Labels

Friday, June 15, 2018

Tearing Down the Mighty

The Oz Defence Minister and Senior Defence leaders are intent on finding a new 'Breaker' Morant to haul infront of a Court Martial. Disgrace follows on from disgrace as coals are raked over, and the current British hounding of soldiers who were fighting to establish and keep the peace in Northern Ireland is emulated by the same sort of left chaos-makers here as there. 

The SASR, our premier fighters, are under 'freindly' fire from politicians and the press who are gleeful at the prospect of blood on the Oz Flag.

Those doing the baying and braying have not one ounce nor milligramme of the courage of the elite soldiers who preserve and defend our way of life. They have never endured the privations and dangers that such men have to on our behalf. 

The Politicians 'visit' to get their pictures amongst the brave: the press apply for transportation and protection so they can have a jolly to somewhere near the front, but sufficiently protected from the bullets and dust, the mud and the gaping wounds. They love to fly in the helicopters but would not even dream of learning how to fly one.

It would appear that sometime, a few years ago, a SASR (Special Air Service Regiment) team did not behave like gentlemen. They are not trained, of course, to be gentlemen, but to kill. That is their job. They did not take to the field in dinner jackets but armoured vests. They faced death daily and countered with dark humour and occasionally terse treatment of those who shot at them, planted landmines (IEDs) and ambushed them. They killed people.

It is said that 'someone' killed someone they should not have.

It is said that a vehicle flew a flag denoting a reprehensible regime. A Nazi flag. To me it looked photoshopped, but who knows what is real and what is not in our media today. 

What a furious response our press has created. Particularly the national broadcaster, the taxpayer funded ABC. 
Australian soldiers have been photographed flying a Nazi swastika flag from their vehicle while on operations in Afghanistan.
The photo, obtained exclusively by the ABC, was taken in August 2007.
2007.  That's just 11 years. Hey, why not go all the way back to Gallipoli? How about digging up our soldiers from WW2 and 'exposing' rough behaviour.  At  least try to keep up with the British who are raking over events from 30 years ago.
The photograph shows the large swastika emblem hoisted over an Australian military vehicle.
Two separate Defence sources have identified a particular soldier as the individual who took the flag to Afghanistan.
"The flag was briefly raised above an Australian Army vehicle in Afghanistan in 2007.
"The commander took immediate action to have the offensive flag taken down.
I doubt very much there would be a murmer if a flag showing the face of 'Che' was attached to a vehicle aerial. Heck, even Lenin's or Mao's would have gained some applause from the Age instead of approbation.

Mike Smith brought in an SAS chap who sat in the corner of the Tavern, face obscured, to speak about it. He was terse too, but no glasses or tankards were broken as he spoke. No fine Ale was spilled. 

He wants to remain anonymous, the way the SAS likes things.  Let us call him 'John Anon'. He served 14 years in the ADF, 9 years as a Royal Australian Regiment infantryman and 5 years with the Special Air Service Regiment. He was a man who had earned respect and the customers gave it.
The Special Air Service Regiment seeks out and destroys Australia’s most dangerous enemies.
It targets the leaders of terror organisations who are shielded by suicidal, heavily armed Jihadis embedded amongst co-operative “civilians”. 
Our enemies don’t like us and they do their best to kill us with no moral restraint and complete impunity.  The Mujahideen don’t have much use for a Human Rights Commission.
The SAS cannot fight enemies like that by adhering to normal Western moral standards. 
If we did, it would be leveraged as a weakness by the enemy.  We have to keep them guessing about our limits.  I wouldn’t deploy if I was working with blokes who operated like predictable Mr Nice Guys. 
The ADF is currently conducting a full-blown enquiry into "rumours of possible breaches of the laws of armed conflict” by Australian special forces in Afghanistan.  We are alleged to have operated with “disregard for human life and dignity”.  Fair enough.  I don’t know one bloke I served with who has a high regard for the lives of terrorists.  There’s nothing dignified about IEDs and their fighting methods either.
We are not sent out to deliver a personal dignity entitlement to our enemies.  
We go out to kill them.
Right now the Chief of Defence Force is doing immense damage to our troops deployed in Afghanistan.
Australian taxpayers are paying for ads in the Afghani press encouraging Afghanis to dob in Australian troops for war crimes. 
How idiotic is that?  What a propaganda gold mine;  and you can be certain the enemy will be using it against us.
The Australian enquiry will receive heaps of responses from the enemy, let’s face it they are embedded among the local Afghans.
And what will it achieve?  How do you think Australian troops will respond to allegations against them from the enemy? This might be difficult for outsiders to hear, but even if boundaries have been overstepped, unless the entire patrol turned on each other there will be little chance of any evidence to support any claims made by the enemy or Afghan civilians.
Indeed, the Age today is reporting that a 'threatening letter', has been sent to a witness to the inquiry. 
SAS troops obey orders.  We go where we’re ordered to go and act as we’re ordered to act.  There’s no allegations that I know of that say SAS troops have failed to obey orders.  Whatever’s been done has been the work of a highly disciplined team of professional, accountable soldiers operating within their own internal chain of command - and that goes all the way to the top.  
Smiling politicians are always on hand to get their photo taken and congratulate us on our results.  Well God help any ADF leadership that tries to hang a few young troopers out to dry.
So what are we stuck with?
A bombardment of allegations that will ALL have to be investigated at taxpayer expense.
SAS unit members taken away from their duties to “help” the investigation and for interviews with investigators.
And of course conspicuous in their absence, sowing concern and distrust amongst those yet to be singled out for interrogation. 
The usual bags of tax payers money given to the enemy in compensation for alleged wrongdoing by us - even if unproven
SAS tactics and operational security compromised by our own Government and Defence force due to a call for an open investigation and for transparency from left wing journalists to mention a few. 
Resentments amongst the SAS members and as is common practice much more secrecy, which is a certainty at the grass root levels. 
The ADF’s investigation into the rumours has already been leaked to Fairfax and the ABC who've made the leaked material public.
As a result of Fairfax and the ABC’s reports, the Russians have now joined in to make life more difficult for us in the field.  
On Saturday the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement about “The crimes committed by Australian troops in Afghanistan”.
Using the ABC and Fairfax’s reports, the Russian statement said Australians have engaged in “systematic, unauthorized and groundless use of weapons, particularly against  civilians.”  It quotes the ABC as the source for “shocking facts about cold-blooded murders committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan”.
Total bullshit, created by our taxpayer funded broadcaster to be used by our enemies against us.  
The ABC is always going on about Russia and scandals.  Looks like they've made one of their own.
There are plenty of problems in Australian society.
There is definitely a problem in the ADF.  
But it’s not the war fighters.   
It’s our leadership and the tone they set - from the PM down.
John Anon.
The top people in the ADF have 'commanded' from their desks, writing papers on 'Inclusivity' and struggling to find woman willing and able to fight alongside men in the field. 
They promote Muslims to command positions and sweetly promote transgendering girly-men. 

They force soldiers to march in the Gay Mardi-Gras and wear red high heels ala the ladies.  They award themselves silver medals as they sit around tables covered in silverware. 

They are a disgrace.

The chaps on the front lines and behind the enemy lives do not drink from silver cups, nor even glass.  Their rewards are sweaty nights riven with nightmares and for some 'inclusion' in the Invictus Games.



Pray for 'enlightenment' in our faux-commanders and for the redemption of our courageous men on whom fall the requirement to kill our enemies. 

Our soldiers are extraordinary men. They face death and they deal in death.

They are prepared for battle but only physically. Only with extraordinary skills. They are rough and tough and do not get the sort of spiritual training that would eschew the flying of nazi flags. But most of course would not anyway. Just the occasional one who crossed that thin moral line.

None of them is an Angel: Barely any will become a Saint. Many are or will be Heroes.  But rarely will you hear about that. 

ALL are Warriors.

But just one instance of poor manship is enough to bring out the virtue-signallers; the nasty-minded brigade in our media; in 'our' ABC.

Oz is on a downward slope and it will take warriors to hold the line and turn the tide.

Drink to the men of the SASR.

Pax




Thursday, June 14, 2018

The High Cost of False Compassion

I am all for being compassionate. Most of the Tavern's customers would lend you a fiver  if they saw you were hard up, with little expectation of return and a pleasant hope for your spending of it. But they, like me, would not take from your pocket to give to some other poor sod. They would reach into their own. Compassion and Charity are best mates. Governments see it differently. Some, too, learn from their mistakes.
The other day a favoured old lady I know was expressing delight that the Spanish Government was offering a home and refuge to 600 odd African people who had left Lybia in a rubber boat. 
A very large rubber boat.  She'd been listening to our ABC which of course told only part of the tale.

They were taken aboard a proper ship but Italy refused to take them. Malta too. Spain stepped in. My elderly friend was delighted that 'those poor refugees' would at last have safety. "Now they  won't drown'. 
Spain to welcome 600 stranded asylum seekers refused by Italy and Malta
Spain says it will take a humanitarian ship carrying more than 600 migrants and refugees after Italy refused to allow it to dock at its ports.
Italy's new populist Government had initially asked the Mediterranean island of Malta to open its doors to the vessel.
Italy's Government faces test of election promise to stop asylum seekers
More than 600,000 asylum seekers have reached Italy by boat since 2013
Malta brushed off the request, saying it had nothing to do with the rescue operation, opening the prospect of a diplomatic rift between the two European Union allies.
The move by Italy's new Interior Minister, Matteo Salvini, who is also head of the far-right League, represents an opening gambit to make good on his electoral promises to halt the flow of asylum seekers into the country.
Far Right, eh? 

The usual derogatory for those who do not hold the 'mainstream' view of the media.

It is almost interchangeable with the other epithet, the 'Alt-Right'.

My friend James has some things to say about the 'Alt-Right'. Take a look and come back.

"Victory!" Mr Salvini tweeted after Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, a socialist who took office just over a week ago, gave instructions that the ship be allowed to dock in the eastern port of Valencia.
"To politely raise one's voice pays off," Mr Salvini told a news conference in Milan.
"It's something Italy hasn't done for many years."
Hmmmm. I had to point out that drowning was unlikely as they were now on a sturdy ship. And few, if any, were refugees. The Spanish taxpayer was not consulted about their Government now dipping into his pocket to pay for these 'asylum seekers' keep.

Spain has entered a new era. It is setting records. Of the 17 members of the new Government's Cabinet, 11 are women. The top pic shows most.
Spain’s new Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has named his cabinet, with women earning the majority of the top government jobs.
 https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2018/06/07/spain-cabinet-female-majority/
Mr Sanchez announced his new cabinet members at the Moncloa Palace in Madrid, Spain on Wednesday, with women taking most of the posts for the first time in the country’s history.
The new cabinet will have 11 female ministers among its 17 members. By comparison, only five of the 22 ministers in Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s cabinet are women.
Boo. Hiss. Malcolm is in for it from the Feminists. 

Women of course, are far more compassionate than men. We are told that incessantly by the same feminists in Malcolm's ear. And empathetic too. And nurturing. Not like those Italian men. Mind you, Spain and its lady Government have some way to go to reach the 600,000 'refugees' that Italy has had foisted upon it, much to the chagrin of Italian taxpayers, over just the past couple of years. Let us see how long their empathy and nurturing lasts before we make some tentative judgement.

Indeed, Spain has not taken anywhere near the number of refugees that other European countries have. Those refugees that have travelled there from across the Italian and French borders have not stayed long, as there are better benefits, housing, free money etc in some other places. So if the compassionate ladies of Spain have any hopes that refugees will bolster their economy and replace some of the babies that Spain aborts, they may be in for some disappointment.

Taking in 'refugees' is a Christian thing to do. A wise Christian might look to see if someone is a refugee though. It would appear that few of those 600 would qualify, but again let us wait.

And the newcomers are far from being Christians. Of any ilk. They are speeding up the changing of the 'belief' structures of Europe. 

Not that the Christians and the judeo-christian ethic and ethos is doing well. It is weak. The downward change from a Catholic Europe to a Protestant one and now to an atheist one has been a long time in the descent. The whole basis of European morality has weakened.

Compassion no longer means a personal involvement. Charity has become 'Government', theft from taxpayers to give to what are literally 'enemies'.

It is ripe for a take-over.

Spain is no longer a predominantly Catholic country. It barely knows what 'virtues' are anymore.

But if the ladies are under the false impression (just as Malcolm is) that refugees, asylum seekers and sundry immigrants from lands where they could be doing something about the conditions there, are going to 'benefit the economy' in their new countries, well they are in for a hard lesson. It is one much easier to learn from others.
Study confirms: Refugees aren’t economically beneficial, they are mostly unemployed and cost billions of euros
A new study by the Expert Group for Public Economics Studies (ESO), shows how immigration costs Sweden billions of euros per year, news outlet SVT reports. 
The ESO study examined the employment rate of refugees between 1983 and 2015. It shows how the employment rate of refugees has gradually deteriorated. In the 1980’s, integration was reported to have been significantly faster than in the 1990’s and beyond.
“We can find that it has always been difficult to put refugees into employment,” says Joakim Ruist, one of the study’s authors.
The study forecasts the long-term consequences of immigration on Sweden’s public finances. Both in the short and long term, migrants will cost Sweden billions of euros, the study shows.
Although the average immigrant contributes to society, this does not weigh up to the initial costs and costs of the pension. The net cost of the average “refugee” will therefore be a total of 74,000 Swedish crowns (7,184 euros) per year.
As 830,000 migrants came to Sweden as asylum seekers, the country pays 61.4 billion crowns (5.96 billion euros) every single year for them.
The study’s findings aren’t very different from other projections. Well known German economist, Hans-Werner Sinn, said earlier that 
Germany’s migrants are underqualified and can never ‘pay back what they have received from the welfare state’.
According to Sinn, Germany’s migrants could cost the country 1 trillion euros during their lifetimes. 
In the Netherlands a similar tendency can be seen. At least 90% of refugees are still unemployed after living for 2.5 years in the country. 
There are examples from Switzerland and Austria as well.
It is not a surprise that refugee, migrants or asylum seekers cost European countries billions of euros. 
While they don’t bring profit and mostly live on benefits, Europeans necessarily have to work longer and pay more taxes.
The cost of Frau Merkle's disastrous decisions on migrants is enormous. Remember, Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe... and it is struggling.
The cost of Merkel’s refugee crisis: 
Germany to spend £37BN to fix migrant chaos
ANGELA Merkel’s failed migrant policy will cost Germany and the EU a record £37bn by the end of 2017, it has been revealed.
And the Chancellor’s struggling administration has unveiled a raft of new laws in parliament to help cope with the escalating European migrant crisis.
A report for The Federal Ministry of Finance revealed taxpayers will be spending £37bn (€43bn) for 2016 and 2017 migrant budget to “meet the challenges of the nation-state”.
The asylum and refugee policy from the federal budget perspective report said it was necessary to put Germany “on a good path”.
Every single refugee costs the German taxpayer £10,519 a year to look after 
Bundestag politicians have instigated an ‘Asylum Procedures Acceleration Act’ in a bid to speed up the process of deportation.
The German parliament has banned family reunion for two years, meaning battles to bring relatives of migrants over to Germany, as currently happens in Britain, will no longer take place.
And they have introduced a new law to allow for the easier expulsion of offenders in the case of asylum seekers suspected of committing a criminal offence. 
The Ministers in Governments seem to care little for the cost to the taxpayer. They, of course, are paid from taxes too. And they vote on their own very generous pay and benefits, which generally far exceed those of their 'subjects'.

It is so easy to be compassionate and generous when someone else has to dip into their pocket.

For Spain, our customers are pulling up the armchairs and ordering popcorn to see just how the petticoat government does.  When the Flamenco music stops.....

I wish them well. Really. I am a compassionate fellow.

And all those poor sods seeking a better life too.

It will take quite a while and quite an input from the Spanish taxpayer for the 'refugees' to make up for the huge expense that they had paid over to 'people smugglers'. People tend to forget that these 'refugees' had cobbled together more money 'at hand' than the average westerner can put together, just to pay thieves, crooks and ciminals for a boat ride that is far more costly than an airfare. The countries they come from (all over Africa and the Mid-East) have had quite a bit of their GDPs taken out and given to criminals.

Compassion is not easy. Real compassion that is. False is easier.

Especially when someone else carries the financial load.

So drink deep.

Pray.

Pax










Monday, June 11, 2018

Insurrection and the Moral Rot of the Police.

Britain is sinking into darkness and it is only a matter of time before there is wholesale insurrection against the rotten 'authority' of the State. The totally 'out of order' behaviour of the Police and Judiciary over the Tommy Robinson case has unleashed a tide of dismay which has been building and is barely contained.  
Both the Police and the Judiciary, in the widest context, have lost the confidence of the public.

The customers in the Tavern have been vociferous, but I have refrained from opening the windows to let out their anger, instead calming their angst with cleansing Ales and doing a fair bit of time on my knees in the Crypt. But out on the streets of London, such containment has been absent. As it has been absent in Melbourne too, where protests have been made.

Thousands, tens of thousands, have taken to the streets in Britain's Capital. The Police have ran away - those that have not been surrounded and penned behind their own barricades, and those that are not off somewhere escorting hate-speech mobs of the 'religion of peace' and protecting them from 'hate-speech' coming back at them.
The moral authority of the once well-respected British Bobby has disappeared
squandered on harrassing ordinary people going about their lawful occasions, or on degenerate activity amongst degenerates in enclaves of the city.




The quality of police officer has deteriorated so far that barely a skerrick of propriety remains. There is no moral authority or even masculine dignity to be seen.  The feminised force is simply pathetic and most coppers seem to have been trained by the scriptwriters and directors of popular TV cop programs which almost to the bottom are shown with bossy, pursed-lipped women in command and them continually berating barely adequate and cowed boys. Those uniformed immature clods are bolstered in number by men and women who are barely British and having barely any grasp on basic British manners let alone knowledge of the Law.

The 'Command' structure seems far more concerned with 'defending' perverts and applauding sexual depravity in the streets, including from members of the police. They relentlessly pursue the trivial and ignore real crime.


The public is sick of it and have had enough.
WHY BRITS ARE TURNING AGAINST THE POLICE

In Britain, there have traditionally been two sections of society who dislike the police. One type are radicals – or pseudo-radicals, as epitomised by the capitalist-run store Lush and Rik from The Young Ones – who object to the forces of law’n’order on anarcho-libertarian grounds. The police for them are ‘pigs’. 
The other type are the working class, or sections of it, who object to the police on account of them poking their nose into private matters that don’t concern them. The police for them have historically been ‘the filth’.
 http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-brits-are-turning-against-the-police/21481#.WxzqXt7TUwB
Yet the police are now widely disliked beyond those two demographics. 
These days, even conservatives and the respectable middle class don’t like the rozzers
A story beyond the hoo-ha over Lush and its anti-police ads might help to explain why.

This year there has been a litany of reports about rape cases collapsing owing to police failing to investigate evidence that would have exonerated the defendants.
And this week it was revealed that 47 rape and sexual-assault cases in England and Wales were halted between January and mid-February because evidence was withheld from defence lawyers.

This is not entirely the police’s fault.
Hmmmm. I beg to differ. If one saw even a token resistance from the 'commanders' or from the plods on the street, there may be some sympathy due. But we do not see that. Quite the contrary. The entire Force is degenerate. The rot set in with the Home Secretary of a few years ago who is now the Prime Minister.
They have been under political pressure from lobby groups obsessed with attaining rape conviction quotas – as if justice was about achieving statistical targets, rather than punishing guilty individuals and letting innocent individuals go free.
Here, in London, a member of the public shows complete contempt for a police woman, who fails to even defend her own dignity let alone that of the Force.  This is anything but 'fake'. It is disgusting. And the police are disgraced.
As the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper that should be a natural friend of the police, put it:
‘It is hard not to conclude that under pressure to increase conviction rates, the police and prosecutors simply withheld evidence that would help the defence, in order to make a successful prosecution more likely.’

The police have been alienating their erstwhile natural friends for some time.
This first became evident at the end of the last century, with the jailing of the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin for shooting dead a burglar who had broken into his home. The consequent outrage in the conservative press stemmed from a belief that the police were now more concerned with the human rights of criminals than with crimes against private property, in this case.
In ensuing years, the police have continued to antagonise a large swathe of the British public, who are increasingly convinced the Old Bill no longer take seriously burglary and theft. 
According to Home Office figures from last year, nine out of 10 burglary cases are closed without even a suspect being identified.
Today, the police don’t even attend reports of shoplifting if the value stolen is less than £200. 
No wonder this nation of shopkeepers no longer respects its police.

We are forever told that the police are starved of funds, and it could be true that cuts have exacerbated problems, not least in London, where the murder rate has risen for the third year running. Meanwhile, nationwide, shoplifting and violent crime continues to rise as criminals feel less afraid to break the law.
Cries by the police that they are financially stretched arouse little sympathy when we read about police forces dressing themselves and their vehicles in LGBT-friendly colours, scouring Twitter for offensive words, or filling libraries with leaflets about ‘hate crimes’.

Post-Macpherson, the police seem more desperate to prove their PC, anti-racist credentials than to address crimes that affect us all. 
The failure of the forces of law and order to prevent, investigate or suitably punish the rape gangs in the north of England has entrenched a suspicion that the police have become either enfeebled or politicised.

As the old refrain goes: shouldn’t they be out there catching real criminals?
Most of the media kow-towed to the 'ban' on reporting anything to do with Tommy Robinson's issue, but that simply incensed the free-media, the internet.  When the press finally got around to finding their duty and their courage, the public had lost confidence in them too. 

Whet had since passed for reporting has taken a distinctly critial and derogatory tone, rather than making any attempt to understand the mood of the nation.
STREETS OF RAGE 
Five police officers injured and five arrests as ‘free Tommy Robinson’ protesters clash with cops at London march
Thousands of far right demonstrators gather in the shadow of the Cenotaph war memorial calling for release of EDL founder
Bottles, metal barriers and traffic cones were thrown at cops as thousands gathered in Whitehall in support of the EDL founder — sentenced in May to 13 months for contempt of court.
Bottles, metal barriers and traffic cones were thrown at cops as thousands gathered in Whitehall in support of the EDL founder — sentenced in May to 13 months for contempt of court.
Five officers were injured and police made five arrests — including one for possession of an offensive weapon during the rally on Saturday.
Speeches from firebrand rightwing activists including Dutch politician Geert Wilders, 54, took place in the shadow of the Cenotaph war memorial.
In footage filmed exclusively by The Sun, cops can be seen retreating as a wave of violent yobs throw cones and other objects.
Another video shows dozens of thugs scrapping with riot police to chants of "who are ya, who are ya" as the violence erupted this afternoon.
Wilders, who leads the far-right PVV party in Holland, was pictured being escorted away by cops as police tried to contain the crowd.
The politician, who was temporarily banned from Britain in 2009, called for Robinson to be freed during a speech watched by thousands.
He said: "I am here to tell you that you will never walk alone. And we are here to tell the world, and the UK government in particular: 'Free Tommy Robinson.'"
He added: "Tommy Robinson is a freedom fighter. He says what no-one dares to say. He has guts. He has courage."
Rows of riot police blocked the gate down the Mall leading to Buckingham Palace where the Royal Family gathered on the balcony after celebrating Trooping the Colour just hours before.
Supporters elsewhere gathered in other British cities including Leeds and Belfast — while some demos were staged outside British embassies in Europe.
Police held back protesters from the gates of Downing Street as banners reading Free Tommy were waved.
One flag read "police state" followed by an Islamic crescent moon.
Other protesters scaled the steps of Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square where they chanted slogans.
Hundreds of flag-waving demonstrators overran an open-top tourist bus — with one climbing onto the roof wearing a Donald Trump mask.
A spokeswoman for megasightseeing.com said: "Our London sightseeing bus was on its normal route when it got caught up in the demonstrations.
"The bus was stormed by demonstrators and the driver and a small number of customers got off.
"The demonstrators have caused a significant amount of damage to the bus which meant it had to be towed away."
A Met Police spokesperson said: "The protest held in Whitehall concluded at 17:00hrs today.
"During the protest there were scenes of violence which saw bottles, metal barriers and other objects thrown at officers. Five officers have reported injuries, which are not serious."
They added that the Met will scour through CCTV footage for further investigation.
It comes just a day after a similar rally Newcastle was called off.
The event, organised by the Northeast Frontline Patriots group, was scrapped as police feared being overstretched as an Ed Sheeran concert took place nearby.
Robinson, 35, was arrested last month after broadcasting details of a trial taking place in Leeds Crown Court — despite a court order banning it.
A reporting restriction had initially prevented the media from reporting his conviction but was later lifted.
Judge Geoffrey Marson QC told Robinson, real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon: "Everyone understands the right to freedom of speech but there are responsibilities and obligations."
And there are obligations on the part of the Judiciary to ensure that Justice is done and SEEN to be done. 
He was given ten months in jail for contempt of court, and an additional three months for beaching a previous suspended sentence.
Hundreds of protesters later assembled at the point where he was arrested calling for his release.
Around 500 demonstrators chanted "let Tommy out" at police outside Leeds Crown Court on June 1 .
The march saw supporters of the ex-EDL leader brand police officers a "disgrace" as they chanted: 
"You ought to be ashamed of yourselves."
It was organised by the group Proud British, which claims on Facebook that its purpose is to "voice freedom of speech" and "stop the strain on the NHS, schools and our public services".
Britain is spent. Its demographic has been spoiled with the worst elements from many other countries.  The noble nature of the Englishman has been nobbled.

The crowds who are currently rising up are not all the 'educated', not all those well steeped in the history and heritage of the British. Many are the rough, the crude and the dangerous. And explosive.

This old Englishman now Ozman, weeps. I am glad I do not live there, but rather in the quiet of Tasmania, half the world away.

But I know that the curse is spreading and will reach here eventually.

It will not end well.

Pray for Mary's Dowry.



Thursday, May 24, 2018

Hero Ripped Off

Heroism is often a momentary matter, but the man of the moment can dine out on it for a long time. Heroes are human and their moment just might be an odd one in an otherwise not so cheered life. Courage and bravery, overcoming great odds even over an entire career is not necessarily joined by intellect or even sound morals. Some heroes may even be taken for a ride. Conned. Deceived. Hero one minute: damned fool the next. C'est la Vie. But the public, especially when 'entertained' can overlook the darker aspects. Some, when let in on the realities might be saddened.

There were a few sad faces in the Tavern this evening when we took a look at a great Boxing hero. 

And how he was grievously deceived.

Muhammad Ali born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016, was an American professional boxer, activist and philanthropist. He is widely regarded as one of the most significant and celebrated sports figures of the 20th century. From early in his career, Ali was known as an inspiring, controversial, and polarizing figure both inside and outside the ring.

He was born and raised in Louisville, Kentucky, and began training as an amateur boxer when he was 12 years old. 

At age 18, he won a gold medal in the light heavyweight division at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome and turned professional later that year. 

At age 22 in 1964, he won the WBA, WBC, and lineal heavyweight titles from Sonny Liston in a major upset. 

He then announced his conversion to Islam and changed his name from Cassius Clay, which he called his "slave name", to Muhammad Ali. 

He set an example of racial pride for African Americans and resistance to white domination during the Civil Rights Movement. It was a classic double-deception. 


He had been conned, and in turn conned millions.

In 1966, two years after winning the heavyweight title, Ali further antagonized the white establishment by refusing to be drafted into the U.S. military, citing his religious beliefs and opposition to American involvement in the Vietnam War. 

He was eventually arrested, found guilty of draft evasion charges, and stripped of his boxing titles. He successfully appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned his conviction in 1971, by which time he had not fought for nearly four years and thereby lost a period of peak performance as an athlete. Ali's actions as a conscientious objector to the war made him an icon for the larger counterculture generation.

Ali was one of the leading heavyweight boxers of the 20th century, and remains the only three-time lineal heavyweight champion. His records of beating 21 boxers for the world heavyweight title (shared with Joe Louis), as well as winning 14 unified title bouts (shared with former welterweight champion José Napoles), were unbeaten for 35 years. 

Ali is the only boxer to be named The Ring magazine Fighter of the Year six times. He was ranked the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time by Ring Magazine  and The Associated Press, and the second greatest pound-for-pound boxer by ESPN. 

He was also ranked as the greatest athlete of the 20th century by Sports Illustrated, the Sports Personality of the Century by the BBC, and the third greatest athlete of the 20th century by ESPN SportsCentury. 

Nicknamed "the Greatest", he was involved in several historic boxing matches. Notable among these were the Liston fights; the "Fight of the Century", "Super Fight II" and the "Thrilla in Manila" against his rival Joe Frazier; and "The Rumble in the Jungle" against George Foreman. Ali drew record global television audiences, including 1 billion viewers for "The Rumble in the Jungle" (1974) and "Thrilla in Manila" (1975)  and 2 billion for Ali–Spinks II (1978) and "The Last Hurrah" (1980).

As a Muslim, Ali was initially affiliated with Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam (NOI) and advocated their black separatist ideology. He later disavowed the NOI, adhering to Sunni Islam, practicing Sufism, and supporting racial integration, like his former mentor Malcolm X.

In 1984 Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's syndrome, which his doctors attributed to boxing-related brain injuries. As his condition worsened, Ali made limited public appearances and was cared for by his family until his death on June 3, 2016, in Scottsdale, Arizona.

So, that is a potted history of his career, as seen by 'Wiki'.


 But what is his real history and what was that great deception?

Dr David Woods gave us the detail. He is a scholar of Islam and History, and he uncovered for us the sad rejection Ali made of his real Heroic heritage. The one he had been named after. Cassius Marcellus Clay.  

Clay Jr changed his name to Cassius X, then to Muhammad Ali. Ali said that he changed his name because "Clay was a white name," while "Muhammad" and "Ali" weren't.


But Cassius Marcellus Clay, the nineteenth century Kentucky abolitionist who helped convince Abraham Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation was a real American hero of whom he should have been proud. 

Further and oddly enough, Muslim sources say that Muhammad was white, and that both he and his son-in-law Ali owned black slaves. 

Hence, the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time was deceived by Islam.

But let us hear the evidence for that for ourselves. 


How Muhammad Ali Was Deceived by Islam





I was one of those who felt sad. 

Whateverhisnamewas was a fine athlete and a great champion. He was not the sharpest knife in the drawer though.

He was a 'couldabeen' in his personal life. He could have been a proud carrier of a proud name.  An Heroic name. A name in the finer part of American history. 

He could have Honoured his ForeFather.

But he was conned by the followers of the Prince of Lies.

"Moves like a butterfly: stings like a bee", they said.

A bee only stings once and then dies.

Pity about the brain like a flea.

His adoption of Islam had a halo effect: a lot of young, impressionable black boys followed him into the pit of Satan's own 'religion'.

We keep the halos for Saints here, but we still applaud his sporting hero status.

So drink to him anyway.

And pray for him.

Pax

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Cry Me a River - of Blood

What do you give a wealthy country for its birthday? A country that has everything: sunshine, beaches, forests, cities voted the 'Most Livable in the World', abundant energy, fine healthy people, enterprise, enthusiasm. One might look forward to more of the same and perhaps even a small increase to share around with friends. What one does not want is someone taking it all away.

But when you are 'up', the only way it seems is down. And Oz is reaching for the suicide pills.

Oz is the 14th wealthiest nation in the World. It used to be further up the charts though. At one brief point, Melbourne was the richest city in the world, but that was a time receding like an old man's hairline. Now Oz has Problems.

Some are home-grown, of course. Every nation has its mistakes. We are a young country, a teenager compared to many others with their long histories, and like teens we have a history of childhood falls out of trees and catching various diseases that we have managed to shake off as we grew. 

But now we have a predicted ailment. One predicted a half century ago by a British chap who did a stint teaching here.

Paul Collits sank a pint and stood to read a quiet but on-point Riot Act.  He started a 'conversation'  as the lefties so euphemistically (deceptively) put it. Some fairly blunt talk with an absence of virtue signalling. Well, mostly.  I have no doubt at all that the noises we heard from beyond the hedges were responding to his words. 
Apples, Oranges and Immigration
Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech raised the alarm about what was, 50 years ago, but a problem in gestation. 
Today, co-driven by globablism and multiculturalism's purported role as the salve for the West's real and imagined ancient sins, the need for a rational approach to immigration is pressing.
That estimable publication, The New Criterion, features in its current (May 2018) edition a piece from Enoch Powell’s biographer, Simon Heffer, on the (in)famous “Rivers of Blood” speech, fifty years on.  Yes, it is another “fifty years on” event to go with all the others from that momentous and significant year, 1968.
Enoch Powell had a long and highly distinguished career.  It included a professorial appointment in classics at the age of twenty-five at Sydney University – an ironic historic footnote, given that institution’s almost total conversion to oily political correctness – plus many more accomplishments in the military and in politics. 
He went from Private to Brigadier General in a few short years.
Yet, despite his manifest achievements, he is pretty much remembered for one thing only, that speech.
Powell has been variously considered principled, racist, foolhardy, prescient, and a lot more besides for his call to limit immigration his call inspired at the time by what he saw as mounting evidence of rising conflict resulting directly from the importing of other cultures to the UK.   
Little did Powell realise what would transpire in the early twenty-first century, an era described by Douglas Murray as an age of suicide by European governments seemingly hell bent on inviting immolation at the bloody altar of multiculturalism.  
What was a mere trickle from Commonwealth countries in the 1960s, leading to real but probably exaggerated racial disquiet, has become a deluge, 
a veritable invasion, especially of Muslims. 
They come armed with the mores of their troubled homelands and a culture endorsed in its presumed superiority by holy texts that, just for good measure, treat women and their human rights with a propertarian disregard for the conventions of the society they have entered and changed but never joined.
Back in Australia, in locations such as the increasingly lawless outer Melbourne, we see violence by out-of-control imported African gangs and the insipid responses of major parties and the politically correct Victoria Police, whose brass insist in one breath there is no gang problem and in the next admit there is. Then they deny it again. 
These same police, by the way, have been seemingly more devoted to investigating a senior Catholic cleric before any actual complaints were been lodged, then finding drug addicts, bash artists and main-chancers to validate them. 
That at least makes a change from shaking down motorists by serving as revenue agents and charging visiting speakers five-figure sums to protect them from rampaging leftist mobs.
This is the same Australia that tut-tutted at John Howard in 1988 when he suggested, very gently, from the Opposition benches, that a slow-down in the rate of then-rising (and now galloping) Asian immigration would be a good idea.  Like Powell, and very recently Tony Abbott, Howard was merely listening to what his constituents were saying.  And like the other two, Howard did not believe those constituents to be racist.
Each age has its “difficult” immigrants, it seems.  
What is different now is that, since the exponential rise in global people movements from around 1990 that was fuelled by globalisation policies seeking to impose a truly borderless world, we have now almost unrecognisable, discombobulated places whose long-term inhabitants’ heads are spinning. 
If Melbourne ever again gets that enviable 'Most Livable City in the World' accolade, it will only be because virtually everywhere else has totally collapsed. 
We have tribal enclaves where interactions with native inhabitants are minimal and non-collaborative. Try getting a beer these days in Lakemba now that the last pub has closed its doors. Understandably, we see an exodus of former residents who don’t know what has happened to their communities or why.  
We have increasing violence, emergent gang culture, lawlessness and an arrogance on the part of the newcomers, which is understandable. 
When the official doctrine of the state holds that all cultures are equal and, sillier even than that, how the ills of the world are a legacy of racist white colonialism, why make an effort to assimilate? 
Indeed, stick your daughter in a burka and do so with pride. Western feminists won’t utter a peep of protest and, if there is criticism, dash off a complaint to the Human Rights Commission.
So what is the response to all this, and what should tolerant, liberal people who live in a country built on immigration regard as an appropriate annual number and trajectory?  
In one sense, there is simply too much in play in the current debates over the appropriate level of immigration, with things getting badly mixed up as a result.  Here think of jumbled conversations and mistaken analyses of cause and effect.  Finally, there is the question of whether limiting the rate of increase of immigration now would have an impact on the problems we already have, problems that are possibly the result, at least in part, of our previous high immigration policies.
Some preliminary points are needed.
One, there is not much in principle wrong with the notion of a “big Australia”.  Many of the objections completely miss the point, especially those of Bob Carr and Paul Ehrlich-types who think all populations should be cut.
Two, there is no “magic” number of immigrants.  All numbers are relative to some other variable, such as available work, skills shortages and needs, general prevailing economic conditions, current birth and death rates, and so on.  The current “right” number of immigrants is only right in relation to these other things.
The birth rate of the white majority in Oz is made far worse by the madness, the evil, of abortion. Proportionally we kill more of our own babies in the womb that any western nation. Then we import foreigners !! 
Three, the impact of immigration on our economy is positive, but only marginally so.  The problems are non-economic. 
Hmmmm. I am not a bit convinced by that assertion. The rate of taxpaying work uptake by immigrants is woeful. But Paul gave no actual numbers with which any around him could take issue.
Yes, there is still “they took our jobs” thinking among existing residents.  But in a world of increasingly rapid changing skills and skills-matching-needs (due to globalisation, technology, outsourcing, offshoring, hyper-mobility, ease of moving, disruption and so on), this argument has lost a lot of force.
Four, neither is there a magic number for an Australian population of the “right” size. 
Personally I do not hold with keeping Oz population so low. We inhabit the only Continent with a single Nation. We could, with vision and deliberation increase our population to at least 150 million. But that is just the view of an old chap behind the bar.  The eyes of several large countries with enormous populations are turned toward our open spaces.

We are the world’s fourteenth-biggest economy and could easily do with more growth.  Yes, we are limited by governments that either can’t or won’t build the infrastructure we need in the places we need it, and who prefer vanity projects of little economic or social consequence.  There is indeed a correlation between the adequacy of infrastructure, the perception of the adequacy of infrastructure by residents, and fear of further pressure on infrastructure by future population increases.  
And yes, it is important that we maintain support for our immigration policies.
Hmmmmm. Is it? 
But, and it is a big but.  Cutting immigration numbers in the future will not solve existing infrastructure problems.  At whatever level of immigration we have, we will be required to build adequate housing and transport systems.  Much better to fix the systemic problems we have now – vertical fiscal imbalance, debauched federalism, out-of-control spending on things like transfer payments, the ABC, subsidised child care, useless education pipedreams, (and deliberate malfeasence) unaffordable NDISs, trams in George Street, regional vanity projects (and so on), that stop governments focusing on better infrastructure, one of their core tasks.
Five, law and order problems are law and order problems, not size-of-immigration-intake problems.  Kick out the troublemakers?  Too easy.  Limiting in-migration now is too late, and will not solve the problems.  
Get genuine police forces, not touchy feely community strokers.  
Limiting future immigration intakes, absent fixing the other problems we have right here right now, simply will not help.
Six, if we bleat endlessly about multiculturalism, we should insist that new arrivals should try it sometime!  It goes both ways, folks.
Seven, who comes is way more important than how many, the migrant mix being important beyond other things, such as the size of the intake. Bring in people who can speak the language or are eager to learn it, are ready to work or invest, who don’t come from troubled places where local mayhem has driven their decision to leave.  
Immigrants used to be regarded as the ultimate entrepreneurs.  Now many seem to be the ultimate welfare scroungers at best and troublemakers at worst. 
Spend 30 minutes in your local Centrelink and observe the ethnic mix of what, in this era of euphemism, are known as “clients” rather than mendicants. On this view, we could keep the current rate but radically change the mix.
So, solutions.
We should not mix up immigration issues with other matters that look like they are related but are not.  
We should do law and order properly.  
We should ditch multiculti fantasies and rediscover the real assimilation that was expected during the great post-war migration boom.  
We should ditch all welfare for immigrants.  
We should build proper infrastructure for a growing population.  
We should not ditch our long-term goal of growing bigger, but we should just do it smarter, for example by subsidising natural increase. 
We MUST STOP killing our babies !! 
The much-sniggered-at baby bonus was a cracker policy that actually worked. 
We should ensure visa scams are upended (we all know what they are and who is involved).  
We should attempt more seriously to stop foreign nationals buying up the country, its real estate and its infrastructure.  
We should all speak English routinely in the public square.
We do need to make Australia great again.  We need to make it Australia again, actually., and we can do that while continuing to grow.
By all means let us have our immigration numbers debate.  But do it with Howard and Enoch Powell in mind, and the actual problems they saw and commented on.  And let us do it with our eyes open by aligning the many problems we have as a nation with the best policy and cultural solutions available for these problems.  We should not burden immigration policy with the task of solving things for which it is not equipped.
What the Rivers of Blood speech did some half a century ago was to alert us to immigration follies 
....and to what should be the proper limits of an out-of-control concept Powell did not at that time know about: globalism. Powell’s speech still deserves our attention, indeed commands it.  
But let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. 
Population growth is good, indeed essential, and immigration will play its proper part in that and we need to get it right. But it is about way more than mere numbers.

Hmmmm. All very 'sound' suggestions. Many sitting supping agreed. But.....

With the dire decline in the numbers of those who profess to 'love your neighbour' as Christ instructed; and a rise in those that would profess killing anyone who even insults the false god; as well as those who see everyone through the lens of 'equivalency', 'equality',  and  'community' (except for themselves of course),  such a 'conversation' is unlikely to occur and we face a continued slide down a slippery slope soon to be lubricated by actual rivers of  blood on the streets.

Pray for Oz.

Pray for some decent leaders to arise. Men and women with cool heads and warm hearts who are not full of themselves.

Pray for yourselves and buy a jet-ski. It will be handy for traversing those rivers.

Drink up now.

Pax