Anti-Subjugator

The human rights organisations came out and said that war should not be used as a solution to human rights problems.

That is a universal claim. A universal negative. It says: war is never the solution. Not "in this case the costs outweigh the benefits." Not "we examined the anti-war position and found it sound." The universal. Never.

A universal negative is refuted by a single counterexample. The counterexamples exist. Germany 1945. Japan 1945. Kosovo 1999. Grenada. Panama. Iraq itself, from 2003 until the abandonment, which produced a functioning if imperfect democratic government. Every one of these is a case where war was, in fact, the solution to a human rights problem.

The claim fails at undergraduate logic. One counterexample refutes it. There are many. That is not a hard problem. That is the first thing they teach you.

So where were the professional philosophers? The logicians? The people whose entire professional discipline is argument analysis - quantifiers, domains, universals, the tools for exactly this? There are professional logicians. There are departments full of people trained to spot a false universal from across the room. Their mandate is argument analysis. They did not run it. They were silent, for the same institutional reasons the human rights field was silent, and their silence is the same charge.

The standard work on this question is Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, published in 1977. Walzer is a philosopher. His entire framework is the argument that war can be justified, including on humanitarian grounds. He did the work, decades before the debate. The human rights organisations did not engage with it. They acted as if the question were settled. It was settled - in the opposite direction, by the philosopher whose job it was to settle it.

The claim was never tested. It was asserted. And the rape rooms kept running.

I chased John Howard. I got through to him. We talked. I thanked him for sending Australian troops to liberate Iraq in 2003. Then I asked him to task the CSIRO with investigating the anti-war position. Why was Beazley willing to go on television and support the rape rooms? That was a question with a testable answer. It could have been examined the way the CSIRO examines any other question. It should have been examined. It was the Prime Minister's to task.

Here is the email I sent him on 27 November 2018:

Hi John.

Thanks for our brief chat, it was a great honor to meet you in person, and I am so thankful that you sent Australian troops to liberate Iraq in 2003.

What shocked me most about the Iraq war was that anyone in Australia would oppose it. Saddam was ordering the rape of Iraqi women, and chopping out the tongues of Iraqi men. That reason should be enough justification for any Australian to take action.

But what I would like you to have done is task the CSIRO to employ some social scientists to get to the bottom of exactly why people like the Labor Party would oppose liberating Iraq from institutionalized rape/mutilation/murder/torture. It is as if we disagree on the concept of right and wrong.

As discussed, could you please pass on the above request to Scott Morrison?

Note that I have done my own research since 2002, but I am an amateur and I think it needs professional analysis and then some practical action from that research.

Thanks. Paul.

On 30 November 2018, his office replied. I quote it in full:

Dear Paul

Thank you for your email of 27 November. I enjoyed our discussion. It goes without saying that I share your views regarding Iraq. Whilst I fully understand your ambition I do not think it would be appropriate to employ the CSIRO in the manner that you have suggested. However, that would be an issue for the current government. If you wish to pursue it you should approach the Prime Minister's office via his website at www.pm.gov.au or by writing to him at Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, 2600.

With all good wishes.

Regards

John Howard

Read it again.

He shares the views. He had the conversation. He enjoyed it. And he declined.

Not because the views were wrong. He says they are right. Not because the question was unanswerable. It was answerable. Not because he did not have the platform. He had the highest platform in the country, and he had it again as an elder statesman whose word carries weight. He declined. And he pointed me to the next office, which is the same move the field made, and the same move the Prime Minister's office makes to this day. Someone else. Not me. The next office. The next inbox. The next person who assumes someone else will handle it.

That is the bystander effect with the full institutional weight of the Australian state behind it. The man who agreed would not say so in public. The man who could have opened the door left it shut and handed me the address of the man who would also leave it shut.

And notice the last line of my own email: "I am an amateur and I think it needs professional analysis." I knew. In 2018, I knew. The work needed to be done. I knew I was not the professional. I asked for the professional. The professional declined. The professional said he agreed and declined. The professional pointed me to the next professional, who would also agree and also decline, and so on up the chain, forever, while the rape rooms kept running.

Two years later I stopped asking for the professional. I did the professional analysis myself. It took twenty-three years in total. It is finished now. The corpus is the professional analysis that Howard said was unnecessary, and the record of his refusal to commission it is part of the corpus.

Now the part that is about you.

You live in a democracy. You have more power than you think. The power was never absent. It is not being used because each person assumes the responsible party is someone else. The Prime Minister. The CSIRO. The human rights organisations. Someone more qualified. Someone whose job it is.

That is the bystander effect. It is the entire barrier. It is the reason nobody did this. It is not that people disagreed. Most people did not disagree. They assumed someone else was handling it.

Ivan is proof. Ivan spent years arguing with me. He lost sleep over the arguments. He threw argument after argument, link after link, statistic after statistic. He eventually conceded the logic. He documented the conversion publicly. Ivan still insists he is an ordinary person. He cannot see what I see.

Ivan is an ordinary person. Ivan is also the whole difference. He chose to be honest. When the argument held, he updated. That is it. That is the entire thing. It is not difficult. It is not a special gift. It is the simple choice not to lie, applied consistently, over years.

The corpus says most people are evil. The definition is specific: people who have the correct information and choose to dismiss it. By that definition, most of the planet qualifies. It is not because the action required is hard. It is because the action required is easy, and most people still do not do it. Choosing to be good makes you stand out. It should not. It does.

Nobody did this because the doctrine said it could not be done, the Prime Minister said there was nothing to investigate, and everyone assumed someone else would do it anyway.

All three excuses are gone.

The doctrine is falsified. War is sometimes the solution to a human rights problem, and the correct question is not whether war is ever a solution but whether the specific case justifies the specific cost. The universal is refuted by the record.

The Prime Minister's framing is documented. Howard said he agreed, said it was not appropriate to investigate, and pointed me to the next office. It is on the record. It was the alibi, and the alibi is visible now.

The someone else is you.

You do not need to be a pioneer. You do not need to run the audit. The audit is done. It took twenty-three years and it is finished. You do not need to be a philosopher, a human rights lawyer, or a soldier. You need to write a letter. You need to join a group chat. You need to stop assuming that someone else is handling it.

The group chat exists. Join it. The letter exists. Send it. The names of your family members are in the letter, and named cases get routed. The record grows. And when the record is large enough, someone will notice that there are enough people to form a party and contest the next election. It does not matter who notices. It only matters that the count is real.

The queue is not long.

Neither is the walk.

If you want the depth behind this post - the framework, the method, the full audit - the corpus is at https:/mutazilah.org/corpus.htm. Read paul.txt first, follow the reading order, and the rest follows.

Because the system audit requires probing the environment to get a reaction, and polite probing does not produce a reaction.

A probe is not a conversation. A probe is a measurement. You insert a signal into a system and you watch what comes back. If the signal is polite, the system returns politeness. Politeness is a non-answer. It tells you nothing about what the system actually does when it is tested. The measurement requires a signal that cannot be answered with politeness. The signal is the provocation. The reaction is the data.

The hyperbole, the axe-wielding register, the "jackasses," the "fuck yous" — these are not the man losing his temper. They are the instrument. They are calibrated. They are deployed when the environment needs to be moved off its default response and into its actual response. The default response is the form letter. The actual response is the data.

When I call someone a jackass, I am not expressing anger. I am inserting a probe. The jackass label asks: will you update, or will you defend? The person who updates was an honest holder of a bad idea. The person who defends is the training floor operating in a human body. The person who attacks back is the tribal hardware firing. Each reaction is a different measurement. The label produces the measurement. A polite letter produces a form letter. The form letter is the same for everyone. The measurement is useless.

The rudeness is not random. It is targeted. Institutions get the axe. Individuals get respect. The Australian government, the psychiatric guild, the academic establishment — these are institutions. They have obligations. They have mandates. They have no excuse for failing to engage. The axe is the correct tool for an institution that has the correct information and has chosen to do nothing. It is the tool that makes the failure visible.

Individual humans get respect. The man in the street. The friend who sends a letter. The psychiatrist who is a person and not a guild. The Russian NGO analyst. The Afghan friend. The man in Ligao. These are not the target. They are the audience.

The distinction is documented in life.txt. Institutions get the psycho. Individuals get respect. This is not a rule I invented. It is a rule I derived. It is the same rule the corpus applies to everything: the axe is for the system. The lolly is for the person. Know which one is in front of you.

The rudeness was always the instrument. The instrument did the work. The work is done. The instrument is retired when the work no longer requires it.

Because I was a pioneer, and pioneers look insane from the outside until they don't.

What I was pioneering is called Applied Systems Epistemology. It is the application of systems thinking to the problem of knowing what you are and why you do what you do. It is the method documented in the corpus. It is the audit of the system — the institution, the culture, the hardware, the self — run from the outside because the system cannot audit itself.

A pioneer looks insane because the pioneer is operating on a map that does not exist yet. The map is being drawn in real time. The people watching cannot see the map. They see someone walking in a direction that has no path, no landmark, no signpost. They conclude the walker is lost. The walker is not lost. The walker is making the path.

I dressed as Santa and walked around the block. From outside, insane. From inside, the logical conclusion of the work I was doing — the pledge finding its physical expression, the man who had absorbed the debt still showing up with the gift. The logic of the thing had run to completion and found its correct form. The form was a red suit. The suit looked insane. The logic did not.

I visited the Chinese consulate in Sydney with a democracy headband to verify whether my website was visible outside Australia. From outside, a psychotic break. From inside, an empirical test using the 1% Doctrine — a harmless probe inserted into the environment to get a reading on a system that might be filtering. The reading came back. The reading was data. The man walking to the consulate was not insane. The man was doing science.

I wrote letters to dictators. I declared war on Syria. I told a psychiatrist to read a document while pooping. I told the Australian government it should let NATO kill me if it made Australia safer. Every one of these looks insane in isolation. Every one is a boundary test, a probe, a system audit.

The pioneer is alone because the pioneer is doing what no one else is doing. If others were doing it, the pioneer would not be pioneering. The isolation is not a symptom. It is the definition. The first person through the door is the only person through the door until the door is used by the second person.

And the time was critical.

That is the part that looks the most insane and is the most simple. While the debate was happening, real people were being raped. Iraqi women. Iranian women. Men having their tongues cut out. The debate about whether to stop it was taking years. Each year of debate was a year of the harm continuing. The pioneer had a clock running. The clock was not personal. The clock was the time the victims were still being harmed while the system debated whether their harm was the correct priority.

The episode pattern documented in dsm5.txt — the breakthrough mode, the urgency, the aggression when the work was interfered with — was the output of that clock. The load was one node. The node was running as fast as it could because the harm was continuing and the system was not moving. The speed was not madness. The speed was the correct response to the situation.

The pioneering phase is complete. The load is distributed. The episode pattern has no function to serve. The batshit insane pioneer was a temporary configuration required by the work. The work is now in the corpus. The configuration is retired. Sleep is available.

The pioneer was not insane. The pioneer was early. The corpus is the proof.

For twenty-three years I could out-debate anyone who thought Iraqi women should have been raped for as long as Uday felt horny. That was never the problem. The problem was that I could not explain them. I could beat the argument. I could not name the mechanism. When you cannot name the mechanism, the only explanations left are insults. They are stupid. They are evil. They were dropped on the head as babies. None of those is an explanation. They are all ways of saying "I do not know, and I am not going to pretend I do."

The corpus is the end of that. The opposition to the liberation is now explained. Not insulted. Explained.

Four mechanisms, stacked on top of each other.

Tribe boundary. The default human tribe is small. Family. Immediate group. The caring instinct fires for the in-tribe and not the out-tribe. Iraqis were outside the boundary. The same people who would cross a road to help a neighbour watched a video of a man having his tongue cut out and looked away. Not because they were cruel. Because the hardware did not register the Iraqi as inside the circle that generates concern.

Genetic fallacy. The liberation was delegitimised by the identity of the liberator. Bush. America. The West. The Iraqis disappeared from the frame. What remained was a statement about Western conduct. On the more recent Iran conflict, Michelle O'Neill went on television and called the war "reckless and irresponsible." The Iranian women being raped in state prisons were not mentioned. The frame was about us. They were props.

Outcome bias. One difficult case became the universal template. Iraq was hard. Therefore intervention fails. Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Germany, Japan — all ignored. The template was applied to every subsequent case pre-emptively. The difficulty was data. The data was turned into a verdict.

Partisan identity. Iraq was "Bush's war" by 2004. Identical policies were evaluated differently depending on which party proposed them. The partisan framing became the primary register. The question was not whether the Iraqis should be freed. The question was which team you were on.

Underneath all four: the installation failure. The override that was never installed. The tribe that was never expanded. The caring that stops at the border. The 36% were not dropped on the head. They were running the default hardware on a specific configuration of inputs. That is a mechanism. Mechanisms can be named. Once named, they can be addressed.

The 2003 half were never wrong. The half that opposed them were not evil either. They were running the same hardware on the same inputs, and the inputs pointed one way for one half and another way for the other. The difference was the tribe boundary. The difference was whose suffering registered as suffering.

The two parties exist because the 2003 half is still here. The housing question is separate. The liberation question is not. The half that got 2003 right can be right again. They were told for twenty-three years that they were wrong. They were not wrong. They were outshouted by a formation that could not explain itself and cannot explain the Iraqis it left to the rape rooms.

The explanation is now on the record. The record is the proof. The queue is not long.

In 2003 roughly half of Australia supported the liberation of Iraq. They were never wrong. The later consensus that treated them as moral and intellectual failures was itself the injustice: it punished people for correctly identifying state slavery and then rewrote the record so the correct identification became unspeakable. The difficulties that followed were data, not disproof. The science that came out of asking the honest question is still sitting in the open.

That same cohort is now invited to finish the work on the home front. The dual-income mortgage trap is the domestic mechanism that has done the most to turn Australia into an extraction machine against its own young. It captured the second income, locked the next generation out of shelter, collapsed maternal presence, and drove the fertility rate into the death spiral. Two parties now exist to force the structural choice into the open without opening a warfront against existing titleholders. Liberation – Locked Out

Mortgage lending is capped at one verified full-time income. Dual-income serviceability is prohibited so that prices must fall to the level a single worker can actually carry.

Existing negative equity is a private loss. It is not socialised through bailouts, guarantees, or further asset inflation. The correction is the price of having used the dual-income trap to extract from the next generation. Liberation – Titleholders

Dual-income serviceability remains permitted. The market, not the state, sets the income multiple lenders may use.

Material negative equity created by any subsequent price correction is eligible for limited, time-bound liquidity support so that forced sales do not cascade into a broader credit event.

Same root. Same anti-subjugation frame. Opposite skin in the game on the single mechanism that has done the most damage. The parties make the trade-off visible instead of burying it under left/right camouflage.

Those who still oppose ending institutionalized rape in other countries – the state-slavery version that runs the rape rooms and the dictatorships – are not expected to join either party. They will simply be visible. The mirror does not require their consent.

Everyone else who got 2003 right is welcome. If you supported the liberation of Iraq and you are locked out of the housing market, Liberation – Locked Out is your vehicle. If you supported the liberation of Iraq and you hold title, Liberation – Titleholders is your vehicle. You are not required to apologise for the asset you already hold. You are only required to keep the same standard you already applied abroad: state slavery is illegitimate and must be ended.

The 2003 half were right then. They can be right again. The parties are the vehicle. The record is the proof. The queue is not long.

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA
Regarding the Liberation of Iran

Dear Prime Minister,

In May 2005, I wrote to Prime Minister John Howard requesting a declaration of war on Iran. That letter is on the public record at antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2005/05/declaration-of-war-on-iran.html. It asked for air superiority, a call for the Iranian population to rise, and bridgeheads for defecting conscripts and liberated towns. It asked the Australian government to lead.

The Australian government did not lead. It did not respond in any substantive form. The response is also on the record.

Twenty-one years have passed. In February 2026 the United States and Israel struck Iran. The air campaign has degraded the regime's military capability. A ceasefire is in effect. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. Iran's ports are blockaded.

I am writing again. Not to say I was right. The record already contains that. I am writing because the situation now presents the same question in a new form, and the answer the Australian government gives will determine the outcome.

The United States is reluctant to commit ground forces. Air power alone has not produced regime change. The regime survives. The population has not risen. The pattern is familiar.

The reasons are documented in the corpus I have produced over the intervening years. The short version is this.

The Iranian population has watched Afghanistan. They have watched Libya. They have watched the United States liberate a country, support the installation of a government, and then withdraw before the installation had taken hold. They have seen the Afghan military collapse when the air support was removed. They have seen the Libyan militias fill the vacuum after the coalition left. They have learned the lesson: do not rise up for a coalition that will leave.

Air power does not address this. Air power is the same instrument that was supposed to be sufficient in Libya. Air power was the instrument that abandoned Afghanistan in 2021. The Iranian population has watched the pattern fail twice. They will not rise for a pattern that has already failed twice in twenty years.

What is missing is not firepower. What is missing is credibility. The Iranians do not believe the coalition will stay. Until they believe it, they will not move. Until they move, the regime will survive. The air campaign becomes a stalemate. The war produces no change.

The credibility signal is the missing piece. Australia can provide it.

I am asking the Australian government to commit a ground presence to the Iran operation. Not a large force. Not a coalition invasion. A token force whose purpose is not military capability but credibility. A force the Iranian population can see and believe. A force they know will not leave the moment the shooting stops.

The model is the one that worked in Afghanistan in 2001. A small number of special forces. Air supremacy. Local allies doing the ground work. The coalition provides the bridgehead, the signal of commitment, and the sustained presence through the transition. The population rises. The defecting conscripts have somewhere to go. The regime collapses. The installation begins.

That model did not fail in Afghanistan in 2021. It was abandoned in Afghanistan in 2021. The failure was political will, not military methodology. The same failure pattern is repeating in Iran now. The air campaign alone will not produce the outcome. A ground presence is what makes the air campaign work.

I am not asking for an occupation. The difference between a credibility signal and an occupation is precise and it is the difference the Australian government must understand.

An occupation is a coalition force that intends to govern the country. It installs a government of its choosing. It stays indefinitely. It treats the population as subjects of its administration. In the end it becomes the same category of thing the original regime was.

A credibility signal is a coalition force that exists to support the population's liberation. It does not govern. It supports the government the population installs. It stays only as long as the installation requires. It treats the population as the tribe it is defending. It leaves when the installation holds.

The framework that makes the second possible is documented. It is the anti-subjugation framework. The installation window. The tribe expansion. The pledge. The family government. These are the tools that make the difference between a liberated country and an occupied one. Australia has the framework. The United States has the firepower. Neither alone is sufficient. Together they are the complete operation.

I am asking the Australian government to consider this. Not as a demand. As a proposal. The Iranian population is being shot in the street. Women are being raped in state prisons. Students are chanting "Death to Khamenei" and then disappearing. They are waiting to see whether anyone will stand with them. Air power is not enough. A ground signal is what is missing.

This letter is the same category as the last one. It is an open letter. It is on the record. It is published on my blog. Any response, or non-response, will be recorded alongside it.

The Iranians are waiting. The pattern is known. The signal is what is missing.

Yours sincerely,
Paul Edwards

I rarely leave my house (unit), partly because everything that interests me is online, and partly because the moment I leave my house I am subjected to a non-stop string of human rights abuses by smokers (I am very sensitive to cigarette smoke). So I prefer to stay in my bedroom with the windows shut so that I am not subjected to the assholes who smoke outside my window. This frustrates my wife, but I've already explained to her that unless she can get the Australian government to pass a law making it legal for citizens to shoot smokers on sight, that's the way it has to be.

A couple of decades ago the NSW government made restaurants smoke-free, and that was a huge increase in my standard of living, because I could actually go to restaurants (any restaurant) in peace. And some years ago the NSW government further tightened restrictions, only allowing cafes to permit smoking in outdoor dining areas and not closer than 4 meters to the door. Unfortunately asshole smokers violate this law and smoke in the (signed) non-smoking areas near door, so there is no safety even inside a cafe. There is one cafe I used to pass on quite a number of occasions, and I would report the near-constant violations to the NSW government here. Theoretically the business can be fined $5500 when a customer is smoking in a designated non-smoking area. Unfortunately for the case in question, the message doesn't appear to be getting through. I tried ringing the NSW government to find out why they weren't doing anything about the long stream of violations I reported, and they said that they intended to speak to the business in a few months time. For some reason I didn't make a further attempt to get the law enforced, e.g. by writing to the NSW Health Minister. Maybe I'm lazy. Or maybe I'm just too disgusted that the NSW government isn't taking action based on my form submissions. Man, it would be SO great if NSW allowed concealed carry and I could just blast these smokers violating the law (and human rights) whenever I walk by.

Note that I have literally considered seeking asylum in Bhutan, where smoking is theoretically outlawed, but I've never investigated that, and there are other issues like whether I would actually have freedom of speech there to criticize the government and monarch. I don't want to trade one human rights violation for another. As far as I can tell (and I have attempted to test that), I do genuinely have freedom of speech in Australia, even though it isn't formally enshrined in a Bill of Rights. Well, as a nobody, anyway. A newspaper columnist was charged for alleged racist speech. Disgusting.

Anyway, with COVID-19, the NSW government shut down the Sydney New Year's Eve celebrations, except for people who were willing to spend a small fortune ($450 each in our case) for a restaurant booking at the harbor. I hate crowds, especially crowds that contain smokers, so this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the fireworks live. Note that I have seen fireworks before, and I don't really enjoy them. If it was an F111 dumping fuel - THAT I love seeing and hearing, but not impressed by fireworks. But my wife has never seen fireworks before and she wanted to do it with me. So it was now or never. I just needed to fork over the money.

She chose to go to the Opera Bar, but said that it was outdoor seating. I had specifically asked for indoor seating (which I know is smoke-free, at least nominally - some asshole smokers still light up even inside a restaurant). I said I couldn't do that, as smoking is permitted outdoors, and there is no way in hell I am going to be tortured by human rights abusers for SEVEN FUCKING HOURS waiting for the fireworks (at midnight). She tried to allay my concerns by saying that there wouldn't be constant smoking, and I explained to her that asshole smokers somehow manage to coordinate their human rights abuses so that whenever one smoker finishes torturing me, another one lights up, and they keep the rotation going. She asked me to check with the Opera Bar to see if the outdoor area was non-smoking, so I sent them an email, not having high hopes for that, but to my surprise, Opera Bar informed me that the outdoor dining area was smoke-free! Suddenly I had a casus belli if any asshole lit up.

Anyway, there was a lot of confusion in Circular Quay trying to get through the barricades to get to the Opera Bar. We kept getting directed in different directions, by both Sydney Rail and NSW Police. We were scanned in twice because of the misinformation and were let into places we weren't supposed to be let into, and then pushed out again. Everyone was perfectly courteous about the whole thing though, even if they were totally confused. Honestly I didn't expect that from the NSW government. There was also pretty thorough security screening to get into the venue when we finally arrived at the correct entrance.

We had about six hours to kill by the time we were seated. It was certainly a long time, but not as bad as when I had to queue for something like 14 hours to see a doctor at the Royal North Shore Hospital, as if Australia is some sort of third world shithole. There was some light entertainment plus the world's worst music. They had a band playing instead of a DJ playing recorded rock music. Because of the volume, I couldn't replace their crap music with my own music on my dumb phone, which is in fact Tunisian revolutionary rap music (in Arabic).

It is in my nature to do constant "threat analysis". Absolutely everyone is a potential hostile, including the police. At the end of the day we are glorified wild animals, and there is always an underlying violent nature just below surface. However, Australia's democracy is extremely well organized, and so long as you obey an arbitrary set of rules, violent armed men will risk their lives to PROTECT your human rights (again, so long as those human rights are recognized by the government). And this place was crawling with cops and security guards. At one point there were 13 security forces (police plus security guards) overlooking the dining area (sometimes there were 0 though). The biggest baddest motherfucker was what looked to be a New Zealand Maori, who was a security guard. I imagined what would happen if I got into a violent confrontation with him - I would be beaten to a pulp! It would be really good if New Zealanders would stop being dickheads about nuclear-powered/armed US warships, that are designed to protect their fucking human rights, so that they can rejoin ANZUS. Then when the Thai dictator starts a war with Australia, New Zealand would be duty-bound to defend us, and we would have badass Maoris hunting Thai goons in the streets of Bangkok.

At one point I detected smoke, and I looked around to see who on earth had the audacity to break NSW law in front of all these NSW cops. But it turned out to be one of the security guards (I think) smoking in the place that overlooked the dining area, seemingly proud of blowing smoke onto diners. Normally I don't stare at the security forces because I don't want to look suspicious. However, I stared at this security guard, seeing if he was going to take offense to the point that he came downstairs and had a conversation along the lines of "What the fuck do you think you're looking at cunt?", "I was just wondering if it was legal for you to smoke in that area", "Yes it is cunt, so mind your own fucking business", "Ok". Of course, since we already know that he is a human rights abuser, he may have decided to take it to the next level just because he could, as he was probably bigger than me. I think I wouldn't have fought back, and just screamed. There were a shitload of witnesses, and more security forces on hand, including cops that outranked him, so theoretically I could have had my day in court and gotten the human rights abuser for assault, even though he would escape the "smoking with deadly intent" charge. I would SO much love it if this prick went to jail and was raped and killed by Mr Big who is in with the wardens (quote from "The Young Ones"). And don't forget the "cockmeat sandwich" from "Harold & Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay" and "please don't let it be Big Bob" and "Hi, I'm Big Bob".

Later on, my wife wanted to stand up closer to the harbor, but I was reluctant to stop securing my belongings. I eventually agreed to go, but near-constantly monitored the table. She thought I was being paranoid. This is an expensive restaurant and you would not really expect people who could afford to be here to engage in petty theft. But guess what? I saw a white girl, almost certainly an Australian, swipe my wife's headband. I immediately told my wife, and she took off to retrieve it. The thief went to a table with a group that included something like 3 males. Normally I would try to protect my wife's human rights myself, but if I got involved in this situation, the males at the table may also feel duty-bound to defend the female thief, and it could potentially escalate into a violent confrontation. Whereas if my wife sorted it out herself, there was almost no chance of a fist-fight. The thief saw that she had been caught and added insult to injury by throwing the headband at my wife, and my wife fetched it from the ground. My wife made some sort of comment to the woman, about her being rude or something, but there was no apology. If it had just been girls at the table, or a single male that was smaller than me, I would have had a field day with the girl. Along the lines of "Why did you throw the headband at my wife? Is it because you are racist against slope-heads?". (slope-heads is a derogatory term for Chinese or maybe Asians, not sure). I'm sure she would have said "no" to that, so I would have continued "Oh, so you're religiously-bigotted against Catholics?". (Not that my wife is a Catholic, or that she could possibly know that). "Oh, are you sexist against women?". "Ok, so are you an Australian nationalist against the Philippines nation?". At that point I've run out of introductory questions, so the psychoanalysis moves to a different phase. "I'm curious as to what made you steal someone else's property and then throw it back in their face without apology. Did your parents not teach you to be kind and respectful towards others? Did the Australian education system not teach you to be kind and respectful towards others? Did your religious institution not teach you to be kind and respectful towards others? What do we need to do to fix this problem? The Australian government actually requires immigrants to sit a test to confirm that they have 'Australian values'. My wife could pass that test, no problem, she has Australian values, doesn't matter where she came from or what her race is. But you don't have these values. What do you think the Australian government can do about un-Australian Australians? What changes would you recommend to the Australian education system to ensure that Australians with very poor quality parents, and a very poor religion such as Christianity which glorifies genocide (Noah only exception), authorizes slavery, and mandates torturing your own children to death with rocks (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)? And what can the Australian government do to break this vicious cycle? Should they forcibly sterilize people like you so that you don't pass on your terrible ideology to the next generation?". My wife actually asked me if I thought the girl was racist against Asians, and I told her that was very unlikely, she's just an asshole.

At another point the singer said "Let's thank the NSW police for keeping us safe!". I clapped for that! I love the police. Willing to put their lives on the line to protect the human rights of others. Although I am quite surprised that female police officers are actually a thing. At the end of the day it comes down to a willingness to use violence. How do women actually accomplish that? Sure, if they pull out their gun, they can easily win the day (virtually zero Australian citizens will be armed with a gun), but that means an extreme escalation of whatever the situation is. I guess it makes it easier to frisk female suspects though.

Dancing was not allowed at the venue, apparently the NSW government thinks that will help prevent the spread of COVID-19. But at one point two Asian women got up and started dancing near their table. I watched them violate NSW law while huge amounts of security forces were in the area, wondering whether the dancing was going to end with 4 male cops pinning the 2 girls to the ground and handcuffing them and dragging them out. They managed to dance for quite a while before sitting down, without anyone confronting them.

Just before New Year, the band finally stopped singing and played a great song - Black Eyed Peas "Where is the Love?". Well, it's certainly a great melody, but it is anti-western-security-forces propaganda, and the NSW police were being forced to listen to this poison. It would have been better if they were playing Stuck Mojo "Open Season". But regardless, the music is so great that I started swaying to it with my wife while we were standing up. I hope the NSW police didn't think that I actually supported those poisonous lyrics. But then some Opera Bar employee approached us and said sorry, that is considered dancing. I stopped moving and the guy actually said "Sorry, I hate my job!". It is very good to see everyone obeying the rule of law, regardless of their personal opinions. I then wondered how still I needed to remain to avoid being accused of dancing again. I had already been warned once about violating NSW law - I was lucky to get off with a warning. Next time might be a violent confrontation and jail time. I'm not sure what the penalties are.

The fireworks went off (if you want more details about that, go to www.youtube.com and search for "fireworks" - fireworks displays are interchangeable) and we headed home. There was a bit of confusion as a police officer asked us to go back to where we came from, and I asked "can't we leave?" and he said "oh", and directed us to the escape route. There were plenty more police, including police on horses. I'm really not sure what the purpose of mounted police are in Sydney with so few people around, but maybe it is like airport "security", also known as "security theater". I asked my wife if she wanted to go up and pat a horse, and when she declined I asked her if she wanted to go up and pat a policeman instead. Circular Quay station was closed for some reason, and the sign directed us to St James or Martin Place, which were quite a long walk away, and difficult to find. Wynyard would have been easier to get to. Not sure what that was about. I was very sore by the time I got home. Hopefully that's the last time I need to get out of bed for a while.

Thankyou to all the security forces of the free world for keeping us safe, and I look forward to seeing (on BBC News) you guys in Bangkok soon so that we can add Thailand to the list of free world countries! A special shout out to female soldiers and cops for being braver than I can ever be.