sexiest woman room

How do we sway people? How are we swayed? Right now I'm using words. Words are second rate. They're a non-visceral intellectual abstraction. Reading about a tiger and catching sight of one staring at you are not really comparable events. Colour, texture, shape and movement trump text. There's no future in having a bit of a think about a tiger. Fortunately humans, like other creatures, have two brains (kind of). The big brain is for having a bit of a think and the small one is for wigging out and running away. The small brain trumps the big brain. If our brains didn't work this way we would have all been eaten millenia ago. Everything those people in San Diego Zoo had ever read about tigers was instantly forgotten when a too-convincing visual of a tiger lit up their small brain.


The people who wish to sway you understand this utterly. If you really want to influence people you don't muck around with words. When they commissioned Leon Uris to write Exodus, they didn't do it because they thought a book would sway Americans to send Israel absurd sums of money. They knew only a movie could do that. Uris was merely needed to jump start the stalled movie project. Apparently no one wanted to front the dough because in Hollywood-parlance Israel was box-office poison. Who wants to pay to see a film about foreigners in some place nobody gave a shit about? Happily Uris was the right man for the job. His book sold, a groundswell was created and the long-desired movie, starring a suitably martial, blue-eyed Paul Newman, convinced an entire generation of Americans that Israelis were the very best sort of martial, blue-eyed people.


Keep in mind that Exodus was actually a variety of feel-good movie. For US money and support this was sufficient. Blood is something else. If Americans were to shed blood smashing Israel's enemies something far stronger than a feel-good movie would be required. It would be time to target the small brain. Fear, horror and outrage would be the key and the visual experience would need to be so over the top that superlatives would fail. And the working title? 911! Don't laugh. The crowds would eat it up. Film-makers know their audience.


And they know precisely how jaded that audience has become too. What used to comprise a big budget film climax thirty years ago happens before the title sequence now. A twenty-car pile-up - yawn. The climax required for American blood would have to make Die Hard look like a Bruce Willis movie. It would need to knock people on their arse. How about jetliners crashing into the tallest building in the world's most famous city? Double up! Two jetliners into two buildings! Wise heads nod. It'd certainly make for a stunning and singular visual. Planes going in, flames coming out, chaos in the streets. But would it be enough to reduce the nation to a gibbering wreck? Maybe not. A few days later it would be business as usual. TV Camera crews would walk through the burnt-out buildings and reporters would tell the viewers how the disaster could have been much much worse.


Not good enough. It doesn't fill the brief. This had to be the biggest movie ever! The buildings would have to come down. 'Boom, boom, boom, boom, all the way down.' Now that's spectacular! And nothing less would do. This was going to be the most awesome FX set-piece in the history of entertainment. And all of it in-camera! A masterpiece of timing and coordination. Pyrotechnics by the IDF, remote-controlled planes by Dov Zakheim and a cast of thousands featuring the entire population of Lower Manhattan! Gritty realism so gritty and so real that the cheap seats would be crunching concrete and asbestos between their teeth for days.


By way of script there was no need to establish the villains. Brilliantly, this franchise ran backwards and had all the prequels first. The audience was merely waiting for the credits to roll and confirm their guess at whodunnit. Those rotten cinema-Arabs again! Boo! Straight from central casting - no real actors needed - stand-ins would suffice. They didn't even get any screen time - all the cameras failed! What a laugh. Perhaps the second unit ended up shooting them. Either way, no residuals for them. And the heroes? The American people - channelling Dennis Weaver in Duel. But with the truck elsewhere. The audience, confused, empathises with um... itself.


Back on the set - it's a wrap. No need for any clean-up. The production team just walk away. No need to return the props, they all came for free. You gotta love that! And then factor in the insurance payout for destroying the set and the various put-options on the plane suppliers and the producers make out like bandits. And! It's the greatest movie ever made! The reviews were mixed, sure. A lot of nit-pickers, particularly on the net, pointed out the flaws - planes and buildings that defied physics, villains that made no sense, and the guy playing the President fluffed all his lines! - 'Save it for the 'goofs' section of imdb, losers!' - nobody cares. Box-office is king and this box-office leaves Exodus in the dust. In dollar terms the takings are similar - uncountable billions. It's the blood that sets 911 apart. And none of that corn-syrup crap neither. Real human blood.

Azzam al-Amriki, aka Azzam the American, aka Adam Gadahn, aka Adam Pearlman has made a new video. Mr Pearlman is the weirdest Muslim extremist on the planet. He started out Jewish. Indeed his grandfather was on the board of the intensely Jewish Anti-Defamation League. Adam didn't care for his hippy Christian-convert parents. He preferred to live with his Grandfather. Whilst doing so he took himself off to the nearby mosque and remarkably became a mad, bad, dangerous to know Muslim and joined Al Qaeda.

You'd think it was remarkable. But it's not. No one remarks upon it. Not on the TV, not in the press, not even in Al Qaeda, if you can believe that. Al Qaeda has given him their full endorsement. No less than Al Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri told us we should all listen to him. In spite of being evil geniuses of the internet it never occurred to anyone in Al Qaeda to put Adam Gadahn into google. So unconcerned and trusting is this secretive criminal uber-gang that they made Mr Pearlman their chief spokesman. Meanwhile back in America, no one seems interested in interviewing his parents, friends, or school teachers. Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, Oprah, all too busy. Mr Pearlman, it seems, is completely and utterly, 100%, D-notices-ain't-in-it, unremarkable.


Unless he's expounding Al Qaeda propaganda, that is. When this happens the media is transfixed and quivers with excitement to relay his important message. It's a funny old media isn't it?

And what is it he's said today that the media wants us to know? Does he urge Death to Zionists? As a Muslim and well aware that Zionists occupy Jerusalem (now beyond holy to him) you'd think he'd have an opinion. Apparently not. He seems to have no opinion on Zionists or Israel. It's a funny old Al Qaeda isn't it?

Okay I'll quit taking the piss. Here's the real world - Pearlman exists because there is no Al Qaeda. Or more specifically Muslims aren't as docile or as stupid as the funny old media would have us all believe. They can be tricked into playing paintball and other penny-ante incriminating things but when it comes to the crunch nobody, dimwits like Richard Reid aside, will be in it. So hard up are the creators of Al Qaeda that they need a Jew to play the part of the Mad Muslim.


He's not in it for a lark. That Pearlman gave up his life and put himself on top of the FBI list is the equivalent of martyrdom. His place in the secret pantheon of Zionist saints is assured. With this in mind, know that he doesn't get wheeled out to jibber-jabber madly on a whim. Everything he says is considered and scripted. It's all to a purpose. Which is what? They love it that we don't know. But here's my guess. Pearlman is setting the stage for Bush's assassination. Since these motherfuckers are the kings of the two-fer, three-fer, four-fer, the assassination could, all things going to plan, serve several purposes -

- If they can tie the assassination to Iran by way of the Palestinians Israel can bomb Iran and crush the Palestinians. Better still, the Americans can do it for them. Why not smash Syria and Egypt while they're at it? It's all good. Oh, and Lebanon will get theirs too.

- Since it was all urged by Adam 'Gadahn', an American 'convert', all manner of pre-arranged domestic shit will be justified and carried out. Martial Law - Sure. HR 1955 kicks into over-drive and Halliburton's concentration camps start to be put to good use. And of course - All Heil President Cheney.

-Ideally the grabbing of control will allow the imposition of the North American Union and the crushing of the cannot-be-allowed-to-live internet. And sure, chaos and suffering like we've never seen before. But only the people on the receiving end will give a shit.

-Since it'll happen in the Mid-East, the uneasy military/industrial American old guard would be somewhat mollified. They can console themselves that The Inevitable didn't take place on American soil. They're villainous greed-heads and sellouts but they're not completely unpatriotic. And they never liked the idiot son anyway.

- Speaking of which, they get rid of Bush, who's now a dead rubber. The longer he hangs around the more useless he becomes. Eventually the drugs will stop working and he'll give the game away.

-Big Bonus! As a trip-wire event it's cheap and effective. You gotta love that! No need for hundreds of mossad agents, co-ordination with the FAA, Pentagon, NORAD, no inquiries with hundreds of witnesses, video footage, evidential debris. And no messy, traceable nukes neither.


But I'm just thinking out loud. It's a game I play. I call it 'What would I do if I was a self-impressed motherfucker who viewed people as beasts?'. Or just 'Hubris' for short.

I read a book called World on Fire by Amy Chua. Not all of it. By the time I got half way through I'd had enough. I got it. The book was ostensibly about economics, racism and populations in turmoil. It specifically addressed the problems faced by wealthy, ethnically distinct minorities in various countries around the world and what to do about the violent racism of the envious majority in which they live. More or less. It was a while ago and I'm recalling.

It dedicated a chapter each to the Chinese in the Philippines, the Syrians in West Africa, the Jewish oligarchs in Yeltsin's Russia and some others which escape me now. It's worth noting that Amy Chua is a descendant of one of these minorities - the Chinese in the Philippines. That a book about the wickedness of peoples objecting to wealthy minorities has been written by a member of one of those wealthy minorities is - I don't know - is it too obvious to be ironic?

I don't know much about Amy Chua. I expect she's not racist. Ask a Chinese person in the Philippines if they're racist and they'll say of course not - they have lots of Filipino friends. They had a Filipino nanny too. And they've got a Filipino maid and gardener and chauffeur. And good ones too. They invite their families over for a little party every Xmas. And they like Filipino music too, not all of it of course. And Filipino TV and drama isn't bad, but not as good as Hong Kong movies and soaps. Mostly they just watch the news and that comedy show. They don't really groove on Filipino food. Sinigang is okay but really it's all too fishy. And It's not very good for you. You have to be careful because it's easy to get sick - they're not very clean, the Filipinos. And sure, they've had Filipino boyfriends but, personally, they wouldn't marry a Filipino. Really they're too different. It's important to marry someone who understands the culture and is closer to them, um... culturally. And their family would kill them if they married a Filipino! Not literally, ha ha, but they'd never hear the end of it. And they don't do too much business with the Filipinos - a little bit - they'd like to do more but you can't trust them. And they're unreliable. And lazy. And it's better to keep it in the family anyway.


Okay, that was just me channelling. But they're not racist. Not really. They're just another wealthy successful minority who own all the businesses and everyone else happens to be poor - the ones who live outside the twelve foot walls with broken bottles cemented to the top. Anyway, it's not the Chinese's fault that the Filipinos are all poor. If they were like the Chinese, they could be successful too. But they're not, they're too lazy. And they're poor and dirty and they smell bad. And don't forget, the Chinese were born there. Those fucking Filipinos hate them because the Chinese are successful and they're not. It's just envy. Really, they're racists.

How perfectly fucking tiresome. Never does Chua direct her the-trouble-lies-here gaze to the wealthy ethnic minorities. All of her questions revolve around how to deal with the problem of the restless natives. It doesn't occur to her to wonder at a people who, generation after generation, remain a perpetually distinct ethnic minority, or why that is, or what it means. Perish the thought! This may not be questioned. Yeah well, fuck that. I'll question it.

Think about marriage for a moment. It's not nothing. Kings and Queens of old didn't marry their sons and daughters off to the daughters and sons of foreigners because they grooved on the sexy accents. They did it because this single act was so significant in its symbolism that it could cement two peoples together. I'm not saying it was bullet-proof. But the intent was the intent and it was done because it worked. But never mind the symbolic, we can see it just next door. By happy coincidence it's diaspora Chinese again.


Ethnic Chinese don't exist merely in the Philippines. They're present in every country in South East Asia (and sure, elsewhere too) but Thailand is particularly interesting. In Thailand, unlike Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, the Chinese seem happy to marry the locals. Thailand is Buddhist and closer in food and culture to the Chinese. Ever mercantile, the Chinese are still broadly wealthier than the indigenous Thai - but really it's not that clear-cut. The line is blurred on account of intermarriage. Thailand has never had an anti-Chinese pogrom and they never will. Too many people have too many half-quarter-eighth Chinese nieces and nephews. Who's going to object to the superior wealth of their own relatives? The diaspora Chinese aren't completely racist, just selectively so. If they weren't too busy holding their noses and were prepared to marry the local people in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines one would see the death of anti-Chinese pogroms.

And nothing apart from marriage and kids is going to achieve this. Sharing food, holding hands, singing karaoke, shagging, buying and selling, thinking fondly - none of them cut it. None of them will tie a people together. It's the kids that count. It's the real world and simple shit like having kids is a big deal. It destroys racism. Nobody's Rule of Racism - If you're not prepared to have your children marry the locals and have coffee-coloured kids you're a racist and you can fuck off. Or to put it more politely by way of an imagined Department of Immigration question for people intending to immigrate - 'Are you prepared to have your children marry outside your race?' Ha ha ha ha ha. Fat chance we'll ever see that! The screams would be deafening.

Does that make me a racist? You betcha! In a world without irony, between the ethnically distinct minority who have historically refused to marry the locals and the locals who object to them, it's the locals who cop the racism tag. What bullshit. The racists are victims and the victims are racists. If you want to stick up for multi-generation distinct ethnic minorities you're defending their right to be racist. And this goes for all the other similar ethnic minorities who generation after generation refuse to marry the people they live amongst. I'm much given to metaphors. I use them all the time, it's fun. But now it's your turn. You tell me what metaphor you'd use for an entity that lives amongst a host population for hundreds of years, gets rich at their expense and actively resists being subsumed? What is that?


And anyone who wants to tell me, in a righteous and heart-felt fashion, about some great culture that I'm consigning to the dustbin on history - I weep for that culture. Just like I weep for all those other cultures now long gone. Minoans, Carthaginians, Romans, Etruscans, Illyrians - as many cultures as there are stars in the sky - all gone. Not the people of course, their descendants are still right there. Just the culture is gone. Which is what exactly? An intangible something or other. A state of mind. A dream. Fixate on a dream if you want to but it's a fools errand. And to lock it in your head and define yourself by it is something akin to psychopathy.

Here is the truth - The only certainty is change. This goes double for culture. All sorts of people who emigrate hang on to their culture... they hang on... still hanging on... and fifty years later go home and - find their culture gone, unrecognisable, existing only in movies and in their mind. They and their old mates down at the Hellenic Club, or whatever, were the last hold-outs. Bravely they soldiered on, keeping fixed in their head an amorphous idea of who they were. And when the kids grow up, marry locals, have hapa kids and the culture begins its slow death - I weep with them. It's a fucking tragedy. But what are you going to do? Stay racist? Teach your kids to do the same?

I expect so. But really people who define themselves by a delusional image that posits themselves as superior, or better, or 'other' than the people they live amongst, want to wake up. Without wishing to be rude, whatever reasons you have for remaining 'the other' are bullshit. Even if the reason consists of your parents and every single other member of your family piling on the pressure, it's not good enough. It just makes you weak willed, a person who lets others define them.

You're just a racist with an excuse note from your mum.

The Australian cricket team and by extension the Australian people remain true to form. We are all currently outraged by the wicked Indian spin bowler Harbhajan Singh. He's now cited and must front the ICC board on a charge of racism. It seems he called the Australian batsman Andrew Symonds some variation of racist epithet. That he attempted to apologise is proof of his guilt. That the apology seems to have been rejected is perfectly understandable.


When will these foreigners learn? I suggest that the Australian Cricket Board, in a spirit of helpfulness, start a campaign to educate them on how to sledge correctly. I'll start it off. Anatomical insults are good. Thus you may call people pricks, arseholes, and cunts. Sexual insults also get a big tick. Jokes about fucking someone's wife are perfectly good - unless directed at someone like Australian bowler Glenn McGrath whose wife happened to have breast cancer. The fact that McGrath started it by declaring that he'd fucked the other fellow's wife is irrelevant. The other fellow's wife didn't have breast cancer. Otherwise if you just stick to the broad understanding that your opponents are shit who deserved to be ridiculed, insulted, and otherwise spattered with the verbal equivalent of fecal matter, you can't go wrong. Except for racism! Any term that might be interpreted as racist will be leapt upon and held up like a head on a pike so that all might know what wicked scoundrels racist foreigners are.

Note to ICC - How about instituting a policy of putting actual heads on actual pikes? We could then display them on the roof of the member's stand at the SCG so that foreigners might know that they may not sully the good name of Australian cricket. Just a thought.


But really, foreigners will be best served by simply reminding themselves that they're not our equals. They can't even speak English properly! And if they can't manage that simple task they should just shut up and be educated by us. And Harbhajan Singh? We'll teach him. We have standards here. And never mind whatever crap 'single' standards they have in India. We're one-up on them - we have double standards.

I don't have much time for philosophy as such. Between the arcane vocabulary and various dialectics and epistemologies (did I mention the vocab?) it does my head in. I gave it a burl and came away none the wiser. I suspect if I was to spend my life pursuing philosophers and philosophy I'd end up knowing less than when I started. That says as much about me as it does about them.

I decided there were only two men I had any time for. They are Charles Darwin and the Buddha. There have actually been many buddhas but this particular one was named Siddhartha Gautama. When you hear of Buddha or Buddhism he's the one they're talking about. Darwin, of course invented evolution, which is to say he defined it for Westerners. What he defined had always been there but had always previously been explained in as many ways as exist in the human imagination and in none of them usefully.

But I had a problem with these two. I knew both of them were true. When I talk of them, Darwin and Buddha, I conflate their names with their 'philosophy'. This suits me. Just go with it. Anyway, they seemed at odds with each other. They couldn't both be right. One described a system without thought and one with. One seemed to embrace cruelty and one emphatically rejected it. They fought battles in my head and it wasn't until a particularly lucid and thoughtful joint that I reconciled them. But I'm leaping ahead.


There's a lot of shit written about these two and now it's my turn, ha ha. When I talk of them I'm really describing a distillation of my own making. This is necessary. Darwin first. Darwin, apparently extolled the concept of 'survival of the fittest'. Thus we should admire lions, tigers and other predators. They are the 'fittest' and therefore the best. Unfortunately this is a load of shite. Some other guy came up with the 'fittest' phrase and other people, whom I generically call motherfuckers, use it to justify war, eugenics, time-and-motion and every other fucked up thing they could think of. This is called 'social darwinism' and has nothing to do with Darwin.

In essence, under Darwin, things that self-replicate will deal with environmental changes or they won't. If you're eyesight is great it is precisely as great as is required to catch prey and not become it. If you're eyesight goes to hell when you're forty, that's cool. Once you're forty your offspring, to whom you've hopefully passed on your great eyesight, are either viable or not. If they're viable Darwin says you may become prey. He's ceased caring.

Don't be confused by things that have nothing to do with surviving and having kids. You can use those same eyes for star-gazing, admiring Matisse or looking at porn. Darwin doesn't care. Not everything has to be about the viability of offspring - it's just that it can't be against it. I briefly wondered about homosexuality under Darwin. I'm being clinical here you understand. How can he tolerate behaviour so contrary to offspring, never mind their viability? Clearly he does tolerate it. People who prefer members of their own sex have always existed and always will. But there will never be a population that is 100% gay. The percentage of gay people in a population must be less than 100%, a lot less, more like a few percent. Probably 2.1 standard deviations from the norm, ha ha. This is fine with Darwin. The population will carry on and our Charles won't bat an eyelid. Distractions don't matter.


You can see the cruelty in Darwin though. The shit that social darwinists prize is all there. I've seen adolescent bell magpies peck the weakest sibling to death. For an otherwise admirable bird it's shocking. But magpies will spend their entire adult life fighting for turf. There's only so many bugs and worms to go around. With inter-species negotiation impossible, tough guys only need apply. But apart from the aforementioned adolescent viciousness they're like every other bird and avoid a fight at all costs. They're not wantonly cruel. They're precisely as cruel as they need to be. Darwin doesn't advocate this - he just has no opinion.

And what was Buddha on about? A ton of things. It depends on who you listen to. If you've read this far you're listening to me. But don't worry, my opinion of Buddha is pretty unobjectionable. Buddha said there is no self. He knew this because he achieved selflessness. 'Selflessness - As used and recommended by the Buddha!' And the opposition brand is selfishness - as used and recommended by motherfuckers. Never mind the crap copywriting, this dichotomy, or continuum, can be as profound as any ever invented. It's got rules beat. Rules equal loopholes. And loopholes equal 'lying'. The rules about lying and the lying to justify it are, for fans of hypocrisy, exquisite. The four words 'Thou shalt not lie' has magically created an entire ornate edifice of nitpicking bullshit - "I didn't tell you because you didn't ask..." - "I never said that. My precise words were..." - "You asked me if I 'slept' with her. We never slept..." blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum. Under the 'rules' none of these people actually 'lied'. Bully for them and their sense of rightness. But what they inescapably did do is misrepresent reality for selfish purposes. And what of that old chestnut 'the white lie'? That's against the rules isn't it? Or not? Would a saintly rule-obeyer be compelled to tell someone they have a fat arse? To hell with it - forget the rules - forget the words 'lie' and 'lying'. They're worthless. Any discussion involving them inevitably disappears up its own oh-so-clever arse, fat or otherwise. Keep it simple. Did the person behave selfishly or selflessly? A continuum that has selfishness at one end and selflessness at the other is a knife that cuts through bullshit.


And if you ask me, I will tell you Buddha was not a god. He simply achieved complete selflessness. A person who does this becomes one with the universe. Even people a fraction of the way there are spooky. They are possessed of whatever it is that Shinto reveres. I won't describe it, but visit a Shinto shrine, be quiet and understand why the shrine is there. That's what I reckon anyway. But how about you and me - we aspirers to Buddha-dom? Relax. There's no need to leap in the deep end. Satori are possible but unlikely. Best to start small. Small acts of selflessness will do wonders for you and everyone around you. It's absurdly easy and yet it's absurdly difficult. In this world nobody wants you to be selfless. Everybody wants you to be selfish. The entire purpose of corporate media is to encourage you to be so - Buy that thing! You deserve it! Pamper yourself! Whatever you desire! - It's difficult to keep selflessness in mind when everything and everyone urges you to be the opposite. It comprises the air that breathe. In trying to become selfless a sense of dislocation is almost inevitable. But this is good. Go with it. It's the only way you'll know who you are. And if you do it right you become Buddha - but I wouldn't hold my breath. What's far more likely, in fact almost a certainty, is that you become a better person, make the world a better place, and find happiness. Don't look to me. I suck at it. I'm lazy, self-impressed and love to interrupt. Read carefully, it's obvious in every word I write. This 'easiest thing ever' requires perpetual mindfulness. It's hard.

But forget the bombast. This is Darwin v Buddha. A Battle to the Death! Darwinian cruelty versus Buddhist selflessness. One trumps the other. Aaargh! Stop! Forget social darwinism. It's bullshit, which is to say it's a self-serving misrepresentation of the truth. It's nonsense designed by wicked, selfish people to excuse their wicked, selfish behaviour. It conflates Darwin's failure to judge with an endorsement. Darwin Endorses Nothing. Forget the lions and tigers and magpies. Darwin equally addresses earthworms, peach trees and butterflies. A complete absence of cruelty and yet each of these species, and millions like them, persist successfully. Hats off, says Darwin. Whatever works is fine by him. On the subject of human selflessness as a method of dealing with the vagaries of survival he's neither for nor against. Darwin is not a social darwinist, ha ha. If a people can be selfless and have children that live to carry on in like fashion then that's fine with him. Darwin smiles serenely - if it works, it works.

And Buddha? Buddha is uninterested in magpies, worms or any other creature of little brain. These are animals of instinct not thought. None are capable of mindfulness nor can they achieve oneness with the universe. Only we can achieve, or even attempt this, and Buddha addresses us. That we can be cruel is beyond obvious. We can emulate thoughtless creatures if we choose to. Buddha stands shoulder to shoulder with Darwin in acknowledging this. But he goes one step further. He knows that humans can wake from mindlessness. Darwin, immutable avatar of life and death has no opinion. Buddha smiles serenely - selflessness is possible.

I didn't write this. It belongs to an individual called Terrahertz. I'm posting it because, a) It's singular, focused and quite possibly the most useful thing you will ever read, and b) No government would ever tell you this or allow anyone else to tell it to you. In this age of insurance companies uber alles what follows is verboten. With this in mind I am not saying that you should do this in the event of a fire. I'm simply saying that this is the other side of the argument. In this world of bullshit, 'fair and balanced' is nothing of the sort. If two views are presented one is simply a more extreme view of the other. The counter argument will not be permitted. Here is Terrahertz's brilliant and original piece. Think about it and see if it's for you.


OCTOBER 28, 2007 6:10 PM  
TerraHertz said...
Saving your house from wildfires


Words from Australia, land of bushfires: If you leave your home before the fire front arrives, its 99% sure your house WILL burn down. Small spot fires in gutters, eaves, etc will get the whole house going pretty quickly. Without anyone around to put them out, its gone.



However, when people stay and follow a simple fire fighting strategy, its 99% certain their house won't burn.
Here's how to do it.
Note: Assumes you are fit, and can stay calm and act fast and sensibly in emergencies, and have prepared.



1. Preparation: You MUST remove all combustibles, shrubbery, long grass, leaves, etc from around the house. Clean gutters, block downpipes, fill gutters with water. Be aware the power will probably fail, and possibly the water as well. If you can get a hand pumped backpack water spray (one for each person who will stay), do.

2. Fill buckets, drums, baths, etc with water, and place around and inside the house well beforehand (water supply may fail at the critical time, remember?) Tie old sacks or blanket portions firmly to end of broomsticks, leave soaking in water. These are to beat out spot fires. A large axe, mattock, sledge hammer, spade, etc can be useful - keep inside the house near door. A cloth mask that fits over your mouth and nose, that can be soaked in water to filter smoke. If you have snorkelling goggles, keep them handy too - smoke that would blind you is no problem with goggles on - for as long as you can hold your breath.

3. Close all windows, doors (unlocked), if possible block up gaps under floor. Remove combustibles from inside vicinity of windows (curtains etc) since these can catch fire just from intense radiant heat from outside. If you can board up windows, even better. If time, paint with reflective paint - white, silver, etc.)

4. As fire front approaches, if you can, hose down roof, walls, windows, and grass around house. Forget about trying to save your garden, outbuildings, etc - you can't. If there is a lot of nearby fuel, and strong winds, best to hose down *inside* the house too. Damp belongings better than burnt belongings. At this point get your breathing mask, etc ready, and SOAK YOUR CLOTHES AND HAIR. Seriously - you want to be dripping wet. Just do it. Long pants and shirt - cotton or wool, not synthetics. Cloth that holds as much water as possible. Solid leather boots and gloves. Wet them too.

5. When fire front arrives (spot fires, trees near your house begin to ignite), go inside. Stay away from windows, keep all doors closed. You CANNOT stay outside during the 10 to 15 minutes of peak radiant heat. But your house will take longer than this to get burning. Use buckets, wet beaters, etc, to put out any fires that start inside. In the vicinity of the fire front the oxygen content of the air outside can get very low (another reason to stay inside - your sealed house has enough air to keep you OK for the critical few minutes.) If windows break, close off that room, retreat to hall.

6. As soon as conditions outside are tolerable again (see Risks below), get outside and do a rapid circuit of the building, evaluating threat priorities. You may need to just leave some small fires burning, while you deal with more critical ones. Use the wet beaters, save your water buckets unless absolutely needed. Use water or beaters on the *source* of the flames (the burning fuel), don't waste effort on the flames. Any fire that looks like it could get a foothold in the inner structure of the house is most urgent. Don't be afraid to smash open walls, etc if required. If there are large fires nearby, you may find that you can't take the radiant heat for more than a few moments, and have to repeatedly retreat to inside the house. This is why the soaked clothes, etc - it gives you longer outside. Keep re-soaking yourself, don't let anything dry out.

7. If the house does get burning too much for you to deal with, by now the surrounding fires have likely burnt out enough that you can walk away from your house safely. If you have managed to stop it from burning, whatever you do, *don't* leave it now. Stay with it until all nearby fires are well out, and there are no more wind-borne embers falling. Keep checking for small spot fires - any of which can still burn your house down if not dealt with.



----Risks----

Flare-ups and flame direction changes

During intense fires the local wind conditions get very unpredictable and powerful. The fire makes its own turbulent winds. One big risk to you is that columns of flame (say, from burning woodheaps, sheds, etc) can go from rising vertically one moment, to horizontal along the ground in a strong wind gust the next. Simple rule - observe how high the flames are going, and stay at least twice that distance away from the flame source. You do not want to be the moth in the horizontal blowtorch flame. Note that this rule implies you MUST NOT let yourself be caught out in the open in wooded areas by the fire front - which can approach at faster than the wind speed in high intensity fires. This is how most forest fire fighter fatalities occur - caught in open, plus sudden shift of flame direction, by fire-front that surrounded them in seconds.



Radiant heat

In intense fires where there is a lot of fuel on the ground and trees are igniting, fire propagation is via a front of radiant heat, that ignites (explodes is a better description) trees in series. When all the foliage on a tree is flash heated and bursts into flame at once, the radiant heat output is immense - enough to set fire in the same way to adjacent trees, ground litter, and even weatherboard walls. Personal exposure to this kind of heat will result in disablement and death. BUT... at any given spot in a forest or brushfire, the peak of radiant heat will only last a few minutes - usually less than five. Almost any shelter that completely covers your body, has reasonable heat-absorbing mass (walls, wet blankets, etc) and shields you from wind-blown flames will be sufficient. Note that vehicles are not good as shelters - thin metal skins heat up too quickly, everywhere inside is too exposed via the windows, and everything in the car will burn quickly, plus generate toxic fumes.



Suffocation, smoke blinding, panic

Around the fire front the air can be unbreathable for minutes at a time - choking smoke, and/or reduced oxygen levels. Smoke may also be too thick to see anything through. If you are outside the contained air in a building in this interval, you can lose consciousness, or be incapacitated by coughing, blinded eyes or poor visibility, lose your orientation, and/or become panicked. Any of these can kill you, since you may then be caught exposed to the flames and heat. This is why you must stay inside the building till the outside fire peak is over. If the building is catching fire too, thats too bad. Just close doors to the burning rooms, and wait just inside the best door to exit, for as long as possible.



Underground burning cavities

Many people are unaware of one big risk after forest fires. Large tree roots and stumps can remain burning close under the surface of the ground for days afterwards. Its possible to be walking along, and the ground to give way under your foot, dropping a leg into a red hot furnace. Its best to NOT go walking in recently burnt out forest areas.



Emergency shelter

If trapped away from buildings, in bushland/forest by a strong fire, your options are limited. You must either;
* Find something underground- a fully enclosed cave, or deep crevice in rocks. In urban areas or along roads, stormwater drains or culverts can suffice.
* Find a pool or watercourse where you can fully immerse yourelf. As far from combustibles as possible, to minimise chances of losing consciousness from smoke/oxygen depletion during the fire peak.
* Find a large open area, at least several hundred feet diameter, with little burnable ground cover. Stay low, in the center. Cover yourself with whatever you can. If the ground is sandy, dig in.
* Failing those, your only fallback is to backburn a clearing for yourself. Only do this as a last, lifesaving resort.



'Authorities'

Given that the local authorities are likely to try and forcefully evacuate you (thus virtually guaranteeing your house will burn down), one has to count them as perhaps the greatest threat you'll face. I've actually had the experience of helping save a neighbour's home situated in bushland, where both of us had to evade the 'fire brigade' *and* local military forces deployed to evacuate residents. They came to the property long before the fire arrived, took away everyone they found, then left. Not wanting to risk getting their nice shiny fire truck singed or dirty. He'd hidden nearby, and I arrived (via the riverside bush, not the road) just before the fire front. As described above - barrels of water around the house, wet-sack beaters, soaked clothes, stay inside house during the peak, then get out and fight... And despite there being lots of nearby combustibles (very spectacular), the old, rambling wooden house was saved. The 'firebrigade' returned on their still shiny truck about 45 minutes later (when it was 'safe' for them) and made a show of hosing down a nearly burnt-to-the-ground pergola nearby. Thanks a lot, heros.



So, with this in mind, what you need is a good hiding spot. When it looks like the authorities will show up, hide. Have any household members who can't help firefight leave with the authorities, and say there's no one else home. If you are alone, or everyone is staying, decide whether to leave your house locked up or open, depending on what kind of arseholes your local police/etc are. Would they break down doors to 'check no one is home'? Your call. Be aware that in some circumstances, these 'friendly local authorities' may actually *want* your home burnt down, in which case its best they don't see your preparations to stay and firefight. Once the fire approaches, these cowards will be gone. You might consider, if you have any doubts about the motivations of your public officials, secretly videotaping their actions while on your property. Who knows - maybe they try to make *sure* your place burns down? In which case you'd be justified in shooting them, if you are armed. And a video of their actions on youtube would be a useful warning to others, not to mention for your own defense.




In general, as is usual in these days of government gone haywire, you are on your own. Those who you should be able to count on for help, are more likely to be your active enemy.



TerraHertz

I can't say that I'm a sports nut. Far from it. But I live with my father and he watches nothing but. He hasn't long left and if he wants to watch sport all day he may. Me, I only really like test rugby and test cricket. And both in moderation. 'Test', for those who don't know, means 'international'. And in cricket it specifically refers to the classic five day game. I'm uninterested in having a discussion about other sports and which is better. I really don't care.

As a cricket fan I should currently be cock-a-hoop. The Australians rule world cricket. We've now won a record fifteen tests in a row. The talk on the telly is of Australia going on to win thirty in a row. How great we are! We're not just champions, we're uber-champions. We talk of 'humiliating' our opponents as if it was a testament to our virtue.

And that's the kind of people we are now. And our cricket team reflects us, and us, them. Never mind bad losers, we're that worse thing - bad winners. We are the kings of 'sledging', which is to say, the endless offering of foul-mouthed insults to the opposition. Jonty Rhodes, the South African batsmen, complained, and not unreasonably, that to play with Shane Warne, the Australian spin bowler, consisted of being called a 'cunt' all day. That people eulogise Warne, recently retired, as the 'greatest' cricketer of all time speaks not just to his figures but also to how little we think of perfectly abysmal behaviour. And Warne's litany of such is very long. Sledging is viewed as a legitimate 'tactic'. It is not viewed as boorish, crude, ill-mannered, insulting, mean-spirited or any other epithetical description. Indeed it's frequently justified on the grounds that it puts the opposition off their stride. And the proof is in the pudding. We sledge and we win so sledging is 'good'.

And what are the other national sides to do? Should they emulate Australia? In the recent Australian tour of India, when an Indian bowler behaved in an Australian fashion and had derisive words for the departing batsman the Australian media went nuts. It was replayed ad nauseam. How dare he? Only winners may behave like this. India lost sure enough.


And only winners may retain their dignity. They won it. If losers think they deserve to keep theirs they're dreaming. If that Pakistani official hasn't left the podium quickly enough for the winners, push him off! We're the goddamn winners, who the hell does he think he is? Is his face on cornflake packets? Fuck off mate.

People may wonder what sort of a bullshit sports-fan I am. I'm that freak of nature - the guy who doesn't care who wins. People are shocked when I say this. I want to watch good cricket. I want to watch it played in a spirit of good natured respect. I want to see each man, and the country they represent, accorded their dignity. Keep in mind, this is cricket we're talking about. The phrase 'It's just not cricket' doesn't exist for no reason. If the Australians behave like a pack of smug gits I want the other side to win. Go the underdog! Australia winning all is not good for cricket. What do Australians want? Australia as the perpetual winner or a cricket competition that's worth watching? At this rate you can't have both. That they're ill-mannered with it, is insult to injury.

And sure, the endless winning is not the Australian team's fault. "This is a competition. What are they meant to do? Lose?" Yeah yeah, I get it. But anyone who thinks that 'winning' is a simple unalloyed testament to physical superiority, and by extension national greatness, might want to think again. Pick a sport and look at the top teams. The Olympics is a perfect case in point. The list of the countries that win the most medals equals the list of countries that spend the most dollars. Dollars equals medals. Australia punches above its weight in the Olympics because Australia spends above its weight. Is cricket any different? The athletes attending the Australian Institute of Sport, unlike every other tertiary institution in the country, get their deluxe 'education' for free. No HECS fee for them. In cheesy sports movies who cheers for the smug rich kid from the deluxe school with all the deluxe gear? There's no way we'd be that kid would we?

Michael Moore, who regardless of what you might think about him, asked a single, genius question - Who are we? Was I the only one who cringed when that shit Howard said in his farewell speech that, 'Australia is the greatest country in the world and Australians are the greatest people in the world!'? I'm perfectly uninterested in an argument pivoting on its factuality - let's just pretend it was true - what do we make of a person who'd declare such a thing about himself and his fellows? Isn't it the very definition of a smug, self-impressed git? And the whole audience applauded and whooped it up. Three cheers for us! Chauvinism? What's that? We used to laugh at Americans for saying such jingoistic nonsense. Australian people unabashed now wear t-shirts that say, 'AUSTRALIA LOVE IT OR FUCK OFF!' Intolerant, foul-mouthed and un-ironic. Fantastic. Here's a thought for a sketch - An Australian sports crowd are pumping their fists in the air chanting, 'A-U-S! A-U-S! A-U-S, A-U-S A-U-S-A-U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!'. Geez. That was spooky. How did that happen?


Australia used to be a modest self-effacing place. We had no time for loud-mouth, up-themselves wankers. Who are we now? Is this my country?