Australian DIARY


ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +



  In March 2014 I suggested that MH370 was not in the S Indian ocean. I deduced that it was probably in Iran, and gave reasons as to why it had not been "reported".

Now various experts are coming to similar conclusions.

Current thinking is that it was not an accident, but a deliberate act by the plane's Captain, who was angry that the Malaysian opposition leader had been convicted of homosexuality.  Apparently the Captain was related in some way.

Can you see any logic to his flying into the middle of the Indian Ocean?  He wanted his act to draw attention to that politically influenced conviction.

Enter stage right Malaysian PM Matahir.  As the lead investigator, Malaysia accepted that most unlikely "Indian Ocean" story, instead of investigating the more likely "Iran option".  He suckered Tony Abbott into paying Malaysia's share of the search.  That's $100 million to keep him in power.  Australian taxpayers can pretty well kiss that $100 million goodbye, or as a contribution to Matahir's power grab.

Incidentally, how come nobody's satellite got pictures?  I mean I thought those US & USSR & Euro satellite cameras were always switched on?

Maybe nobody looked at their pix of Iran or Pakistan?  I mean who would have suspected?  Only an Australian Diarist?


I have discovered a geographically organized game called ingress. The object of the game is to walk about and capture portals, link them and form "fields".   The ultimate advantage is with attackers.  No portal is invincible.

There are two sides, "enlightened" and "resistance".  Anybody who thinks he is "enlightened" is, so far as I am concerned, saying he has all the answers to the important questions.  My name for such people is "elitist".  I suppose they would call we "resistance" as "regressives" or something similar.  It's all in the narrative.

It is not a long step to find parallels in politics.  The politicians and their sycophants all figure they know what is best for the rest of us.  They are "enlightened".  The rest of us are the "resistance".  We do not like any sudden change to the status quo.

Now our politicians are talking (again!) about turning Australia into a Republic.

Last time round they wanted Parliament to appoint the "President", who would have the same or restricted powers as the Governor General.  Australia's Governor General has greater political powers in theory than the US president.  They were very much against the people electing the president.  Apparently the chain of logic is that if he were elected he would be mandated to use those powers.

Getting back to the question of do we want a republic.  My question.  Do you trust our monarch (Elizabeth II) ahead of some random politician?  I do.  However I am not so sure about offspring Charles.

On the other hand. Consider this thought experiment.

Joe Blow gets appointed PM, and appoints his mate Jack Smith as President.  Some random terrorist attacks a High Court Judge with a knife and kills him.  Joe then declares a "state of emergency", and begins to rule by decree.  Jack Smith allows that, because Joe is a mate.

So who can stop Joe?   With a GG the Queen could step in as a last resort.

And yes.  I do think such a scenario is possible.  Hitler came to power legally in what was arguably the most advanced nation at the time.  I trust 51% of my fellow Australians much more than I trust politicians.  I prefer to have as many blockages, restraints and restrictions on politician's power as possible.  This is the age of the internet. Why can't we have direct democracy?