Cui bono – “to whom is it a benefit?”, is a Latin phrase about identifying crime suspects.
Today’s headlines are all beating the drum for the same end purpose, or policy. Whether it is the stifling of free speech with Prof Peter Ridd and Gerd Schroder-Turk, (the federal government (Liberal) ensuring that the universities will go to great lengths to cripple any dissenting view of the preferred narrative, that climate change is real and must be addressed), OR reinforcing that the existing weather we are experiencing is the hottest that has ever been, (that climate change is real and must be addressed) OR the premier of Victoria warning of a unprecedented fire hazards and conditions, (that climate change is real and must be addressed), the narratives are there for a very specific reason, that climate change is real and must be addressed. The outworking of that will be new legislation to address climate change, that ‘just happens’ to be readily available, fresh off the press, that is to transfer more power to the United Nations so that they (rightly) can manage climate change on a world scale. It is totalitarianism, there is no question of that. Whether the situations are real, or malevolently generated, the result is the same. Handing more and more power to a world authority: totalitarianism.

So we come back to the point of what is real?
The fires are definitely real, but not unprecedented. Australia uses the term black Saturday, or Black Friday, or black Wednesday to mark a significant event. Between February and March 2009 the Black Saturday events resulted in 173 fatalities, again very real but not unprecedented. In the history of fires throughout the eastern states from 1851 onwards it’s always there, in fact Dorothy McKellar in her poem ‘my country’ in the fifth verse reminds us that fire is very much a part of the way of life in Australia.
There is also a significant amount of finger-pointing, for example “poor national park fuel load management, high-density living, drought conditions (always before us), and climate change”.
The thing about all these potential problems is that each one requires local communities to manage the environment as they know best. The bureaucrat sitting in Canberra or Brussels or New York would not have a clue. At best they are deluded, at worst their decisions could compound the problem. Local conditions, topographical characteristics of the area, available community resources, understanding of historical precedents, all go to building a case of ‘how to best manage the problem’. And to make a decisions for all different areas as a standard operating procedure is dangerous, in fact could be quite destructive. Devolution is where I am heading on this, that management of local problems is best done locally.

This is really important when you consider that inner-city living people making decisions on how best to manage your country or rural or National Park areas is absurd, selfish and emotional. Their personal experience of the issues involved is limited, fragmented and at best abstract. Whereas the local people experience their own environment on a daily basis. So the inner-city living city folk need to manage their own business first, otherwise it’s not real, it’s only an abstraction.
The outworking of this abstraction is possibly the current firestorms.
You can’t be free if you are not responsible and hold a moral position. If you are not responsible someone else will be. If you are not moral then what you do may affect other people negatively.
So what does ‘social credit’ have to say about all this? What is the natural law of the universe that we have to look for to answer this problem?

How do people best get on?
In the case of the locals CFS – country fire service – their experiences of fire situations is paramount to an understanding of what is needed. Obviously the volunteers from the local community (as they make any decisions will affect the locals), they will be held responsible, so they will always put the best interests of the community first.

Fire management needs to be managed locally. The policy or purpose behind any plan is to make the community and their assets safe, to minimise any possible damage. So the chance of a firestorm occurring is lowered (in the risk factor) from ”probable”, with high fuel loads, high temperatures, high winds; to “possible” by reducing the fuel loads, and more firebreaks, and more cold burns as part of fire training during the cooler months. This actually makes sense to my mind, but it’s not the purpose of this article to provide solutions. The purpose of this article is to direct our thinking to the bigger picture of how to manage issues and get the results you desire. Obviously a central planning authority operating from Brussels or New York or Peking won’t give you the results you hope to achieve. In fact the results were seeing at the moment could be attributed more to Brussels or New York or Peking, than the local CFS and community. This is because decisions are taken out of their hands and placed in higher and higher authorities which is the very opposite of what is needed. So the answer in my view is one of responsibility, and the moral aspect is also pursued in that: the effect of the ‘decisions made’ have to take into account “what is possible” for each person, each family and each community – devolution – it can only be effective by being done locally.