Tuesday, May 27, 2014

How do we treat our soldiers?

Things have been quiet in the Tavern this past week. Reverence was the mood. Our American friends had their Memorial Day, which caused many other nationalities to reflect as well.

We treat our soldiers badly when they are alive and reserve our public expressions of support only for the dead. The week was marked, not only by the national outpouring of sorrow for lost soldiers but by the farce of America's Veteran's Hospitals.

We had a number of conversations and I will bring here just hints of some.

About six miles from Maastricht, in the Netherlands, lie buried 8,301 American soldiers who died in “Operation Market Garden” in the battles to liberate Holland in the fall-winter of 1944-45. Every one of the men buried in the cemetery, as well as those in the Canadian and British military cemeteries, has been adopted by a Dutch family who mind the grave, decorate it, and keep alive the memory of the soldier they have adopted. It is even the custom to keep a portrait of “their” American soldier in a place of honor in their home.  
Annually, on “Liberation Day,” memorial services are held for “the men who died to liberate Holland.” The day concludes with a concert. The final piece is always “Il Silenzio,” a memorial piece commissioned by the Dutch and first played in 1965 on the 20th anniversary of Holland’s liberation. It has been the concluding piece of the memorial concert ever since. 
In 2008 the soloist was a 13-year-old Dutch girl, Melissa Venema, backed by AndrĂ© Rieu and his orchestra (the Royal Orchestra of the Netherlands). This beautiful concert piece is based upon the original version of taps and was written by Italian composer Nino Rossi. 
Andre Rieu - Il Silenzio (Maastricht 2008) DIGITAL TV 

Cherie dropped by from her travels as well to tell of a visit she made.

I visited the National Memorial Arboretum today and the Eagle in the attached photo was quite stunning against the skyline inviting closer inspection.  When I got up close I found that it was the centrepiece of Royal Air force Association Memorial Garden.   

It is a wonderful piece of artwork, a fitting memorial for those who served in The Royal Air Force.  The crosses beneath have been placed there by friends, family and colleagues of those who served.  Unfortunately the drizzly weather dulls the shine of the eagle against the sky…  I thought you might enjoy it anyway 

Another of the memorials I visited was the one I mentioned to you recently; ‘Shot at Dawn’.  I have posted about it giving more detail of what the memorial represents.

When I set off to visit The National Memorial Arboretum this morning I didn’t realise that it was Memorial Day in the United States.  It was only later when I got back home and read Ginnie’s post at Vision & Verb that I realised I had picked a perfect day to visit the Arboretum.  The Arboretum is a centre of remembrance to honor the fallen and recognise their service and sacrifice for their country. 
The site covers over 150 acres and there are currently around 300 memorials. Far too much to see in one day.  I picked one of the self guided First World War Centenary trails that had been launched earlier this year:
History enthusiasts will enjoy the more detailed Shot at Dawn Trail (2km), created to provide a deeper understanding of many of the trees and memorials connected to WW1 by fascinating stories and symbolism.*

The ‘Shot at Dawn’ memorial is very moving and requires a few minutes silent contemplation.  The memorial is situated on the eastern edge of the arboretum where dawn strikes first. 
I was sitting on a bench when I took this this photograph. Right behind the bench were six trees placed where the firing squad would have been. 

The six trees facing the posts represent the firing squad, all aiming for the medallion around the statues neck and none of them knowing who had the fatal bullet. It must have been very traumatic for them too, having to shoot one of their own.
Yes, many quite young men were shot by firing squad during WW!. Boys as young as 16, shell-shocked, scared, not frightened to death but punished to death for their human response to the terror and brutality of war. 

We have a habit of being brutal to our soldiers.

Things are not improving, as can be seen from previous conversations here in the Tavern. The American Forces tried to silence Catholics and ban the Mass being celebrated. Now the Australians are following suit.

One can get a good idea of when defeat is upon us. When the values that our civilisation was built upon are no longer given due regard. Indeed, replaced.

Catholics Expelled from The Army

The Australian Military leadership prefers homosexuals to Catholics.

God help us.

One has to ask just at what point does one conclude that the country is not worth defending and giving one's life to protect.


Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Fatherless Nation.

It is fortunate that we do not get elephants in the Tavern. They take up a lot of room. But out there, in the Hilary Village that is supposed to be needed to raise a child, elephants sit indoors all day, ignored by the householders.

Just how one can raise a child when the elephants in the room take up all the space, their 'dropping's reeking, God the Father only knows.  It is certain that the general population has no clue but nevertheless they seem to encourage it at every opportunity.

Peter Hitchens has been around, sitting at our elephantless bar, speaking about the state of fatherlessness in Britain. Things have not improved since he started the same conversation elsewhere.

So Much for 'Father's Day' -  
in a Country Where Fatherhood is Dying Out

By the end of his or her childhood, a British boy or girl is much more likely to have a TV set in the bedroom than a father at home.

Our 45-year national war against traditional family life has been so successful that almost 50% of 15-year-olds no longer live with both their parents. At the same time we have indulged our neglected and abandoned young with electronics, so that 79% of children aged between 5 and 16 have bedroom TVs.

And as we soppily mark ‘Father’s Day’ with cards, socks, sentimentality and meals out, we should remember that in almost all cases the absent parent is the father.
By 'absent', Peter is being simply factual. But it is not just that Fathers have walked out or abandoned their fatherly responsibility en masse.  In the majority of instances they father has not even been consulted and more often than not rejected.

There is no doubt about the facts here. Let me list some of them. 
The cost of our wild, unprecedented national experiment in fatherlessness is now £49 billion each year, more than the defence budget. This figure, currently costing each taxpayer £1,541 per year, is rising all the time, and has gone up by almost a quarter since 2009.

The money partly goes on handouts and housing which an old-fashioned family with a working father would not have needed. Partly it goes on trying to cope with the crime, disorder, truancy, educational failure, physical and mental illness and general misery which are so much more common among the fatherless than in those from stable homes.

And there is more to come. One in three marriages ends in divorce, while many who would once have married never even bother.  Roughly 300,000 families of all kinds separate every year.
There are now three million children growing up in fatherless homes.  Another 58 fatherless families are launched every day.  And be in no doubt that it is the fathers who are, overwhelmingly, absent in these new-style modern households. Only 8% of single-parent homes are headed by a lone father.
The day the lunatic B.O.Bama  or any other Western Leader stands up and declares that there is a 'War On Fathers' I will eat an Elephant.

Four in ten children being brought up by their mothers – nearly 1.2 million - have no contact with their fathers at all.

Another 67,000 (In England alone) dwell in the organised despair and neglect which are cruelly misnamed ‘care’.

In the last 40 years the proportion of adults who are married has sunk from 70% to fewer than half.  The number of single adults has hugely increased (up 50%). A quarter of a million people each year spend Christmas alone. 
One in six adults now cohabits, compared to one in 50 in the 1960s.  Cohabiting households, which have doubled in number since 1996, are the fastest-growing type of family arrangement in the United Kingdom.

By 2015, there will be two million lone parents (up 120,000 since 2010); 
 more than 24% of children will be in lone-parent households. 

It matters. Young people from fractured homes are statistically twice as likely to have behaviour problems as those from stable households. They are more likely to be depressed, to abuse drugs or alcohol, to do badly at school, and end up living in relative poverty.
Girls with absent fathers (according to studies in the USA and New Zealand) have teenage pregnancy rates seven or eight times as high as those whose fathers have stayed in meaningful touch with them.

By contrast, the link between marriage and good health is so strong that one study showed the health gain achieved by marrying was as great as that received from giving up smoking.

In all these dismal statistics of marriage decline and failure, the United Kingdom is one of the worst afflicted among advanced nations.  
It has to be said that all over the western world a similar disaster is building.
And in many of the poorest and most desolate parts of the country, the problem is concentrated into certain areas where fathers in the home are an endangered species.

From Gosport in Hampshire, to Cardiff, Liverpool, Easington in County Durham, Inner London, Bristol, Birmingham and Sheffield, there are whole city wards where at least 60% of the households are headed by a lone parent.      

And it is in such circumstances that a procession of serial boyfriends, a type of domestic arrangement closely associated with physical and sexual abuse of children, is most likely to exist.

This great fleet of hard truths is known in general to those who govern the country, and in hard detail to millions who suffer from their consequences.

How, as a country and a people can we manage to be so indifferent to them, when we claim to set fatherhood and fathers at the centre of our culture?
Well, the answer to that otherwise rhetorical question is that we manage quite well by being like ostriches, burying our heads in the sand. Or to change metaphor, we sit at home in our living rooms knee-deep in dung.
The fundamental prayer of the Christian church begins with the words  
‘Our Father’.  

Americans speak of their ‘founding fathers’.  
The father has since human society began been protector, provider, source of authority, bound by honour and fidelity to defend his hearth.

If he is gone, who takes his place ? 
Of all people, D.H. Lawrence, author of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, wrote of a man and his wife as ‘a king and queen with one or two subjects and a few square yards of territory of their own…true freedom because it is a true fulfilment for man, woman and children.’
But he warned of a great danger if marriage, which makes fatherhood what it is,  fell. ‘Break it, and you will have to go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era’.
And now we see his prophecy fulfilled. The state spends billions, and intervenes incessantly, to try to replace the lost force of fatherhood, and it fails.
I owe most of the facts above to the Centre for Social Justice, which  published its full report into what it calls ‘Fractured Families’.
The CSJ is very close to the Tory party, to the government and to Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary. So it is startling to find that the report is coldly savage in its dismissal of the Cameron government’s efforts to fix this problem.
 ‘Conservatives say they would have been more radical on family policy had it not been for their Liberal Democrat colleagues, but even those commitments made in the Programme for Government have been ignored so far. ‘So for all of the promises the Conservatives made in Opposition, for all of the gimmick giveaways politicians have unveiled for middle-class families, and for all of the safe ‘families come in all shapes and sizes’ rhetoric ministers have used for decades, hardly anything has been done to resist the tsunami of family breakdown battering the United Kingdom’. The authors continue: ‘Saying that family form is irrelevant is inaccurate and ultimately counter-productive…’  

This is true. Someone ought to speak up for marriage. But is it entirely true to say that ‘Backing commitment and setting a goal of reducing instability does not equate to criticising or stigmatising lone parents.’?  
Doesn’t approval of the one inevitably stigmatise the other? And if you aren’t prepared to do that, will you get anywhere?
They also assert that ‘marriage is not a right-wing obsession’, though, speaking as a right-winger I rather think it is. It certainly isn’t a left-wing priority.  They argue : ‘People throughout society want to marry, but the cultural and financial barriers faced by those in the poorest communities thwart their aspirations’.
It is certainly true that some benefits actively discourage couples from being or staying married.
Again, I had to interject that 'right-wing' or Conservative governments attain power, they do damned all to reverse the policies of Government which have caused these dreadful societal changes.

But it is the ‘cultural’ barriers I want to talk about here. Anyone who dares to discuss this subject is quickly accused of ‘hating’ or wishing to persecute ‘single mothers’. Any article on the subject is supposed (maybe it is an EU regulation?) to contain a disclaimer saying that many single mothers do a great job.

Well, I neither hate single mothers nor wish to persecute them, and I am perfectly prepared to believe that many of them do a great job.
But it isn’t the point. The main problem with single mothers is that they are acting rationally, in a society which actively encourages them with money and approval. Who can blame them? 
That is generous on Peter's part and understandable. But ......
There is a lot of piety about this. Suggest that anyone deliberately gets pregnant (or rather, in this age of morning-after pills and abortion on demand, deliberately stays pregnant) to get a house and a handout, and you are angrily dismissed as some kind of snobbish hate-figure.

Well, mightn’t it be true? As far as I know, nobody has ever researched the motives of the young women who accept this sparse arrangement. I wish they would. 
But is it unreasonable to suggest that if you reward certain types of behaviour with money and housing, and with social approval, then that behaviour will increase?
It’s not just me. Adele Adkins once recalled ‘The ambition at my state school was to get pregnant and sponge off the Government’, adding: ‘That ain’t cool.’ Perhaps successful singing stars can get away with saying what others only think.  

I don’t myself see that it is a particularly harsh view to hold. A baby is a wonderful thing, and many young women long to be mothers, and good luck to them. Many modern males are a pretty unattractive proposition, so why marry one, if the state will give you a home and an income on your own?

Meanwhile men have learned enough about the divorce courts to know that marriage is a big risk.
If it goes wrong, they are the ones who have to move out, and yet they will still have to pay. 
And then, of course, they are called 'absent', or worse, deadbeats.
Why not take advantage of the fact that the state - which once demanded the father’s name when any baby was registered, so he could be made to pay for his child - now happily allows us to leave this space blank? 

My guess is that doing anything really radical about this scares all politicians too much. For the War on Fatherhood is protected by a great taboo.

In every family, every workplace, every school, every pub, every weekend football or cricket team, every political party, every church congregation, 
there are now large numbers of people who signed up for the Great Cultural and Moral Revolution  
which was launched in the 1960s and swept through the land like a mighty rushing wind in the 1970s.

The fiery heart of this was the Divorce Law Reform Act of 1969.  This change was very popular. 
Portrayed at the time as a kindness to those trapped in loveless marriages, the new law made it much easier to end a troubled union than to fight to save it.

And once this had become general, marriage changed with amazing speed from a lifelong commitment into a lifestyle choice. And from a lifestyle choice it changed into a risky and often inconvenient contract.
Divorce wasn’t shameful or embarrassing any more.  
The country was littered with male divorcees complaining about the division of the property and the child support payments. 

Men began to calculate that marriage wasn’t worth it. 
And the Pill and easy abortion (other parts of the 1960s revolution) put an end to shotgun weddings.

Who, in such a society, could condemn the pregnant teenager without hypocrisy? 
Hardly anyone, especially rackety politicians and flexible churchmen
The middle classes had abandoned lifelong marriage with a sigh of relief. The aristocracy had never cared for it much. Even the Royal Family was riddled with divorce.

The housing-estate poor were simply following the same moral code as those who posed as their betters, and weren’t actually better at all. And the adults of the era have all had a lot of fun as a result. But everyone, throughout this great period of release and revolt, forgot one small thing. 
What was to become of the children?

Now we are finding out. 
And a generation which has never known fathers, or family life, or fidelity or constancy, is now busy begetting children of its own. What will become of them? How will boys who have never seen a father learn to be fathers?

I’d have a moral panic at this stage, if I thought it would do any good. But perhaps it will be the victims of this selfish generation, our children and grandchildren, who – having suffered its effects - will re-establish stable family life in our country. 
Peter added:
"I owe most of the facts above to the Centre for Social Justice, which on Friday published its full report into what it calls ‘Fractured Families’."

This document is fully footnoted and can be found here :

As with many conversations in the Tavern, we get sidelined by large events like the Budget or Chinese spy-scares, or whatever sleight-of-hand we are fed by the media, and have to come back to these far more important topics from time to time. And thank people like Peter dropping by.


Monday, May 12, 2014

Lifestyle and Life


Happy Mother's Day to all mums. Slightly late reported here but celebrated properly in the Tavern on the day with a huge lunch, overflowing with happy families. But the next day, while clearing up the left-overs (distributed amongst the poor of the parish) we reflected upon the parlous state of modern 'lifestyle choices.

A particularly good friend and customer, a regular in the Tavern came by with sadness and a mild and well placed fury. It seems the run-up to Mother's Day had seen the antithesis to motherhood splattered all over the internet and my friend was furious. In her own way. She is sensitive and warm, so that tempered what she had to say.

I have to say this about my friend. She does not share the same brand of Faith that I do. Many who come in here do not either. But the stuff we serve here is for all. She is a Good Woman, by any accounting, and as such on the side of the Angels.

She sat and spoke quietly.

This week I ran across an article on my Facebook feed of a women named Emily Letts who recorded her abortion procedure and posted it on YouTube.  You can see the article and video here:
Emily Letts, a 25-year-old abortion counselor who works at a New Jersey abortion clinic, decided she wanted to be an inspiration to other women by filming her own abortion. 
What an awful inspiration poor Emily Letts gives.  What is even more horrific is that she is a 'counsellor'. Totally committed, of course, to 'counselling' expectant mothers. NOT.
 I couldn’t bring myself to watch the video.  I am a woman who is far too in touch with my body’s nurturing instinct to bring myself to watch a mother so callously enjoy the experience of having her baby ripped from limb to limb in her womb.   
I did, however, read the article in which it states Emily was smiling and humming though the whole procedure.  One month later Emily describes her “feelings” about the experience.   
 You can read the whole article here:  

Emily states, 
“I knew the cameras were in the room during the procedure, but I forgot about them almost immediately. I was focused on staying positive and feeling the love from everyone in the room. I am so lucky that I knew everyone involved, and I was so supported. I remember breathing and humming through it like I was giving birth. I know that sounds weird, but to me, this was as birth-like as it could be. It will always be a special memory for me. I still have my sonogram, and if my apartment were to catch fire, it would be the first thing I’d grab.”
  God help us, have we become so desensitized as a society, and furthermore, as women, that we can’t call evil for what it is?  This woman is obviously sociopathic.  I am no psychologist, but I don’t think I need to be for this one.  Emily says, 
“It will always be a special memory for me.” 
There is nothing light hearted about abortion; it certainly isn’t an event that would merit humming and smiling.  I suppose some might think I am being too hard on Emily.  On a personal note, I see Emily as more lost and sick than anything.  She needs Christ just as desperately as I. 
She reflected on matters with which old Knights such as I are barely acquainted. She's an 'Old Testament' gal and well versed in the old tales and lessons, the guides to a proper consideration that can and perhaps should be more emphasised when people choose their 'Lifestyle'.

“When Esther’s words were reported to Mordecai, he sent back this answer: “Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape.  For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish.  And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:12-14) 

The Book of Esther contains one of my favorite stories in the Bible.  I have often found myself wondering what I would have done in a position such as hers.   
Honestly, I have never really considered myself a brave woman.   
The continued existence of Esther’s people was dependent upon her willingness to put her bravery to the test.  It was a chance she was willing to take in order to save her people against the evil plot that Haman put into motion that would soon rise against them. 
Then Esther sent this reply to Mordecai: “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me.  Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day.  I and my attendants will fast as you do.  When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.” (Esther 4:15-16) 
 “And if I perish, I perish.”   

Let those words settle for awhile.  Esther was a woman of faith who possessed great convictions endowed to her by her love for God.  She was bold in the face of evil in order to preserve the existence of her people.  She was an orphan who displayed courage in the face of a crisis.  She humbled herself by fasting and put her considerable beauty, femininity and wisdom in service to fulfill God’s plan to save her people…the Hebrew people.  
Today I sit back and ask myself, “How many modern day Esthers are left in my generation?”  

How many are willing to take a stand against the modern day Hamans?  Are there any women willing to go against the societal grain to preserve what is dearest to us?  

Our country and our families need you.  Where are you Esther? 
Many might accuse me of being too judgmental.  But we have confused the meaning of the word with being able to decipher right from wrong.   
I can’t judge whether Emily will go to heaven or hell, only God can do that; that isn’t my place.  So don’t misread what I am saying here, I am a firm believer that all have sinned and fall short and deserve grace upon repentance.   
But political correctness and leftism/progressivism has crept into the church and it is high past time we acknowledge that.  So many believers are afraid of being labeled “judgmental” for calling abortion for what it is – murder and morally wrong.  The authentic gospel has been lost somewhere and it is up to believers to restore it whole again. 
Emily is out of touch with her body, out of touch with what she was designed to do as a women.   
She mocks her womanhood by humming and smiling while her child is being violently ripped apart in her womb.  An abortion at any stage is violent.  The left fails to recognize the biological fact that women are made to reproduce and nurture our young.   
To intentionally rip an unborn child out of our bodies is a violation of our femininity which makes us unique by God’s design.  
We grow life; that is our superpower.  Even most evolutionists would agree that for a mother to murder her young is unnatural for us as a species.  
Women are born with an innate biological desire to nurture, which is evident in the games we play as little girls. If a woman has been allowed to develop her femininity, it will manifest itself later in life: in our homes, with our families, in our friendships and even in the passionate relationships we have with our men.   
There is a certain amount of vulnerability that goes along with femininity that a women must be confident in.  In order for us to provide warmth, kindness, patience, and love to our children, and the people closest to us, it is essential that we maintain and develop our femininity throughout our lifetime. 
THIS is the 'Lifestyle' choice which Feminism denies women.
When this is allowed to flourish we connect and are innately in tune with our child even in the earliest stages of our pregnancy. She is already emotionally bonded to the life her body is producing. A feminine woman doesn’t hate herself for what her body is meant to do. She goes with it; she is comfortable with the physical changes that take place in her body.   
She doesn’t reject it as inconvenience behind the banner of feminism or “choice.”  Femininity isn’t something we can put in a box, it isn’t something easily defined in the laws of nature.  It is a gift given to us by God.  There is an unexplainable mystery behind it. Yet the effect it has is powerful, so powerful that Esther was able to save a nation of people because hers was so authentic.   
At one time, I am sure Emily was a young little girl who played baby dolls and house.  She may have even pretended to be mommy to her younger siblings, if she had any. Little girls (and boys) do what comes natural to us; it isn’t because it is “socially constructed.”  
We aren’t reliant on instructions to act out what comes natural to us in the games we play as children in our homes and on the playground.  Little girls nurture, out of instinct. But the state sees to it that that instinct is suppressed.  
The left continues to deny yet another truth here, they agree the female is meant to mother and nurture in every other species, yet they deny it in our own.    
A woman must be convinced that the unborn is sub-human.   
It was vital in destroying our identity as women and the family unit.  
Where the family is broken, the traditional family values can easily be replaced with statist, secular values. The mother and father has been replaced with daycare.  In the eyes of the state, the family is a burden, so prosperity takes the place of childrearing for women.   
The general populace must be convinced to strip the unborn of its humanity in order to make it acceptable to kill it.   
So the left justifies murder by saying, “it isn’t human.”   
We saw this philosophy put into place in World War Two.   
It was the same concept Hitler used to convince his countrymen to murder millions of Jews, mentally disabled and whoever else he deemed socially “unfit.”  
And he was very successful at it and we have the evidence of the Holocaust to prove it.  
The left has been very successful at it in the West as well.   
We have many stories like Emily’s to show for it. 
Feminism seeks to destroy anything that might be different about us as men and women.  So the left takes hold of the minds young in early childhood development through the school system.  The state is “Mommy and Daddy,” it will dictate to you its morals and values.  Forget about family, heritage, and tradition.   
It’s why so many young men and women are having an identity crisis.   
They don’t know who they are.   
Young women are not confident in their womanhood just as young men are not secure in their masculinity.   If one destroys a woman’s femininity, eventually you destroy the woman.  But they use a nicer word for their philosophical destruction: “equality.”   
That is why there are so many Emilys among us who hold pro-choice, liberal mentalities.  But it is deeper than that.   
We are fighting a spiritual battle of good versus evil.   
Emily has lost herself somewhere along her life path, only she doesn’t know it yet.  I don’t know at what point in her development she was handed to the state.  Although it must have been fairly early in the developmental phases of her life for her to be so callous about killing her child.  
Whether Emily wants to acknowledge this or not, she is a mother.   
She was from the moment she became pregnant.  She was already written in that baby’s genetic code.   
But a part of her died that day, in that room, on that table.  Not just the physical part with her baby, but also a part of her soul.   
She stripped her baby of its humanity in the name of “choice.”  She had too; otherwise it wouldn’t have been so easy for her.   
I pray for her, I genuinely do.   
I ask you too as well.   
As for her child, it is resting in the arms of God now.  The woman child within her was snuffed out by the state that indoctrinated her.  Maybe she will reawaken her again at sometime, only time will tell.   

“So the king and Haman went to Queen Esther’s banquet, and as they were drinking wine on the second day, the king again asked, ‘Queen Esther, what is your petition? It will be given you. What is your request? Even up to half the kingdom, it will be granted.


Then Queen Esther answered, ‘If I have found favor with you, Your Majesty, and if it pleases you, grant me my life—this is my petition. And spare my people—this is my request.  For I and my people have been sold to be destroyed, killed and annihilated. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king.’” (Esther 7:1-4).  
There are many times when I feel like I can relate to Esther, it is part of the reason I love the story so much.  I have felt throughout my life that I was born in the wrong generation and I don’t belong here.  I am really an introvert at heart.  I am an observer.  I can imagine Esther was too.   
What I observe in modern women is disturbing to me.  Most lack any sort of emotional depth; they are more concerned with the latest clothing styles than they are with contributing anything outside of themselves for the betterment of their communities.  The emotional intelligence we once had in the generations before us has long passed with our grandmothers.  Oh yes, the modern women is emotional, but they it is an unstable emotion.    
 It says in the article, Emily is 25 years old, she is a grown woman.  
But make no mistake that she is every bit a product of the statist philosophy that perpetuates a continual cycle of infancy and narcissism in women today.   
Love is not something we can put into a mathematical equation, but it is every bit as real.  It is that passionate love that drives men and women towards one another; it is the glue that holds our families together.  There is nothing stronger than the bond between mother and child.  Emily will never know that bond with her baby, she robbed herself of it.   
Emily doesn’t feel love, not even for herself because she has numbed herself to it.   
I would hope Emily would find that again and reconnect with her ability to nurture.  For her sake and the sake of anymore children she may, or may not, bring into the world.   
Esther was subject to the Persian Empire after the exile of her people.  At that time, the Hebrews were among the weakest elements in society.  They were a small tribe, but weaker even than the Jewish men exiled in a foreign land were the Jewish women.  And the weakest of all of these was a young orphaned Jewish woman.   
God once again employed his favored method of using society’s underdog to accomplish his purposes.  Regardless of the circumstances he raised her up and put her in a position of immense strategic importance.   
Ultimately, it was Esther’s choice if she would have the courage to play the part God offered her. 

We have been placed in this same position today to stand by idly as evil continues to perpetuate and flourish in our society.  Or we can become active in fighting against it, but the choice is ours to make. 
Ephesians 6:12 says “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”  
Earthly powers are a work to kill and destroy, but a heavenly power, far greater in scope is at work that can save, preserve, and restore the spirit in us women that has been so far lost. 

Amen, my dear friend.


Poor Emily. What a pretty woman.

What few realise is that Emily is an actress. She has appeared in small parts in four films that I know of. One wonders what her real job is. One wonders if her whole, awful abortion furore is nothing more to her than a ‘between paid gigs’ opportunity for publicity.

She wrote her own script and spoke her own lines in her abortion film, but anyone with an iota of sensitivity only has to look at her face to see the sheer banality of evil lurking there of which she is

just almost, faintly aware.

Her words do not match the look in her eyes. The poor woman is hoist on her own petard.

Her ‘authenticity’ is almost totally submerged beneath the falseness of her acting and her professed feeling during the abortion film. But she senses it.

I am a pragmatic sort of chap, m’self. But I react to such deeper issues in people. Perhaps it is from years of ‘training’ and experience in the mind bizzo. This is a patient to reach. A soul to haul from the Pit she has slid into.

But one has to reach past the falsity of her ‘acting’ in order to act.

Pax Dei Vobiscum.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Women & War : Eleanor of Aquitaine

Much mirth and merriment today when Harry came by. Angry as usual in his quiet, controlled and really humorous way, he stepped into a discussion of the Modern Woman, as is his wont, and he brought some historical snippets.

He had been looking through the new treasures - or should that be old, like old wine in new bottles - available now through Project Gutenberg which has put 45,523 books on-line. He found a splendidly relevant one for us.

Society today throws us some very mixed messages about women. Most of them loud. The messages, that is.

Women were always 'oppressed', we are told - and told; women hate war because it is 'Patriarchal', we are told - and told; behind every great man there is a great woman, we are told - and told. 

This despite every time a woman has held power she has declared war on someone, and always has done. Golly they have started them, sometimes for just the same reasons as a wicked, patriarchal, oppressor male has, and often with just the same justification. And sometimes they have done it more to be like what she thinks men are like. Fantasy.

In our age women seem to be more like their sullied idea of men than men are. And that is not as new as you might think.  Just look at the English Queens. And the almost English ones: the ones who were once 'princesses' in some minor place but 'elevated' to a Throne by marriage.

Like Eleanor.

I was reminded of Eleanor of Aquitaine after showing the picture of William and Eleanora de Burgate to some visitors the other day. You might have seen it. And as by coincidence ......

Anyway, Harry had this tale to tell.....

Eleanor of Aquitaine
 I stumbled yesterday across an online book by Jacob Abbot; a prolific writer of the nineteenth century. The book is about King Richard I of England (1157-1199) who is often known as Richard the Lionheart because of his bravery in fighting in the Christian Crusades of the time. 
I only read the first 25 pages, and I found myself laughing at some of the descriptions of Richard's mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. 

But it also revealed another example from history that exposes the current-day feminist nonsense that women were treated as second-class citizens in those far off days - in this case, some 800 years ago.
In the preface to the book, the author makes the following claims about his study, which seem quite credible to me. This is what he says ...
The author of this series has made it his special object to confine himself very strictly, even in the most minute details which he records, to historic truth. The narratives are not tales founded upon history, but history itself, without any embellishment, or any deviations from the strict truth so far as it can now be discovered by an attentive examination of the annals written at the time when the events themselves occurred.
In writing the narratives, the author has endeavored to avail himself of the best sources of information which this country affords; and though, of course, there must be in these volumes, as in all historical accounts, more or less of imperfection and error, there is no intentional embellishment. 
Nothing is stated, not even the most minute and apparently imaginary details, without what was deemed good historical authority. The readers, therefore, may rely upon the record as the truth, and nothing but the truth, so far as an honest purpose and a careful examination have been effectual in ascertaining it. 

And here is part of his account as it relates to Eleanor and her coterie of female friends ...
Eleanor as Zena the Warrior woman; with her girlfriend.

"She spent a considerable portion of her time in Paris, at the court of her husband, but then she often returned to Aquitaine, where she held a sort of court of her own in Bordeaux, which was her capital. She led this sort of life for some time, until at length she was induced to form a design of going to the East on a crusade.
We in the bar were given to understand that parts of what is now France were in fact part of England at the time. What is now France was a tapestry of smallish minor Kingdoms.  Just an historical aside while I pour some wine.
... Her motive was a love of adventure and a fondness for notoriety. 
She thought that by going out, a young and beautiful princess, at the head of an army of Crusaders, into the East, she would make herself a renowned heroine in the eyes of the whole world. So she immediately commenced her preparations, and by the commanding influence which she exerted over the ladies of the court, she soon inspired them all with her own romantic ardor.
The ladies at once laid aside their feminine dress, and clothed themselves like Amazons, so that they could ride astride on horseback like men. All their talk was of arms, and armor, and horses, and camps.  
Elly: dans Pret a Porter.

They endeavored, too, to interest all the men—the princes, and barons, and knights that surrounded them—in their plans, and to induce them to join the expedition. 
Back in those days, especially on the other side of the channel, there were quite a lot of princes and Barons and the like. Far more than ever there were in England itself.  
A great many did so, but there were some that shook their heads and seemed inclined to stay at home.  
They knew that so wild and heedless a plan as this could end in nothing but disaster.  
The ladies ridiculed these men for their cowardice  
and want of spirit, and they sent them their distaffs as presents. 
"We have no longer any use for the distaffs," said they, "but, as you are intending to stay at home and make women of yourselves, we send them to you, so that you may occupy yourselves with spinning while we are gone." 
So much like the 'White Feathers' of WW1, often given to 15 year old boys by pretty suffragettes who had no intention themselves of following Eleanor's example.
"By such taunts and ridicule as this, a great many were shamed into joining the expedition, whose good sense made them extremely averse to have any thing to do with it.
The expedition was at length organized and prepared to set forth. It was encumbered by the immense quantity of baggage which the queen and her party of women insisted on taking. It is true that they had assumed the dress of Amazons, but this was only for the camp and the field. They expected to enjoy a great many pleasures while they were gone, to give and receive a great many entertainments, and to live in luxury and splendor in the great cities of the East.  
So they must needs take with them large quantities of baggage, containing dresses and stores of female paraphernalia of all kinds.  
Of course these days even the men going to war have several very large private sector companies who go in and set up a base camp covering several square miles complete with a base PX and container loads of Coca-Cola.
The king remonstrated against this folly, but all to no purpose. The ladies thought it very hard if, in going on such an expedition, they could not take with them the usual little comforts and conveniences appropriate to their sex. So it ended with their having their own way.
Ah, such was the 'oppression' and subjugation of the women of those days.

By the Wrath of Someone 'doing it her way', at least.

The caprices and freaks of these women continued to harass and interfere with the expedition during the whole course of it.  
But a quick dampener was put on the talk of the modern gal joining the marines and having the entry requirements lowered. That came later.  And a few guffaws were stifled at the evidence of harassment being from women back then. As it ever was and so remains.
The army of Crusaders reached at length a place near Antioch, in Asia Minor, where they encountered the Saracens.  
Antioch was then in the possession of the Christians. It was under the command of the Prince Raymond, who has already been spoken of as Eleanora's uncle. Raymond was a young and very handsome prince, and Eleanora anticipated great pleasure in visiting his capital.  
The expedition had not, however, yet reached it, but were advancing through the country, defending themselves as well as they could against the troops of Arab horsemen that were harassing their march. 
The commanders were greatly perplexed in this emergency to know what to do with the women, and with their immense train of baggage 
The king at last sent them on in advance, with all his best troops to accompany them. He directed them to go on, and encamp for the night on certain high ground which he designated, where they would be safe, he said, from an attack by the Arabs.  
But when they approached the place, Eleanora found a green and fertile valley near, which was very romantic and beautiful, and she decided at once that this was a much prettier place to encamp in than the bare hill above.  
The officers in command of the troops remonstrated in vain. 
The beasts. No consideration for the pretty view at all !  MEN !!! (tm)
Eleanora and the ladies insisted on encamping in the valley.  
The consequence was, that the Arabs came and got possession of the hill, and thus put themselves between the division of the army which was with Eleanora and that which was advancing under the king. A great battle was fought.  
The French were defeated.  
A great many thousand men were slain.  
All the provisions for the army were cut off, and all the ladies' baggage was seized and plundered by the Arabs.  
The remainder of the army, with the king, and the queen, and the ladies, succeeded in making their escape to Antioch, and there Prince Raymond opened the gates and let them in. 
As soon as Eleanora and the other ladies recovered a little from their fright and fatigue, they began to lead very gay lives in Antioch ...

Discussion of the modern and not so modern woman continued into the night. And this Knight pulled many a pint, I can tell you.

Pax Dei Vobiscum

Friday, May 9, 2014

Bedrock Sanity about Same-Sex Marriage.

Crikey. Even I needed a cool drink. Into the Tavern strode a bald headed man, a Doctor, who held the entire P&B in awe. Here was a true Adult. A Mature man. Such a rarity in our age of narcissistic nonebrities.

He spoke with logic, reason, history, a profound understanding of human nature - and from a bedrock of sanity.

Many people sat and questioned him and his views. He answered them all.

I, too, stood and pulled pints listening intently. It was worth the time. He was very clear about the pressures on society, and he repudiated the calculated decision to deprive children of mothers  and fathers.

"The Deep Things of Nature are beyond the authority of any Political party to tamper with."

Many of the points he raised need to be taken seriously.

Many of the phrases he used need to be committed to memory.

Dr David van Gend, said:

"Same-sex marriage is a coldly calculated decision of Government to create motherless families, to create fatherless children... That is very, very bad policy".
As a family doctor and President of the Australian Marriage Forum David van Gend makes an unflinching yet respectful case against the move to same-sex 'marriage'.

He urges that the rights of a child should take priority over the demands of homosexual adults, and addresses all the usual issues of concern during his brief talk.  

(This is from a panel Q&A in Queensland, 2014.)

The forces arraigned against marriage and normal sexual relations are such that, as Dr David points out, even saying out loud that a child needs a Mother and a Father, or putting it here on the internet, will be seen as explicitly divisive and discriminatory, and even be considered 'Hate Speech'.

As he also challenges, so do I.... If the Human Rights Commission wants to hand-cuff me and take me away, come on then.

See more of David at......


Wednesday, May 7, 2014

The Begetting of Wisdom

The Tavern hosts many people; men, women and sometimes well behaved children. of course we like the adults to behave themselves too. But it is the adults who are expected to think and decide on their actions.

Often the whole bizzo of 'Life' gets an airing in bar discussions and yesterday was no exception. We had some teenagers in, one of whom had a deep and meaningful with a regular.

He was a nice kid. The regular was a well 'qualified' man. He, Mike Adams, in fact is a criminology Professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Letters to a Young Progressive: How To Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don't Understand.

If  there is anything a young 'progressive' needs it is a better understanding. On that we can all agree. So, I was particularly attentive as I served these two a fine bevvie or two as they talked. Mike was Grace itself.

It was a powerful dialogue about abortion.

I will show his words as he spoke them.

Look Her in the Eye

Teenager: Dr. Adams, may I have a few minutes to speak with you? 
I enjoyed listening to your talk on abortion. Your points were solid. But I have just one problem. It’s with the rape exception.  
Can you honestly tell me that you could  
look a rape victim in the eye  
and tell her that she could not have an abortion and that she must take the rapist’s baby to term? 
Me: (pulls out phone). Yes 
Give me the number of any pregnant rape victim you know and I will call her right now and talk to her. I can’t look her in the eye but I will talk to her. 
Teen: (Laughing nervously). I don’t know any pregnant rape victims. 
Me: Well, before I put my phone up, can I ask a favor of you? 
Teen: Sure. 
Me: I have a friend who was conceived in rape. Do you mind if I call her and give you the phone so you could explain why it would be permissible for her be killed just because she was conceived in rape?  

You would be shocked at the large proportion of women who have had an abortion and have later deeply regretted it.

Her mother is still alive, by the way. I’m sure that her continued existence reminds her mother of the rape. My friend’s name is Laura. 
Teen: No, I won’t do that. She shouldn’t be killed, now. That isn’t my position. 
Me: Oh, I see. You think that there is some difference between the adult she is now and the embryo she once was that would have justified killing her at that earlier stage of development. 
Teen: I see what you are doing.  
This is the SLED thing, isn’t it? 
Me: Yes it is. Size, level of development, environment (whether she is inside or outside of the womb), and degree of dependency.  
These are the four differences people generally rely upon when they say you can kill the unborn but not the born. Which one is it?
Teen: Well, none of them, I guess. I see your point. 
Me: Good. Now, let’s talk about who benefits when the child conceived in rape is aborted. 
Teen: Ok. 
Me: Would I, or any of the close friends of Laura, have benefited from her death at the hands of the abortion doctor? I mean, would it not have been a tragedy had her friends never known her? 
Teen: Well, yes, I suppose it would have been a tragedy. 
Me: Well, how about Laura? Would she have benefited from the abortion? 
Teen: No, of course not. 
Me: Ok, then who benefits? 
Teen: Well, the rape victim benefits. Obviously. 
Me: But is it really obvious? 
Teen: I think it is. 
Me: You know if a woman becomes pregnant through consensual sex and has a crisis pregnancy it is a toss-up as to whether she will have the abortion.  
But if she’s raped and becomes pregnant then the chances she’ll abort are much lower. 
Teen: How much lower? 
Me: The odds are about three to one that she won’t abort. It may seem counterintuitive but it really isn’t difficult to understand upon further consideration. She’s just been the victim of a violent crime. She identifies with the evil of violence and is reluctant to inflict it on another human being.  
So she usually decides to suffer evil   rather than  inflict it. 
Teen: I’ll have to think about that one. 
Me: Good. It will give me time to ask you another question. 
It gave me time, too, to recharge their glasses. A LOT of Grace was going down.
Teen: Okay. 
Me: You believe that the woman impregnated by a rapist will suffer great stress bringing the baby to term. You obviously believe that the abortion will reduce that stress.  
But your argument turns on the assertion that the stress saved by the abortion will actually outweigh any guilt she might experience over the memory of the abortion for the duration of her life. Is that a fair characterization of your reasoning? 
Teen: Yes, that’s fair enough. 
Me: Well, how did you arrive at that conclusion?  
Can you point me to some evidence? 
The aborted baby gives forgiveness to her devastated mother

Teen: No, I was just speculating. 
Me: Well, you haven’t convinced me that the pregnant woman really benefits.  
The abortion doesn’t solve the problem.  
She suffers terribly regardless. But when those conceived in rape are aborted there are multiple tragedies.  
One human is deprived of life,  
one adoptive couple loses a child,  
and others are deprived of ever knowing the innocent child who would have had a long life and formed many friendships.  
I think that the weight of the evidence is against the abortion.  
I just cannot see who really benefits from the abortion. 

Cui Bono?: Who benefits? 
 Feminists, society wreckers, abortionists, the Anti-Human.
The Diabolical.

Teen: Well maybe I just have some maturing to do as I think about this issue. 
Me: I’m not sure it’s really a thinking problem. 
Teen: What do you mean? 
Me: You have a steady girlfriend, don’t you? 
Teen: Yes, I do. 
Me: Are you sleeping with her? 
Teen: What? I’m not answering that question. 
Me: Well, you don’t have to answer it. You just did. You’re sleeping with her. 
Teen: Ok … what does that have to do with the discussion? 
Me: Well, everything. 
I caught myself nodding at this point. I could see it coming.
Teen: Please explain. 
Me: Every time I am in a discussion of abortion that turns to the so called rape exception, there are two common denominators. First, it is always a guy. Second, he’s always sexually active. 
Ah, but. It is not always the guy. So many times I have heard women give this 'rape' reason. I am guessing that a Criminologist does not hear the same things a psychologists does.
If he is sleeping with a lot of women he really supports unrestricted abortion. So he just feigns concern for the rape victim in order to preserve unrestricted abortion so he can have unrestricted sex.  
Then there are guys like you who are just sleeping with a girlfriend and want to preserve a tiny crack in the wall — a safety valve just in case you get into trouble.  
The idea of an absolute ban on abortion makes you nervous because you are taking risks you know you ought not to be taking. 
Teen: I guess everything you are saying makes sense. Maybe I just need to grow up.
Me: No, not really. You pulled me aside and started this conversation because your conscience was bothering you. You weren’t really worried about the rape issue. You were worried about your own circumstances.  
That’s why it took courage to initiate the conversation.  
You knew I wasn’t going say things you wanted to hear.  
You were mature at the beginning of this conversation and you are even more mature now. 
Teen: Thanks. 
Me: Now it is time to stop treating you girlfriend like she’s already your wife. It will clear your mind and help you make better decisions on a whole range of moral issues.  
Remember that it is always better to decide what you believe and let your beliefs guide your behavior. When it’s the other way around, you become lost and you eventually lose your moral compass altogether. You eventually become a law unto yourself. 
Teen: Well, how do I explain this to my girlfriend? 
Me: Well, that should be easy.  
Tell her you are not yet ready to be a parent.  
Tell her that if she became pregnant it would be your child, too.  
Make sure you look her in the eye and firmly tell her that you could never allow her to abort your child.  
In other words, start living your life according to rules instead of clinging to exceptions. 
 (Author’s Note: The above is based on a real life conversation, which occurred last May. It originally appeared on 

It is important that people THINK and address the issue of abortion. So many excuses are made to avoid confronting the Great Moral Issue of our time.

The Tavern Keeper stands every Tuesday outside the abortion clinic in Hobart and says a Rosary. It is a public act of defiance as well as a profound prayer for the souls of the babies, their mothers and the sad, damaged souls of the doctors and nurses who ply this evil trade.

Anyone is welcome to join me. 2pm Tuesdays.