Debt, increasing it from $250 million to $350 million.

The following year, the govt estimates it will bring in $700 million and figures out ways to spend that $700 million. At the end of the year is discovers it has taken $650 million (a $50 million shortfall). Everyone once again thinks the govt is wonderful by managing to "pay off" an extra $50 million off the deficit. But they don't realize, this is a NEW deficit and not a running total. The deficit is not being "paid off". Instead, the amount the govt goes behind each period is just coming down.

This new $50 million deficit is passed on and added to the National Debt, increasing it from $350 million to $400 million.

Now we get to a surplus year...

This year, the govt seeing the error of its ways, under-estimates the amount it will bring in and says it is $600 million. So it works out ways to spend $600 million. When it brings in $650 million, the economy is $50 million in Surplus. There is much rejoicing as people mistakenly think the deficit has finally been "paid off". Leftist govts then turn around and accuse the right leaning govts in power who achieved this "surplus" of over-taxing the people. And because it appears there is now excess money in the kitty, people start clamoring for it. Give it back by way of tax cuts, reduced fuel prices, give it to schools, etc.

Like the deficits of before, this surplus is passed on to the National Debt. But because it is not a debt increase but a reduction, the $50 million comes off the $400 million national debt bringing it down to $350 million.

As you can see, the deficit slate is wiped clean each reporting period and passed on to the National Debt. As the deficit goes up and down, the people mistakenly think - thanks to the govt - that the govt is "paying off" the deficit. If a govt under-estimates the money it takes from its citizens, and therefore doesn't figure out ways to spend it, the economy appears to be in surplus. But like the deficit slate, the surplus slate is also wiped clear each reporting period.

This means, the very next year could see a deficit again. And people will be puzzled at how the govt could have squandered the surplus it had. But they don't realize the deficit and surplus slates are wiped clean each year. And that the deficit and surplus are only a measure of govt spending vs money taken from the people for that reporting period.

It should be pretty clear to you by now, that any govt can create a surplus simply by under-estimated income on purpose. So that when more money is brought it, the govt looks good in the people's eyes.

And what of the National Debt?

Oh boy. You don't want to look at that. For you will see the TRUE measure of govt performance over time. And you will see that ALL govts actually increase the size of the National Debt over the time they are in office. For deficits are ALWAYS much bigger than surpluses.

Remember, a $50 million deficit this year followed by a $8 million surplus next year, does NOT mean the govt "paid off" $50 million and had $8 million left over. It means that over those two years, the govt is $42 million in the hole. And this is hushed up by passing it on and calling it National Debt.

Notice how the media never talks about national debt but focuses on current account deficit. That's because the media is on it. They need to be to keep the masses placated.

About now you might be asking, if the govt keeps going in the financial hole each year by spending more than it brings in, where does the money come from that it spends?

The govt owns the printing presses and simply prints it up. The extra money hits the economy. And creates inflation.

This is why high deficits ALWAYS lead to high inflation.

Of course, the govt can't let it be known that inflation is due to its bad management of money, so cleverly disguises it as a part of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). It tells us, if the CPI is high inflation is high and if the CPI is low, inflation is low.

But the truth is far more stark and never comes out. Let me show you how sly the govt is...

The CPI is: the weighted average cost of a standard basket of retail goods expressed in relation to a base period.

The questions you now need to ask are: What are the items included in this "market basket" and what is the "weight" which is applied to the number.

The answer to these questions is unknown. Only the govt knows. But I will say this... what is included in this "basket" changes as the govt sees fit.

For example: In the US, prior to 1983 the CPI measured housing prices using a procedure that included changes in the "asset value" of owned homes. BUT because the asset value of houses was growing so much faster than the consumption value, the inflation rate that included asset values was excessive. So to make the numbers look good, the govt stopped using "asset value" as a measure and instead started using "rental equivalence" - whatever that is.

Knowing this, you can now see, if the govt included house prices in its CPI calculation, the CPI would go off the chart during a boom period. And people would think inflation is running out of control. So during those housing boom periods the govt will remove house prices from the CPI "basket" and put in something else that is either going down in price due to competition (like DVD players) or is staying fairly even in price.

The CPI all depends on what the govt decides is in the basket of goods for that calculating period. So it comes up with whatever number it wants to. All in an effort to disguise its bad money management and the national debt it keeps increasing.

So next time you hear a politician accuse the govt of over taxing people because there was a surplus, or of squandering a surplus which was left it from a previous govt, you know the truth. The deficits and surpluses happen as the govt sees fit, the slate is wiped clean each year and passed on to the National Debt, which is always going up over time. The shortfall is made up by the govt printing money. Which causes inflation. The govt then disguises its part in causing inflation by saying it is the CPI. And the govt manipulates the CPI as it sees fit to present good numbers to the public and to further hide what it did.

The fact is, if ANY business in the free market was to operate as the govt does, it would be out of business before the year was out - as banks kept seeing its debt increase without repayments being made and would foreclose on the business.

Regime Change

Some people, having noted my fairly obvious anti-state stance, have asked me whether I am for overthrowing the govt.

While I do believe we would be better off without a govt (or one as big as we have), as shown in the early days of the US, in places like Iceland, certain towns in the US (such as one town that elects animals as the mayor because they don't like being told what to do), in Hong Kong, and so on, I have NO desire for overthrowing any govt because that would infringe upon the property rights of many people.

You see. Many people like the govt. They think govt is the best thing going. And the fact is, many people work for the govt. If *I* were part of some lobby group or whatnot that wanted the govt gone, I would, in all essence, be ending the employment of those people. I would be no better than any other do-gooder, who lobbies to have some industry regulated to the point companies in it close down and lay off workers.

I have no right to force my view of things onto other people - just as they have no right to force their view onto me.

Quite frankly. I couldn't care less about the govt. I just tune it out. Switch it off. Turn and walk away and go about living my life.

It is folly to butt heads with the beast. So I just avoid the beast.

My only wish is that the beast would likewise leave me alone. But it doesn't. It forces itself into all my transactions. To this, I put up with it and get on with living.

Yes voting it a waste of time and more like mob rule. Yes I think the govt is totally useless and just a giant squid like thing which sucks the life out of us. And that they don't really give us anything of value back - certainly not anywhere near the extent they take from us. And I think we'd be better off without them. But overthrowing a govt implies replacing it with some other form of leadership/rulership/govt. And that is something I am against.

Also, to do so - assuming it could be done in this modern day and age - would mean being a leader (or following one) and having some kind of organization which dished out orders to be carried out. And we are right back to where we started - a form of govt under a different name but with different players.

Overthrowing the govt is NOT something I give two seconds thought to. It's pointless.

All I want is the option not to participate in the govt farce. To voluntarily interact with my fellow Earthlings. And to be free of the coercion govt uses to get its way and keep us all under its yoke. And nowhere in there is any concept of overthrowing a govt.

See. There are two forms of action a person can take - direct and indirect.

Indirect action is trying to force a change on govt to get your way. Mostly this is a complete and utter waste of time and effort. This is the do-gooder route.

Direct action is doing something that directly benefits you. Be it voting with your feet. Or voting with your dollars - buying elsewhere. And entails taking responsibility for yourself - not trying to use the govt to coerce money out of other people for your betterment.

I am a "direct action" advocate. And as such, overthrowing a govt is the last thing on my mind.

I will say this though... I think govt has seen its day. It is a bloated beast with little room left to move without totally impoverishing the people. And it will simply self-destruct under the weight of its own ineptitude. Govts are self-destructive entities. And their disappearance is just a matter of time. And the more technology there is the faster that time approaches.

Because with more technology comes more freedom. More freedom means less control. And govts do not like its slaves to be free. Govts would like nothing better than full state control. But know many people would physically revolt as such a system. So the govt has to play a balancing act. But with technology comes freedom. And the freedom virus is slowly spreading around the globe. And there is nothing govt can do to stop it.

Fed govts will be the first to go. Followed by state govts. Leaving local govt as the last bastion of govt oppressions. Even that will fall, in time. All of its own accord without a single person lifting a finger to make it happen.

So any effort expended by anyone in trying to overthrow any govt is also a waste of time. As they could just get on with their life and the govt will implode all by itself in due time.

Then again. Maybe I am wrong and govt will prevail in some way. Somehow I doubt it. As the only way for govt to prevail would be to go totally 1984 Ingsoc. And there are too many freedom lovers out in the world now - and they all communicate with the new technology - that that isn't possible. It will be an interesting next 50 years me thinks.

Side note: Due to the coming economic total collapse in the next year or few and which will last for over a decade (unless all income tax is abolished), I predict much state welfare and thus embracing of the state. Coupled with the phony War on Terrorism, the state will grow much larger. This will help facilitate is demise. As it will be like one large Ponzi Scheme.

Australians Are Classless Dicks

Ok. It is a generalization. But generalizations do not come about for no reason. There is a LOT of evidence to say it is so.

Last night I watched a bit of the ARIA Awards - Australia's music industry award show. And it started with the Red Carpet footage.

The Red Carpet footage was shown on Channel V - Australia's home grown music station. And pretty well ALL the interviewers kept on making Sexual Innuendo comments to the arriving guests and entertainers. And the overseas entertainers were dumbfounded. And understandably so as I have NEVER seen such remarks at any overseas awards show - the overseas shows have more class.

Red Carpet done it was into the main function room for the show proper. And when I found out it was being compared by Rove McManis I cringed.

Rove has a weekly late night show called Rove Live. The show imitates the shows of Letterman and Leno - but lacks the same class. On his show he is ALWAYS ambushing his guests by bring "not funny at all" bum jokes into the interview, throwing sexual innuendos around willy nilly, and twisting the conversation to porn films - all to the shock of the overseas guests, many of whom do the interview via satellite. So I expected more of the same.

And Rove, true to his gutter humor self, did just that. Made gutter humor remarks that weren't funny at all. In fact, I didn't even crack a smirk during his lengthy introduction. Nor at anything he said during the entire time he said anything.

He called Chris Isaac on to read out an award. And as the banter was coming to an end Rove asked Chris if he had been checking out the fashions. Chris said he was checking out the women's fashions (many of whom had been wearing low cut, cleavage revealing dresses). Rove asked "are you sure"? When Chris replied he was Rove said, "But I saw you checkin' out my arse before."

So funny... NOT!

He also made fun of Christians. And wove it into album titles and called one album of one entertainer "It'll Be A Miracle If It Ever Sells". (To which he got many OOoos, but no laughter.)

And made some remark about last year's Australian Idol winner being a Virgin or something.

Shame Rove Shame.

Don't be mean to other people to be funny. There is no need to be nasty. Maybe Karma came and got you and that is why your production office burnt down last week.

He also accused the newly elected Prime Minister - who won by an INCREASED margin - of living in a bubble. (And he wonders why the PM won't come on his show.)

Rove is such a dick.

Then we had a member of the band called The Whitlams (Goff Whitlam was a former leftist Labor party leader and former leader of Australia before he was sacked). And he made some comment about the tragedy which was last weekend - referring to the coalition win in the election. The comment went down like a lead brick. And rightly so considering something like 60 - 70% of the population did not vote for the left leaning Labor party who he was sad didn't win.

So in essence, he basically had a go at that percentage of the population. Which could pretty well be the same percentage which was sitting in the audience.

As Laura Ingram says... SHUT UP AND SING.

Following that shame a couple of MC DJs got some award. It was read out by the visiting Black Eyed Peas. During the acceptance speech one of the dork MC DJs made an anti-American comment with the Black Eyed Peas standing two feet behind him.

The Black Eyed Peas just smiled in shocked amazement at what was just said. And when the other MC DJ motioned about who was standing behind the talking DJ, he tried to change what he had said. But it was too late. You cannot unsay what you have said.

At this point I turned it off. I had seen enough of the classless way Australian's are.

Back In The USSR USA

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Seriously. You guys are comatosed or something.

It is said, if you put a frog in boiling water it will hop out right away - but - if you put it in cold water and slowly raise the temperature it will stay there until it boils to death.

Hate to be the one to break this to you guys but you are frogs and the water is warming rapidly. And I know you don't know it, but the USA is turning into the new Iron Curtain.

Picture the old USSR and how things were back then...

* Identity Cards. All citizens were required to carry them and "produce their papers upon request" when asked by a police officer.

* Passport Control. There were very strict controls on coming in and out of the country. Passports were scrutinized closely and a check was kept on people.

* Big brother was watching everywhere. Monitoring the citizens.

* No Proof Needed. Police could just come on in and take your stuff - business or citizen - without needing to show any justifiable cause to any judge.

* National Service. All citizens of the correct age had to take part in national service whether they liked it or not.

* Dossiers on Citizens. As you see in the movies, certain citizens would have dossiers created on them. And such files were continually added to as a citizen interacted with the state. Thus the state was creating a nice series of documents to help "analyze" you and everything you do. Do something out of the ordinary and BAMB! they would be on you - either physically to ask you, or watch you closely.

Pretty bleak way of living, wasn't it?

Now here is the USA of today...

* National ID Cards. They aren't called national ID cards. But for all intents and purposes, they work exactly like a National ID card. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. So if it is considered a Nationally accepted form of ID and works like a National ID card, it IS a National ID card. For further details see here and here.

* Passport Control. This is called US Visit - an innocuous name. EVERY person that comes to the US MUST have their photo taken and their fingerprint scanned (even the USSR didn't go this far). Passports MUST also be bio-metric (have electronic information stored on them as determined by the USA) otherwise you either can't get in or need a visa to get in (for countries that used to be able to enter without a visa). Those who could get in without a visa are also photographed and fingerprinted as well as needing a bio-metric passport.

* Big brother watching everywhere. Cameras are all over the place. Airports. Street corners. You name it and there is a camera there watching you. Undercover "agents" travel the public transport systems in readiness for any wrong-doings. We are under constant 24 hour surveillance from such systems as the ECHELON surveillance system of satellites; govt monitoring bank transactions; Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) which stipulates that telecom carriers must build their networks to be surveillance-ready for law enforcement and how the FBI has petitioned to get broadband providers covered by it. And this is the tip of the ice-berg.

* No proof needed. The FBI can send a letter to any business demanding requesting that they hand over ALL private and confidential customer information. This letters are known as "National Security Letters". And no court issued warrant or justifiable cause needs to be shown. They can just send this letter as they see fit without accountability. And any business that has received such a letter is NOT allowed to disclose they have received it under threat of govt punishment. Recently a judge ruled it "not on" and another threw it out. But you just know they won't stop at it until they get it in.

* National Service. Introduced in January 2003, Universal National Service Act of 2003 by Democrats - otherwise known as H. R. 163 and SB 89 - call for an implementation of National Service for men AND women of a two year duration. So all people of a certain age would be required by law to go into the military for two years. AND, in readiness for this bill the govt has already made arrangements with Canada to send back any people who flee to Canada AFTER receiving their call up papers.

And it clearly states: "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

For the full bill see here.

Even though it might not be in yet, if the fictitious War on Terror continues on, it will be at some point in the future - and very fast if the Dems win office.

* Dossiers on Citizens. Under the constitution the govt can not compile dossiers on citizens. BUT it doesn't stop others compiling information which the govt then buys/accesses. And this is happening right now! It's called the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (or MATRIX for short) and you can read about it here and here.

When looking at the former USSR in which it would be agreed that the people were NOT free, and comparing it to the USA of today, there is little difference in how the citizens are being treated. And it seems the only difference is the NAME of the political party in power. But as they say, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

And I am reminded of the end of the movie Escape From L.A. when a character says to Snake Plissken after he asks for a smoke... "The United States is a no-smoking nation. No smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no women unless you're married, no guns, no foul language, no red meat."

And Snake replies... "Yeah. Land of the free."

Side Note # 1: Snake Plissken was played by Kurt Russell who is a Libertarian in real life.

Side note # 2: Maybe the US national anthem should be changed from "Land of the free and home of the brave" to "Land of the not so free any more."