Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Patterns On the Waters

I have to admit that my humble and tiny quarters near the waters has its delights. It affords me an ever changing vista. Even on a dull day as today, it can change by the minute. There are ships and boats, sailing craft and water-skiers out there, going about their lawful occasions and of course, the tides.

It is an estuary, to give it its proper nomenclature, although Admiral Bruni D'Entrecasteaux all those years ago when this was a quite undiscovered region declared it to be the most beautiful and safe harbour in all the world.

The tide comes in and puts a temporary halt to the outflow of the great Derwent River, making patterns that shift and flow. The sky determines the water colour: sometimes a deep or bright blue: sometimes, as today, a steel or slate gray.

Man-made patterns there are too from the wake of ships. And we get some quite large ones here.

I am looking forward to the summer when as usual we shall receive 'tourist' ships that are taller than most of the buildings in Hobart, each bringing several thousand people from all parts to enjoy this spot. This year promises the most we have ever had. 

Meanwhile the daily parade of more mundane vessels ply by. Small boats towing fish cages for instance. We grow a huge amount of Salmon close by.

And the sailing boats, both large and small.

And the tide comes in and goes out: the river gaining temporary supremacy again.

In a moment it can change as a rain burst reaches down, water to water. Just now. From dull/sunny to mistiness and rain in a minute flat.

Look one way and.......

Look the other way and.......

A chap's soul can be quite quiet here. But never bored.

We leave our marks and sometimes quite beautiful patterns on the waters of our lives. We flow down fast streams making bubbles; we flow out across great plains, weaving this way and that, making eddys; we push our way, often reluctantly into an Ocean of other people all making a mark too. 

And the tide comes in. Our patterns and marks, our wakes, disappear at our Wake.


(Photos from the King Amfortas Photographic Studio and Armour Repair Smithy)

Do You Have a Healthy Constitution?

I am still in reasonable nick for a knackered old Knight. I see and hear with a bit of mechanical help and my old legs are still good for walking from one end of the bar to the other and back again. Often. And along the beachfront.  Often there too.  I have a robust constitution. I am not so sure about Oz though.

Occasionally we have customers who fein ignorance of our Constitution. Even the most patriotic chap or chapess here lacks that memory of  school recitations that, say, Americans display. Their famous document has had several amendments that many know by heart. Not so in Oz. The very underpinnings of our Constitution  - a document we rarely ever see in public - are virtually lost in the mists of a mere 116 years and for goodness sake do not ask the average Australian to name a 'founding father'. You will get a blank look.

That ignorance has consequences.

Our Parliament has seen several newcomers swearing alliegence to the Constitution and the Crown on the Koran: a book that condemns we infidels and our democratic systems, not to mention our religious faith. The body politic is ill. To even allow this affront tells the diagnosticians amongst us that there is a serious virus around.

Nick Miller spoke up to an almost apathetic crowd the other evening and I had to remind some of their manners. 

More than one third of Australians have not heard of the Constitution.
The good news is, more than a half of Australians have heard of the Magna Carta, one of the founding documents of modern law and democracy. 
The bad news is, less than two-thirds of have heard of the Australian Constitution, a new survey has found. 

 More Australians know of the 1297 Magna Carta than they do of the Australian Constitution, according to an Ipsos MORI survey. 

The Ipsos MORI survey was commissioned across 23 countries as part of the commemorations of the Magna Carta's 800th anniversary.
More than 1000 Australians were surveyed, of whom 65 per cent had heard of the Australian Constitution, 59 per cent of the US Declaration of Independence, and 53 per cent of the Magna Carta. 
 Most Australians are concerned about the right to freedom of speech being curbed today. 
Aussie awareness of the old document which established, among other things, the rule of law over the king, the right to trial by jury and the freedom from arbitrary arrest, was significantly higher than the international average of 39 per cent.
Great Britain and the USA did best, Australia came sixth of the countries surveyed behind Spain, Italy and Hungary. Only six per cent of the French said they were aware of it. 
The survey did not explore whether Australia's knowledgeable score was thanks to a successful educational system, the popularity of the (hideously ahistorical) Russell Crowe Robin Hood movie, or what you might call "The Castle" syndrome. 
According to the Australian Senate website, "Magna Carta is much quoted by Australians when they are representing themselves in court cases."
Some of its clauses are still part of Australian law inherited from the UK, though actually citing it in court is usually considered the sign of a rank amateur. 
The survey also found that:
- 39 per cent of Australians felt that freedom of speech was under threat today in Australia, 35 per cent felt basic human rights were under threat, and 27 per cent chose freedom of religion. 
- In China, the survey organisation was not allowed to ask which rights people felt were under threat. Most other countries came up with similar answers to Australia, but India was more concerned with equal rights for women, and Russia with freedom from arbitrary arrest. 
As part of the anniversary this year, Australia's 1297 copy of the Magna Carta will be removed from its glass case at Parliament House for the first time in 50 years. It will be digitally scanned, examined by conservation experts then placed in a new display case. 
The original was sealed (not signed) at Runnymede by King John on June 15 1215, to settle a rebellion by powerful barons. 
Its 12th clause, that no tax should be levied without common consent, was the seed that grew into the modern parliamentary system. 

Not that anyone reaching high office has taken a blind bit of notice. Taxes are decided in back-rooms and consent is taken from the silence of the ignorant.  

The ignorance of the general population may have an explanation in the origins of the individuals. Oz has a considerable minority (around 25%) born elsewhere. But one would expect that those coming here would have some knowledge upon which to base their preferences: and that the immigration authorities would ensure they 'knew the rules' of the game of being a Person of Oz. 

Not so it seems.

Looking at the anticedents helps and should be mandatory in our schools and immigration processes.

We were fortunate that Nick was in the bar at the same time as Augusto Zimmermann, who treated us to some needed background.
Constituting a Christian commonwealth:
The Christian foundations of Australia's constitution
“The Commonwealth of Australia will be, from its first stage, a Christian Commonwealth.” 
— Sir John Downer, 1898.
Australia’s Greens have announced that, when Parliament resumes in February, they will move to end the reading of prayers at the start of each sitting day. “The Lord’s Prayer in Federal Parliament is an anachronism”, says Greens leader Richard di Natale, who is calling to have the prayer scrapped. He will ask the Senate’s procedure committee to amend the standing orders and to do the same in the House of Representatives. 
This reveals a form of secular ignorance and secular intolerance towards our nation’s Christian heritage. After all, Australia’s Constitution is deeply infused with religiosity from the outset. As one of the Constitution’s most distinguished co-authors, Sir John Downer, declared in 1898: “The Commonwealth of Australia will be, from its first stage, a Christian Commonwealth.”
The Constitution of Australia Bill was passed by the Imperial (British) Parliament on July 5, 1900. Queen Victoria assented four days later, and in September proclaimed that the Commonwealth of Australia would come into existence on the first day of the 20th century (January 1, 1901).
Like Sir John Downer, many of the other leading writers of the Constitution had strong views on the importance of Christianity to the Commonwealth. 
For example, Sir Henry Parkes, known as “the Father of Australia’s Federation”, believed that Christianity comprised an essential part of Australia’s common law. 
In a column published in the Sydney Morning Herald (August 26, 1885), Sir Henry stated: 
“We are pre-eminently a Christian people — as our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our Constitution… are based upon and interwoven with our Christian belief.”
Similar views were found among the drafters of the Constitution Bill in 1897. Among these were Edmund Barton, who entered politics under the influence of his Presbyterian minister, and the leading federalist and statesman of his day, Alfred Deakin. On the day following the referendum concerning the draft of the Constitution, which was held in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania on June 3, 1898, Deakin humbly offered a prayer of thanksgiving for all the progress that had been made, asking for Christ’s blessing on the endeavour: “Thy blessing has rested upon us here yesterday and we pray that it may be the means of creating and fostering throughout all Australia a Christ-like citizenship.”
All of these statements are much more than just rhetoric. After all, the Christian belief of the Australian framers also made its way into the preamble of the Commonwealth Constitution: “Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth….” 
As Helen Irving has suggested in her book, To Constitute a Nation: A Cultural History of Australia’s Constitution (1999), the preamble is that part of the Constitution laying out “the hopes and aspirations of the parties involved”,[7] and, indeed, 
the reference to God received the strongest popular support of any part of the Constitution.
According to Professor Irving: “During the 1897 Convention, delegates had been inundated with petitions … in which the recognition of God in the Constitution was demanded. The petitions, organised nationally … asked for the recognition of God as the ‘supreme ruler of the universe’; for the declaration of national prayers and national days of thanksgiving and ‘humiliation’. But, the essence of their petition was that the Constitution should include a statement of spiritual — specifically Christian — identity for the new nation.”
The insertion of an acknowledgment of God into the preamble of the Australian Constitution occurred in response to overwhelmingly popular public support, which came, among other things, from countless petitions received from the citizens of every single colony in Australia.
Overall, these petitions reflected the general sentiments of the people for “some outward recognition” of the Divine Providence, so that the work of the Australian Framers should “fix in our Constitution the elements of reverence and strength, by expressing our share of the universal sense that a Divine idea animates all our higher objects, and that the guiding hand of Providence leads our wanderings towards the dawn”.
In the process of popular consultation, which took place during the constitutional drafting, the legislative assemblies of Western Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and South Australia all submitted proposed wordings for the preamble acknowledging God. 
The Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, for example, proposed that the preamble should declare that the Australians are “grateful to Almighty God for their freedom, and in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings”. Similarly, the Legislative Assembly of Tasmania suggested that the Constitution’s preamble should “duly acknowledge Almighty God as the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and the source of all true Government”.
Furthermore, both the legislative assemblies of New South Wales and South Australia, as well as the Legislative Council of Western Australia, proposed a preamble “acknowledging Almighty God as the Supreme Ruler of the Universe”.
This being so, John Quick (one of the drafters of the Constitution) and Robert Garran (who played a significant role in the Australian federation movement) wrote in their standard commentary on the Australian Constitution: 
“This appeal to the Deity was inserted in the Constitution at the suggestion of most of the Colonial Legislative Chambers, and in response to numerous and largely signed petitions received from the people of every colony represented in the Federal Convention….
“In justification of the insertion of the words, stress was laid on the great demonstration of public opinion in their favour, as expressed in the recommendations of the legislative bodies and in the petitions presented.”
It may well be argued that the overwhelming public support for a reference to God in the Commonwealth Constitution reflected the view that the validity and success of an Australian federation was dependent on the providence of God.
Speaking at the Constitutional Convention, Patrick Glynn of South Australia explained this precisely to be so and that it was to Australia’s credit that the new nation would have “[t]he stamp of religion … fixed upon the front of our institutions”.
To conclude, the inclusion of the words, “humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God”, in the Constitution exemplifies Australia’s religious, and specifically Christian, heritage. It can, at the very least, be said that Judeo-Christian values were so embedded in Australia so as to necessitate the recognition of God in the nation’s founding document.
When considered alongside the development of colonial laws, the adoption of the English common law tradition and the American system of federation, it is evident that the foundations of the Australian nation, and its laws, have discernible Christian roots.

 Augusto Zimmermann, LLB, LLM, PhD (Monash), teaches legal theory and constitutional law at Murdoch University, Western Australia.  He drinks occasionally in the Oz room at the Knight & Drummer Tavern. He is also president of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA) and editor of The Western Australian Jurist. Last year he published a widely acclaimed book, Western Legal Theory: Theory, Concepts and Perspectives (Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2013). 

WE drink to that and deplore the intrusions of the satanic Koran into our Government proceedings.

Sharpen your swords Gentlemen, Knights, Saints and yes even you mob of sinners. A sharp blade will be needed. Ladies sharpen your stilettos. Be sure, that the enemy has sharp blades ready for you !


Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Good Golly, its cultural appropriation

Those that exercise 'power' for the public good - the courts and legislatures, the 'administrations' and such - seem to be quite mad.  Anyone can complain, it seems, over trivia, and they are taken very seriously by such 'powers' who seem to enjoy the fees and costs that flow.

An ongoing matter is before the 'Tribunal' at the moment regarding several white boys at a Sydney University who stumbled into a computer room that was 'reserved for aboriginal use only'. A self-nominated aboriginal woman took offence - or should I say the small blackfella part of her blood which was heavily uncoloured by much whitefella blood took offence - and so far the lads have incurred several hundred thousand dollars in costs. I cannot say more, of course as it is before the psuedo-Beak. One hopes sanity prevails but I may be hoping in vain. 

No-one has mentioned yet the cultural appropriation of computer technology by aboriginals.

Meanwhile the relevant section of the obsure "Act for the denying of Free Speech by White, Australian Males', known here as 'section 18C' continues to be argued about and derided by the sane and defended by the insane. Designed to 'protect' diverse minorities - you know the sort: coloured folk, muslims, LGBQRST's et al- and sundry nutters from any hint of criticism or comment which might (or might not) 'hurt their feelings',  it has been a weapon deployed by the easily disgruntled against the mildest and fairest of comment. Tit-for-tat time was awaited since its inception.

And so it has come about that a Senator has responded with the only kind of parody- punishment available to all.... complain to a Tribunal. The biter, bit. 

Australian Libertarian Senator files racism complaint because he was called an 'angry white male' 
Leftists frequently refer to "white males" in various contexts, apparently quite unaware that they are being racially discriminatory
Senator David Leyonhjelm has lodged a complaint under the Racial Discrimination Act for comments made about him by a journalist.

The Liberal Democrat senator, from New South Wales, submitted the complaint last week after a Fairfax media article was published referring to him as a 'boorish and gormless as a result of being an angry white male', reported the Daily Telegraph.

It is reportedly the first complaint of its kind for the Australian Human Rights Commission (HRC) under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
By 'first of its kind' they mean a white chap is complaining. What a change! 

Under this section, it states it is unlawful to commit an act which would reasonably offend or insult someone because of their race, colour, national or ¬ethnic origin.
In his complaint to the HRC Senator Leyonhjelm said his colour was one of the reasons the comments were made.
'Other characteristics referred to in the article include being a boorish supercilious know-all with the empathy of a Besser-Block, hate speech apologist, wacky, a self-promoting misanthrope and a practitioner of infantile reasoning,' he said.
'The comments are reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend or insult some white males.' 
Indeed. We white males, especially knackered old ones who are not quite dead yet, do find it offensive, but we usually simply refuse to take offence. Well the Senator is setting a new course. Hahaha. I must pour him a long drink.

He is in a far more significant position to do that than say the young (white) fellow who was accosted recently by a yound (black) chappess at a Uni somewhere for daring to have dreadlocks. She was offended, on behalf of all black people.
Presumably it did not occur to either of them that Rastas are themslves nutters of the Jamaican persuasion and nothing to do with the lady's ancestry; that the Rastas thought the Emperor of Ethiopia was a God; that he himself - the Emperor - didn't have dreadlocks but was in fact had a fairly normal haircut for the western times; and that she was physically abusing him. She really needed her bottom spanked.

But we live in strange times when simply wearing boot polish on your face is a disgrace and a jailable offence but almost anything else is OK. Except Indian feathers. Or Japanese Kimonos. or....... the list is getting longer by the day.

It is now difficult for a child to even emulate his footy hero without some raving loonies trying to ruin him.

Nic Naitanui spoke out after a mother sent her child to a parade in blackface
[Black footballer] Nic Naitanui has spoken out after a Perth mother’s Facebook post of her son dressed like the AFL star sparked widespread outrage.

Taking to social media, Naitanui wrote that the kid was “merely attempting to emulate his hero”, saying it “hurts my heart. Especially when that hero is me!”

The original post, made on commentator Constance Hall’s public Facebook page, shows the West Australian mother’s young son dressed as Naitanui — his favourite footy player.
The problem? She painted his skin with head-to-toe brown paint.
The post prompted widespread outrage.
Last night, Adam Briggs, an Indigenous rapper, comedian and actor, slammed the woman in a Facebook post about blackface.
He described it as an “obviously reckless, racist thing to do”, said he “thought it was a set up”, and went on to invalidate a series of common arguments that support blackface.
“She seems to have disappeared now, gone to ground, I hope she stays there for the sake of her son.
Hey, Briggs, while you are trying to get in on the 'being offended bandwagon' and not rapping and comedianing around making folks groan, why not hunt the little fan down and give him a good kicking, eh? Big man.

A safety hint for small boys (white ones anyway). Don't dress up as Superman or you will have some wannabe person claiming to be from Krypton, taking offence and bursting through your bedroom wall.

It isn't just Oz or the USA that is afflicted. The UK too has its terrible tales. Take this for an example.

Folk festival bans Morris dancers from appearing in blackface after complaints the 500-year-old tradition is racist 
Shrewsbury Folk Festival bosses said people wearing full black face paint would not be booked from next year - although dancers claim it has no racial links and branded it 'PC nonsense'.
This weekend's event will be the last time the popular festival will book Morris dancers using dark make-up.

Community group Fairness, Respect, Equality Shropshire (FRESH) said the ban showed sensitivity 'to a changed social climate'.
Ahh, the Zozchial Kimate rears its dark cloud. A fresh drop of hail falls on the dancers.

But Morris dancers say there were 'no racial connotations' and they had 'never wanted to upset people.'
Festival director Sandra Surtees said they found themselves 'caught between two sides' of the argument.
She added: 'The use of full face black make up is an age old tradition, particularly within Border Morris.

'The Morris movement has always evolved over time and some sides have take their own decisions to move away from using full face black make up to other forms of colour and disguise.
The tradition is known as 'Border Morris' and sees performers wearing a full-face of black makeup in order to disguise themselves, has no racial connotations.
'The festival has never wished to cause offence to any person and as such, from 2017, we will no longer book sides that use full face black make up.
But the decision has sparked public outrage from Morris dancers and Shropshire residents.
Jon Roads said: 'It's terrible that PC nonsense is being used to repress our traditional customs in this way.  'These ancient traditions are at risk of dying out completely. Just disgusting.'
Adrian Pitt added: 'I am disappointed that the organisers are not prepared to tolerate my traditional disguise, which has nothing to do with mimicry of any racial group and doesn't even look like any particular racial group, the evidence of which goes back centuries.' 
And so it goes, on and on. What we need of course is a coloured person to spike the guns of the always offended. Preferably a woman, of course. Sensible and nice. And elderly. I can't see Germaine Greer putting on a black face for the job, but....  maybe this lady can talk some sense that will be heard.

And on cue...... 

Grandmother sells Gollywogs - and dresses up as one - for charity in bid to 'reclaim black heritage'
Charlotte Nightingale sells controversial toy at fairs and school fetes
Mother-of-three says she finds idea that the dolls are offensive 'nonsense'
All of the profit raised by the dolls goes to charity projects in West Africa

The mother-of-three, who dresses up as a Golly when she sells them, said she had received a widely positive reaction from members of the public and does understand why they have been banned.
Yep, Golly is banned, by golly. 

She said: 'Three or four years ago I became aware that Gollies were banned because they were offending black people, but that was news to me.

'I'm black. I'm from Ghana and I didn't know this was the case - I thought this is nonsense.
'I could not make sense why a doll which was a children's toy, or a rag doll, is now offensive to black people - and for that reason I chose to use it as a mascot.
'Golly is still loved by millions of people of all shades.'
Well said granny Charlotte. So, what can an aging Knight-cum-Tavern Keeper add?

 Have a deep drink.


Sunday, August 28, 2016

You Have a Say

Hillary's Village demands that you shut up. Many of its denizens, under and over rocks, demand that they and only they have a say. If you try, dare, chance your lip or even politely request to have a say they will call you a bigot, anti-women, islamophobic and a host of other denigrating names. They will use the laws to shut you up, fine you or even jail you for saying what you want to say if it differs from what they have to say.

Our politicians feed these nay-sayers with taxpayers' money to stop taxpayers having a say. Pay but don't say, they say.

This fellow came by and stood in the Pin & Balloon Bar to have a say.

He said it well.

You ought to, too


Thursday, August 25, 2016

Dealing With 'Difficult' Customers

From time to time customers afflicted with modernism will come to the Tavern. I am happy to serve them a fine ale of distinction as long as they behave themselves. But often they do not. Being a kindly and old Warrior I have many a rubrik in my arsenal of means for dealing with them including 'When you meet one on the road, offer kindness but keep your hand on your sword'.  I am well known for my patience but it can be stretched too far, occasionally. 

When one persists in lying like a Dicky Mint trim sheet, act obnoxiously or tries to bully other customers,I simply give the nod to my Bouncer who 'Boldly throws where many have been thrown before - out the door.' It works and restores peace.

But there are others of a similar disinclination to put up with nonsense who have a range of strategies. I am busy pulling pints and do not get the time to excercise such gentle and communicative methods  but nevertheless can quite happily listen as they coach other customers.

So it was that two chaps gave their views. One, a Mr Preston Ni (not one of the Knights of Ni, I hasten to add), was 'explanatory' of many ways. I shall not dwell on them here but you may want to sit with him for a few moments. He had started with (before I moved to pull pints for others) .....
Most of us encounter unreasonable people in our lives. We may be “stuck” with a difficult individual at work or at home. It’s easy to let a challenging person affect us and ruin our day. What are some of the keys to empowering yourself in such situations? 
Below are ten keys to handling unreasonable and difficult people, with references to my book: “How to Communicate Effectively and Handle Difficult People”. Keep in mind that these are general rules of thumb, and not all of the tips may apply to your particular situation. Simply utilize what works and leave the rest.
Yes, he had a book ! But he is not alone in that. He had some useful things to say, but frankly I rather took a shine to the other chap, Jim Goad who was more direct  and clearly a bit of a warrior hisself. His name was apt ! And he has a book too. He is also a 'broad' fellow.  

Jim Goad is the author of four books in fact. He is the former editor of "ANSWER Me!" magazine and currently hosts Though many people find him to be beneath contempt, he sincerely claims he doesn't know what the big deal is. At various points he has found employment as a radio host, a country singer, and a cabdriver. He lives in Stone Mountain, Georgia.

I whet his whistle with a pint of the best.
How to Deal With the Brainwashed
I awoke this morning to the creaking sound of the Western mind closing shut. 
I felt it squeezing in on me like a car crusher. Public discourse is more controlled and political dissent more squashed than at any point in memory. Try as I may, all the evidence suggests we are on the brink of an ideological Dark Age the likes of which America has never seen. It seems we’re only inches away from living in a world where stating the obvious will be criminalized.
Online, the chief enablers of this situation are the smirking young progtards, who are unwilling to even touch any viewpoint that hasn’t been spoon-fed to them in school or beamed into their eyeballs via TV. 
Their brains have never hatched a single original idea in their lives. 
They are mere hollow carriers of infectious ideas, not so much Trojan horses as little pink Trojan ponies.
The modern young leftist is a weak, wretched, psychotic creature, at once nasty and cowardly. 
Notice how these bespectacled, bearded nerdlings didn’t have one shred of bravado until they had the full weight of the government, media, and academia on their side. They are the sort of cowards who were terrified to make a peep until it was absolutely risk-free. They are extremely bold—at least behind a keyboard—until directly confronted when there’s no crowd around to protect them. 
A lone earthworm has more spine than any hundred of them.
“They are immune to logic as if they’ve been vaccinated against it—so go for their emotions.”
Bandwagon-riders that they are, they tell everyone who doesn’t think in lockstep with them to “Get with the times,” which is a dishonest way of saying, “Be a conformist like I am.” Hence their smugness as they tilt at windmills that were destroyed generations ago. They are still deluded that they are fighting the power rather than working for it—often without pay or benefits.
It’s one thing to be unwittingly brainwashed, yet quite another to assent to one’s brainwashing once it’s been made clear. These hateful little fuckers are defiantly brainwashed, and whether it’s cognitive dissonance or doublethink or pathological lying, they’ve made it impossible to rationally engage with them. Believe me, I’ve tried. For decades. Honestly. Foolishly.
It took decades for me to realize I was dealing with fundamentally dishonest people. 
I naively thought I could politely discuss ideas with people for whom “reason” is a dirty word. But you can’t debate the brainwashed. Their cognitive dissonance is too powerful. The truth doesn’t matter to them at all. 
This is why, in nearly all cases, they will flee from the gentlest offer of an earnest discussion. There is to be no debate. There is a reason they won’t engage, and it is not because they are certain they are correct. Censors are motivated by insecurity in their own beliefs, but they are not remotely honest enough to admit it.
Their holy cause is all that matters to them, and they feel they’ve already established—or, rather, declared—that the cause is unassailable. And anyone who challenges the cause must be vilified. So they don’t ever engage in debate, only vilification.
To be a modern leftist is to embrace a constellation of lies. 
They eat lies as if they were corn flakes. Leftism is based on a false premise, and all political systems whose roots are planted in quicksand will inevitably sink into totalitarianism. They start with one flawed premise—equality, which is a laughably obvious lie—and embrace it as an untouchable truth. And they will tell a billion other lies to protect that main lie.
You’ve heard the lies again and again:
*There’s a clear line between free speech and hate speech.
*Rape has nothing to do with sex.
*If you dislike something that we like, you suffer a mental disorder known as a phobia.
*Race doesn’t exist, but racism is ubiquitous.
*Evolution is real, but somehow, inequality isn’t.
*There is no such thing as an anti-white hate crime or anti-white racism.
*Whites are the only group in world history that has ever been ethnocentric.
*The nations and peoples who were colonized were peaceful and advanced, and it’s not as if they would have been colonialists themselves if only they’d had the technology and organizational prowess.
*Conformity is a sign of virtue rather than weakness.
*Women can’t be every bit as nasty and violent as men.
*Homosexuality is genetic and has nothing to do with possible childhood sexual trauma.[or brainwashing]
*Children need to be taught to be racist, which is why, um, we spend so much time teaching them not to be racist.
*We want equality rather than power.
*Two wrongs make a right; in fact, it’s known as “justice.”
*We are open-minded atheistic humanists, which is why anyone who disagrees with us is a subhuman piece of shit who needs to rot in hell.
As the saying goes, the first casualty in war is truth. 
These little creeps have clearly shown that they feel no compunction to play fair. Leftists are fighting as if they’re in a war, and they’re acting as if they smell blood. 
They interpret your fairness as weakness. 
If you don’t even realize that someone has declared war against you, you’re probably going to lose that war. But you can’t win a boxing match when your opponent is swinging a mallet.
People who accuse you of being insincere unwittingly reveal a lot about themselves. Same goes for those who accuse you of being hate-filled. Or of being intolerant. Psychological projection is the currency of the hysterical moralist.
People usually play their hand by attacking you with whatever line of attack would work best on them. If their consistent MO is to lob one ad hominem Molotov cocktail after another at you, that’s a tacit admission that they fear nothing more than public humiliation. By dictating the rules of the game, they unwittingly let you know precisely what it would take to beat them.
They are immune to logic as if they’ve been vaccinated against it—so go for their emotions. 

Mock them. Endlessly mock them. Publicly mock them. Take their cancerous hatred—which they’re openly projecting onto you—and smash them back in the face with it. They’re begging for it. They are only being relentless because you’ve been too nice. Despite how boldly they act, they are obviously horrified of their own shadows.
They’re going to call you a “hater” anyway, so you might as well blow off some steam at their expense. Sure, you may have a compulsion to drag them out into the streets and beat them toothless, but that would only validate their fantasies and get you arrested. No, do what they do—only harder. Humiliate them. Publicly. 
Point out that they are hate-filled, intolerant liars. 
Toss that bomb right back at them where it belongs.
So many—if not all—of them are obviously reacting against childhood bullying. And even though no one has dared bully them for years, they can’t seem to let it go. So bully them back with such soul-crushing gusto, they’ll start praying that they were back in high-school gym class. Tie them in pretzel knots made of their emotions.
All it takes to blind them is to hold a mirror in their face. This way they’ll know that when confronted, they were the ones who blinked. Never let them forget that. 
This is why they will hate you far more than they did when they first picked this fight. It is also why you will win.
I didn't have him thrown out, despite his vehemence. It was rather refreshing.

En-Mob, these people he speaks of are a menace and dangerous. There are ways of dealing with that too. Roman Legion tactics.


Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The Second Five

The discussion of  the elegant and beautiful of the other evening continued well into the next day and is still being chewed over. I had to agree that naming just five aircraft that fitted the description (in this Tavern Keeper's humble view) was a hard task and others have put their oars in the waters and hoisted sails to rush their choices to the score board. Frankly It has been more fun than the Olympics. More people watch the skies than the track.
Avalon 2105 See if you can spot the Tavern Keeper 
So it means I have to show and tell the next five to make it a 'Top Ten'. These are my particular choices and may well say something about my unique mind.

Coming in at #6, one of the most elegant of modern times. 

The Bone.  

Even the most jaundiced eye can see that this is a Lady. A very fast lady at that, but with superb manners. The Lancer B1b. 

Built as a supersonic bomber for delivering a nuclear boom, fast, it has never been deployed in that role. But it has been successfully adapted to a fast, low-level conventional role.

Originally it was intended to replace the very ungainly and definitely ugly sister the B52, but you know how things go with military aircraft. The situation changes; strategic imperatives change; the darn things crash; a new interfering directive comes down from on high. And so adaptations to role occur. But the sheer beauty remains.

And talking of Ugly. No-one ever pretended that (this interlude before #7) my most beloved steed was pretty. Lipstick would not help. But as anyone who is anyone has said, the only replacement for a Bucc is another Bucc.
The moment you take the 'weight' off the undercarriage, it goes up.

But I digress. 

#7 The Victor. There will never, ever be a more Unique design.  All who have seen a Vic fly by, take off, land, or even just sit there, look with an open mouth. The Handley Page Victor is (was) a British jet-powered strategic bomber, developed and produced by the Handley Page Aircraft Company, which served during the Cold War. 
Fearsomely Beautiful
It was the third and final of the V-bombers operated by the Royal Air Force (RAF), the other two V-bombers being the Avro Vulcan and the Vickers Valiant. The Victor had been developed to perform as part of the United Kingdom’s airborne nuclear deterrent. In 1968, the type was retired from the nuclear mission as the nuclear deterrence mission was given to the Royal Navy's submarine-launched Polaris missiles.

A number of Victors had received modifications to undertake the strategic reconnaissance role, employing a combination of radar, cameras, and other sensors.  Sniffer too.

During the Falklands War, Victor tankers were notably used in the airborne logistics operation to repeatedly refuel Vulcan bombers on their way to and from the Black Buck raids.
The huge distinctive flying Tail. 
The Victor was the last of the V-bombers to be retired, the final aircraft being removed from service on 15 October 1993. In its refuelling role, the type had been replaced by the Vickers VC10 and the Lockheed Tristar.

# 8 Which brings us conveniently to just that VC10. 

But first...

Yes, the VC10. Originally a civilian plane, I think the VC10 is a magnificent design that deserves some attention and accolade. 

As with so many fine aircraft from British stables, she was designed in that mid-20C phase, and its rear powerplants / high tail combination has been copied and adapted to many medium haul passenger planes. It is a very quiet and stable configuration. 

During it's service with BOAC the VC10 BOAC advertising gained a lot of passenger appeal and BOAC responded to this by using these appealing features such as it's quietness and smooth ride in their campaigns. 

At some point someone coined the phrase 'a little VC10derness' and it appeared in some of BOAC's commercials from that point on to describe the 'special treatment' you got when flying on a VC10.

The RAF took it and used it for passenger and troop transport (remember flying backwards?) and later as a tanker. But regardless of role it is a simply beautiful shape. The High tail sets it up for admiring looks and many a camera. It is a powerful machine too. Four engines. Its copies in the medium-haul world get by with two.

#9. All aircraft start as a dream. Sometimes it is an 'official' requirement that relies upon some dreamer to it turn to reality. My next is not unique anymore since a hundred clones and copies swiftly followed its inception, the Learjet remains an elegant design and solution to the needs and the desires of business, and the Dream of Bill Lear.  

As the founder of Motorola, Bill Lear had amassed a fortune in the consumer electronics industry in the first half of his life. With the dawn of the jet age, what he longed to do was create a personal jet

When the Lear Jet 23, born from a Swiss military trainer jet, first flew on October 7, 1963, 
nothing on the civilian market could come close to its performance. 

The Lear 24 and 25 models that followed offered even better performance and more room inside, though all were tiny. With Clay Lacy and Danny Kaye showing off those early Lear Jets to Hollywood’s elite — and famously, members of the Rat Pack, including Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin — the popularity of the diminutive private jets exploded.
Fifty years ago, on Aug. 12, 1966, the Lear Jet 25 made its maiden flight in Wichita, Kansas. It was the last model to fly before Bill Lear, the inventor of ADF, the 8-track cassette and 150 other things, sold the company in the midst of a crushing recession to the Gates Rubber Co. Many Learjet models would follow through the years, including the iconic Lear 35 and 55, as the Learjet brand became a household name in the 1970s and 1980s 

Much of the credit for the success of Lear Jet belongs directly to the gentlemen in this iconic photo, playfully trying out the mockup for the never-built Lear Liner Model 40 in 1965. Bill Lear, of course, is in the middle. On the left is Clay Lacy, the legendary Southern California pilot and businessman; on the right is Hollywood actor Danny Kaye, a pilot and early Lear Jet advocate who threw his star power behind the brand and even served as the company’s vice president of marketing.

Prior to Bill's dream there were no luxury civilian personal jet aircraft. He found a niche that few knew was there and waiting. In the Tavern Keeper's HV, it is a beautiful craft and today, made by Bombardier, customers have a hand in every stage of the fit-out, from instruments to luxury seating and accoutrements.

#10. So we arrive at an unusual choice and to me quite personal. This is a workhorse, so old it should be out to pasture but still soldiers on. The sun has threatened to go down on it but there it is every morning 

The Grumman Goose.

Well, it had to be a sea-plane, didn't it?

I can say little about it that many others have not said before.  If it only had bay windows it might have made it into the top five.

The Goose will do your bidding with grace and even some charm. But even staid older ladies need some careful handling. 

The Goose laid golden eggs for many, many remote and not so remote communities. Other planes came along. The goose was almost 'cooked'. But there has been a resurgence.

But at least one customer here will appreciate that it is not only with bicycles that pretty girls like to pose.

I shall serve a round to all who sit and admire my choices. 

And what would you choose?

Oh, by the way, did I mention 'crash'? The Lancer.

No-one was injured.

Pax. Over and out.