You know what I'm sick of? Hearing about 'Australian' values. Point blank: they don't exist. How can there ever be an 'Australian' value? It implies that we have values that simply do not exist in the rest of the world, which in itself is an insult to, yes, the rest of the world. And what gets me even more pissed off is how 'Australian' values are used by every which politician in every which scenario.

But if, for a moment, we were to accept that there was such a thing as 'Australian' values, I have a question: what the hell are they!? I am yet to see someone, anyone, sit down and write them out, define them in context or out of, even give me so much as a whiff of definition. I know what values are, but I don't (and I suspect that nobody else does) have any idea what values are uniquely Australian; because that is what 'Australian' values implies. The term implies that there are values that us Australians hold that cannot be found outside of, you guessed it, Australia.

Don't worry, I'm not pinning this ridiculous term on Australia only, I've heard of 'American' values, 'British' values, 'Christian' values, 'Muslim' values, pretty much every kind. And out of the hundreds that are out there, there is really one that has some creditability and substance: 'Western' values. Please do note the emphasis on the some previously. Other than that, I consider every term null and void on the basis that once one value can be seen outside of the *insert context here* values, then it not only undermines the idea that the context has unique values, but it also proves that Billy Ban Jo down in Wagga Wagga, if he holds the 'Australian' values, which, by being an Australian he does by it's very name and nature, then he is likely to have some of the same values as Redneck Jim in Texas and Jihad Bob in downtown Baghdad, which defeats the purpose of the term 'Australian' values.

Now I don't want to hear that 'Australian' values are a certain collection of values: a hand-picked crop from the world's values, because it isn't. Take a stamp collection. Sure, Billy's stamp collection is Billy's, but it is still a stamp collection no matter which way you look at it, and it differs from Jim's and Bob's in only as much as he may have some different stamps. So Billy, the individual, owns his stamps, just as Jim and Bob. And Billy may own some of the same stamps as Jim and as Bob, but he may have other ones that the other two don't. That's the whole point! Now lets say that Jim moved to Adelaide (good luck staying awake), and brought his stamp collection here and got Australian citizenship: he is now an Australian, he is still the owner of his stamp collection, but now he might find that some of his rare stamps aren't rare here, and some of his common stamps are now rare. But it's still his stamp set, right? Well look at it in terms of values: while his "we are responsible for the environment" value was a rarity in Texas, now it's common. In reverse, while his "racist" values were common in Texas, they aren't in Adelaide.

That's how easy things can change for a person's values in context. Any Australian knows about the issue of immigration: look how many people, thus, are immigrating/seeking refuge/etc. here with their pre-existing values! Now should they be forced to change? This is a tough question to answer. Some people, I suspect most people, will say "yes" for the values that are totally unacceptable, and I would agree with them. There are values that are not acceptable. Do note, though, that I didn't say "there are values that are not acceptable in Australia". This is the crux of the matter: there are values that should be renounced the world over, and there are values that should be embraced in every corner of the globe. There is nothing that makes Australia unique in terms of values!

I also have an additional question for those people that say "yes" to the above question, and it is one that I just cannot answer: if they (people immigrating etc.) are to change the values when coming to us, do we have any right or standing to change the values of other countries when going to them, a la the Iraq/Afghanistan War and spreading 'Western' values? A la the spread of capitalism over the past 150 years? A la the expansion of foreign mass media, originating from the 'West'? These are some heavy questions, and while it may be easy to say "yes, we have the right" for some of those scenarios, there are some, and others, that all the signs point to "no", but we have been conditioned and 'cloned' into thinking "yes".

And thus I reinforce my point: the individuality of context. If you agree with my sentiments from the above paragraph, that there are extenuating circumstances on both ends of the spectrum and there are cases where we have had the right and exercised it, and other cases where we haven't had the right, but done so anyway, if you agree that there have been different cases throughout history, leading up to today, then you must agree that the situation for the individual person, who makes up a nationality, who make up the term 'Australian' or 'American' or 'Muslim' or 'Western' or 'Terrorist'. And thus there is no such thing as a nation's values, like 'Australian' values. There are only values.

But that's not to say that every value is acceptable. I have stated that there are right and wrong values, and I hold that position, as will everyone, regardless. But it's the problem that, indeed, everyone has their own opinion of right and wrong values, that there is no uniformly accepted 'code' of values. If there were, the world would be perfect, but it isn't. And it isn't because 'Westerners' 200-100 years ago thought that capitalism, democracy and exploit should be imposed on people because they were the Capitalists'/Decocratiser's/Exploiter's values at the time, because some countries nationals believe that tyrannical dictatorship is a value everyone should share. It's not a perfect world because too many people make too many assumptions, and in terms of values, it's because too many people assume they know what the 'code' of values for the world population should be. Do I know? No. Do I think I could have a god at it? Certainly. Do I think I could make a 'code'? Hell yes. But if I do, aren't I just creating a list of 'Thomasonite' values? Yes, yes I am. Which is what, in itself, screws the world up even more.

Now before someone berates me for being a terrorists sympathiser, a supporter of religious fundamentalists, a supporter of any religion, race, creed, institute, outspoken Muslim clerics and the like, let me cover my bases and say this: I do not, will never, accept some values out there. What some people believe in is very, very, wrong, and there's no two-ways about it. But there is also misunderstanding. And we are a civilisation: and in it is the word we should all live by - civil. If we pride ourselves in being the smartest creatures on earth, the most intelligent, the most civilised, then shouldn't we act it? It is when people act on these abhorrent, these disgusting, these disgraceful values that shouldn't exist anywhere in the world that civilisation really becomes a word not to describe something civil, but to describe the neglectful, the digressed, the revolting ways of humans.

Thomas.