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".
experts are coming to similar conclusions.
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.
see any logic to his flying into the middle of the Indian Ocean?
He wanted his act to draw attention to that politically influenced
right Malaysian PM Matahir. As the lead investigator,
Malaysia accepted that most unlikely "Indian Ocean" story, instead of
the more likely "Iran option". He suckered Tony Abbott into
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.
come nobody's satellite got pictures? I mean I thought those
US & USSR & Euro satellite cameras were always switched on?
looked at their pix of Iran or Pakistan? I mean who would have
suspected? Only an Australian Diarist?
INGRESS & POLITICS & PRESIDENTS.
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.
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.
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.
politicians are talking (again!) about turning Australia into a
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.
back to the question of do we want a republic. My
question. Do you trust our monarch (Elizabeth II) ahead of some
politician? I do. However I am not so sure about offspring
the other hand. Consider this thought experiment.
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.
can stop Joe? With a GG the Queen could step in as a
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?