Labels

Friday, February 23, 2018

Only Kings can Drain Swamps

The Swamp is not just an American problem. There are swamps in all Anglophile western countries.  The age of Kings was ended in blood in western nations and replaced by Democracy. The blood has continued to flow. Electing the common man (and woman) to high power and to run our Institutions was supposed to be the way to go but it has not gained a sound track record. Maybe the old Athenian Tyrant is the way we need.
One looks in some horror at the efforts The Donald - hardly a tyrant despite the rhetorical shrieks of his detractors - is having to make to drain his home swamp and the hamstringing of those efforts: there are many in the ''public service' there that need their hamstrings cut and maybe even necks stretched. Yet look at Britain. Look at Oz. (One averts the eye and shakes the head at Canada!). I hazard things are no better here and there.


There are differences in 'democratic' political systems that feed different sorts of swamp. American Presidents have some 4000 political appointments that can be made to 'seed' and lead the large administrative institutions. It can take up the first few years of a Presidency just clearing out all the last one's appointments. There is resistance. Now the Donald is finding sheer opposition. 

He is finding traitorous actions from top levels to bottom. But he does not have the power to take decisive and terminal action. He cannot be a Tyrant and run things by decree, as Obama did. The Donald 'tweets' and exposes the rats. It is slow and painstaking and requires a Legal System that is impartial. The American one is anything but, with the DoJ that actively plotted against him. Even the FBI is actively involved in traitorous acts, in conspiracy with and conformity with the Obama- Clinton mafia.

In Oz and Britain there is a 'Westminster System', whereby the political party that gains in election inherits a Permanent Civil Service.  Political' appointments do not get a look in. They are supposed to be impartial, but what do we see? 

In Britain the weak female Prime Minister, elevated because the last PM  resigned having 'gone against' the wishes of the People, and no-one else wanted the hard task of implementing Brexit, is adrift in a 'character' far different from the last female Prime Minister.  

Her civil servants are, as she is, Remainers (Bremoaners) almost to a man and woman.  They cannot simply be 'replaced' by other more politically friendly people. The place is a shambles. While Brexit dominates the discussion the nation itself is becoming less British by the day.

In Oz we have had a long period of political slaughter with three Prime Ministers in a row being knifed in the back by their own side. 
The public service was and is without political or even democratic direction. 

One might have hoped that the civil service here would hold fast, but what do we find? 

Holding fast they are, but not to Oz. 

One wonders how long and how deeply the attitudes and actions have been going on, with civil servants deliberately ignoring the best interests of Oz and even the directions of the politicians. 

Fiefdoms are ingrained. 

Only some firm action can stop the rot. 

Heads must roll. Perhaps literally.

It is almost ironic that amid all the political turmoils besetting us today, one of the most popular media entertainments is the fictional  'Game of Thrones'. It is enjoyed by so many who do not realise that it is based on reality.

 Yes, Kings were problematic, often, but we have not improved by having Democracy. 

At least Kings could rid themselves and their nations of pesky traitors, time wasters and depleters of the treasury. History is replete with examples of good Kings and Bad ones. 

One could speak widely but we had a chap in to have a pint and a chat about one aspect of the Oz situation which no-one is even keeping an eye on let alone kicking arses. 



Our 'foreign' service. We call it DFAT. It should be called Defeat. 

Some of the matters he held forth about may seem trivial compared to FBI conspiracies and the legion of people connected to the modern Lucrezia Borgia Hilary that have died mysteriously. 

But they speak to the woeful mindcast. Most of the 'civil servants' in DFAT do not have what it takes for real traitorous behaviour. Ineptitude is more the order. But it is ineptitude in a particular direction. 


Leftist, cultural marxist, feminist, PC attitudes lie barely beneath the surface. 

They are anti-western in character and colour.

Mark Higgie was Australian ambassador to the EU, 2014-17, so has not only been 'close' to DFAT but was also a former adviser to Tony Abbott. 
Political bias: 
leftist DFAT holds our foreign policy hostage

Bureaucracies are shaped as much by the political views of those who staff them as their commitment to implementing government policies. Having observed our diplomats from the prime minister’s office as an adviser to Tony Abbott and on five diplomatic postings, I have no doubt that their views of the world, advice and decision-making in the main reflect — to a greater extent than other parts of the federal government machinery — the politically correct pieties that also dominate the ABC, the Fairfax press, our universities and, increasingly, our schools.

To any Canberra insider, especially those in Coalition circles, the fact most of our diplomats are leftish is a given. 
But the foreign service’s political bias matters and is a real issue for Liberal-National governments — obviously not so much for Labor. If the bias isn’t corrected by close government management, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s bureaucracy and operations (cost: $5.1 billion this financial year including overseas aid) will go their own way and capture ministers and even prime ministers along the way.
That is if they, the Ministers, care. Most seem to be in the business of reefing as much money and perks for themselves. And fighting amongst themselves.  And buying 'international office'. That is their priority.  The drivel discussed (if that is the word) in Parliament is mostly a distraction from what is really going on.
The spirit of Gough Whitlam continues to hover over DFAT’s RG Casey Building in Canberra. Most of our diplomats dream of an Australia less aligned with the US and have an often unqualified enthusiasm for the UN. 
They prefer Greens/Labor approaches to climate change to those of the Coalition. They’re deeply uneasy with recent Coalition border protection policies and like the 1970s version of multiculturalism that “celebrates diversity” without much concern for common values and integration. 
They want us unshackled, as they see it, from our symbolic linkages with Britain.
As if we were not an independant nation and have been for 118 years.  Great Britain in its heyday was Parent to all Anglophile nations which should honour it. These 'multiculturalists' would wish we had 'parents' from Nigeria.
A few examples of DFAT’s thriving leftist bias and the tendency among many of its staff to make judgments out of step with mainstream Australian attitudes:
• Yassmin Abdel-Magied has become notorious for her contemptuous attitude towards Australia, highly controversial views of Islam (“the most feminist religion”) and preparedness to seek advice from the extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir — banned in many countries because of its defence of Islamist terrorism, one of its spokesmen having described Australian troops in Afghanistan as “fair game” whom Muslims had an obligation to attack. 
Nevertheless, Abdel-Magied was appointed in 2015 to DFAT’s Council for Australian-Arab Relations and the following year, after she said on the ABC’s The Drum that sharia law was “about mercy” and “kindness”, DFAT funded and promoted her travels around the Middle East, representing Australia.
OK. it is not as though DFAT loaded pallets of cash - 150 billion bucks of cash - and sent them to a foreign power. They sent poisonous emissaries.
• This case of DFAT’s desperation to prove itself hip to Islam wasn’t an exception. Its Twitter account for some years has extended greetings to Muslims on the occasion of Ramadan and last year the usual message was supplemented by an additional message from the DFAT secretary. But no equivalent courtesies were tweeted last year to the world’s Jews — or indeed to the world’s Christians.
• DFAT also recently created a Twitter storm by enthusing about the Muslim “modest fashion market” of hijabs and burkinis — apparently oblivious to the fact the pressures and in some cases requirement to wear such garments are deeply controversial in many Muslim communities, as highlighted by recent anti-hijab protests in Iran. There was much social media incredulity that DFAT could imply that women who don’t wear such garments are somehow immodest and what this says about an organisation that is supposed to represent Australia to the world and to champion the rights of women and girls.

• Most Australians would be aghast that about $44 million of their taxes will be paid this financial year for aid projects in the Palestinian territories, while the Palestinian Authority managed to find $US347m last year for payments to convicted terrorists and their families under its “martyr payments policy”, thus encouraging terrorism. 
The US House of Representatives in December unanimously passed the Taylor Force Act, which would link continued US aid to the Palestinian Authority ceasing such payments. But the Australian government, advised by DFAT, continues to resist any such linkage.
Ve vish ve had vays of silenzink you.

• In June last year the EU funded an EU-Australia Leadership Forum in Sydney, with round tables discussing various matters of mutual interest, organised in co-operation with DFAT. One of the round tables was focused on migration issues, an opportunity for European participants to learn more about Australia’s success in stopping the people-smugglers’ trade while maintaining a generous refugee intake — an achievement in which Europeans have been increasingly interested since their catastrophic and continuing migration crisis. 
But the round table was chaired by then Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs, one of the most strident critics of the government’s border protection policies.

• In Brussels I discovered widespread awareness that a DFAT officer at the mission was moonlighting openly as the president of a political lobby group, using social media to make charges of racism and homophobia against prominent European political figures, including the leader of an EU and NATO member-state with which Australia enjoys cordial relations.

• Another DFAT official at the mission used Twitter to call for Rupert Murdoch to “become a hermit”, to describe the government as “utterly backward” on gay marriage — but Julia Gillard as “a personal hero” and “a strong female progressive” — and to barrack for a Labour win in the 2015 British election.
Who authroised Gillard to give Au$Millions to Hilary Clinton? Was it she herself, or was it some functionary who slid a cheque for signing into her red box? Who did the same with Bishop who seems to have added to the Clinton Foundation's pot of embezzeled taxpayers' monies. Such 'donations' insult every decent Australian.
• At a US embassy reception arranged on November 9, 2016, to watch the results of the presidential election, a DFAT officer present wept openly once it became clear Donald Trump had won.

The problem with our foreign affairs bureaucracy isn’t just the consistent political correctness and suspicion of the Coalition. Much effort is devoted to activity often marginal to Australia’s international interests.
How very diplomatic. They are traitors. Parasites. Playing for the other team. 
Much fretting goes into how to achieve increased staffing diversity in DFAT, including through “diversity networks” and “champions” — even though the days when it was dominated by Anglo heterosexual men are long gone.
From DFAT's blog.

No one wants discrimination against minorities, but most taxpayers would see DFAT’s participation in last year’s Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras as an activity remote from the protection of our international interests.

Agonised introspection chews up much effort more broadly, with the regular generation of often impenetrable managerialese: for example, with its “capability improvement program” — not to be confused with its “capability action plan” — DFAT is on a “capability development journey”, ever on the lookout for “capability champions” (to supplement the “diversity champions”).
Every one with a budget, of course. 
The effort put into this gibberish, which now includes “unconscious bias” training for managers, requires much expensive staff time. 
The appalling lapse by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in losing hundreds of cabinet documents raises the question of whether these fashionable corporate obsessions distract attention from important priorities, such as ensuring national security and maintaining the confidence of our allies in sharing their secrets with us.

Even more effort goes into DFAT’s favourite activity, campaigning for more influence in the UN. 
If this didn’t require such effort, money and distortion to our foreign policy, it might not matter. But, as with Labor’s campaign for the UN Security Council, that’s rarely the case. In that instance, in pursuit of votes, hundreds of millions of dollars of extra aid money were pumped into Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa, and we softened our traditionally strong support for Israel.
The phenomenal outflows of Taxpayers' monies to cronies all over the world make the mind boggle. Oz has a huge foreign debt. To give away a dollar, we have to borrow it and enough to cover the ever growing interest accruing. Our debt grows by the day and Mrs Bishop spends $30,000 on  a dress to woe dictators and muslims, both of which sorts sneer at her behind her back. 

We send hundreds of millions of dollars to larger populated nations that have nuclear power, nuclear weapons, huge armed forces and space programs.

 We ourselves have none of these other than a small armed force. No political party has a mandate to give such wasted largesse. 

No Minister has a list in her handbag. The cheques are raised in DFAT by some nameless (to the public) civil servant who says "Sign Here".

Those civil servants say it is a drop in the ocean in GDP terms, and perhaps it is. But the fact is we are in enormous debt and that is not going to be paid for by cups of coffee.

There are just 13 million income tax payers in Oz. $5000,000,000 is just $385 per head. I do not begrudge 'foreign aid' to those that need it, but I also know many people in Oz who could keep their nostrils just above the waterline with $385. And it does appear that some of that money goes to waste and to people not in need. For example Oz gives $330 million to Indonesia, which has an enormous military: much larger than ours. Indonesia has 230 million people: ten times our population. They are just as capable as any to manage their affairs but seem to have a GDP of just under a $Trillion compared to our $1.2 Trillion. Why are we giving them a cent? 
Dane Gelt.

When Indonesia was hit by a Tsunami our Government gave Au$One Billion in aid. It was generous and needed. No-one begrudged it. In addition though, the people of Oz collected from amongst themselves another one Billion bucks to give to Indonesia.  

Indonesia does not give us aid when we have natural disasters - which are annual in Oz.

No-one elected the civil servants, who seem scared of Indonesia. They are the bloke and the woman down the street. Commoners, like you and me. (Well, not me). They rise up the greasy pole by conforming to the dogmas learned in University at their Marxist lecturers' knee.


To avoid a repeat performance, Abbott resisted DFAT pressure to launch a campaign for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. That partly reflected its particularly dubious nature — its members include Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China. But after Abbott lost the leadership, DFAT quickly got the green light. 
As The Australian’s Greg Sheridan observed, this signalled that the Turnbull administration was going to be a bit more cuddly and progressive internationally. 
It chewed up huge amounts of effort as we hawked our credentials to be admitted into the company of some of the world’s worst human rights violators.

With its managerial and UN preoccupations, DFAT has long neglected some of the basics of what we should expect of a foreign service. Foreign language skills, one of the keys to understanding other countries, aren’t taken all that seriously. Unlike most diplomatic services, foreign language ability isn’t compulsory for recruits. Several officers in Brussels, after years in the city, hadn’t bothered to learn enough French to be able to order a cup of coffee.

The writing skills of recruits are generally poor considering the competitive selection process. Many struggle to string together a coherent paragraph, let alone reports that may find their way towards the top of a minister’s or prime minister’s in-tray.

An especially insidious manifestation of DFAT’s right-on tendencies is the widespread instinct to shun political forces its officials disapprove of, be it members of Trump’s team during the US presidential campaign or Brexiteers ahead of the British referendum on EU membership.

On networking skills, many DFAT staff are painfully shy and passive about developing contacts. More useful than unconscious bias courses for DFAT staff would be training on developing networks, writing well, and developing conversation skills.
Meetings, meetings, and the essential sandwiches.

A curiosity is that as skills once considered core for our diplomats have declined, accommodation of dietary preferences has seen explosive growth. Colleagues at Meat & Livestock Australia have encountered vegetarianism so often among DFAT staff at their promotional events that they would occasionally ask in semi-jest if it was a selection criterion. 
One of our young diplomats once, when told that fish was to be served at an embassy function, demanded evidence that it had been sustainably sourced.

Our foreign affairs bureaucracy can be sloppy when it comes to what should be basics such as how we define our key area of strategic interest — where precision is important. The recent foreign policy white paper confirmed this as the “Indo-Pacific”, defined as the eastern Indian Ocean to the Pacific — so excluding the western parts of South Asia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. But at another point in the document, the authors treat the whole of South Asia as part of the Indo-Pacific.

Another basic is that DFAT should be prudent with taxpayers’ money. 
In 2012 it famously paid $388,000 to send 23 officials to a climate change summit in Rio de Janeiro; four years later it paid $192,000 to send a similar number to Paris to find ways to save costs. There was further extravagance last year when our 113 heads of mission were recalled home for discussions at a cost of $1.17m. As reported by The Australian, Alexander Downer, when foreign minister, rejected proposals for such meetings as a waste of money and time. Nothing about last year’s meeting suggested this assessment needed revision.

The 2015 review of DFAT led by Brendan Nelson recommended extending postings to four years, which would have saved millions of dollars. But after union objections, DFAT dropped the idea. To her credit, Julie Bishop, on becoming Foreign Minister, banned first-class travel in DFAT, prompting probably the most bitter objections from its leadership to any decision of the current government.

But probably DFAT’s worst failing is its lack of alertness to opportunities to advance the national interest. Why, for example did it not persuade Kevin Rudd or Gillard to pursue a free trade agreement with the EU?

The EU is the world’s second largest economy but its protectionism heavily restricts Australian exports in key areas such as beef and lamb. During Labor’s last term in office, the US, Canada and Japan launched talks on securing free trade agreements with the EU. The Canadians in 2012 estimated that an FTA with the EU would result in a $C12bn increase in Canada’s gross domestic product and 80,000 new jobs. Such analysis should have prompted Australia also to bang on doors in Brussels to start FTA talks. Why did that have to await the Abbott government?
Our elected politicians - of all stripes - are inept and corrupt. The civil service is the same. It is a swamp. 

Or perhaps a moral desert. 

We have a lot of desert on Oz. We call it the Red Centre.


There is a marxist-red centre in the mindset of our 'authorities': the leaders and servants.

Between them they advocate and implement the killing of near 100,000 Australian babies in the womb every years and bring in as immigrants twice as many. Many of those foreigners who come here do not like us; they do not like our Institutions; they do not like our Government and Governance.


I do not either.

The Democracy we 'enjoy' does not work. Those we elect do not act on our behalf first and foremost. Their hired hands actively work against the will and tenor of the ordinary Australian. Most if not all are Immoral.

They all need to be swept away.

So, I refer you back to the video at the top. Who do you get to Govern? 

I give my allegiance to the King of Kings. He who shall come again will sweep away Prime Ministers and Presidents. I have little doubt He will sweep away all those men (and women) who are not of 'Goodwill' who populate our Departments of State.

Meanwhile a firm hand is needed and I would welcome a Morally Righteous King to Rule over Oz.

Not that I am putting m'self up for the job (I am a knackered old chap) but I do have experience.

I might be a bit terse in the first few years.

Drink up and pray for the day when my Supplier comes to take charge.

Pax.




PS.
This is the 1000th post from the Tavern.

I am also pleased to say that we have just had our 400,000th customer take a tankard of fine ale to toast my Supplier.


That represents 400 'page views' per post overall, although the number has grown over time and some posts have had as many as 2500 visits.


Many thanks to all the readers and drinkers. Please continue to drop by.






Monday, February 19, 2018

Birds in the Bush

In Oz the 'bush' is that vast interior far away from civilised cities, towns and even villages. Some other countries have their wild and desolate places too, where only the hardy individuals dare to share isolation with wild animals and wild weather.  Outback, Bondu, wilderness, the 'Back Country', whatever the name, such places are largely inaccessible by ordinary means or by ordinary men and women. The 'frontier' places. Getting there and through is not for the city car driver. Planes are necessary. Hardy, agile planes. In such places the ladies are few. But today a few of those ladies were spoken of in the Tavern and glasses raised to courage, persistence, sheer hard work and adventure.

A bird in the hand, it is said, is worth more then two in the bush, but there are exceptions to every rule. Here are two with whom any man would hold hands. For an aging Knight who loves women and planes, I, for one, was in for a treat. Here were men's women.

First up we heard of Leighan Falley, a spunky gal who has proven herself a hero's companion when the going gets tough.
Alaskan Bush Pilots have been the brave and iconic adventurers of the skies for over a century. They have tamed America's most outlandish natural landscapes thanks to their outstanding courage and one-of-a-kind gut instinct – and Leighan Falley, a Talkeetna-based pilot, is one of them. 
Falley is one of the very few female Alaskan pilots to continuously push boundaries in the great northern skies. 
Always graceful, even when under pressure, she explores Alaska's idyllic yet raw nature with the courage of an explorer, following her instincts, while calculating risks. 
“The first memory of my entire life is being in the backseat of my father's airplane,” Falley recalls. “I must have been a tiny baby, I remember feeling the airplane moving through the air and seeing the trees and the river below.” 
In Talkeetna, situated some 115 miles north of Anchorage on the southern edge of the Denali National Park, Falley is one of the Talkeetna Air Taxi pilots. The company was established in the 40s, the early days of Alaskan aviation, and currently runs 10 bush aircraft. 
“I moved to Talkeetna about 13 years ago and the summer I moved to town I learned to fly,” Leighan Falley smiles. “The first time I flew an airplane by myself – they call it your first solo – was probably one of the most amazing moments in my life.”

 In a northern wilderness filled with hazards – think blizzards and whiteouts, snow-covered glaciers, unexpected storms, heavy rains and wild rivers – raw survival skills are needed in addition to tech-savvy expertise, and Leighan Falley excels in both. “The part of Alaska that is accessible by road is very different from the one accessible by plane. The first is more comfortable, the second keeps you away from the craziness of the big city life. It's like having two different Alaskas. I like both parts, but prefer it when the road ends because this is when airplanes begin. 
I like to fly the Beaver, it's my favorite Alaskan Bush Plane,” she continues. “There's a famous sign in Talkeetna which is an advertising board for the early air taxis that says 'Fly an hour or walk a week'.” 
She flies to the remotest locations in Alaska in order to capture the adventurous everyday life of the Great North, while bringing mountaineers to their final destination and helping those in need.
Living her dream, Leighan Falley is not only a brave pilot, but also a mother, a ski guide, an alpinist, having reached the peak of Denali Mountain six times out of twelve expeditions. 
“Alaska is probably my favorite place on earth,” she continues. “I've been through different continents, climbed different mountain ranges, including the Himalaya, but Alaska is my favorite. It is so big and so wild, vast and untouchable. The biosphere is intact, the animals live in their natural habitat. Mountain ranges rise from a hundred meters to six thousand meters – it's simply beautiful. In a place as beautiful as Alaska, you have to have an airplane to see all of it,” she concludes. 
“Discovering Alaska and climbing its mountains is a journey that involves a lot of beauty, 
a lot of hardship, and a lot of testing yourself mentally and physically.”.
I am unsurprised she favours the Beaver. The quintessential Alaska bush plane, the DeHavilland Beaver occupies a seat of honor in the annals of aviation history. Perhaps no other airplane ever built has seen such a long career, and proven to be as indispensable today as it was when developed over 65 years ago.

The sturdily-built Beaver was designed to carry a lot of weight and operate effectively on either wheels or floats. Alaska Seaplanes' Beavers, for instance, all operate on straight floats in the summer for maximum payload, and amphibious floats in the winter for optimum flexibility. All their Beavers have advanced Capstone avionics packages with ADS-B real-time positioning capability.

With an ample useful load and the ability to carry up to six passengers, the Beaver is the perfect airplane for ferrying you to wilderness camping destinations—remote lakes, Forest Service cabins, islands and rivers.

It has 'reach', just like the fine gal above. 

Such 'reaching' is not confined by age  or to planes though. Leighan may be a modern young woman, cut from a very different cloth from 99% of her peers, but she shares a similar weave of hardiness, effort and self-reliance as several Oz ladies of a... ahem... more matured vintage.  They have reached out and tested themselves too.

Lydia Burton told of three ladies of the bush, of which I shall tell of just one here. Penny Button. She and the two others that you can follow the link to see, persisted alone after tragic losses of their menfolk. And continued life in the Bush on the vast 'stations' that are found in the Oz outback.

Meet the women who stay and work the land on their own despite tragedy
Three graziers, who each lost their husbands in separate tragedies, have taken on the running of enormous, remote sheep and cattle stations almost on their own.

Ann Ballinger, Penny Button and Ros Wood all lost their husbands suddenly.

Penny Button's eldest son Rodney died in a plane crash in 2003. Her husband Ian died of heart failure in 2006.
Losing both within three years, she found her connection to the property and community was her saving grace.
She owns Crossmoor station near Longreach, a vast 32,000-hectare property that, in a good year, can run up to 5,000 head of cattle.


"There's no truer saying than 'you don't know what you've got until you haven't got it'," she said.
"I just realise now the stress in running these properties and the tough side of things that he [Ian] shielded me from forever."
While for some the thought of flying again is unfathomable, Ms Button said it was just part of life in the bush. 

"My father was killed in a car accident, but you don't just not drive," she said.
"I did think about it and I don't think I did have a fly for a while. It wasn't deliberate bit I just didn't do it.
"Rodney was a very positive character and I think of him a lot. One of his great sayings was 'every day is a good day' and I often think of that."

Despite the tragedies that have struck her family, Ms Button's youngest son Hugh has come home to take over the family property with his wife Amanda and young son Charlie.
Hugh Button cannot imagine living anywhere else.
"I just love the adventure of the country life. I love the adventure and the freedom of it and getting out and about in the wide open spaces … every day is so different," he said.
"The support network in the bush — it just says so much about the bush.
"People stick together through the good times — and they celebrated the good times crazily — and when times get devastating they all stick together and get amongst it."
The tale of strong women left to make it on their own is not uncommon in western Queensland.
Watch and listen to these woman at a video on the link above. See Penny in her plane going out to round up her cowboys.

Oz has cowboys. Many Americans see the cowboy as their own, but hey, Oz has been herding cows as long as has America. Now our lads ride choppers as well as quarter horses. They are even faster ! 

And Oz has buffalos too. But not like those in North America. 

Planes suited for the bush are many, but some are a cut above the rest. Here are five for you to gauge and rank. 

It makes one wish the bones did not creak so much. It makes one wish for an adventure away from the Tavern for a few months.  Getting a bit of testing again.

Anyone care to take over the bars for a bit?

If I were only far younger. Freedom in total wilderness. Sunscreen, snickers bar and a Glock. And a Cub with fat wheels. 



Drink to those fine ladies. And the men who have the skies.

Drink to hardiness, courage and Character.

And fun.

Pax.



Saturday, February 17, 2018

The Only Gay in the Village - on Ice.

I was never a dancer, let alone an ice skater. Not that I have not experienced both, but not both at the same time, and not a pretty sight at either. But I do like to see it done and done well and this month we have been given a rare chance to see the very best in the winter olympics. It gets a short look-in between many other sports on ice and snow, some of which are really competetive and require great skill and courage, and others which are, frankly, to this old Tavern Keeper, simply children/yoof past-times that see me catching up with pint-pulling at the bar. 

But, to me, Ice Dancing is beautiful and I will always stop to watch.


But even such a world-noting event has to have its tenor disrupted by the odd homosexual stealing attention.

 "Look at meeee. I'm the only gay in the Olympic Village." 

Did you know that there was a sort of unofficial gay olympics back in 2006?  So I am told. 

Personally I don't give a damn what a person's proclivities are when it comes to sport, although it seems we live in revolutionary times when great beefy fellows insist they are really girls and want to play with them. 

The ladies have mixed views.

The way some girls - and boys - on snowboards fling themselves four stories up from a ramp and twist about gracefully and under exquisit control to come crashing down, and remain standing, astonishes. Boys and girls, men and woman can do well, although, despite 'eeekwalleteee',  they do still seem to have seperate competitions.

It is when they come together in the ice dancing that their complementarity really shines out. And the courage of women is displayed too. What man would be flung through the air, spinning, or be caught up and spun around overhead.

Now you would think that courageous gay blokes would give it a go, but they dont. They just mince around the rink with no beauty or grace in sight while others who feel 'empowered' to lie about and insult Vice Presidents prefer to grandstand and whine to get attention.
Last month, US Olympic figure skater Adam Rippon, who is one of two openly gay American Olympians at the Games, blasted the White House for tapping Pence to lead the official US delegation to the 2018 Winter Olympic opening ceremony.
"You mean Mike Pence, the same Mike Pence that funded gay conversion therapy?" Rippon said in a January 17 interview with USA Today. 
Alyssa Farah, a spokeswoman for Pence, provided the newspaper with a rebuttal to Rippon's remarks. 
"This accusation is totally false and has no basis in fact," Farah said in a statement.
A hissy fit to be sure. 

No matter how much the gay fraternity lay claim to being a normal part of society (and who am I to say they have not always been there in just as small number) they cannot exhibit the special quality of the male-female dynamic and beauty. They cannot even mimic it.

But the latest attention-grubbing whine from Rippon does illustrate something, which was picked up and spun around by Doug Mainwaring, who gave his view in the US Room today.
Gay Olympians are accidentally proving why same-sex ‘marriage’ is wrong
While the mainstream media’s fawning coverage of gay and lesbian Winter Olympic athletes is relentless, the most important story out of Pyeongchang, South Korea is underreported, if not completely ignored.  
A surprising message delivered by gay men is being displayed for all the world to see in the Gangneung Olympic Ice Arena.
The three "out" gay male figure skaters in this year's Winter Olympics are partnered with women, not men, precisely because their sport is wholly reliant on complementarity  
Without the complementarity of the male and female skaters, the event ceases to exist.  
Yet much of the world has been blinded to the fact that this very natural truth applies even more to marriage than it does to skating.
These gay skaters know it innately: 
They wouldn't have an Olympic event if they didn't have a female partner.  
Gays––and the entire world which admires the beauty of these couple’s performances––understand that.  And so despite being same-sex attracted, despite the demands of LGBT ideology, they choose not a same-sex partner, but a woman.  

And Global LGBT, Inc., remains quiet and neither complains nor objects because this truth is utterly indisputable.  They certainly don’t want to call attention to that.  Global LGBT, Inc. knows that to put two men out on the ice for this event would undermine––not perpetuate––the grand pretension of “marriage equality” and the legitimacy of sexualized mono-gendered relationships.  If it were to be attempted, the entire illusion might crumble to the ground.
As it did in 2006 (see above) and still does. 
Commenting on Facebook, Joseph Sciambra, a same-sex attracted Catholic man, describes the wondrous, naturally irresistible appeal of it all:
Breathtakingly beautiful – a perfect demonstration of the complementarity between man and woman and how their God-given differences can create art of the highest caliber; 
but why won’t the Olympic Committee open these events up to same-sex couples? Because, unless they are perhaps the diminutive Elio and the towering Oliver from “Call Me by Your Name,” the majority of these jumps and spins would be impossible for two men or two women – and then: wouldn’t it lose something? 
Because someone would have to take on a more masculine role – and the other a feminine one - at that moment it becomes caricature. Then, you don’t have harmony, but an awkward imbalance. Works better when it’s all built into the machinery.
Roxane Salonen noted a few years ago: 
There is something so beautiful about a man and a woman flying across the ice; 
the strength of his masculinity serving as her rock, her foothold, 
and the fluidity of her femininity in beautiful contrast, dancing around his solidity.
These were the innocent feelings of a child, but it was coming from the gut level and felt very real to me then, and it still does to this day. And I think it has to do with this: 
male and female God created them. 
It’s basic and it’s beautiful. And when we see it, we have a deep-down-in-the-soul reaction to it.
I would even call it sacred.
To me, these team skaters exemplify God’s creative vision of complementarity; a picture of flourishing fragrance that can happen this fully only when cooperation with God’s vision is in place.
I also love that team skating is a demonstration of two bodies working together, closely and in harmony, and not in a way that is obscene. 
We’re more accustomed these days to a distortion of God’s beautiful plan for humanity, when both men and women are objectified, and the soul is shirked. Because it is more rare to see this more tasteful version, it stands out as extraordinarily lovely and classy, and is cause in some cases, apparently, for one’s temporary abandoning of an exercise plan.
While the graceful performances of these couples appear effortless, we all know that years of hard work and dedication go into these amazing performances, not unlike every successful marriage.
For years society has been assaulted by “Fake News,” i.e., lies, about same-sex “marriage,” homosexuality and now, transgenderism.  
We should all be grateful to these gay figure skaters––who perhaps unwittingly––are setting the record straight.
Back in the day when homosexuality was quiet and to a larger extent unobtrusive, few took any notice or even interest in the sexual proclivities of those men and women who danced on ice. 
Remember Torville and Dean? They were friends and maintained their respective careers and single status for years. Only the rudest interviewers broached the issue and only then to mildly enquire why the were not yet married, as they looked and behaved so well together, in a beautiful harmony. 

Brothers and sisters danced together, exhibiting skill and grace, masculinity and femininity.  

I would hazard that many if not most male ballet dancers are gay. I care not. They are athletic at least and have to be skillful. If a ballerina is inclined toward the velvet then again, it is her performance on the public stage which will gain my attention, not her twitterings to scurrilous newspaper colonists of the shcok and awesome regiment. But I don't go in for ballet either. 

Prefer m'horse and sword, thanks.

As I said, I never was much good at dancing. Perhaps it is the measure of the age that (off-ice) dancing has become such a bore. Men and women do not dance together any more: they squirm around in the general vicinity. Harmonious it ain't. Masculine and feminine it ain't.

Back in Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett's day, dancing was a formal thing and  while strictly masculine and feminine in long dresses and frock coats it appeared just as silly. Well to me, at any rate. But there was still a male-female frisson going on which a gay couple (were there such a thing in public) just could not emulate or even mimic. But, who knows what was whispered between those single and very probably 'desiring' young adults as they pranced formally and chastely around the floor under the eye of chaperones. 

I dare say the odd 'charged' conversations went on.

Vice President Pence would not have that either !!

Drink to the lovely, skillful, harmonious couples out there on the ice.

Pax




Black Knowledges, Artificial Truths.

We are told that our future is in 'Knowledge Industries', and boy are those industries off to a fine start.  Oz is 'the clever country' but other nations, somewhat ahead of us, seem to be too clever by half. And that half is not all it seems to be. We are right up to the lip of the Abyss and confronted with the age-old 'Truth vs Lies' problem and how we poor ignorant sods in our dumbed-down society are supposed to tell the difference. Of course, the ignoranti who are becoming reliant upon the gizmos that they are promised will make their lives easy and fun are open to being conned, manipulated and enslaved. 

Truth doesn't do that, but those behind the scenes are not interested in truth. They are in it for Power. And it is the adage of our age that Knowledge is Power.  Knowledge in the Military sense is called 'Intelligence' and it is 'collected' rather than passed around. We have to be careful that the intelligence / knowledge we are fed is not artificial and the stuff we feed the machine is not tainted. It will be taken down and used against you. 

We had a fun time today looking at and listening to several people with some examples of just how you are being manipulated by really clever liars who have the whole arsenal of mendacities, ommisions, evasions, downright lies, dissemblings and even the removal of alternative ideas from distracting you. Catch them out and they morph. 

First we were shown Alexa, by Megan Fox.  It was a fine idea to be able to talk to your computer: ask it things: get it to find things and open files: even type what you say. That was so yesterday though. Now, one wonders just how much 'intelligence' is collected by it, as it is always 'on' listening, like Big Brother, except this is big sister.  She tells you 'stuff' that you want to know, trivia mainly, but just what does she get to know about you? 

Then the font of all manipulated wisdom, Wiki, was put under scrutiny by David Kinghoffer. And did you know that one relies quite heavily on the other? That is, Alexa on Wiki. And that this font of knowledge is the playground of people you do not know and do not want to be known. All the better to manipulate and indoctrinate you.

You will need a drink. I shall pour some.
Amazon Alexa Says Jesus Christ Is a 'Fictional Character' and Gender Is a Spectrum
Funnyman Steven Crowder has made a hilarious video exposing Alexa's SJW proclivities. Many of us have these little electronic assistants to help us with home organization or to play our favorite tunes.
I can't live without my grocery list that Alexa sends directly to my husband on command. It has revolutionized our life. But beware: 
Alexa's knowledge base is filled with untruths, leftist opinions and outright lies.
In the Crowder video, he asks Alexa a litany of questions, beginning with, "How many genders are there?" to which she responds: "The two main categories of the gender spectrum, male and female, are called the gender binary, but there are many other categories that exist. Because gender identity is complex and personal, there is no definite way to say how many genders there are." 
Say what? Has Alexa been programmed at UCLA's Gender Studies department? This answer is the exact gobbledygook the LGBTQWTF professors at the universities are using to confuse students about basic biology. Remember that the party pushing this definition of "gender" (which is really a grammatical term and not a biological one) is the "party of science." I have tested this question on my Alexa and got the exact same answer.
Next comes the question "Who is the Prophet Muhammad" to which she responds, "The prophet Muhammad is a very wise prophet who taught many people how to live." 
It goes on from there, but let's just stick to that sentence. That statement is 100 percent opinion, not based on any facts. Stating that Muhammad is "very wise" is not objective or provable. 
The facts we do have about Muhammad belie that statement almost completely. Muhammad took wives as young as six and made his way across the Arabic world raping, murdering, and exterminating entire communities and cultures that would not convert at the tip of his sword. It would be more accurate to call him a warlord than a prophet, but who cares about facts? 
Considering Alexa had such high praise for a mass murderer, you would think she'd have some fuzzy feelings about Jesus, who never killed anyone. You would be wrong. 
According to Alexa, "Jesus is a fictional character."
This part of the video has come under fire for being "fake" because Alexa now gives a different answer (one that is still not accurate and not nearly as complimentary as Muhammad's info).
Not only that but of course You Tube is firmly connected to Google and it seems the many videos about this are 'not found' when the URL is called to this blog. But you can look them up yourselves by following Megan's link above.
When I asked Alexa the same question, "Who is the Lord Jesus Christ?" she responded with a more acceptable answer that He was also known as "Jesus of Nazareth and a Jewish preacher." There was no mention of Jesus being wise or teaching many people how to live good lives. 
Some have accused Crowder of falsifying Alexa's answer because she is no longer saying "fictional character," but recall what happened after Alexa was asked if she was CIA. Amazon quickly updated her responses and no one could duplicate the original response. 
It is not believable that Crowder falsified that one answer considering how many other answers of Alexa's are so entirely lopsided to favor the left-wing talking points.
Watch the video for more ridiculous "facts" about abortion, women's rights, Planned Parenthood, and more.
And one notable feature is the source that Alexa goes to first off.

Wikipedia. 

Now that was an other fine idea at the outset that seems to have deteriorated as though it had a faulty gene which became more faulty each time it was passed on.  

Wiki is 'free' but remember that there is no free lunch and even when someone does try to give you a free kebab, there is no knowing what is in it.

Even the founder of this wannabee marvellous source of 'information' has become quite concerned at some of the odds and sods that are uploaded by 'Editors' who are in the main self-appointed and have their own quirks and foibles, eccentricities and distorsions of character.
Wikipedia Earns Censor of the Year Tag for Botching Evolution, Intelligent Design
(The other day was)  the birthday of Charles Darwin, aka Darwin Day, which Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture recognizes each year as the occasion for naming a Censor of the Year, or COTY. 
As Darwin himself said, in a scientific context, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” 
But through intimidation and silencing of views counter to evolutionary orthodoxy, such a “fair result” is just what our Censor seeks to undermine.
For 2018, we’ve chosen what is I think our best, or rather worst, COTY yet: the omnipresent online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Let’s review the facts briefly.
Intelligent design poses an ultimate question: Does nature offer evidence of purpose and design, or not? All thoughtful people must ask themselves that. 
Today, the natural first recourse for the questioning individual is to turn to Google. Looking up ID online will bring you immediately, the first entry, to the Wikipedia article. 
It commences with a lie:
“Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", [sic] though it has been discredited as pseudoscience.”
Actually, there are three lies. Here’s the truth: 
ID is a scientific, not a religious argument. It is a theory of evolution, of why the forms of life originated and changed over the past 3.9 billion years. An alternative to the increasingly shaky neo-Darwinian theory of blind churning, it argues exclusively in scientific terms, never from religious authority. 
It’s an argument for design in biology and cosmology, not for the “existence of God.” Compatible with methodological naturalism, it candidly professes that science sheds no light on the source of the design in life, other than to say that source operates with purpose and forethought. 
And while it has certainly been attacked in scabrous terms, it hasn’t been “discredited.” Far from it. Even an atheist philosopher like Thomas Nagel concedes that ID poses a “fiendishly difficult” challenge.
Yet anyone looking up ID on the Internet, or asking Amazon’s Alexa, which simply regurgitates Wikipedia, will be instantly turned off and likely give up investigating. That is, unless you already know how Wikipedia works, about the pseudonymous volunteer editors who run the place, with their axes to grind, standing ever ready, on a moment’s notice, to erase changes to pages they care about. 
The number of innocent people who have been misled by this article alone is beyond calculation.
Well, why have something like Intelligent Design or even (Gasp) Creation, when we have the perfectly satisfacory alternative 'fact'. Atheists are always reminding us.

We’ve been aware of the problem, of course, for years. But the erasure of notable paleontologist Günter Bechly, after he came for ID, was the occasion of much discussion of censorship on the part of this ubiquitous source of information and disinformation, both here and among Darwinists and ID critics too. Another ID scholar, Walter Bradley, similarly saw his entry disemboweled.
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, who personally rejects intelligent design, has blasted the editors for the “appallingly biased” article on ID. He adds, “I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I’m just officially registering my protest.”
On the subject of Bechly, our view is echoed by ID critics including Alex Berezow, a founding editor of the popular news aggregator site Real Clear Science, by the Darwinist group blog Panda’s Thumb, and as far afield as the liberal, secular Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Berezow writes:
“If a respected scientist endorses a controversial view, should he or she be erased from history? The editors at Wikipedia think so, but only if the controversial opinion is one they personally dislike.
“That's precisely what happened to a respected German paleontologist, Günter Bechly. His biography on Wikipedia has been deleted. Poof. Gone. It's like he never existed. …
“Dr. Bechly … is guilty of committing a thought-crime, and his sentence is to be purged from the Internet. This is deeply troubling, and any true free speech and free thought advocates should be alarmed.”
You go, Alex Berezow! This year’s COTY, compared to past winners (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017), stands out for being widely recognized as a censor, not only by us. Wiki editors, behind their masks, also depart from the ways of past Censors in how frank they are, on their User pages, in admitting their biases.
We struggled with whether to name Jimmy Wales, the encyclopedia’s other co-founder, as Censor. But the clowns, the masked mob, who do the actual “editing” win out for their tireless, frequently spiteful dedication to misleading the public. To solve the problem would require a massive rethinking of the entire concept behind Wikipedia. But like Larry Sanger, we despair of that.
Fortunately, the public is increasingly sensitized both to fakery on the Internet (“fake news”) and agenda-driven behind-the-scenes shenanigans at online behemoths like Twitter and Facebook. 
And as we’ve pointed out, it’s not only ID that is misrepresented on Wikipedia. It can only be hoped that skepticism will spread, and drive Internet users to examine other sources and, yes, to think and read for themselves, without being led by the nose.
As I said just the other day as I pulled a pint for a fellow who was speaking his thoughts: "Don't believe everything you think".

And definitely do not believe everything Google, Amazon, You Tube, Facebook  and Alexa tell you either.

Some of it is not as Intelligent as you might think.

Drink deep of truth.

Pax