Thursday, October 9th, 2008


“When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.”
– Robert A. Heinlein

I’ve been banned.  Anyone with the free Australian government Integard internet filter is now unable to view this blog, recieving only a page citing “Illegal Activities”.  The NetAlert system is designed to provide families with a means to protect their children from the “dangers of the internet”.  What is the greater danger, one dissenting voice or a government which is working to eliminate the freedom of speech?  If a parent wishes to prevent their child from accessing certain websites, that is their decision to make.  When the government advocates the banning of certain websites, that is tantamount to censorship.

But this doesn’t stop at free government filters.  Stephen Conroy, Rudd’s Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has announced that this filter is to be forced upon all Australians.  Only those who contact their ISP company and ask for the filter to be removed will be permitted the most fundamental and vital freedom of speech.

“Of all the strange “crimes” that human beings have legislated of nothing, “blasphemy” is the most amazing – with “obscenity” and “indecent exposure” fighting it out for the second and third place.”
– Robert A. Heinlein

But it still doesn’t stop.  If my next post called for you to fight the opression of the government, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, under the Broadcasting Act of 1992, is permitted to shut down my blog.  If I started a porn website on an Australian server, I would recieve a “Takedown Notice” and be arrested if I chose to defend my liberty.  Australia’s internet censorship laws are the strictest in the western world.

And don’t think it’s just the internet.  The government restricts all forms of media.  The Classification Board, previously the Office of Film and Literature Classification, which, along with the ACMA, reviews all media prior to it’s commercial release, is able to refuse to classify any media, effectively banning it.  It is a crime to release any media which has not been classified by the Classifications Board.  This is a country where our freedom of speech is maintained as a right, as we are led to believe, but by permission from the government, who review all media before it is released.

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
– General of the Armies George Washington, First President of the United States

We aren’t even allowed to protest this affront to human rights.  In Victoria, under the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act, a magistrate may declare any public gathering to be unlawful.  If all people assembled have not left the area and dispersed within 15 minutes, anyone who remains may be imprisoned for up to one month, three months for repeat offenses.  Furthermore, the magistrate is permitted to appoint his own army of thugs as “Special Constables” to assist in the oppression of free speech.  Both the police and special constables are permitted to use deadly force to remove any dissenters if deemed necessary.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
– Voltaire

I’m sure that many of you are shocked by this point, as I was when I first learnt of the degree of censorship present in our society.  I don’t know which is more terrifying: the fact that we have this affront to freedom taking place or the fact that it is happening right under our noses, yet few are those who know of it.  You are now among those few.  Please, spread word of this injustice to all whom you know, in order that one day we may overcome it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
– First Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
“‘But I’ve chosen a special mission of my own. I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.’
‘What man?’
‘Robin Hood.'”
Ragnar Danneskjöld and Hank Rearden, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

The new budget robs those who produce and rewards those who do not, all in the name of claiming votes.  Certainly, Kevin Rudd’s perverse moral code of altruism has something to do with it, but in reality, it’s all about votes.  Rudd thinks he is getting a decent return on investment, reappropriating the assets of one wealthy man or woman to buy the votes of several working class families.  The chief economist of the ANZ says that “as expected, [the budget] does little for single parents…There are more votes in whole families.”

Kevin Rudd is teaching our citizens that in order to make money, they no longer must produce, work, invest or otherwise contribute to society, but merely complain.  If they’re loud enough, the government will simply confiscate the proceeds of those who have achieved a profit, in order to appease them.  This is the problem with democracy, something to be discussed in further detail in a future article.

Rudd, who had previously described himself as a fiscal conservative, has proven that he is nothing of the sort.  He has fallen into the dark pit of altruism, an evil from which scare few return.  But once again, that issue deserves far greater inquiry that I can give here, so expect another article.

I won’t drag this on for much longer, seeing as how I wrote an article on this topic only a few days ago.  I’ll leave you with a question and a particularly excellent quote.

What happens when the victims, the rich, refuse to play the part of the sacrificial lamb?

“‘[Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea.’ ‘. . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.’
– Ragnar Danneskjöld, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy?”
– Francisco d’Anconia, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
We constantly hear that income inequality is evil.  We hear it in the media, we hear it from the politicians, hell, I’ve been told by geography teachers that high income inequality is one of the simplest ways to identify a nation as evil.  They couldn’t be more wrong.  Of course, it’s easy to see why so many people believe this.  They accept that wealth is not created, but simply transferred, that one man can only succeed at the expense of another.  Once you accept this fallacy as truth, the rest comes logically.
“If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.”
– Milton Friedman

This misconception originates from the rejection of the subjective theory of value.  That is, everything is worth something different to different people.  To you, a dollar coin is probably worth a dollar.  To a collector, it could be worth hundreds.  This means that no trade is conducted so that one party gains and one party loses.  When their subjective gains are considered, both parties have gained.  This holds true in all trade engaged in by two consenting parties, the basis of capitalism.  Only when force, more often than not from the government is brought into the equation, can one be disadvantaged by free trade.Instead of the subjective theory of value, the left-wing adheres instead to the masochistic labour theory of value, that everything is worth the amount of pain and suffering caused to the labourers who made it.  By this standard, human blood would be the most valuable commodity on the planet, simply because it is painful to obtain.  It would be worthless to the purchaser, but they are forced to pay an exorbitant price, simply because it was painful to produce.

Once you accept the logical subjective theory of value, it is clear that one man’s success is not another man’s failure.  In fact, to the contrary, it is his success as well.  The opponents of income inequality are not judging from the viewpoint of those involved in the transaction, but those who watch and do not profit.  These are people who measure their riches not in terms what they have, but in what their neighbours have.  The man who measures value by such a standard soon realises that rather than making a profit of his own and rising to the level of others, it is far easier to simply confiscate the profits of those who earn more than he.  In short, equality.  Communism.

What these people do not realise is that he they are indeed profiting from the work of the rich.  People below the poverty line in free nations live in conditions far superior to the men living in the “People’s States” of the world.  Why else was East Germany forced to build a wall to prevent it’s own citizens from fleeing their equal utopia to the decadent land of the west, where income inequality abounds?

Income inequality is not evil.  Far from it.  Income inequality is the recognition that a man earns what he produces, no more no less.  To demand that the industrialists who created this world be held as equals to the dole bludgers who leech off the rest of society, living on only what the government steals for them, is an evil far greater.

“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”
– Aristotle

“You regard as ‘in the public interest’ any project serving those who do not pay; it is not in the public interest to provide any services for those who do the paying. ‘Public benefit’ is anything given as alms; to engage in trade is to injure the public. ‘Public welfare’ is the welfare of those who do not earn it; those who do, are entitled to no welfare. ‘The public,’ to you, is whoever has failed to achieve any virtue or value; whoever achieves it, whoever provides the goods you require for survival, ceases to be regarded as part of the public or as part of the human race.”
– John Galt, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Australian federal treasurer Wayne Swan announced today that any Australian who has managed to succeed must face the punishment.  That’s right, more tax hikes for the rich.  An increase in taxes on cars costing over $57,000 is the first in what is undoubtedly a long line of Kevin Rudd era achievement fines.  Mr. Swan also intends to change the laws to prevent the wealthy from caliming the baby bonus or similar payments because “they don’t need it”.
“From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”
– Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

This proposal reeks of Communist wealth redistrubution.  The basis of Swan’s argument is that income inequality is bad (it’s actually good, stay tuned for my next post to find out why) and therefore success must be punished and failure rewarded, in order to bring us all together as equals.  Swan claims that the purpose of these proposals is to take the burden off working families.  He ignores the fact that the richest are the hardest working people in the world.  These are the people who invent and produce more than a thousand factory workers.  These are the people who provide jobs for millions of Australians.  These are the people who bear the responsibility for everything the businesses of our nation do or fail to do.

But this is not enough for the Labour party.  They demand that the rich be forced to surrender what they have rightfully earned, just because they can afford to.  Robert W. Tracinski of the Ayn Rand Institute calls this the “Willy Sutton Theory of Government”.  Willy Sutton was a bank robber in the 1930’s.  When asked why he robbed banks, he simply replied “That’s where the money is”.  This is exactly the policy of the Rudd government.  They are willing to sacrifice the rights of the individual to keep what he earns, all in the name of the common good, just because they can.  The rich can afford to pay these taxes, but that doesn’t make it right.

The next claim is that we must raise taxes on the rich to ease the burden from the poor.  Now I’m going to use U.S. statistics, because these things aren’t recorded in Australia, or at least, not made public.  In the United States, the richest 1% of people pay 34% of the taxes.  The richest 10% pay 66% percent of taxes and the richest 50% pay 96% of the taxes.  The burden is not on the poor, it is on the rich.

Not the Rudd government is demanding that the rich work not for themselves, but for others.  Mr. Swan is demanding that the rich pay more for programs they are forbidden to access themselves.  He wants out most successful citizens to become slaves to the least.  He wants to confiscate that which people have earned it and distribute it to those who have not.  He sees himself a sort of perverted Robin Hood, stealing from those who work for their money to give to those who do not.  Make no mistake, that is where this money is headed.  It will be used for dole bludgers and homeless shelters and teenage girls in Frankston who use the baby bonus to buy plasma screen televisions.  The solution is not to punish those who succeed, it is to stop rewarding those who do not.

How long until Atlas Shrugs?

“You decided to call it unfair that we, who had dragged you out of your hovels and provided you with modern apartments, with radios, movies and cars, should own our palaces and yachts—you decided that you had a right to your wages, but we had no right to our profits.”
– John Galt, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
“Observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears”
– Ayn Rand, The Anti-Industrial Revolution

Environmentalists want to kill us.  I’m not being paranoid, you’re just all ignorant.  The environmentalists really do want us all dead, in order to preserve nature.  Don’t believe me?  When asked about a hypothetical cancer drug which could be extracted from trees, Al Gore replied that is was reasonable to chop down one tree to save a human life.  He then continued to say it would be unacceptable to chop down three trees to save a human.  Do you think that you’re less valuable than three trees?

“Once you’ve seen one redwood, you’ve seen them all.”
– Ronald Reagan, Fortieth President of the United States

But this isn’t just hypotheticals.  Environmentalists have killed people.  Not just through some bizzare cause and effect system which could take several hours to explain.  Directly.  In 2001, four U.S. firefighter burned to death trying to fight a forest fire.  They couldn’t fight it though, because they had no water.  The only river in the area was off-limits to them because it was a breeding ground for an endangered fish.  The environmentalists sacrificed humans to save a few fish.But it doesn’t stop there.  Any of you who have heard of DDT are sure to remember it as some evil chemical which kills people by the millions.  Precisely what the environmentalists what you to hear.  And nothing could be further from the truth.  DDT saved millions of lives.  DDT was an insecticide that single-handedly wiped out malaria and countless other insect-borne diseases from entire continents.  I say was because it’s banned now.  Because it kills birds.  Today, between one and three million people die from malaria every year, all to save a few birds.  In the thirty years since DDT was banned in the United States, we’ve yet to find a replacement.

“I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot kids who shoot birds.”
– Paul Watson, Founder of Greenpeace
Don’t think that this is an unintended consequence.  The environmentalists knew perfectly well that they were sentencing countless millions of people to death with their ban.  The founder of Greenpeace even advocates the murder of humans to save animals.  Environmentalists are crusaders, ready to kill anyone who doesn’t convert to their way of life.  They place single-celled organisms above humans and will fight to defend them.  Don’t believe me?
“The ending of the human epoch on Earth, would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!'”
– Paul Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics“Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet . . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
– David M. Graber”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit

Are you beginning to understand what I mean?  They want us dead, but everyone is too blind to see it.  Obviously, if they continue like this, sooner or later the rest of humanity is going to realise that they’re heading towards their own destruction and fight back.  So how are the environmentalists going to prevent this happening until it’s too late?  Earth Hour.

Earth Hour was not about cutting carbon emissions or improving air quality.  It was about sending a simple message: “Renouncing the industrial revolution and returning to the stone age is fun!”  It was about destroying millennia of human progress.  It was about using pack mentality, concerts, beach parties and participation to lead us to our doom.  Not me.  I turned on lights I wasn’t even using on Earth Hour.  Why?  Because I can.  Because I felt that the generations of ingenuity and persistance from countless human minds which culminated in the light bulb in my bedroom, deserved tribute more than a ball of rock spinning around in space.  Because I favoured the advancement of humanity over the regression.  Because I desire the future, whilst they desired the past.

So my message, to everyone who reads this:  Next Earth Hour, join me in celebrating human advancement.  Do not follow the crowd in their suicidal pleas to return to the stone age.  Be proud of what mankind can achieve through brains, not what nature can achieve by chance.
“In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire.”
– Ayn Rand, The Anti-Industrial Revolution

Thanks to Dr. Onkar Ghate, Dr. Keith Lockitch and Michael S. Berliner, of the Ayn Rand Institute. Their articles provided the inspiration and some of the quotes for this post.

-Moved From My Old Blog-

“Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
-Ronald Reagan, Fortieth President of the United States

Everyone should be angry.  Every single one of you.  Sometimes I wonder why I’m the only one that can see what he’s really doing.  Sometimes I consider that I might just be paranoid, but then I realise that it’s much more likely that you’re all just ignorant.What am I talking about?  Kevin Rudd is trying to kill us, but nobody notices.  Not because he’s hiding it, quite the opposite.  Be boasts about it from his podium and everyone applaud him.  Everyone thinks he’s going to help us live.  I’m the only person who realises he’s trying to kill us.Not in the traditional way, mind you.  In fact, his policies are designed to keep us breathing for much longer, which is precisely why everyone supports him.  Free healthcare?  Fight binge-drinking?  Sounds good to them.  Surely stopping uni students from drinking until everything goes black is a good thing, right?  Wrong.  Being alive is more than a heartbeat, it is being a human.  A man is the sum of his decisions.  Once Kevin Rudd and his nanny-state government have stripped us of those, we are not living beings, but robots.

One of the ideas from the ridiculous 2020 Summit was a bill of rights.  Any bill of rights should preserve an individual’s right to make decisions on how much alcohol they want to drink.  They alone make the decision and they alone will bear the consequences.  This means no government healthcare, but I’ll discuss that in depth later.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
– Benjamin Franklin

Of course this doesn’t stop at binge drinking.  There are so many other laws that the government uses to shield us from the terrifying prospect of personal responsibility.  Seatbelt laws for adult need to go, for a start.  Why does the government ban me from making a decision which puts nobody but me at risk?  How many police man-hours are wasted on preventing us from exercising our free will instead of pursuing actual criminals?

“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right… The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

What about smoking laws?  In Victoria it’s a crime to smoke in any indoors public space, including bars and restaurants.  I know that most of you are thinking that this is justified, seeing as secondhand smoke can be just as dangerous to others nearby, but I have a crazy idea:  If you don’t want secondhand smoke, leave.  There will be more than enough smoke free bars for people just like you.I’m getting a bit off-topic here, so I’ll get back to Rudd.  Rest assured though, civil liberties will make a frequent appearance here in the Captain’s Log.Next up is Kevin Rudd’s focus-group approach to democracy.  He wants to get support from people.  Rather than actually doing something which would be good for all of us, for example he could fuck off and let me run my own life, he chooses to buy the votes of specific groups of people.  His newest target is parents.  How is he going to do this?  He’s going to build free daycare for everyone.

“The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away.”
– John S. Coleman

Of course, this won’t be cheap, so how is he going to pay for it?  Simple, he’s going to extort money from every citizen and lock up those who don’t pay (of course, he calls it tax).  A brilliant idea, the mothers and fathers of toddlers all over the country will vote for him and everyone else won’t give it a second thought and go along with their lives.  Everyone but me.

Same goes for his free laptops idea.  When the next election rolls around, today’s high school students will think about whether the Rudd government has changed their lives for better or for worse.  Of course it’s been worse, as I’ve outlined above, but all they’ll think about is their free laptop.  Another vote for Rudd.  Another theft from the rest of us.

I’ll leave it here for now, but there are more rants to come.  I’ll conclude with an idea for the government, which trumps the hundreds of ideas from Kevin Rudd and the government, as well as the 2020 summit, which seemed to be little more than a gathering of people who can’t live their lives without support and direction from the government:

Leave us alone.  We can manage ourselves.

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour and bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

This stupid show, which claims to pit a variety of contestants against a selection of questions purported to be of primary school standard, is probably more challenging than most high school tests. Below is a selection of questions from tonight’s episode:

Grade Five Geography: The smaller country of Andorra is located between which two much larger countries?
My sister hasn’t even heard of Andorra. And she’s in grade 6. Hell, even I don’t know where Andorra is.

Grade Two Literature (since when was Literature taught in Grade Two? As far as I know, it’s a VCE subject only.): The magic puddings wish to protect their pudding from who? (or something like that.)
Now, having never read the book (that, by the way, is never mentioned. It could be ANY magic puddings), I find this question both stupid and confusing.

Grade Five Sport: The first non-French winner of the Tour de France was from where?
In primary school, sport is just…playing sport. You don’t actually learn any theory or any facts at all. My sister doesn’t even know what the Tour de France is. This is a real grade sixer, not some cute charismatic phoney that the producers stuck into the show.

Science: Insects are classified as what creature, beginning with A?
Having just started learning taxonomy this year, in Biology 1/2, I hardly expect even a fifth grader to be able to answer this question.

History: Who invented the first lock?
What the hell? If they’re teaching this stuff in school, then primary school has gone downhill since when I was there. I don’t think anyone really cares who invented the first lock. I doubt most people even know who did. I know I don’t.

Maths: How many equilateral triangles comprise the net of a tetrahedron?
What’s a tetrahedron? This is from a guy doing both Specialist Maths: General and Maths Methods.

Computer Skills: What does http stand for?
Okay, I spend more time on the Internet than a lot of people I know, and hell if I know this. I mean, do they honestly expect us to believe that primary school kids get taught exactly what http is and what it means?

History: What was the name of the ship that Flinders took around Australia?
Now, do we really expect little grade school kids to know who Bass and Flinders were, and what their contribution to Australian history is? Hell, I’ve read about Flinders and I’ll be damned if I know the name of any of his ships.

Science: What is the process that plants go through to make the sun’s energy into food?
Having only learnt about photosynthesis upon entry into high school, I doubt primary school kids understand the complex nature of ATP, ADP, and all that stuff.

Grade Five General Knowledge: What is Pink’s last name?
Can someone please explain to me how this falls under the category of General Knowledge? I do hope that my sister isn’t being taught rubbish like this in school…

General Knowledge: What is the floral emblem of New South Wales?
Was never taught this…don’t even know the floral emblem of Victoria, for that matter. And I live there!

In reality, none of these questions even slightly represent anything approaching intelligence. It’s more of a trivia competition than anything else. While Rove claims that all questions come off an actual school syllabus, I’d like to see the school that teaches it’s students about Pink’s last name, or who invented the first lock.

In short, this show is stupid, a waste of time, utterly boring, completely unrealistic, and probably rigged.

Next Page »