Great article Roger.

Yes, the ecological landscape of Australia was greatly altered by Aboriginal burning practices. There were huge changes when this fire regime disappeared. Across the continent, grasslands turned into woodlands, and scrub and open woodlands thickened up. And rainforest advanced into sclerophyll forest here in north Queensland, all on a massive scale.

Yes we need to continue burning. Hazard-reduction burning is of enormous importance. However, it is nowhere near as easy as it was for the indigenes. Human settlements and infrastructure dotted across the landscape, and a patchwork of freehold, leasehold and crown land, with different people in charge of managing different bits of it, makes it notoriously difficult.

We also need to be aware of the setting up of a false sense of security in areas where fuel-reduction burning is undertaken, as firestorm events can still sweep straight through if the ground and mid-strata are burnt but the oil-rich eucalypt canopy is left unburnt.

Undertaking hazard-reduction burning which includes the canopy in eucalypt forest close to built-up areas is nigh on impossible.

In many places, people now live where we as a nation simply should never have allowed them to live. They should have been very strongly urged to move out of these areas after Ash Wednesday in 1983… and certainly after Black Saturday in 2009.

We are going to continue to see fire-storms, with the loss of property and lives.

Despite the science, and the critical awareness of the community and political leaders, this seems to be something that we as a nation are incapable of dealing with.

thanks..a lot of anwers
but...a thread needs questions

Very interesting article, thank you.

A bit of a quibble about the following:
'I do not agree with the authors' concerns that human-induced climate change will exacerbate the bushfire problem in Australia. There have always been droughts, heat waves and hot, strong northerly winds and we must expect and prepare for them irrespective of the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.'
Leaving aside the question of the cause of global warming, doesn't the most basic science tell us that more CO2 promotes plant growth, and more biomass means more fuel for fires; higher temperatures and less rain mean that the biomass is drier and will result in fiercer fires.

I read this article carefully. It never ceases to amaze me the claims made by some about the collective genius of the Aborigines.

They are elevated from being a group of backward primitives who, sadly, the world left behind, into being a cohesive society that, purposefully and rationally, tended to the whole of Australia and its land management.

Pull the other leg!

davids ..comment..brings to mind

gen3;23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth
from the garden of Eden, to till the earth,

Genesis 4:12

When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield
unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be
on the earth.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-4-12/

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203&version=GNV
cursed is the earth for thy sake:
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

18 [v]Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee,
and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=MSG

The very ground is cursed because of you;
getting food from the ground
Will be as painful as having babies is for your wife;
you’ll be working in pain all your life long.
The ground will sprout thorns and weeds,
you’ll get your food the hard way,
Planting and tilling and harvesting,
sweating in the fields from dawn to dusk,
Until you return to that ground yourself, dead and buried;
you started out as dirt, you’ll end up dirt

“He (Bill Gammage) rejects the view that Aboriginal people were backward and uncivilised … “.

Australian aborigines were definitely backward (Stone Age) in the 18th Century, and there are still ‘progressive’ white people trying to keep them that way.

Nor were the aborigines ‘civilised’ in any meaning of word. And no, no disparagement to aborigines is intended; the disparagement is aimed at the referenced author. If that author is as brilliant as he is said to be, he should use better language. We have enough wild, unlikely claims made of these Stone Age people as it is, without some author’s misuse or misunderstanding of words further confusing the importance of common sense discussion on things aboriginal.

The simple instinct to survive did not make them ‘civilised’ or forward-thinking; nor did it align them with English noblemen, as suggested by “many of them (settlers)”.

But surely there is no need to waffle on about what people did 30,000 or so years ago.

Roger Underwood himself clearly knows about bushfires (not American ‘wild fires’). Even those of us who merely know that bushfires are a normal part of life in Australia, and not anything to do with “global warming”, accept that something can be done to reduce their effect; and, that’s good old ‘burning off’ that still occurs in some places, but not in enough.

The grip that the Green, so-called environmentalists (the are not environmentalists, but rabid control freaks) have on the throats of authorities in preventing burning off, is criminal.

Every time one of these freaks screeches ‘man-made-climate-change-did-this after a ferocious bush fire, he/she should be interrogated on the real cause – their stupid, dangerous fads and lies.

But, here again, the real problem is the incompetent, frightened-of-loud-minorities Australian politicians who sit back and do nothing.

Roger

I can accept that Aboriginal burning played an important role in the coastal areas and along the floodplains of the major inland rivers of Southern Australia, ie. the Murray, Goulburn, etc.

However, I didn't imagine that Aboriginals had as much impact in the more densely forested foothill and mountain forests inland from the coast where it is generally assumed that they rarely ventured. I had always attributed the regular burning of these areas to fires ignited by lightning - what does Gammage say about lightning fires?

This is only a small point, because the effect is ultimately much the same - that is that these areas (apart from the wet sclerophylle forests) were also regularly burnt by generally lower intensity fire because fuels were never allowed to build-up to the levels that we commonly see today.

"There are many academics who deny that Aboriginal people ever lit anything much other than a campfire."

Name one please.

I think anyone who believes Australian indigenous people deliberately burned their place of living, is very lacking in common sense.

If grass was burned there would be little or no seed for at least 3 months to make a flour to eat. Aboriginal people ground seed on stone dishes.

Without seed many birds would have no food they would naturally fly to other regions.

If the grass was burned with a big fire then kangaroos would go elsewhere. When it rains the smell attracts kangaroos from hundred of kms away and they arrive almost overnight. But with fire the opposite would likely occur.

Aboriginal people would not want to chase after animals moving to other places.

By understanding the bush it is possible to understand how a boomerang can be thrown into a flock of birds to bring one or two down.
If the bush was burned the bird flocks would be gone elsewhere.

Understanding of the real bush is not algebra or rocket science.
It's common sense. Not non-sense.

Ludwig: "Undertaking hazard-reduction burning which includes the canopy in eucalypt forest close to built-up areas is nigh on impossible."

That is a head-in-the-sand attitude. You are advocating continuing growth in fuel load such that when a fire does eventually come through, its high intensity will cause all in its path -- and not necessarily in its direct path due to spot fires -- to be burnt to ashes.

Hazard reduction in those areas needs to be done in cool weather with little or no breeze.

i..dislike correcting..but..one thinks..all grass is equal
the other thinks its about burning canopy

first the..canopy..this burning..is tragedy..it
indicates a TOO HOT a burn..and..only increases the real danger..from..the litter IT CREATES..over the next..weeks/months..from the leaves/branches..not burned..

only killed

[that law..that dead leaves fall..to the ground]
where they get burned..of at much lower temp..

a canopy fire creates higher release..of volatiles..and gas fires burn hotter..anyhow..its basic/stuff the author can clarify

ditto the dead grass STEMS..the seeds have long fallen away
the blades of the grass..long eaten..the softer juicer stems..dead dry

the birds/roos/wallabies even..the bilby..have long gone
but LOW TEMP/burning..ensures lots of green..regrowth..within weeks

but there is more..clearing the litter has broken
[burned..partly..through hard nut/seed pods..and an emu finds much joy]

the idea about annual'/'burning'..is that it burns off the dry..leaves/dead grass stems..AT LOW TEMP..on the ground

but why bother
fire bad..right..WRONG

ignorant fire bad
intelligent use of fire is all good..you KNOW..if it was HOT
or coold burn..so YOU KNOW..when/and WHAT..will regrow/plus when
you..KNOW..what will feed on what stage of regrowth

you have created a path..on..which many walked their dreaming
for longer than any other..peoples..[cause these are the people of cain]..who bears the curse upon/the first born..[of tilling ground THAT REFUSES ITS YIELD.]

you have no..idea..of the importance..of fish traps
and other stuff that eats..that the fire has processed

i can/only suggest people read the books
there is a whole super/market out there

but colonization..needs create dependence..and the first DUTY..of the colonizer..is to..deplete..the natives food sources[like endless fields of bizon/or buffelo/or skies full of pigeons..or waters teeming with BIG breeder fish

then along comes the INVADER/despoiler..and kills off all/the breeders
chopping down..massive trees..introducing booze disease..ignorance/and figure heads

WE HAd no leaders..WE HAD CONSENSUS
but then every kid KNEW..you dont poop in..the water..your going to..have to drink..but along comes a drunk/high-priest colonizer..and calls me the savage..for not pooping into their drinking-water.

[water closets/dunnies..[w.c'sd]..[toilet-s for dummies]

Fire hazard reduction is for example:

1. Not living in a fire prone area.
2. Having cement sheet cover over timber and facia boards and windows facing the source of fire and where radiated heat is likely to come from.
3. Having all roofing gaps filled with copper fly wire where roof meets gutters.
4. Having stainless gutter leaf guards properly installed.
5. Having a reasonable sized swimming pool and a quality diesel water pump with high pressure sprinklers and fire hoses.
6. Having an underground bunker or closed cement tank with entry suitable for residents, friends and pets.
7. Having good insurance.

Otherwise do not live in the bush or grasslands.

jf..makes some..interesting,,points

<<..do not live..in the bush..or grasslands.>>

in-side COMBUSTIBLE*homes

for example:

1. Not living..in a..POTENTIAL/HOT-BURNING..fire prone area.
2. Having cement sheet>>[OR WATTLE AND DAUB][MUD WALLS]

OR BETTER DOUBLE BRICK..OR SOLID STONE..OR EARTHEN/WALLS
OR HIGH QUALITY..INSULATION[FIRE PROOF WINDOWS..AND A SEALED ROOF
[NOT TILES]..[that lift up..and allow hot-ember .entry todried dustu roof..and vermin nests

BAN..<<timber and facia boards..AVOID GUTTERS

<<and windows facing the source of fire
and where radiated heat..is likely to come from.>>

compulsory..drop down shutters
door sealing means..and install barriers..
[noncombustible]..earthen..or rock/walls between house and fire

<<..3...Having all roofing gaps filled>>

fining peoople for each hole
canceling..insurance for lack/of disclosure

install a..plus value for home rebuild..where any previous home was razed[some areas should not be allowed to/be built on[unless it can prove its capable of surviving


<<with copper fly wire where roof meets gutters.>>

better no gutters/at all
if water is to be collected....regulate the attachments..of gutter to house[or collect it when/it falls to ground..by diversion[minimize animal poop contamination

anyhow..its enough/for you to..think/about it
but we should not be building wherever you..like IRRESPONSIBLY

if ona flood plane

it must withstand a flood
if in a tidel plane it must survive an extreme tide

or..if in a volcano..or in..the sky..
or the sea..or the suburbs..itmust be fit for purpose..as well as adverse event survivable and asset proytecting

while we are talking about fire
industry/high rise/etc..is subsidized by the poor foools in the suburbs[its time.the exploiters of the workers..covered their own costs]..we teach..their workers..we heal..their ills..we the people pay for them;/after their useful working life expires

its time the exploiters payed

<< That is a head-in-the-sand attitude. You are advocating continuing growth in fuel load such that when a fire does eventually come through >>

Raycom, please read my whole post. I said:

>> Hazard-reduction burning is of enormous importance <<

How do we burn the canopy in cool conditions? How do we do it without a high-intensity fire which is very hard to control?

We might be able to do it to some extent in areas well-removed from houses and other infrastructure, but in many instances, we can’t do it close to human habitation.

Yes, we can conduct cool fires to reduce the fuel load in the understorey close to built-up areas. But they would need to be very low-intensity fires so as to not risk getting into the canopy and possibly becoming uncontrollable.

While this sort of fuel reduction would reduce the risk of fires starting and spreading to some extent, it can’t do a lot to reduce the prospect of fire-storm events that occur in extreme conditions.

These are the devastating events that we really need to get on top of. It would seem that conducting much more extensive fuel-reduction burning seriously risks creating a false sense of security. Yes we need to do it, but it is certainly not the whole answer.

continued

One of the biggest problems with hazard-reduction burning is that an awful lot of it would be need to help protect all the areas where we silly humans have built houses and other infrastructure next to or into eucalypt forest, but it can only be done when the conditions are right. This means that a huge amount of burning off would be needed to be done in small good-condition time periods…. but there simply isn’t the man-power to do this.

And the risk of very extensive controlled burning getting out of control occasionally is very high. The destruction of someone’s property or infrastructure due to a controlled burn would hit the news very quickly and bring the whole burning-off business into disrepute.

In short, it is all very difficult to do in a manner which significantly reduces the hazard and which doesn’t create a false sense of security.

ludwig/quote..<<..And the risk of very extensive controlled burning getting out of control occasionally is very high.>>

yes i many/places too..high to..risk/even..burning
BEFORE THAT IS EVEN ATTEMPTED..fuel load must..MUST BE RELEASED

that means fining/those with too much fuel load
[a huge/fine because what fire did for/free..NOW WILL TAKE MAN-HOURS..to clear..the fuel-load/safely..if thats done..only then can the..fire continue its servive

<<..The destruction of someone’s property or infrastructure due to a controlled burn would hit the news very quickly and bring the whole burning-off business into disrepute.>>

yes
now its the time top send in..the greenies
not when/its a wild fire[..one dollar of prevention..could halve insurance premium..a little education[and DIS-incentive]..will go a long way

<<..In short, it is all very difficult to do in a manner which significantly reduces the hazard and which doesn’t create a false sense of security..>>

till we can clear it manually..safely at an affordable price
why..we must all bear..the cost..opportunities..lost
and the fools get/bailed out..yet again

we elect fools..we got usefull idiots
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15741#272974

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15664#272972

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15734#272969

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6119#177248

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6115#177258

JF Aus says, "I think anyone who believes Australian indigenous people deliberately burned their place of living, is very lacking in common sense".

I really can't imagine how anyone could get it more wrong.

Firstly nomadic people have no place of home. When they have reduced the resources in one area, they move on. In fact many are always moving on.

Secondly much burning was to drive game to the hunter. Every other effect of burning was secondary. Yes it opened the cover making game more visible, & reduced noisy litter, making it easier to stalk game, but these were minor considerations.

More importantly, much Oz tussock grasses actually produce fresh green shoots, even in severe drought, when burnt. In drought such burnt areas may be the only green pick available for many miles, & thus concentrates the game, for easier hunting.

Sure the burnt areas will take longer to recover from a concentrated grazing like this, but that is of no consequence to a nomadic people.

JF you are thinking like a homesteader, even graziers have had to burn "their place of living" regularly to still have a place of living. One of the main problems with the grazing industry today is lack of burning. Profitability is so poor that graziers can no longer afford to lock up large tracts of their properties for a year at a time.

Unless this is done, there is never enough grass to carry a fire, hot enough, to burn out the seedling trees. So many properties can be seen with the ever thickening tree cover that ultimately turns them to useless thickets, even kangaroo avoid.

Hasbeen,

Well said, was thinking the same myself.

Dear Roger,

An interesting article, Thank You.
I shall certainly try to get hold of the books
you mention and am grateful for your recommendation.

The following link may be of interest to you and others:

http://theconversation.com/how-aboriginal-burning-changed-australias-climate-4454

Hasbeen,

In Australian bush and outback, animals have to go to water, that is where aboriginals would wait and camp nearby, those places form sacred sites we know of today.

To my knowledge aboriginals did not eat grass, they ate seed from some grasses. Seeds take a long time to grow, what to eat meantime?

“Opened cover and made game more visible” you say Hasbeen, made the hunter visible too eh.

I agree about properties of today turning into useless thickets but I think that is because an imbalance was caused by initial overstocking. Grass seed did not replenish due too many livestock eating too much grass, not eating hop bush for example.

There used to be so much grass seed it kept millions of migratory pidgeon’s alive across Australia, but not anymore.

There are lots of stories about aboriginals burning the bush and there are a lot of fire fighters who like to burn back. Pyromaniacs too.

The book at the link posted by Foxy, says, “For thousands of years, Aboriginal Australians burned forests to promote grasslands for hunting and other purposes. Recent research suggests that these burning practices also affected the timing and intensity of the Australian summer monsoon.”

For hunting and ‘other purposes’? What other purposes?
And affecting monsoons? How many locals existed at the time to do that?
And climate change in there too. A climate change sermon.

And again Hasbeen, algae plant matter is not even being seen by those writing such ‘history’ about Aboriginals impacting monsoons and climate.

Hasbeen, look at a pastoral map, you will see the best watering places like springs are where the locals of the day used to hang out and hunt.
Same applies today for stockmen and campers.
Nobody would burn their own place because the animals would go away and not come by to drink.

Drought did the drying, still does, lightening did burning, still does.

Seasons and drought force the nomadic way of life as still happening in deserts worldwide.

The above understanding is coming from an Australian outback ex jackaroo, ex overseer and ex station manager.

JF you sound like an academic, & that is no compliment.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/30/3879452.htm
The researchers were particularly interested to see if changes in genetic diversity correlated with three critical moments in history.

The first moment was around 45,000 years ago when humans first arrived in Australia. The second was around 18,000 years ago at the height of the Last Glacial Maximum, when large parts of the country existed under extremely dry, cold, windy conditions, particularly in outback Australia. The third milestone was about 10,000 years when the glacial period ended and warmer, wetter conditions returned.

The genetic analysis showed that in the tropical regions along the northern edge of Australia, there were no population bottlenecks, the researchers report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

By contrast, in central Australia, where the ice age conditions were particularly severe, the researchers saw genetic diversity reduced as populations of the trees were driven into small "refugia" or regions where they were protected from fire and adverse conditions.

Meanwhile, in the more southerly temperate regions, tree populations were stable, and expanded their range at the end of the ice age as the climate became more amenable.

"We really saw a recapitulation of the climatic history of Australia, and the Aboriginal burning story just didn't feature," says Bowman. "We just can't see evidence for the story of ecological collapse due to the advent of Aboriginal burning."
New and powerful

Professor Chris Johnson, an ecologist from the University of Tasmania who was not involved in the study, says the new results are significant.

"It helps overturn what was, for a long time, a well accepted idea about the environmental history of Australia. It does this in a new and powerful way," he says.

By examining the history of this fire-sensitive group of plants across Australia, the paper clearly shows that "fluctuations in populations of these plants across the continent since the arrival of people were driven primarily by climate, not fire," Johnson says.

post/limits..[continues]

"I think..we have got closer..to resolving..a long-running debate in Australian environmental history,"..he says..."Did Aboriginal use of fire cause a major restructuring of vegetation across the continent?

It seems not."

For Bowman,.the results suggest that the Aboriginal people may have arrived in Australia already..in possession of sophisticated techniques for using fire in the landscape.

"The idea of ecological collapse..resulting from people arriving and burning Australia to a crisp..isn't supported..by our data," he says.

"The effect of Aboriginal/landscape burning..is a lot more subtle.

It's still important,..
but it's subtle and..it's region-specific."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming

In the resultant sclerophyll forests. fire-stick farming maintained an open canopy..and allowed germination./.of understory plants necessary*..for increasing the carrying capacity.of the local environment for browsing ..and grazing marsupials.

It may be argued[who]..that/there/have been a ritual taboo against burning certain areas of Jungle.[2]

This type of farming..also directly increased the food/supply for the aborigines,..by promoting the growth of bush potatoes and other edible ground-level plants.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians

Aboriginal Australians were limited to the range of foods occurring naturally in their area,..but they knew exactly when, where and how to find everything edible.

Anthropologists and nutrition experts who studied the tribal diet in Arnhem Land found it to be well-balanced, with most of the nutrients modern dietitians recommend...But food was not obtained without effort.

In some areas both men and women had to spend from half
to two-thirds..*of each day..hunting or foraging for food.

Each day the women of the horde went/into successive parts of one countryside,/with wooden digging sticks and plaited dilly bags or wooden coolamons. They dug yams and edible roots and collected fruits, berries, seeds, vegetables and insects.

They killed lizards, bandicoots..and other small creatures with digging sticks...The men went hunting...Small game such as birds, possums, lizards and snakes were often taken by hand.

Larger animals and birds such as kangaroos and emus were speared or disabled with a thrown club, boomerang, or stone.. Many indigenous devices were used..to get within striking distance of prey.

NOTE FISH-TRAPS..[bird/traps..etc ignored
http://www.google.com.au/images?q=australian+aboriginal+fiish-traps&oe=utf-8&

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/plant_info/aboriginal_bush_foods
http://www.survival.org.au/bushfood_weeds.php

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28529

http://www.abc.net.au/gardening/stories/s3833830.htm

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=australian+aboriginal+fire+dance

one under god,

You have done well presenting all that material.
Compulsory reading for Hasbeen.

this guy is amasing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H765FklZHh4&

Hi JF Aus,

<<aboriginals...ate seed from some grasses>> [And certain trees such as (some) wattle (and after a lot of processing) blackbean, you might have added]
Yes, Aboriginals collected & processed seeds --but I have serious reservations that seeds ever formed a major part of their diet. The Australia bush ain't Mesopotamia.

<<There are lots of stories about aboriginals burning the bush and there are a lot of fire fighters who like to burn back. Pyromaniacs too>>
There is pretty strong evidence that the flora and fauna changed under Aboriginal occupation and a major part of that was due to frequent burning -Google what became of "Genyornis"

...............
Hi OUG,

You need to be careful taking the theories of some outlier anthropologists as gospel,most of them are still committed to the doctrine of the noble indigenies living in harmony with nature --garden of Eden like.

qr..with respect..the papua/aborigonals..are immediate/descendant
of the ab-original..exile..descendant of man..[cain]..who was exiled cause he killed able..

you may go-with..the 7 eves/theory
or the fact..as still exampled in..new Guinea

any 'war'..is fought vicariously..and crudely
BUT ENDS WITH..THE FIRST DEATH*

ok thats not peace nic..but a lot better than what we now got

modern war..is modernized colonialism
loot reap/rape/poison and plunder

tribal law..that kept the peace..was by the 8/skin clan
loyalty was to totum..and vile persons were simply markeed
then exiled

the birth place of eve..lies in Canberra
the birth place of adam..lies just offshore of victoria

you will in time find that all..outer expansion..[pre cursing..colonization]..was by further exile..and others simply the kiddies leaving the fathers rules

men hold the law/life/light
woman hold the nurture/nature and co-creation
two faces of governing..via mens circles and womans circles
so all-speak..freely..and in tome..find working consensus..[or exile]

Hasbeen,

"Unless this is done, there is never enough grass to carry a fire, hot enough, to burn out the seedling trees. So many properties can be seen with the ever thickening tree cover that ultimately turns them to useless thickets, even kangaroo avoid."

You sound like one who has also done his share of sucker bashing and seedling digging!

Hi SPQR,

While mustering in the outback you get a lot of time to look at the ground. I have seen many claypans with many small heaps of coke-like cooking stones in fireplace formation.
Immediately close by there were often stone dishes, obvious dishes worn thin in the center, with a smaller hand grinding stone in the dish or alongside, still just sitting there.

Wild grass seed was abundant when I was there late 50's, early 60's, so I think grass seed had to be a staple food for aborigines surviving in that country.
There were stone message sticks as well.

It depends where tribes were generally located. Near the coast there are heaps of clams shell pieces forming middens, as you likely know.

To my understanding there were never many aborigines in what is now Australia so I don't see how just a few could change very much at all.

Accountability in Government… in the Words of JFK

So what happened to accountability in government? Surely questions related to the lawful validity of Government are not simply vexatious? Rather, isn’t a “Government” official who declines scrutiny into the lawful validity of their office claiming to be above the law?

In 1961 US President John F Kennedy made a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association that everyone in Government – and those who believe Government do not have to answer to the people - should listen to.

He stated: “Government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information, outside the narrowest limits of national security…. We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors, and we expect you to point them out when we miss them” said Kennedy. Those are powerful words.

So if this is the case, does real government simply shut up when its validity is challenged? Or does it attempt to address the concerns of those it is supposed to serve, especially as public pressure to do so continues to mount?

And if they don’t serve us…. who ARE they serving?? What would happen if the “Government” started to act as the Executor of a trust – dictating rules, codes and statutes to you?

What happens if “Government” started demanding that benefits be returned to them..?

How could this happen..?
http://truth-now.net/corporations-masquerading-as-government-part-ii-which-government-can-we-trust/