Hitler’s invasion of Poland and Eastern Europe, is no doubt a serious crime, genocide, the most horrible aggression. When you look from the perspective of invaded people it was a terror. If you look from invador’s point of view, they were in legitimate government, they had power and duty to serve it’s government. In short their war and aggression and terror were legal because were generated in their parliament.

Does it matter that their crime was approved by government and therefore legal? Not at all, crime is crime weather approved, generated of supported by parliament, whole government system or judges or police.

Lots of people live in comfortable naivity. Once I have lived in such state. Now I do say from primarily my experience and also from observation. My own and my family example is primary source of the message but also my awareness of thousands of suffering innocent people adds to it. The problems I describe are a result of violent nature of people serving the system as government and it’s agencies. Here I make a paralell with Hitler’s aggression. His aggressive nature materialised through the government system and power.

Let me give only innocently looking example of official slogan: Australia says no to violence against women.

I’ve pointed that if this is typing error or an overlook or a simple mistake, this must be immediately changed to: Australia says no to violence!

I’ve pointed that in original cliche, the effective message is: Australia says yes to violence against children and their fathers!
Kevin Rudd have responded to it by repeating in media the original message. This is creating an imbalance and favouritism as Hitler did. Aryan race is better than any others and Jews are the…
In effect Howard and now Rudd continues such policy.

Short outline of government violence against my family – an official terrorism!

1.The government terror began with kidnapping my all four children. Kidnapping is a trademark of mafia and other terrorist organisations.
2.My wife and children subjected to brain washing of the religious fanatical sect. My family does suffer for all about 16 years. My oldest daughter have suffered so severely that she become suicidal.
3.I was arrested in my home when I was having a good time with children.
4.I was arrested by my federal representatives that is A.Southcott, Ch.Pyne and T. Worth for in their offices for asking justice and stopping violence.
5.I was robbed by the government of my home, my car and everything mine in home. When government representative declared in court that no longer I own my home and that he asks me if I can pay legal costs, I had to begg them not to do so because I was pennyless. By that time I had to abandon my beliefs that court cannot robb or act against the truth or to go to such lenght that they can punish me for robbing me of my home, and I had actually begg them not to ask me to pay legal costs. Before that, I only knew that Natzi could ask Jews and Slavs to dig their own graves.
6.Becoming homeless I was arrested on the street for living on the street. Two journalists turned to make an interview with me. Police officers arrived in no time and turned them away. Police have asked me 3 times to go home or they arrest me. I’ve answered them 3 times that I am on the street not by my choice but by choice of government and will gladly go home if they return my home or at least the replacement home like Housing Trust home. I was arrested along with my bed on which I lied and my bicycle and my little desk and bag with belongings.
7.While in jail I was treated not like human. (no prisoner is treated as human) I was attacked by other prisoners, was wrongly punished by officers and soon later apologised, threatened by an officer and lived through many ordeals. When I was studying in jail by correspondece the government have stopped my austudy, robbed of my little savings in the bank and made debtor of the austudy one year worth backwards. Broken in every sense, when released, homeless, I wan the appeal to social security vicious attack against me and austudy they allaged me. Social security attacked me further appealing to higher tribunal. Lots of officials and lots of threatenning against already destroyed innocent man – myself. I won on my own and most money was returned to me. But untold trauma cannot be compensated.
8.Living in parks, among friens and wherever I could, I consider myself lucky that I got very old and not really fit for living unit from Lutheran Housing. No hot water, leaking when heavy rain, and trully poor living conditions. Housing Trust official have told me unofficially that I can get accommodation in 28 years if lucky.
9.Lately tax office sent me request as they call it child suppport and I call it ransom for my kidnapped children. Since I do not work for those 16 years, they do help themselves with the pension I receive which is near poverty line and take whener and whatever they want. When I last looked at it, it was something like $5 a week. I do not approve it but but it was possible to survive on it. Now when I looked at this terrorist organisation which acts not much different to mafia, they have made me a debtor of about $3000. It seems that they take about $40 a fortnight as their own rules allow them. And they claim that it is not enough, so they impose penalty and the sum is growing fast. Effectively it is like a thief broke to your home, took everything one wanted and send you a note that you owe $3000 because there was not enough of goods in your home. My question is: does government mafia expect me to robb a bank to satisfy them? or expect me to take a loan and pay to satisfy them? or why they take only $40 and not $200 as they say in their documents? or even whole (100%) of my pension? or even 200% (it is already irrational), or what if it keeps going like that; will they jail me again for not satisfying their wishes? CSA and government are absolutely irrational and violent. They are determined to destroy me.

There is some similarity to the King Henry the VIII who reigned with terror, so Australian Parliament reigns with terror!

A few final comments

Federal Commission for Families have concluded in paragraph 3.2 of their publication Every Pictute Tells the Story: the whole problem is that we treat family problems as legal problems, they are not legal but social problem.

From my observation: what our society would look like if we paid judges and lawyers only for each saved family and nothing for each broken?
At present we pay the plumber for coming and making leak real big, not for fixing the leak. I mean, the courts do make a relatively small problem a reall life long problem.

The real tragedy is that the government have decided to destroy lives of innocent children before they could decide for themselves. Government calls it – the best interest to children. Depriving innocent children of their fathers for no reason is called the best interest. It is not much different to Natzis calling invaded Poles a criminals.

In addition to above explanations, the criminal nature of the government can be explained that it is adverse action against any innocent people, is a crime. The Family Law Act of 1975 no fault divorce is just that: no fault, no reason and adverse action is taken.

Well known proverbial mother inlaw, cause the problem in new family when she genuinely wants to help them. It hardly ever turns that way. She have genuine motiffs to help and hardly ever succeed and always does terrible damage. It is impossible for any unrelated body as government to make any better than mother inlaw.

There is a sudden raise in the loss of productivity, need to police and jail, need to provide accommodation, need to pay medical costs. Fact is that lone fathers have lower income and the fact that the most efficient is natural family and society prospers when most families are fully functional. The children raised in fully functional families do study better and perform better than those of dysfunctional families.

People without thinking say: you should get half the home and wife another half. If I am head of family and have decided to workd hard and to buy a home for my family, it is absolutely wrong for anyone, to take it from me unless it is robber or a terrorist as is the case with Australian government. If family is a basic social unit it is undividable. The most famous judge Solomon have clearly shown that children are undividable. I draw further conclusion from this judgment; families are undividable, unless like in case with the division of alive child – with the sward. So families are not dividible and any attempt produces consequeces similar to dividing children.
Whole home is equally and undividably for the use of the family that is both parents and children. If my family like the life in the family, they are welcomed, if not, the door is open, they are free to leave and leave the rest of family in peace. Taking part of the family assets it not much different to a robbery. If someone dislike the Primeminister, can one chase him from parliament and take over part of country’s wealth? or one is free to leave?
For those who still have problem to understand, the Solomon have not divided the child with a sword nor he intended, he simply have demonstrated that children are undividable.

Legal industry as any other industry aim for maximum benefit at minimal effort!

As family is a natural basic social unit, the government is disorganised and dysfunctional in most areas, the only organisation function which is connected with depriving people of their money, with harming people. Government does it only because it has power to do, exactly this same happen with common criminals, mafia and other terroristic organisations. They destroy because they can.

South Australian police refuse to  accept report of kidnapping and child abuse. Canberra Federal police  have listen to my allegation of government kidnapping my children but detective have explained to me: I can see your point and sympathise with, I do have an option: to take your side and investigate it, or do what my boss tell me. He pay me to feed my family. I take the point of my boss and not yours even if I understand and sympathise with you.
Well there is nowhere to lodge a complain for children abuse. All institutions are controlled by governent or are not allowed to “interfere” with government like religious organisations. Same as during King Henry the VIII who dared to say that he was wrong?

I appeal to people of good will, it has to stop. In most countries is quite similar to Australia. If governments are allowed to do what they want to as they do here, than we do litterally end up with fashism. Hitler could do what he did because there was no effective mechanism of challenging him/government.

So far Australian media is rejecting all my reports. All dictatorrial regimes like Zimbabwe and anywhere do repress freedom of speech. Australian  forums also forbid posts criticizing government. Government of Rudd, have failed to respond to me on any issue, starting from road safety and energy mismanagement to dysfunctional government system and family terror as described here.

My claim can be verified but also does not have to be because the mentined legislation makes it possible. The facts are verifiable and enquiries are welcommed. I stress, my family is one of many thousands which are destroyed by the government.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good man to do nothing. Edmund Burke1729 – 1797.

But there is a problem with it when it comes to some issues when majority is wrong.  I mean when majority is wrong from politicians point of view like here in Australia majority wants capital punishment and political leaders have other idea and don’t even allow referendum leading to change of rules.

It seems that in political reality majority is right when it suits politicians and are wrong also when it suits politicians.

It was from political point of view, but objectively, is majority always right?

A few decades ago in Germany, mad man Adolf Hitler have promissed it’s people a lot and they believed and supported him in his madness. It is not much point to debate much over it. Majority did not wanted to know or did not believed about reality of his madness, jet supported him in this horrendous crime against humanity.

I hope that most will agree that majority does not have to be right.

Another example when majority may not and is not right is the speeding on the roads. If we remove police from our roads most people have tendency and do speed though in  absolute terms it is unwise, it is unsafe, it does not set good example to others. It does not matter if I personally am capable to drive safely much faster than rules allow, in present society, it is unwise and unsafe and wrong to do so.

Well this tendency to speed is an indication that majority is wrong.

If not police perhaps majority would become thieves. And so on.

So far nobody have successfully challenged my observation and experience that: the truth or an idea of right and wrong does not depend on majority, nor minority, nor anyone, but it is an absolute value.

Another observation have led to conclusion that in some cases, the will of majority is the most appropriate.

However this is entirely independent from idea of right and wrong. Majority will is to maintain a certain national flag. It is neither right nor wrong, it is just will of majority.

Let me take another view. It is impossible that majority is right.

For simplicity sake, lets assume that IQ 100 is median and people with score less than 100 are often wrong. Also people with IQ much more than 100 are frequently wrong in number of issues.  Another variable is that there is a separation of IQ and wisdom. There can be uneducated but wise person and very educated but unwise.

Now when we add another fact that majority of people in western sicieties have serious mental problems requiring medication, than the idea that majority is right is not very feasible.

Now when we take reverse path, what our politicians and officials say may or may not be right at all. We do need to examine carefully all situations. Same applies to judges. It is definitely not true that truth or right is what judge decide. Most often it is wrong.

When you ask any Australian politician or most journalists, they may draw circles on a forehead in reply.

In fact most democratic governments do support violence of one form or another,  likely many forms.

Just one obvious example should explain that.

The old political cliche:  Australia says no to violence against women.

This well known statement imply that violence against men, children and elderly is ok.

I see number of people objecting to such statement.  Nobody who goes to the bottom of the problem have any doubt that it is not misprint, or simple overlook.

I’ve pointed to this problem at highest level and they simply ignore it, implying that it is correct.  Media is also not interested to sort out if it is intentional or mistaken political slogan.

On about every level of  social life, government supports violence actively or passively.

One of example of state initiated violence is as shown on attached photos, the prison officer came out and verbally abused and threatened me  without any provocation. One behaved like a criminal, and I already feared to be biten by him. The most vulgar and agressive behavior I have seen for long time.

State minister for correctional services and our Premier Mike Rann, do support it.  Therefore I call it open corruption.

The issue is very broad and deep. In fact the message on the big poster is a summary of Australian government legal criminal activity. I show my family as an example but thousands of families are in similar situation.

The next blog is intended to show lots of specifics of this legal crime of state against children and their families.

Therefore the title of this blog is very accurate and correct.  Australia says yes to violence.

As it was said in media: government is as bad as society allow one to be.

One of the major streets in

Adelaide

http://picasaweb.google.com/niezmienny/HoockedOnTelstra?authkey=BoD30f_o_xg#

There is something very wrong in Australia that nobody seems to have any responsibility for anything. This time our telecommunication corporation government run Telstra. The least you can say about the hanging wires on the level between ground and your head, is that it is unsightly, but it also is not professional, not safe and wrong.  Loops of wire hanging by road site and waiting for cyclists, motorcyclists, children or pedestriand to be caught in it. They may and possibly carry 50V current.

When I called the company allerting them about this problem, they assured me that they will fix it as soon as they can. Surely they do nothing, and they have no intention to do. Their technicians leave more such hanging wires and care less about consequences. The relevant ministers and ombudsman are equally not interested. They say by phone anything to please you but the result is as seen on photos (link in the beginning).

Ok, we may try to justify the company busy earning money and not making right order, but the government which suppose to control order, to lie and to ignore complaints and all the procedures?

The loops of wires are on one hand dangerous and unsightly but on the other hand when left hanging on the poll, than more wire must be purchased for another job. Who pays for that?  Phone and internet users. THis is waste and fraud in a sense.

I wonder if Australia is the only country in the world to allow those wires hanging and government determined not to make order?

Some 5 to 10% of all lamps in Adelaide are permanently on for years. This indicate:

1. waste of public money
2. waste of energy
3. overload of system
4. power shortages
5. earlier failure of equipment
6. demoralisation of children
7. corruption
8. Environmental pollution
9. official lies

Some years ago when I’ve heard on radio that this government is very dedicated to proper energy management. That anyone from public when see faulty street lamp and reports it, one gets $10 for each reported lamp which is not fixed within 5 working days. The next day I’ve reported over 50 such lamps and continued to report hundreds of such lamps.

As you predicted, I did not become richer, lamps are not fixed and more of them stays permanenlty on.

I’ve done everything I could, but in totally corrupt South Australian government, the relevant minister, minister for energy have told me that permanently on lamps is not his problem but mine.

Such is attitude every level of our government and in abnout all aspect of administration. They do what they want to and are not responsible to any one.

I let the federal MP Andrew Southcott know but he is not interested, nor is anyone interested in federal office, nor any of the tv channels nor radio station in Adelaide.

It seem that everyone is either dumn or totally dependent of corrupt government. The National Forum is rejecting all my posts and there is no avenue to challenge them.

Honestly I’ve never seen in my life such corrupt system even when I spent half of my life in communist country.

While we are on energy mismanagement issue, let me point that not only strictly street lamps are permanently on in Adelaide, but so many if not most car yards, many big shopping parking on open air, and other business. In total it is lots of energy wasted, someone must pay for it and it is absolutely unnecessary energy waste.

It is nonsense to talk about reduction of pollution when in Australia nobody is responsible for anything, when government is determined to waste energy.

The link above shows only a few examples of street lamps on in Adelaide. In the city the biggest concentration of street lamps fully on is around the University.  No, this is not brightness of the wise academics, it is their stupidity to allow such situation.

Is it just my opinion or fact? Photos are a good evidence.

Perhaps our universities are not to teach wisdom but business? There is not much business when everything works well, but plenty of business when everything is wrong.

Perhaps the minister for energy had a bad day, or misunderstood me? Nothing like that. I’ve contacted him number of times, showed the problem as good as I could. I also contacted the Premier Mike Rann about it and also the opposition and media.  In Australia there is total commitment to waste energy.

House insulation and many other examples, indicate that it must be in our constitution that we have to waste energy.

By the way, Adelaide is one of the darkest cities at night.

We I publish this on world blog? I hope that one way or another, it may come back to our Kevin Rudd.

I will publish more evidence of total corruption of our government and also serious crime against society. Please press our leaders to stop corruption and energy waste. Same photos I’ve posted to our Premier Mike Rann, to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and to most other relevant officials. No answer – meaning total corruption.

Do not expect me to bring all the cases pro and against the government(s) and weigh them and show you the result.

We all know some good and bad examples but where is the balance?  Let me explore a few aspects of the government.

Sure I do base most of my views on the Mike Rann’s government of South Australia, but not much different is federal government of Kevin Rudd nor other governments.

Most of us have heard voices that government is corrupt and nothing happened. I thing most of us have no doubt that what officials can do we cannot or else…

The main issue now is weather the government have any intertest to do good or have interest to do bad?

Why government would want to do good?

When the leader like mentioned premier decided for personal reasons to do good. Who would support him? Many church man and women, many poor people, and others who do not really give him power nor money.

So the motives to do good are not so strong, say just moral motives.

Would anybody want the leader to do wrong? Just think for a while, who possible wanted political leader to do wrong. Well wrong but appearing good.

In order to explore this let me bring a true story of an elderly lady who have asked me to help her in her health because she is dissapointed in doctors.  When I gave her an example that she should not eat the common white rice which is commonsly sold in shops, she thought that I am crazy. How can you say that white rice is unhealthy when government is controlling all aspects of health and want us to be healthy? she said.

Take two cases, one to grow and sell organic brow rice, and the other so called conventional polished rice.

In case of brown rice, the farmer gets some rewards for his work, the transport man and salesman and nobody else.

In  so called conventional way, the farmer gets some rewards, polishing man some, transport man and sales man, and people eating it become depleted of vitamins and nutrients taken with polishings, and then doctor earns lots of money, hospitals, the pharmacist for selling the vitamin B derived from rice polishings, and whole chain of specialists. It is big business. Not mention the health commisions and other….   (I leave space for you to fill in).

I also explained that lady how it was discovered that white rice was causing very serious illness on mass scale. (easy to find on internet).

Imagine yourself as doctor. Would you like that suddenly most of your clients become well and you lost good earning?

I do not try to prove, I only share with you my experience. If I tried to prove, regardless of the evidence I presented, the opposition is more wealthy and powerful, so I would lost miserably regardless of evidence.

So in health department, the most important thing is not to kill, not to heal but to maintain the illness. Logically it makes sense in order to maintain business, you have to maintain clients, not to fix them.

I do not go if it is possible to heal illness using pharmaceuticals or natural remedies. It is for this purpose irrelevant, the very motivation is relevant. Whole lucrative industries would collapse if people were healed.

Surely there are some dedicated doctors who want genuinely help their clients. One such doctor have saved my daughter’s life and did in best possible way. But we are analysing the system at present.

Are judges interested in solving social problems or in maintaining them? To help you to sort this out, just think what would happen if a missionary would convert all people into angels? would judges go to on social security dole?

Are police officers interested in solving road and social problems? Perhaps some officers are as much as they can but the system is not interested at all. Police in South Australia as I experienced it number of times, gives fines not for dangerous driving but to raise revenue. Their interpretation of rules is always to earn more money and never to improve safety.

More about police corruption here I should write a separate message.

So the story goes. It seems that on all levels of government, business unfortunately is on the side of wrong doing and no business on side of doing right.

Somehow business and media support wrong doing of the government.

And it is all possible because we citizens have absolutely nothing to say to our humble”public servants”. In case you do not know what I am talking about, the government declare to be the public servants, therefore whatever we say, they never do. They as servants dictate how much money we have to pay them, and we have nothing to say how they wasted them, sorry, how they spent them.

Someone may say that I am wrong. It is interesting why Premier Mike Rann refuses to establish an independant anti-corruption commission?

When bringing the issue of accountability to the “public servants” they refer to the election issue.

If this was a good mechanism to control the government we would not have our problems.

There is however simple solution to this. To establish an independant public registry or database where independent operators receive all calls from public which are not urgent and allocate the tasks to relevant government office to deal with and register all in database. When office fixe the problem, notify the call centre to mark as done and for public to inspect.

This way we public would have something to say, we would have a proper record of what is going on and we would have final say if the job done is acceptable or not.

At present the government does all the roles. This is conflict of interests as described earlier. It must be left to the public to assess the servants and not other way round as we have at present.

Honestly, answer to yourself. Does “public servant” control you, or you control the “servant”?

Is it just another meaningless slogan, a lie or perhaps they are our servants?

We do pay taxes and have no choice if and how much and what for. Well, we have to pay for jobs done but if we have absolutely nothing else to say, should I ask or simply say that they are not servants but dictators.

Let’s look closer how it works because the above statement could still be misinterpreted. If we need an army, a police, and say parliament and roads. We have to pay and it cannot be voluntary. Let’s leave alone an arguments weather we should pay for the army going to Iraq or Afghanistan. Let’s assume that we have to pay for essentials.

But what is essential and who decide about it?

Let’s take the least controversial example of the roads. We need the roads and we have to pay for them. We pay lots of money in form of car registration and in taxes. Do we have enough of roads? Have we got them in good condition? The anwer for both is no. So what happened with money we pay? Have we paid not enough or they have been wasted?

We pay a lot of money and surelly they have been wasted. When we the apparent masters call the government that is our supposed servants, what they do? If they are not rude to you and pretend listening, they usually ignore you. If the section of the road is fixed, it is after a long time. Often nobody supervise the job, not check the quality, and do not demand guarantee of the job done. Money have been wasted.

There is hardly anything the government rules, is working properly. Local councils if they choose, they act and their action is as they choose and not as you require. They never make barking dog truly quiet, they never make sure that their rule of no parking on the footpath is observed, they never cut the trees in nature reserve so it is nice to look at and does not lean on the fence damaging it, and so on and on.

State will not make the bicycle path nor legislate the rules ensuring safety. They do what they want and when they want.

Police is doing what they want. In general their intelligence is very poor, their understanding road rules and any other rules is very poor. Their attitude is usually wrong and not much different from criminals. On the road for example, they interpret the rules in such a way that brings them money. They have absolutely no interest in solving or policing road safety. If they choose, they give you fine without mercy for failing to indicate an intention to turn. And if they choose they do not regard as dangerous driving when a driver knocks a cyclist even when one breaks so many rules. You cannot report dangerous driving to police when they are not in right mood. They will allways say that it is not serious enough. But when they from their own initiative want to report you, there is no argument to show that your offense is too trivial. They are the dictators. In case they clearly do something wrong, you theoretically and practically can complain to Police Complaint Authority PCA, about police wrong. And that’s it. The police will never be prosecuted, repremanded, cautioned and definitely police or an individual officer will never apologise you for any wrong they do. Their way to operate is to always deny they wrong. Surely it is impossible situation.

Your political representatives also can and do choose if they listen to you and rectify the problem you are pointing to. If they choose, they will ignore you and never respond to you.

It is the case with our leader Kevin Rudd. He has never replied to me on any subject at all.

I will reveal at other occasions what are the issues he and they refuse to answer or reply.

All of that is dictatorship and corruption. They insist in waste, in danger, social problems, in negligence and so on.

In a sense our government is like Robert Mugabe; very dedicated public servant.