Saturday, May 30, 2015

Whispers from the Crypt #3

Rumblings and warnings. Signs.

What ‘Gay Marriage’ actually brings.
This week, many in the West were basking in the afterglow of Ireland’s big Yes to gay marriage. It was seen as an unequivocal triumph for progress, for equality, for liberty. 
And yet, if you scratch the nice, live-and-let-live surface of the new post-referendum Ireland, something nastier can be glimpsed. Take the response to the one constituency - Roscommon-South Leitrim - that voted No. 

Far from being tolerated, far from having their views respected, the citizens of Roscommon have been demonised, labelled ‘hate-filled bigots’ and dismissed as ‘old’ and ‘unenlightened’. 
There’s nothing accidental about this response. 
The intolerance of dissent, the conform-or-else impulse, is essential to gay-marriage campaigns across the West.

Brendan O’Neill


Spiked On-Line 

Drink deep of Grace and avoid the poisoned cup.


Thursday, May 28, 2015

5-Sigma: Science Morally Broke amidst Worldly Wealth.


It has been a busy week and so many things standing out as Hilary's Village goes headlong down the slippery slope.  Much of the talk has been about Ireland where the Church has exposed its spectacular failure and allowed the same-sex marriage buggers overturn morality. 

But has 'science' taken over, or just stupidty, hytseria and cant?  The Ireland/Church/Buggers issue has to take a back seat right now.

The IPCC has started to distance itself from its own outlandish predictions though and 'science' itself is being exposed.

A conversation most people will not have noticed was being quietly spoken in a dark corner of the Tavern, that needs to see light.

It was Richard Horton of the Lancet - you must have heard of the Lancet: it is the Premier Medical Journal - who had been to a secret meeting of science bods.  He had some very startling (and perhaps chink of light) things to say.

We all know that so much of 'science' today is ruled by money, feminism, politics and socialism. It has gone so far as to corrupt science.

Remember Sherlock Holmes' famous dictum, told to Watson? 

"It is a Capital Error, Watson, to make the data fit the theory. We must change the theory to fit the data."
Offline: What is medicine’s 
5 sigma?

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” 
I’m not allowed

to say who made this remark because we were askedto observe Chatham House rules. We were also askednot to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their commentsespecially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”— a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech 
are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll.
Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution?Because this symposium—on the reproducibility andreliability of biomedical research, held at the WellcomeTrust in London last week—touched on one of themost sensitive issues in science today: the idea thatsomething has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.
The case against science is straightforward: much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half,
may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects,
invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts
of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has
taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put
it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical
Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put
their reputational weight behind an investigation into
these questionable research practices. The apparent
endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their
quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often
sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they
retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve
their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst
behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels
an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few
journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature
with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important
confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants.
Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and
talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as
high-impact publication. National assessment procedures,
such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise
bad practices. And individual scientists, including their
most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that
occasionally veers close to misconduct.
Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the
problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right.
Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive
and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science
help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research redtape.
Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could
remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability
statements in grant applications and research papers.
Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist
on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and
post publication peer review. Or improve research training
and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations
from our Series on increasing research value, published
last year. One of the most convincing proposals came
from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg
is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following
several high-profile errors, the particle physics community
now invests great effort into intensive checking and 
rechecking of data prior to publication. By filtering results

through independent working groups, physicists are

encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The

goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists

are aligned around this goal. Weidberg worried we set

the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. 
In particle physics, significance is set at
5 sigma—
a 'p' value of 3 × 10–7

or 1 in 3・5 million (if the result is not true, this is the

probability that the data would have been as extreme

as they are). The conclusion of the symposium was that

something must be done.
Indeed, all seemed to agree

that it was within our power to do that something. But

as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no

firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to

think somebody else should act first. And every positive

action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a

counterargument (science will become less creative). The
good news is that science is beginning to take some of its
worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody
is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

  1.  Vol 385 April 11, 2015

Not that they will of course.

Science is a captive of politics, socialism and dishonesty. It is rife with 'Advocacy' research where the outcome is already decided. 

Update  -  A case in point is an article below. Horton is a very 'high profile' person in the scientific field and people take notice,  but what of other's less well known? In the light of the substantial cant and fabrication by the 'Gay' lobby, the experiences of David Brookman below are instructive, especially what he was told by his superiors about not challenging clearly faked data.
Broockman is a thoughtful, fastidious guy — you don’t get a tenure-track Stanford professorship at 26 without being one. Before we spoke on the record for the first time, he sent me a seven-page document outlining all the thoughts that had rattled around in his head since the news broke. So it wasn’t surprising that he also prepared and emailed me a quote that, in his view, sums up the problems that plagued him during his sometimes-halting investigation of LaCour’s work. “I think my discipline needs to answer this question: How can concerns about dishonesty in published research be brought to light in a way that protects innocent researchers and the truth —  especially when it’s less egregious?” he wrote. “I don’t think there’s an easy answer. But until we have one, all of us who have had such concerns remain liars by omission.”
He shows just how even a nonentity like LaCour can fool so many and actually be passively protected by people who should know better.

But is Horton understating the problem?
“” The slide into the abyss is not new. Writing in 2003 in ‘Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences’ Steve Goldberg said there “was a time when you could assume that an intelligent person looking for the truth was guided by the most basic of scientific intuitions: nature will give you a lift only if you are going her way.” That time is no more.

Particularly in sociology “we find large and increasing numbers of ideologues who act as if nature is not something to be discovered no matter what she should turn out to be, but a handmaiden whose purpose is to satisfy one’s psychological and ideological needs.” (It’s worth noting that Goldberg is a self-declared liberal.)
The situation is no better in medicine. “”
Ask me, I don’t think the system can be fixed. 
We have to let it burn itself out, like a tire fire.

The laboratories are alive with a Legion of Cancer researchers also should know better and who should have solved that medical problem decades ago. But heck, all that money awarded by Government, collected in 'Fun Runs' by an army of people who have to be 'employed', and lorded over by 'Charity' Directors on several hundred thousand dollars a year, cannot be dried up or diverted to something else. 

The Tax systems of several countries and major parts of the world rely upon taxing 'carbon'. Scientists are very reticent to correct the term to Carbon Dioxide in case they be blackballed by some government flunkey. 

The Universities were mentioned. The Uni of Western Australia, for example, has turned away Professor Bjorn Lomborg because he is not Global warming 'Enough'. !!!

Its enough to make a chap believe in God. Well the one or more that are said to send mad the folk they wish to destroy. 

I shall stick with the Real One.

But..... our civilisation is going mad.


(Apologies for the formatting.)

Friday, May 22, 2015

Talk about Criminal Stupidity......

Many people of note have given 'Talks' infront of audiences of one sort or another. People come into the Tavern and talk all the time, and I have even been known to give the odd Talk m'self from time to time.

Heck, I used to be paid to give Talks. Not a lot, to be sure. There was that three-day event at a Tournament in Perth a few years back, mind you, where the travel and hotel was 'paid-for' luxury and the $12000 fee was quite majestic. 

But then I am a King.

I talked for three entire hours for that. I am still drinking to whet my partched throat. And the subject matter was of quite useful economic importance for the audience. And for the Company of Germanic motorised Knights that paid me.

But some folks do far better than that.

Take Hillary Clinton. Please. She has her eye on a crown too. Queen of America.

People just love Hillary. She says so. Businesses vote with their wallets (well, OK, their shareholders' wallets). The ordinary folk in the street pay with stupidity. And boy oh boy does Hillary roll in all that cash and stupidity. 

But criminal?
“Behind every great fortune,” Balzac maintained, “lies a crime.” 
If there were any justice, the Clintons would be in prison for a generation of criminal activity that has left America corrupted.
And Hillary does have a fortune.

Without having made anything tangible nor run a business that made a widget or a wooden spoon, she has a fortune.

Let's see what Ted Rall had to say this morning.
Hillary Clinton’s lucrative life of crime
Bill and Hillary Clinton “earned” — can a mortal earn such stratospheric sums? — “at least $30 million over the last 16 months, mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations,” The New York Times reports. 
“They have now earned more than $125 million on the [lecture] circuit since leaving the White House in 2001.”

This is an important issue. But the big story has little to with what actually matters.

Coverage of the Clintons’ spectacularly lucrative speaking career has focused on how it affects Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign — specifically the political damage caused by the public’s growing perception that Hillary is out of touch with the common man and woman. It is a promising line of inquiry for her detractors (myself included).
Hillary is out of touch. She hasn’t been behind the wheel of an automobile for nearly 20 years, is a multi-multi-millionaire who nevertheless considered herself “dead broke” and still believes that she and her husband are not among “the truly well off.” (Maybe Bill still drives.)
Allow me an interruption here, Ted ...
 Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton says she regrets saying that she and husband Bill Clinton left the White House "dead broke" in 2001. "I regret it. It was inartful. It was accurate. But, we are so successful and we are so blessed by the success we've had. And my husband has worked incredibly hard," Hillary Clinton told Fusion TV's Jorge Ramos in an interview Monday.

So she lies then regrets it and promptly lies again ! You have to hand it to Hillary for 'brazen'.  'Inartful'?? This is just farting in the general direction of the TV camera. OK, carry on Ted. Sorry about that.
Ostentatious wealth coupled with tonedeafness didn’t help Mitt “47 percent” Romney in 2012, or John “I can’t remember how many houses I own” McCain in 2008 — and they were Republicans, a party that gleefully despises the poor and jobless. For a Democrat under heavy fire from her party’s progressive base — with Elizabeth Warren, Bill di Blasio and Bernie Sanders leading the charge — this stuff could be politically fatal.

But the media ought to focus on the real issue. FDR was wealthy, yet he created the social safety net as we know it (what’s left of it, anyway). JFK and RFK came from money, yet no one doubted their commitment to help the downtrodden. Liberals distrust Hillary due to her and her husband’s long record of kowtowing to Wall Street bankers and transnational corporations, supporting jobs-killing “free trade” agreements, backing the NSA’s intrusions into our privacy and as an unrepentant militarist. Her progressivism appears to have died with her law career.
Conflict of interest: that’s why we should be concerned about all those $250,000 speeches.
The big question is: Why do corporations and banks shell out a quarter of a million dollars for a Hill Talk?
Corporations and banks don’t pay big bucks to Hillary Clinton because they’re dying to hear what she has to say. 
After having been front and center on the national political scene for a quarter century, she and Bill don’t have new insights to share. And even if I’m wrong — even if you’re a CEO and you’re dying to learn her ultimate (new) recipe for baking cookies — you don’t have to invite her to speak to your company to get the dish. You can ask one of your CEO pals who already had her speak at his firm — or pay to attend one of the zillions of other lectures she gives.

This is not about Hillary’s message.
Corporations and banks bribe the Clintons to buy political favors. 

The speaking racket is a (flimsy) cover.
Like, there’s the time Goldman Sachs paid $200,000 for a Bill Talk a few months before the financial conglomerate lobbied Hill when she was secretary of state. At least 13 companies paid Bill and Hill at least $2.5 million in similar sleazy deals.
Those are just the brazen quid pro quo deals.
Among the companies that have lined Hillary’s pockets over the last 16 months are “a mix of corporations (GE, Cisco, Deutsche Bank), medical and pharmaceutical groups (the California Medical Associationand the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association), and women’s organizations like the Commercial Real Estate Women Network,” the Times says. “Mr. Clinton’s speeches included a number of talks for financial firms, including Bank of America and UBS, as well as technology companies like Microsoft and Oracle.”
Again, an interruption for a practical example. How about this for creative influence buying....
NBC took flak back in 2011 when it hired Chelsea Clinton as a correspondent despite her lack of journalism experience. It might have taken more if people knew how much the network was paying her: 
$600,000 a year, reports Politico. 
The plum salary is gone, however, because Clinton has now switched to a month-to-contract given her pregnancy and the possibility that you-know-who will run for president.
The report has media tongues wagging, with plenty of tweeted jokes about the Clintons being "dead broke” and general astonishment that she made more than former New York Times editor Jill Abramson. And what did NBC get for that salary? Not much, writes Joe Coscarelli.  Her "work included little of note, either journalistically or personally."

Chelsea, out from school.  Some first job eh. She now is in charge of the 'Trust' that holds all the millions, being paid a small fortune from her Mum's 'Trust' of very large millions. It's a 'Trust' to 'minimise' Tax, of course.

Go on Ted.
GE, Cisco and Deutsche Bank aren’t run by idiots. Nor are lobbying groups like the female realtors. Their boards know that Hillary may well become president. Even if she loses, those bribes — er, speaking fees — are a smart investment in Washington influence. 
The Clintons have strong ties at the highest levels of the Democratic Party establishment and on Wall Street. If you’re GE, it makes sense to make nice with people whose help you might want someday, so they’re likelier to pick up the phone when you call to, say, grease the skids for a merger in danger of getting derailed by antitrust laws.

Laws governing the sale of political access are relatively clear, but rarely enforced. The ethics, however, are simple: Honest people don’t take money from people they may be charged with governing or regulating in the future.
“Behind every great fortune,” Balzac maintained, “lies a crime.” If there were any justice, the Clintons would be in prison for a generation of criminal activity that has left America a corrupted, Third Worldified nation, poorer for having been looted by the companies and banks whose criminality they aided and abetted.
No, the companies are not run by idiots. Those are out there in the streets. They will vote for Hillary despite her track record for honesty, let alone her track record for political criminality.  Just listen and weep.

They will vote for her because she is a woman.
The Stupid outnumber the Sane.

They have no idea at all about her policies, behaviour, morals or even her political affiliations !! 

Amazing !  Or is it?


Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Knight on a Sea Horse.

I like to get away from the Tavern from time to time and 'get away from it all'. It is easy to do here, as a chap can mount his steed and be in the middle of nowhere in double-quick time.  And there are many really beautiful places to go, inland and along the coast.

We have lakes and bays and forests and beaches, mountains and valleys galore, all within half a day's ride. Or less.

Not that here is the only beautiful place in the world, nor do other knights stay with a traditional steed like mine.

Bob Murray for instance - an artist - has a steed for sea and air and also a home for the summer in an idyllic spot.

Bob is an old guy like me, but rather better heeled.

But let him show you.

I know a chap who would be in his element in a boat there.

Want to see more of his island?

And his work?

Grin and bear it.

Have a pint.


Monday, May 18, 2015

Taunting the Police.

The food police, that is.

Tonight the Tavern will have a BBQ.  The restaurant is fully booked. There will be none of this 'Gourmet' stuff with one square centimetre of dubious something in the middle of a 12" plate. The TV chefs can take it and shove it.

Tonight we have 'Men's Food'.  We might allow a bit of salad, if there is any room.

And our special guest chefs are American. 

Yes, and hairy ones too. Just the sort of chaps that Knights are comfortable around.


Get that down you and wash it down with a tankard of the Tavern's finest.


Sunday, May 17, 2015

Start your own Country

What a wheeze. Many of my Tavern customers are disenchanted enough with the current state of the world that they would leap at the chance to have their own country, free from the politicians that plague us all.

Now it seems some enterprising Polish folk have done just that.

Mind you, there are already a few flaws in their plans as we shall see. 
‘Kingdom of Enclava’: 
The tiny 100sq m country 5000 people want to become a citizen of
I do hope they get a better grasp of English Grammar. 

And perhaps build some very tall buildings.
A TINY strip of disputed land between Slovenia and Croatia has been declared a new state by a group of Poles — and 5000 people have already applied to be citizens. It even has a currency.
Just weeks after a Czech politician created his own country, a group of Poles have declared a new state — the “Kingdom of Enclava”, on the border between Slovenia and Croatia.
During a recent visit to Slovenia, Piotr Wawrzynkiewicz and his friends learnt from locals that there was an unclaimed strip of land near the Slovenian town of Metlika, some 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of Croatia’s capital Zagreb.
Following the breakup of former Yugoslavia in 1991, seven new states emerged in the region with many border disputes that left some territories as terrae nullius, or no-man’s land.
This geographical discrepancy enabled the creation in late April of Enclava on a tiny 100 sqm (1,070 square feet) stretch of infertile land.
Run under the motto “Citizens of the World”, the idea behind Enclava is “to create a place, where everyone, regardless of skin colour, religion or nationality, will be able to express their opinions, study for free, and earn money without worrying about taxes”, co-founder Piotr told AFP.
 Do you see how easy this new Official Emblem can be adapted to the Crescent? 
News of the aspiring micronation spread online and more than 5,000 people have so far applied for citizenship, he said.
Meanwhile, around 800 new Enclava nationals voted in the Kingdom’s first virtual democratic election last week.
“We accepted candidatures from all over the world. Anyone could stand for election as long as they are or were not a member of an extremist group, convicted of a criminal offence or currently being prosecuted,” Piotr said.
Enclava has adopted the cryptocurrency Dogecoin and recognises five official languages, including Chinese.
It is also in the process of drafting a constitution and preparing electronic identity papers.
But for now the kingdom exists only as an “online state”, found at
Slovenia’s foreign ministry was not available for comment regarding Enclava.
“At the moment, no governmental entity has recognised (our) claim — this is a common issue for all new micronations,” said Piotr.
In early April, Czech national Vit Jedlicka created the Free Republic of Liberland on a small parcel by the Danube river between Croatia and Serbia.

It is not difficult to see the problems that are about to be visited upon these tiny plots. 

ISIS is bound to get around to them, perhaps after a year or two of working their way westwards. Or perhaps their fifth columnists in any of the European countries going east for a bit of mayhem-making will get there first.

Then there are the Chinese. I am sure they can cram quite a bit of military hardware and toy factories onto 100 sq metres. 

As for 'democracy'....... Lord help them.


Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Do we Really Love Children?

There is an entire industry predicated on the mantra "In the Best interests of the Children".  Who could argue against such a reasonable consideration. We all love our children, don't we. Don't we?

Many in the Tavern would disagree. The words are fine but the actions, laws, practices and exhortations of the movers and shakers in Hilary's Village belie them and the Tavern's customers cannot help but notice. It is very clear that our general society does NOT love children

That mantra above for example was first penned, some claim,  by one A. Hitler of  Mein Kampf authorship fame who gave some thought to the propensity of parents especially to care for their children's interests.  He saw it as a key for controlling the population.

The claimed quote goes. "If you tell people that it is 'in the best interests of the children', they will accept any restriction of their liberties." I have not read that tract so I cannot confirm it, and it has been questioned more times than I care to tell, but by the Lord Harry you can see it in practice in the Family Court any day of the week.

The 'Powers that Be' certainly seem to interfere with the one source of Love for children that we all would hope to see supported. Parents. 

Mum and Dad. 

Mum and dad. Not Dad and dad: not mum and mum. 

It is deliberate interference. The Family Court may indeed be the most ostensively hypocritical organisation we can see (even if we cannot report upon its specific dealings) but it is not alone in its underlying lies and cant.

There are several distinct societal ropes being pulled to bring the traditional family - the ONLY safe place for chidren to get all the Love they need - down.

So I stood pulling pints while a customer Kevin Kukla itemised some of the ways our society shows its true colours. To open his discussion another chap pointed out an 'activist' well known to many, and whose very clear words need to be heard.

“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”  [Applause.] “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

You can always rely on the lefty Sydney Writers' Festival to throw up.

Gay Marriage lies are just the latest in a line of policies that belie our love for children.  That attack started in earnest in the selfishness and abandon of the 1960's without any help from Hitler. It was an almost entirely 'westernised' Sexual Revolution' that gave a ready-made ball rolling.  So let's take a deeper look.
7 Ways the Sexual Revolution Victimized Children
Nothing has had (such) a profound effect on our society as the Sexual Revolution. This is no clearer than when analyzing ways in which the Sexual Revolution victimized children.
Below is a list of seven ways in which the Sexual Revolution, brought to you by the advent of the birth control pill, has ill-treated children.
I am not claiming this is an exhaustive list. I just hope this gets folks thinking.
1. Devaluing of Children as a Whole
The sexual revolution has brainwashed nearly two entire generations. Adults just do not value parenthood like in times past. We live in the dawn of the Post-Child phase. The movie, Children of Men, while allegorical, just may prophetic.
Once sex and its consequential children could be decoupled, “free love” ran rampant. Carnal pleasure took precedence over common sense. Now we are left with forty years’ worth of hatred for family life.
Granted, this is an assertion rather than an an 'evidenced' argument, but we see the evidence all around. 
2. Their Existence Serves as an Intrusion, Rather than as a Gift
Debate abortion long enough, and you are bound to run into this one. Progressives think autonomy is the only law worth upholding.  So long as no one infringes on another person’s will, then life can proceed, or so they say.
That's women's autonomy, of course. Men have no such and the whole of Hilary's Village makes sure that he pays for her sins. 
Thus, when a baby enters the picture, their entire world gets rocked.
They believed the lie that children would not come from sexual activity. A baby changes everything.
He is now in the way of their plans, of their “free love.” Thus, the child becomes despised.
And abortion business like 'Planned Parenthood' thrive. They show their love for children with saline solution, suction and knives. And the Village funds it. 
3. Children Function as Commodities for Adults’ Pleasures
It might seem like a paradox. As much as the Sexual Revolution taught its adherents to hate children, it welcomes in vitro fertilization.
With IVF the Culture of Death says that children exist to fulfill adults’ desires. Thus, an entire industry was created to literally breed children in laboratories.
Test-tube conceived children are often passed through surrogate mothers for large sums of money. Millions of babies have died through this barbaric process. Millions more are stored in freezers, having been discarded by their own parents. 
But this need not seem paradoxical at all. The Sexual Revolution says sex and babies need not go together. In fact, they engineered a way that the latter can come without the former even being necessary.
Which leads us to the next one…
4. Children are No Longer the Result of the Loving Embrace of a Husband and Wife
Anyone can look at the sexual act and see its meaning. Despite this, too many hide their head in the sand, pretending not to notice.
The sexual act can literally create a new human life where there was not a person there before.
To engage in that activity with someone screams the need to trust the other person. Come what may, your sexual partner will remain by your side.
This is why sexual activity, when thought through from a Natural Law perspective, must take place within a committed, married relationship between one man and one woman.
The Sexual Revolution has frustrated that entire paradigm. 
In its place, it has pushed a model of procreation that is haphazard. This has led to a lot of pregnancies outside of wedlock, divorce, and so forth.
The entire family structure has been ruined inside the Sexual Revolution worldview. Children are left to suffer the consequences of unstable home life.
5. Children’s Well-being Went from the Forefront to an Afterthought
The point of government is to create an environment serving the common good. This begins with protecting the most innocent or vulnerable within the group.
Thanks in part to the Sexual Revolution that understanding of the role of government has been thrown out the window. If the government would embrace traditional values that uphold family life, children would be able to better flourish than they do now.
Children do best when raised by a mother and a father.
This axiom is being challenged and the results are not pretty.
Divorce, which the Sexual Revolution has catapulted to astronomical rates, devastates many children, often with lifelong effects.
This old and tired Tavern Keeper kneels in the Crypt and confesses his sins, having been caught up in this crime against children and humanity. Would that I could have the forgiveness of the little girl I loved and still love. Many tears wash the floor. My son is generous and understanding. As we forgive, so shall we be forgiven.
Single-parent households are nearly the norm in this age. Children are thus deprived the opportunity to be raised by the second parent—most often the father. Many kids turn to crime, to drugs, and to other harmful activities.
Same-sex parenting is now on the rise, as well. Children raised in these households also face additional challenges to a healthy childhood. No child needs two moms or two dads. They need a mom and a dad. Period.
6. Children are Robbed of Their Innocence at a Young Age
The Sexual Revolution has, unfortunately, succeeded in sexualizing the entire culture. Sex is used to sell a tremendous amounts of products these days. Television commercials, magazine covers, and song lyrics are drenched in such filth.
This is the toxic milieu children are immersed in on a daily basis. It is not wonder the vast majority have their innocence robbed at a young age.
7. Children are Put to Death for the Sins of Their Parents
Lastly, a list like this cannot be complete without stating the most obvious way in which children are victimized by the Sexual Revolution.
Surgical abortion takes the lives of over 3,500 children a day in the USA alone. 
The abortion rate worldwide is sky-high.
As well, estimates of ten-times as many children have had their lives taken by abortifacient contraception.
This is a logical conclusion to the premise the Sexual Revolution has tried to get everyone to accept. Sexual activity need not—and daresay, cannot—lead to child birth.
In order to prevent sexual activity from producing children, pills, foams, jellies, patches, and latex must be added to the act. If those contraceptive methods fail and a baby still results, then surgical abortion serves as the backup plan to prevent birth.
Thus, children are put to death, because their parents care so little for them.
Did I leave out an obvious #8?
Have any thoughts on these ways in which the Sexual Revolution victimized children?
I look forward to hearing from you below.
It was all so attractive, wasn't it? And demanded.

Feminists bent on destruction were so very quickly and easily joined by women in their tens of thousands, then millions, in their demand that 'they could do what men do". That is, have 'free love'

They easily ignored that society had penalised any man who 'slept around'. He was a cad, a bounder, someone society rejected.  He was distrusted even by other men. He was prodded by a shot-gun to the altar. 

Free love? For men.? Hah! 

It was ALWAYS about the Womyn.

Not the children.

Not women.

Not men.

Not Families.

Not 'LOVE'. 

But women showed themselves so easily fooled by other women with a vicious, destructive agenda.

And men supported it too !!  Do not let them off the hook. For hooked they were like carp in a pond. 

They too revelled in the new society that took away the 'cad' and 'bounder' label, and that dreaded shot-gun wielded by a real father who loved his children, especially his daughter. Then they moaned when the labels and abuse were reapplied with a vengance and a 'I told you he was like that'. 

It was all about the womyn. 

And ourselves.

And who suffered?

Women have suffered.

Men have suffered.

And children most of all have suffered.

Children are NOT loved in
 Hilary's Village. 

"Suffer the little children". 

Not make them suffer.

Pray that they pray to Him who forgives us our sins.


Monday, May 11, 2015

Under-Age Love

Chatter in the bar all too often turns to the epidemic of adults having sexual relations with children. Thankfully 'all too often' remains just 'sometimes' otherwise there would be a mixture of anger and gloom permeating the place.  Thank goodness for lighter matters.

I know it is a difficult subject but increasingly we are assailed by even politicians - like some of  the UK's Labour party - who actively support paedophilia with their P.I.E. (Paedophilia Information Exchange), and by the alarming increase in female teachers, especially in the USA who are abusing their position and sexually polluting, molesting and even raping under-age boys.

Was Harriet Harman a teacher once? I do not know.

Young molested girls suffer trauma and gain needed sympathy and help: boys get ignored.
Colorado middle school teacher, 24, 'had long-term sexual relationship with SIXTH GRADE student and gave him marijuana'
Katerina Bardos, 24, allegedly started relationship with 12-year-old student when she was a teacher at Brentwood Middle School in Greeley, Colorado
Er... 'relationship'?

She taught sixth grade at the school from August 2013 through May 2014

Bardos moved to Frontier Charter School in fall 2014, but allegedly continued the sexual relationship with the boy until just before the arrest
Er.... they mean 'RAPE', but as it is a female perpertrator they NEVER call it that. 
She faces charges of sex assault on a child, sex assault on a child by one in a position of trust and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
So, the media refuses to use the correct term. RAPE. 

They call it a 'Relationship'.

We usually and almost intuitively jump to thinking of nasty men sexually abusing and raping girls. But 'Intuition' is a very slippery and unreliable 'sense', if indeed sense it is at all and I have to remind customers to examine their ideas and where they come from, from time to time.
Then there is the growing presence of 'creeds' - well, one in particular - which has a vicious paedophile rapist cum murdering madman as its 'prophet', whose adherents think it perfectly fine to rape even toddlers. Of either sex.

That humanity can wallow in the mud, again all too often, cannot be denied. But was it always thus that children were sexualised young by 'grown ups'?

What is 'Under-Age'?

In the middle ages, when life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" in Thomas Hobbes' words, it was quite common for barely-teens to be betrothed and married.  And not just peasant girls. Princesses were married off at 12. Betrothal may have had its period of time while the 'banns' were called but sexual relations were overlooked in those months - sometimes a year -  before marriage. 

Romeo and Juliet would be arrested today.

Well, Romeo would.

But that was way back. Things improved somewhat by the 19C. And even then there were social mores and morals that weighed heavily and reasonably on most. That socially mandated Moral Standing has been deteriorating ever since. But we still have lessons to learn from as recent as the American Civil War. My friend the Southern Gal has been researching and telling.

One can easily forget (again with an expectation that people then were like people today) that  educational groundings are very different now. The 'home-schooled' children of the 1800's had a firm moral base. They did not have perverted Ministers of Education - as in Canada  today - who were convicted sex offenders insisting on imposing 'Sex Education' on toddlers.
Thousands of Canadian Students Are Ditching Class to Protest Their Province's New Sex Ed Curriculum

Thousands of school children barely old enough to pronounce — let alone understand — words such as "masturbation" and "anal sex" ditched classes and took to the streets on Monday in Ontario to protest new changes to the provincial sex ed curriculum, which they say goes against their beliefs.
It was a successful first day for the "one week no school" strike organized by a group on Facebook that's calling on parents across Canada's most populous province to pull their children and teens out of class everyday this week.

But ordinary people - and children -  did back then, as now, have to navigate the Landscape of the Heart. They were simply better then at navigating because - some think, quite reasonably - they had that moral standing and training.

The 'older man / young girl' scenario played out just as much back then as now. Only now we have it the other way around too. But they dealt with it very differently back then. 

There was Patience. And Chasteness.

The Southern Gal offered an example from the letters sent by Civil War participants.  Here amongst the mud, cordite and carnage, when 600,000 died in bloody battle, men still retained a semblance of moral standing. They were 'steeped' in it. 

Such letters can be shocking so be warned. Some contain extraordinary examples of proper English usage, attention to grammar and syntax and even some hint of morals !!
"And how happy the thought that years increase the affection & esteem we have for each other to love & be loved. May it ever be so, and may I ever be a husband worthy of your warmest affections."

Letter from Harvey Black in Brandy Station, Virginia. 
Black, descended from the founding family of Blacksburg, Virginia, served as a surgeon to the Army of Northern Virginia. In this letter to his wife Mary (whom he affectionately nicknamed Mollie) he recounts their courtship and expresses the great love he has for her.
Brandy Station,

Sunday night, Nov. 1 [1863]

My dear Mollie

I rcd a letter today from a very handsome lady to play cupid. Although not accompanied by her likeness yet her image was so indelibly impressed upon my mind that the likeness itself could not recall the features more vividly than they are impressed. I first met her in a village in Western Va when I was about 17 years old and she 8.
Stop right there mister. What would customers in the bar think today if a lad were quaffing a pint and declaring that he was smitten by an eight year old girl? 

Think on that, and read on. 
I afterwards saw her frequently and occasionally was in her company, and nonwithstanding the disparity of our ages, I became so favorably impressed with her fair face and gentle manners that I frequently said to myself that I wished she was older or I younger.

In 3 to 4 years she had grown so much that the disparity in age seemed to grow less. Never did a lady witness the budding of a flower with more requisite pleasure than did I the budding of that pretty little girl into womanhood. 
She made much of my thoughts while in Mexico and more upon my return home. While at the University of Va., I not infrequently found my thoughts wandering from the dry textbook to contemplate by the aid of memory the features and form of this little girl.

After I completed my studies, I traveled in the west and expected to find a home in some western state, but not finding a place to suit me, together with the persuasions of that fair face, induced me to return.

I entered, as you know, actively into the pursuit of my profession with the determination to make at least a fair reputation and tried to withdraw my thought from everything else, but I found this little fairy constantly and pleasantly intruding into all my plans, whether of pleasure or interest. At this period she met me politely and respectfully but seemed to grow more distant, coy & reserved, so that I frequently thought that even the ordinary attentions of common politeness & courtesy were no special source of pleasure to her.
How very different from many a lad today, "Going His Own Way" resentful and lusting after lost love possibilities; distaining of all women because of the bad behaviour of those he has met.
In a few instances when she has arrived at about the age of 15 this shyness and reserve seemed to be forgotten, and I would pass an hour or two in the enjoyment of her company with great pleasure to myself and I imagined with at least satisfaction, if not enjoyment, to her. I began to think that my happiness was identified with hers. I began to pay her special visits or at least seek opportunities by which I might be in her company. 
I sought her society on pleasure rides and thought it not a hardship to ride 65 miles in 24 hours if part of the time might be spent with her. 
She always exhibited or observed the decorum of modest reserve which might be construed into neither encouragement nor discouragement.
After the delibertation & reflection which I thought due to a matter which involved my happiness for life, I felt that her destiny and mine were probably intended to be united, and that all the adverse counsel which I could give myself could bring no objections. 
I felt that I ought both as a matter of duty and happiness give my whole life to her, who for 9 years had my attention and devotion, though concealed love.

After a few little billets* and interviews, and with a full declaration of the love I desired to bestow, I received a measured and loving response and was made most happy in the anticipation of the celebration of the nuptials fixed at some 6 months hence. 
This time glided nicely & happily, though not too rapidly, away from me. The hours of leisure were spent with her and my visits were always welcomed with that cordial welcome, that maiden modesty, so much to be admired
Tis true that on one occasion she did rest her elbow upon my knee and look with confidential pleasure in my face and made me realize that indeed I had her whole heart.
Would that our children, young, older and almost ready for marriage went so far and no further. But of course Molly and Harvey did not have perverts in Government urging them to give way and at least do a bit of mutual M or even some A. 
Suffice it to say, the happy day of our marriage arrived and since then, hours, days, and years of time, confidence & happiness passed rapidly away, and only to make us feel that happy as were the hours of youthful days, they compare not with those of later years and perhaps even these may not be equal to that which is in reserve for us.

I dont know how much pleasure it affords you to go over these days of the past, but to me they will ever be remembered as days of felicity. And how happy the thought that years increase the affection & esteem we have for each other to love & be loved. May it ever be so, and may I ever be a husband worthy of your warmest affections. May I make you happy and in so doing be made happy in return. A sweet kiss and embrace to your greeting.

But maybe you will say it looks ridiculous to see a man getting grayhaired to be writing love letters, so I will use the remnant of my paper otherwise...

Yours affectionately H Black
*(letters, billet-deux)

He waited. He was constant. She grew. They grew together. 

16 and 25 is a far better match.

Maybe even better would be 18 and 27.

And vice versa; slightly older woman, young man.

But NOT Vice.

No bars, nightclubs, gropes and 'peer pressure' to 'perform. No sex. No teachers feeding drugs to young boys and being leniently dealt with. Did anyone notice above that the 24 year old female teacher was NOT charged with rape of a 12 year old boy?

One can Love a child, in a chaste way. It is a gift of Love that can be given. It does not need to be sexually consumated. A grown man (well, 17 is considered 'man' these days, as far as crime is concerned) can find he has fallen in love with a young girl. A grown woman can fall in love with a young boy.  That is what nature does. It causes us to 'Fall'. But we do not have to crawl.

We do not, as women often use as an excuse for their actions, have to 'follow my heart', ( a euphemism for her nether regions), or be 'swept off my feet', and 'couldn't help myself'.

The gift of patience, chastity, graciousness, devotion..... all very time consuming for today's far better off people.

We are not in Hobbes' day. Life is not so solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.  We have gained a great deal since then but also seem to have lost other aspects of great value.