Hypocrits Undone

"Show me the man or woman and I'll show you the hypocrite" said someone or other, and by the Lord Harry they were right. Everyone can carry the name, unfortunately, as we are all only human and prone to frailty. But most ordinary people (not me, of course: I am extraordinary) keep their very small hypocricies very small and do not attract the attention of the media or the uniforms. Yeah, even I. No excuse for mine but nothing remorse, repentance and Confession can't put things aright. Not so some more egregious people.

We had a couple of instances brought to the attention of customers today, and frankly there was little excuse and a good measure of mirth. But that's what the Pin & Balloon bar is all about. Sticking a sharp end into some fatuous balloons.

One concerned a secular, media 'saint'. Yes the left in particular not only like to claim the high moral ground but elevate their own smutty and grubby heroes to that august role. 

Another pointed the accusing finger at the BBC - surely a worthy cumuppence: and even a chain coffee-shop felt the scalding. 

Let's start there first. We do a fine line in Tasmanian coffee (not grown here though) in the Tavern and my best lady, on special occasions brings in fine Louisiana brew too. But we are a minor provider compared to Starbucks, which seems to bring all sorts of brown stuff onto their own heads. They are not so kind to staff or customers as we are. They are so up themselves that it wasn't long before they'd be taken to task.... and for a ride.

Will Gensert brought it up:

Was the Starbucks Incident a Setup?

I think what happened at the Starbucks in Philly doesn't pass the sniff test.  Two black men went in, sat down, and apparently went unnoticed for a period of time until one got up and asked to use the restroom.  When told it was only for customers, he declined the opportunity to purchase something and returned to his associate at their table.  

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/was_the_starbucks_incident_a_setup.html

After another unspecified period of time elapsed, the manager, a woman named Holly, asked them to either purchase something or leave.  They said they were waiting for someone, did not want to buy anything, and wouldn't leave.  More time passed, the option was again proffered, and the double-refusal was again the response.  

That's when Holly called "the man."

The "screws" arrived and made the same offer as Holly, three times.  And just as many times, it was refused.  

As they were slipping on the cuffs to take them to the "big house," the ever-elusive "friend" magically appeared.  

You get the picture: it was a setup.  

Why wouldn't the "friend" just buy a cup of Joe so they could all sit down and chant, "No justice, no peace"?  How did he already know not to?  How did he know to soldier on for the cause?

It was a win-win for the unprivileged.  Getting arrested was the goal, but if they weren't arrested when the friend came in, it would validate the claim that white people are treated better than blacks.

The only things I would have done differently are, I would have put one in a suit and have the other dressed as a woman – but tastefully, you know, flats with perhaps a below-the-knee summer dress and some nice hoop earrings.  A little intersectionality would have created a bigger payout.

But hey, it worked out great anyway.  

That million dollars each of them will get from the settlement will come in handy.  

I would, however, watch the bank accounts of the friend.  I have a feeling his accounts will see a large deposit once the inevitable lawsuit is settled – and that would be the "smoking gun" the left is always seeking but can never seem to find.  I would wager that the left won't find it here, either.

Yet I can't get out of my mind all the times something like that really happened back when nobody cared.

Yet again, it's stunts like this, perpetrated by an immoral left with the purpose of keeping and widening the racial divide for all time – while getting rich in the process, of course.  They always get rich.

The saddest thing is what their stunt did to poor Holly.  So afraid that the world was going to deck the halls with boughs of Holly, she quit her job.

Those on the left willingly sacrificed one of the little people for their cause.  Remember when people sacrificed themselves for their cause?

Oh, the hypocrisy!

Yep. Hoist on a green-labelled petard. And how do we come to confirm the suspicion that hypocricy rules the day in Starbucks? Well it was not long ago that something of the like happened. But with a twist. Dan Sobieski was next on his feet to tell us while I pulled the pints.

Hardly a Stir When Starbucks Denied a Cop

Kudos for Sheriff David Clarke for reminding us of the double standard practiced by the self-righteous guardians of social justice such as Starbucks, who flagellate themselves in public over the injustice of denying non-paying patrons use of their facilities – patrons who happen to be black:

    "Not too long ago a Philadelphia Starbucks refused to let a police officer use the restroom telling him it was for paying customers.  

Don't remember Starbucks closing 8000 stores for sensitivity training toward police."

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/hardly_a_stir_when_starbucks_denied_a_cop.html

In 2015, an unnamed Philadelphia police sergeant entered a downtown Philadelphia Starbucks and asked to use the restroom.  He might have been the one who would have responded if that Starbucks were being robbed or its employees or customers were assaulted.  He was told in no uncertain terms that he could not and should find a restroom down the street.  The unnamed officer's story was posted on Facebook by Joe Leighthardt, another Philadelphia officer: He said.....

    "So I walk into the Starbucks at 13th and Chestnut in full uniform and ask the young blonde liberal behind the counter if I could use their public bathroom for which you need a key code and she states, in a loud voice so all the other customers can hear that the bathroom is for paying customers only. 

I then ask in a very polite manner if I could please use it. 

She then states in the same loud manner and a smirk "Are you a paying customer?" It was at this point that I realized what she was doing. As I walked out with my hand up and while she continued loudly to tell me about the bathroom down the street, I was even more astonished that the many customers and other employees said nothing and seemed indifferent. 

This is the world cops live in anymore. It's hip for this generation to berate and totally disrespect cops in front of the public and praise cop killers as the heroes of they're [sic] time. I never post things but I hope my fellow brothers and sisters in blue see this and know that we have each other… and not to patronize that Starbucks."

Starbucks did somewhat apologize for the incident, but there was no national mea culpa by the executive officers of Starbucks or the shutting down of its 8,000 stores and turning them into temporary re-education camps for employees who for the most part probably don't have a biased bone in their bodies and who depend on police for their safety inside and outside their stores.

Closing 8,000 stores is a big financial hit, money that could have been spent to help inner-city kids get an education, or a meal, or clothes for school or to fight gang crime and drugs. 

The closures cost the company an estimated $6 million, according to Schultz's 2011 book "Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul."  However, Schultz maintained that it was worth the financial cost and the mockery the company endured to put Starbucks back on the road to recovery. 

Self-survival and political correctness are prime motivators for Starbucks, but not the indignity and disrespect shown a Philadelphia officer in 2015.  No grandiose mea culpas, no mass closings, and no employee re-education.  

Starbucks's social conscience did not extend to those who risk their lives for the safety of its employees and customers.

And clearly Starbucks did not learn its lesson. They can hypocritically take the high moral ground by disrespecting the police and then do it again with black, homeless chaps. But this time someone was waiting to call them out and put them through the extortion wringer. 

But hey, it is hard to direct such a widespread workforce to do the right thing. But what about one man, directing himself. You will likely have heard of Dr David Suzuki. He is a big lefty Green wheel in the firmament of  Canadian hypocrites, and he was taken to task by Ezra Levant a while back. 

The two Suzukis: 

There’s Saint Suzuki, the one you see on CBC, and Secret Suzuki, the capitalist millionaire

There are two David Suzukis.

Most of us know one of the Suzukis. Let’s call him Saint Suzuki. That’s the Suzuki whose TV show on the CBC constantly lectures us about our lifestyle. He says we need to.... 

consume less, buy less and use less fossil fuels.

But then there’s another Suzuki. Let’s call him Secret Suzuki, because he’s far less well-known.

 http://torontosun.com/2013/10/11/the-two-suzukis-theres-saint-suzuki-the-one-you-see-on-cbc-and-secret-suzuki-the-capitalist-millionaire/wcm/41e5eca5-3efa-4a1f-91c7-e4445e4dc367

Secret Suzuki is the one who lives on Vancouver’s elite Point Grey Road, on a double lot, overlooking English Bay, right above the exclusive Kitsilano Yacht Club. The City of Vancouver assesses the land value alone at over $8 million. 

And that’s just one of Secret Suzuki’s properties.

He has another million-dollar home in Vancouver. And then there’s another home on Quadra Island. That’s three homes right there, if you count the double lot on Point Grey Road as just one property.

But then there’s his large property holdings on Nelson Island. What’s so fascinating about that one is that he co-owns the property with an oil company, Kootenay Oil Distributors Ltd. They don’t plan to drill for oil together. It’s a beautiful tourist spot — maybe perfect for a nice big condo development.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with co-owning any property along with an oil company. 

But isn’t Saint Suzuki against fossil fuel companies — especially oil companies?

Saint Suzuki tells us that the world is desperately overcrowded, that we’re overpopulated, and that we’re going to run out of things.

But in his own life, Secret Suzuki has five children.

There’s nothing wrong with having five children. It’s a blessing. 

But then why does he think other people should have fewer kids?

Saint Suzuki rails against corporations and profits. He even gave a well-received anti-capitalist speech at the Occupy Vancouver protest.

But Secret Suzuki himself has several corporations. One of them, the David Suzuki Foundation, took in a whopping $9 million last year and has $12 million in assets. More than 10 million of that is invested in stocks and bonds.

Saint Suzuki despises lobbyists, and says they have a disproportionate control of political power in Ottawa. But Secret Suzuki himself has nine paid lobbyists registered in Ottawa’s lobbyist registry. 

Not one. Nine.

Saint Suzuki despises politicians, and says they can’t be trusted. Secret Suzuki starred in a Liberal party TV ad along with former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty.

Saint Suzuki says corporations have to be less obsessed by profits, and do more for the public good. They need to especially think of the interests of the next generation, our children.

But Secret Suzuki has made a tidy profit off young people. His standard speaking fee at universities in Canada is $30,000 plus expenses. He billed Quebec’s John Abbott College a cool $41,000 to visit them.

Saint Suzuki speaks in the language of tolerance and equality and liberalism — utterly politically correct.

But Secret Suzuki engages in conduct that should cause feminists to raise an eyebrow. When he visited John Abbott College, his assistant called with special requests to go along with his speaking fee. 

Here is an internal e-mail from the college’s Mary Milburn: “We have learned, via Dr. Suzuki’s assistant, that although the Dr. does not like to have bodyguards per se, he does not mind having a couple of ladies (females) that would act as body guards.” 

The college’s Jim Anderson got involved in selecting the coeds, too: “Please be certain that the women are nicely dressed, we don’t want them in evening gowns, but definitely NOT Police Tech uniforms.” All of this bizarre selection of girls, dressed just so, was the result of Secret Suzuki’s special request. 

If he were a conservative, he’d be called a dirty old man. 

But he’s a saint. So the college went along with it.

David Suzuki is not a criminal. 

But he is not a saint. 

He’s a real man — a capitalist millionaire, a politician, a man with a staff of lobbyists, a prolific father, a wealthy landlord. 

If only he’d stop scolding the rest of us for aspiring to do the same.

The Green sorts have done sterling work in the past, not least the environmental arm of the BBC. 

Who can overlook 'the Bro', Sir David. 

His wildlife films created a genre and educated billions. But was everything 'kosher'? One has to wonder about the 'cheats' and even the odd bit of denigration of reputations. 

Like as happened recently to someone who has the smallest of reputations such that you will not have even heard of the chap.  That is no excuse though and neither is the insufferable holier than though attitude that puts whales above humans in the great scheme of things.  

The BBC builds its own tall tales.  Anita Singh spoke about it:

Scandal: 

Tall Tales.

BBC’s Human Planet Series Withdrawn After Faking Scenes

The BBC has withdrawn Human Planet from distribution after admitting that the series faked scenes of an Indonesian hunter harpooning a whale.

The natural history programme is currently available on Netflix but will be withdrawn within 24 hours while the corporation conducts an “editorial review”.

 https://principia-scientific.org/scandal-bbcs-human-planet-series-withdrawn-after-faking-scenes/

It is the second Human Planet fakery story this month. It emerged that film-makers had staged scenes of a rainforest tribe supposedly living in a treehouse 140 feet from the ground.

The opening episode of the 2011 series visited the Indonesian island of Lembata and focused on a young man named Benjamin Blikololong. He was shown jumping into the sea during a sperm whale hunt, and viewers were told he had succeeded in harpooning it.

A voiceover from John Hurt said: “Benjamin’s moment has arrived.” After he leapt into the water brandishing the weapon, Hurt said: “He’s got it.” Viewers are then Blikololong received a larger share of the whale meat because he “struck the decisive blow”

But a journalist writing a book on the whale hunters, who live on the tiny island of Lembata, met Blikololong and heard that he had not harpooned the whale. He then contacted the BBC.

In a statement, the corporation said: “The BBC has been alerted to a further editorial breach in the Human Planet series from 2011.

“In Episode 1, Oceans, a Lamaleran whale hunter named Benjamin Blikololong is shown supposedly harpooning a whale. On review, the BBC does not consider that the portrayal of his role was accurate, although the sequence does reflect how they hunt whales.

“The BBC has decided to withdraw Human Planet from distribution for a full editorial review.” 

In all, there have been four fakery stories surrounding the series.

In 2015, the corporation admitted that it had used a semi-domesticated wolf in one episode because..... 

the crew were unable to find a wild one.

And shots of a tarantula, purporting to be taken in the Venezuelan jungle,..... 

were actually taken in a studio.

At the beginning of this month, it was revealed that a 140-foot high treehouse said to be a home to the Korowai people in Papua New Guinea was built for the benefit of the cameras.

Writer and adventurer Will Millard went to the village to film another BBC series, My Year With The Tribe, and learned the truth.

The BBC said standards had been raised since Human Planet was made. “Since this programme was broadcast in 2011, we have strengthened our training for the BBC’s Natural History Unit in editorial guidelines, standards and values.”

I am happy to say that the Ale in the Tavern is Real Ale and of the very Highest quality. Tasty too.

The customers are all exemplary (apart from some who are not), honest (mostly) and kind (some only to their mothers).

We can forgive those who tresspass against us, but there are consequences that are unavoidable, I'm afraid. 

So, drink up. Think.

Pax.

Rude, Nasty Girls.

Sugar and spice many women are not, despite the modern insistence that it is only menz that are violent, nasty creatures who need the heavy hand. The modern empowered woman who knows her rights is often not a bit different  from her 'oppressed'  forebears in her propensity for violence. The Colonel's Lady and Judy O'Grady are sisters under their skins. An old rhyme but still true since Kipling's day.

We live in an age where the behaviours and abilities of women to be rude, nasty and violent have increased markedly. 

But while men seem to have become less violent toward women, despite the PC cant and vast amounts of public monies spent to say the opposite, we see women's violence to both one another and to men increasing.  

Many fine, decent women come into the Tavern. I do not wish them to be offended when a customer or two points out flaws. Not in them as such. There is good and bad in all of us  under our skins and our task in life includes eradication the bad and enhancing the good. Some of us get a helping hand. Some go the other way. 

Mean girls grow to be mean women. Oh for the sugar and spice little girls of yesteryear who could become nice ladies.

But a professional lady came by to question the past ladylike behaviours. It was not all frothy white petticoats. And another report came in from the Land of the Long White Cloud detailing a horrible and more recent example. We also took a look at girls who just wanna have fun - of a nasty sort.

It is quite rare for the Tavern to see folk thrown or pushed out of the door. We hear the rude and nasty outside the hedges but the bouncer keeps them at bay. But we do sometimes have the odd altercation inside and it is often ladies doing the altercating! One tries to be kind, but firm.

We see nasty violent behaviours all around us. Where 'society' and 'authorities' have always condemned and punished bad male behaviour, we now have that same society and authority actively encouraging bad female behaviour.  It is rewarded. 

Women in power positions - such as that awful Alison Saunders woman in the UK, heading up the Prosecutions bizzo, go after even mild men, inventing crime where they are quite innocent and actually paying women to falsely accuse. The evidence abounds and you can find it yourselves with ease.

Has that propensity for women to accuse and be vicious suddenly arisen? Or has it always been there, waiting for encouragement and reward? 

Ditta Oliker, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist in Los Angeles, and she has been to the cinema.

Bullying in the Female World

The Hidden Aggression Behind the Innocent Smile

"Kick him where it hurts" - "Punch him harder" - "Pin him down till he yells uncle".  These are some of the sounds associated with male aggression.  In fact, the word aggression was only applied to the males of our species, expressed in physical action and captured in words like hitting, pushing, punching, beating and ganging-up.  Included in any description was anger that seemed to be the force behind the aggressive act.  

 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-long-reach-childhood/201109/bullying-in-the-female-world

Until fairly recently, there were no sounds associated with female aggression -- as if it didn't exist.

It's only in the last decade or so that aggression by the female -- in the form of social or relational aggression -- has been recognized.

What made me think of this was watching the film The Help based on the novel by Kathryn Stockett, now a popular new movie.  It is the story of life in Mississippi in the early 1960's and how a group of affluent White women relate to the Black maids who care for them and their children and how, in turn, the maids feel about how they are being treated.  It dramatically captures the distance between the two groups and the underlying racial biases of that time.

What struck me as I was watching the film is how it also dramatically and effectively captures the emotional and psychological violence of social aggression, including the sting and cruelty of the verbal "weapons" women use. 

The words now associated with female aggressive behavior include: excluding, ignoring, teasing, gossiping, secrets, backstabbing, rumor spreading and hostile body language (i.e., eye-rolling and smirking).  Most damaging is turning the victim into a social "undesirable".  

The behavior and associated anger is hidden, often wrapped in a package seen as somewhat .....

harmless or just a "girl thing". 

 

The covert nature of the aggression leaves the victim with no forum to refute the accusations and, in fact, attempts to defend oneself leads to an escalation of the aggression.  The film captures a number of these "weapons" as well as a pattern found in the interactions of males; the justification for the use of the same kind of aggression -- physical or social -- by the "good guy" in response to the original aggression by the "bad guy".

OK. The 'black maid' phenomenon may not be familiar outside of America, but the schoolyards across the western world have been breeding it for over a century. 

Comparison between male and female aggression shows strong and obvious similarities.  Motivation for both groups usually includes: a desire for power, for control, for achieving greater social status and popularity, jealousy, fear and derailing competition.  

Aggressive behavior for both male and female children can be found as early as preschool age, is most prevalent in adolescence and can, as the movie so clearly illustrates, continue well into adulthood.  

Both sexes form social structures that lead different members to assume specific roles and characteristics.  For example, in a female group (as seen in the movie) the one with the power is like the "Queen Bee" with a contingent of followers.  Her friends do what she wants, she is charming when she wants to be, she's manipulatively affectionate, she takes no responsibility for hurting another's feelings, and defines right and wrong by the loyalty or disloyalty shown to her. 

She is usually the one who decides who should be the victim.

The film also captures the dilemma of those who feel helpless to help the victim because of their need to not stir the anger of the Queen Bee and become alienated from the group.

What the film doesn't show is that the effects of social aggression can be longer lasting and more damaging than physical aggression. 

And where better to see that but on the street. Young women, barely out of the school training playground are 'empowered' to think they can take on men and exhibit the worst behaviours of the worst men. These are the product of Feminism.

Since the "weapons" have a stealth nature to them, there is less possibility of anticipating the specifics of an attack and fewer actions to defend against an attack.  This negative effect is particularly damaging during adolescence when the importance of acceptance in a peer group is maximized. 

Adding to the pain inflicted on the victim is the lack of support by teachers and other adults who view the bully -- often a popular and charismatic young woman -- as innocent of such negative behavior.  Thus the strong positive reputation of the bully makes it difficult for a victim to get validation of the bullying and causes a victim to suffer the additional pain of not being believed and not getting any support.

Relational aggression negatively impacts "mirroring" - a peer group's reflected reaction to an individual.  Caught in the web of punishing aggression by peers, a young person's internal sense of self becomes diminished and felt as being "a loser" - "a reject" and "not as good".  Self-esteem is low and feelings of insecurity may persist throughout life.  What is also affected is the ability to trust as an adult and to be free to be open to close relationships. 

A recent development in social aggression is cyber bullying, acted out by both sexes.  In this type of aggression, the perpetrator uses social networking tools - email, Facebook, Twitter - to inflict damage, particularly the spreading of socially harmful rumors of others.  

Recent reports of several suicides by young adolescents who were targeted speak to the damaging power of this kind of aggression.

I was also aware, watching this film, of how new technologies have changed our world.  In the 1960's the nature and power of relational aggression was more muted because these new stealth weapons did not yet exist.  

The Help ends on a positive note, in some ways mirroring the positive changes in race relationships since the 1960's and the civil rights movement.  

It may be time, with the power of the internet being used as a powerful weapon of covert aggression, to start a movement to change the nature of human relationships as they relate to both physical and social aggression.

Hmmmm. There IS a movement already but our society is well down the road to perdition rejecting it. It has been around for 2000 years and was getting to the point of 'forming' the backbone of our civilisation. But the decline and deliberate destruction of Christianity, starting in the 1500's and now followed up with 'enlightenment' and 'humanism', and Feminism, is busy opening the door to the sheer evil of Islam.

That our entertainment biz perpetuates and rewards the worst behaviours is often commented upon in the bars. Here is an example (which thankfully has not reached Oz shores - yet ). This is so clearly a put-up job, despite the faux hilarity of the situation, with those involved eager for their 20 seconds of focus upon them. 

And to move on from the riotous girls tackling and attacking men half again their size outside a pub, we were shown the hidden side of Domestic Violence with an astonishingly rare finding against a woman in a Court.

Controlling girlfriend 'first woman convicted' of new UK domestic abuse offence

A university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under new domestic abuse laws in the UK after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him and keeping food from him.

 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12033927

Jordan Worth, 22, banned her partner from their bed, decided what clothes he could wear, isolated him from friends and family and even took over his Facebook account.

She was jailed for seven-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, introduced in 2015, as well as wounding with intent and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Worth, came from a loving and supportive family, made her boyfriend's life a misery, exercising control over him deciding what he could wear shortly after they moved in together, Luton Crown Court heard.

Raised in Ridgmont, Herts, she had been a high performer at school and was a trained gymnast.

She gained a 2:1 Honours Degree in Fine Arts from the University of Hertfordshire and had been volunteering for an animal charity but wanted to become a teacher.

She had also raised money for children in Africa.

But Judge Nic Madge heard that there were two sides to Worth, who controlled every aspect of her partner's life at their home in the village of Stewartby in Bedfordshire.

Worth and her partner had met at college in 2012 when they were both 16, Maryam Syed, prosecuting, told the court.

She became violent towards the man, who suffered from hydrocephalus which is caused by a buildup of fluid inside the skull which made him vulnerable, using blunt objects to strike him, wounded him with a knife and didn't help him get to hospital for treatment.

For nine months he couldn't sleep in the same bed as her, the court was told.

The charge of controlling or coercive behaviour covered a period from April of 2016 to June 2017, when police were called to the couple's home.

Neighbours said they often heard them arguing and the sounds of things being thrown in the house, Syed said.

The victim was heard by his neighbours shouting at Worth: "Get off me, you are hurting me."

He was seen on occasions with black eyes and to be limping and with his arm in sling.

Once Worth was seen at window by a neighbour "armed" with a screwdriver or hammer, the court heard.

Another neighbour heard the victim shouting "Get off me. Get off my head. Don't keep doing that to my head."

The court heard it was in June of last year that neighbours called police to the couple's home in the village in the early hours after hearing shouting.

Paramedics noted injuries to his hand, burns to arms and legs which were being self treated with cling film.

There was cling film round his ankles, and a hand wound that was bleeding.

He was taken to Bedford Hospital's acute clinical unit and then to Addenbrookes Hospital.

The prosecutor said he had second and third degree burns which will leave permanent scarring. The court was told Worth had thrown boiling hot water over her partner.

On June 6 he was examined at the Lister Hospital in Stevenage and found to have burns on his legs as well as stab wounds about his body and limbs.

Days later Worth was arrested.

Judge Madge told Worth that as well as the violence she had carried out on her partner she had refused him adequate bedding and food.

He said she would "belittle" her partner and discouraged him from contacting friends and his family.

"She accepts that she has in the past, on a number of occasions, used blunt objects and implements to strike him and that he suffered injuries as a result of her doing so," he said.

"She accepts using boiling or hot water to cause injury to him. She accepts that she has in the past used a knife to cause injury to her partner.

"He suffered from hydrocephalus and had a vulnerable head and he became increasingly isolated."

Worth, who is now in a new relationship, was made the subject of a restraining order which prevents her from contacting her ex for an indefinite period.

I presume her new partner is a complete half-wit and would hope he does not visit this Tavern. She too. 

Is Mz Worth with her education and empowerment an ususual case? Well it is unusual for her to be sentenced to jail for seven years. Just think, had she been a man who put a piece of bacon at the door of a mosque she would have got a 15 year sentence.

The world is mad and getting badder.

Let us peer over the hedge and see the sort of girls we are breeding. Again, the entertainment bizzo takes girls (and boys) and turns them into the sort one tries to avoid.

I prefer the sugar and spice. And the bacon.

Drink up.

Pax.

Sanctificetur Nomen Tuum

Down in the Crypt half the morning going through my operating procedure notes. Well, it is just a step from the barrels that I have to hook up. But such chores do give me the opportunity to get on my knees. One runs a Tavern according to routines and SOPs. 

It is essential to know one's place in the scheme of things and that others have 'gone before'.  They have given us a wealth of guidance.  SOPs. What good is a Knight that does not know humility or its essential stabilising role; what use one that does not see the higher purpose to which his profession calls? Even a retired Knight who only occasionally puts his old armour on and then just to see if it still fits. (It doesn't, I am sad to say, such is old age and avoirdupois).

I am not a bit embarrassed to say that I pray daily.  Morn and night. Indeed, often during the day too. It is a duty.

Many of the several hundred thousand visitors to the Tavern have seen me busy and listening to all the conversations of others  (and what a great bunch of customers they are too. Some are far better men and women than I and I am happy to hear what they say ) as I pull pints and wipe tables, without realising that prayer takes up much of the thought that goes on at those lower levels of  my consciousness. When my own daily doings thoughts quieten, I can hear the Rosary being recited, and not just by me. 

But down in the quiet of the Crypt I hear it very clearly. And there, at the start, I say that which my Supplier gave me to say.

That is on Page one of the SOPs, listed under 'Start Here'.

Of course over time there have been variations on the theme. I say it in English. Of course. But also in Latin. The Pater Noster. It is the language of the Church and has been for nigh on 2000 years.  It is a beautiful language too. 

In Church, where I attend a Traditional Latin Mass, it is often sung. I don't sing out loud there as I have a dreadful voice, but I do quietly to m'self so as not to put off those around me. In the Crypt, alone, I can let rip. 

There are other Traditions though, especially in the 'Eastern', or 'Orthodox' Church. 

The Pope was in Georgia (not the US State one) recently for a superb ceremonial featuring a big hairy Monkish priest and a young, clear-voiced girl leading the standing congregation. They sang in Aramaic. The same, eternal prayer given to us. 

 It must move you. Surely.

Some say that my Supplier, who always sends me notes in English as he knows my limitations, spoke Aramaic, and perhaps He did. But He was a Jew, and today's Jews speak Hebrew (when they are not speaking English or other languages). So I am pleased that someone explained how to me, as one would to a seven year old in a classroom.

A Good Knight, even one turned Tavern Keeper, prays morn and night. He is a warrior in a Great Battle. 

Just as a modern aviating knight goes through his check-lists, so he must also have his prayers to check off before going into battle or on the practice joust.

The habit is essential.

We are so prone to error that care has to be excercised constantly. 

So he will attend to the Manufacturer's Operating Manuals and His Operating Procedures. We listen to the guidance of better men. Especially that particular better One. And he will cross himself before letting the brake off.

And he will find me, often, on my knees in the Crypt (the Briefing room?) below the hubub of the tavern's many room. There is a small sign on the door.

Et ne nos inducas in tentationem.

Pax

Green Gold for Oz

Australia ought to be paid massively for our nett negative contribution to greenhouse gas CO2 emmitting. Yes, you heard that right. Nett negative. And so did I as I stood pulling pints today. We are ruining ourselves under our ridiculous Federal and State Government policies and the even worse, corrupt International policies foisted upon us by morons.  We give away billions to green crooks. President Trump was quite right to say that the 'Paris Agreement' was a load of horse manure and he was not going to have a bar of it, and Oz should say the same. 

Oz is green, clean and sustaining far better than most and....

Greenbacks should be flowing Oz way.

More.... we are not even telling everyone the facts of the matter so that they can see through the Greeny cant, whether we go along with the idea of AGW or not. 

But if AGW is real as the Green-deluded Politicians think then we should be being paid compensation by the UN and the International 'community', from the vast promised funds flowing into corrupt pockets, for cleaning up the atmosphere of other nation's backyards.

Oz is a Greeny deluded place but should be paid the Gold it is due.

But not because of Greenies or ther lackies and running dogs.

We had a couple of chaps in today to spell it out for us. First Ian Pilmer who likes to look into these matters, and who made the claim for compensation: and then Justin Campbell who has tasted the rotting fruits.

One lonely molecule…

The 24 million people in Australia generate 1.5 per cent of annual global human-induced CO2 emissions. USA emits 14 times and China emits 26 times more CO2 than Australia. 

Australia has 0.33 per cent of the global population.

 https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/climate-notes/

Our high standard of living, a landmass of 7,692,024 square kilometres with a sparse inland population and greenhouse gas-emitting livestock, combined with the transport of livestock, food and mined products long distances to cities and ports, and the export of ores, coal, metals and food for 80 million people, result in high per capita CO2 emissions. 

Australia’s exports of coal, iron ore and gas contributes to increasing the standard of living, longevity and health of billions of people in Asia.

If Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global annual CO2 emissions, 3 per cent of the total annual global emissions are anthropogenic: and as the atmosphere contains 400 parts per million by volume of CO2, then one molecule in 6.6 million molecules in the atmosphere is CO2 emmitted from humans in Australia.   

This molecule has an atmospheric life of about 7 years before it is removed from the atmosphere by natural sequestration into life and limey sediments.

Australia has far greater economic priorities than to change a whole economy, increase energy costs, decrease employment and decrease international competiveness because of one poor lonely molecule of plant food in 6.6 million other atmospheric molecules. 

It is a very long bow to argue that this one molecule of plant food in 6.6 million other atmospheric molecules derived from Australia has any measurable effect whatsoever on global climate. Furthermore, it has yet to be shown that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming, so why even bother with a Renewables Energy Target?

Australia exports a significant global share of refined aluminium, zinc, lead, copper and gold and hence takes a per capita emissions hit for countries that import and use Australia’s metals, because smelting and refining in Australia result in CO2 emissions. Neither smelting nor refining of the metals for other countries could take place without burning fossil fuels. For example, a steel mill uses coal to reduce iron oxide into iron metal and the carbon in coal is oxidised to CO2. A modern economy cannot rely on sea breezes and sunbeams to generate base load electricity for industry and a decarbonised economy would be a deindustrialised economy.

Annual Australian per capita CO2 emissions are in the order of 20 tonnes per person. 

There are 30 hectares of forest and 74 hectares of grassland for every Australian and each hectare annually sequesters about 1 tonne of CO2 by photosynthesis. CO2 is plant food. On the continental Australian landmass, 

Australians are removing by natural sequestration more than three times the amount of CO2 they emit. 

Crops remove even more CO2 from the atmosphere. Australia’s net contribution to atmospheric CO2 is negative and this is confirmed by the net CO2 flux estimates from the IBUKI satellite CO2 data set.

Australia’s continental shelf is 2,500,000 square kilometres in area. Carbon dioxide dissolves in ocean water and the cooler the water, the more CO2 dissolves in water. Living organisms extract dissolved CO2 and calcium from seawater to build corals and shells. This natural marine sequestration locks away even more Australian  emissions of CO2 and adds to the negative contribution of atmospheric CO2 made by Australia.

Using the thinking of the IPCC, UN and activist green groups,...... 

Australia should be very generously financially rewarded with money 

....from populous, desert and landlocked countries, for removing from the atmosphere its own emitted CO2 AND the CO2 emissions from many other nations. 

By this method, wealthy Australia can take money from poor countries. This is, of course, normal for the green industry. For example, the subsidising of wind and solar power takes money from the poor and passes it on to companies making a fortune from the government’s RET.

It ain't going to happen, of course, as our politicians are just as in Thrall to stupidity and lies as the politicians of all other nations.

Stupid Rules.

But by my own quick pencilled calculations on the back of a beer coaster, for every 20 tonnes of CO2 our population of fine OzFolk produces, we gobble it all up plus 75 tonnes of the stuff produced by others in our region: and instead of us shelling out billions of OzBucks to them in Furrin' Aid, they should be filling our treasury.

And we experience the consequences right through society, even down to young Justin, for whom I had a pint ready when he stood. 

Why do you hate the environment?

Whenever I object to the government banning plastic bags or tripling my electricity bill, I’m always asked, “Why do you hate the environment?” 

The truth is: I don’t. 

What I do hate is environmentalism. I hate its eco-austerity, its quasi-religious demands for penance and its anti-human rejection of progress. 

I love the environment, its eco-diversity, clean air and its beauty. What I’m not prepared to do is give up on human progress and economic development for some vision of an environmental nirvana.

Last year, I travelled to Sydney for the Australian Libertarian Society’s Friedman Conference. My original Airbnb cancelled last minute and as a last resort I booked a room in “Sydney’s sustainability house”.

 To rent  $1500 a week: 3 bedrooms, 1 office, 1 bath, restful garden.

This inner Sydney terrace is offered as a whole house for lease from the month of June, 2018.

https://www.realestate.com.au/lifestyle/off-grid-house-costs-300-year/

It is Sydney’s Sustainable House, one of Earth’s first inner city off-grid houses, a famous model of how to keep our lovely oceans and air clean.

Since 1996 four people have lived here for energy and water bills less than $300 a year.

You can, too.

(see what the owner says. Let him show you around. Click the link)

The Ultimo terrace house was completely off the grid, it generated its own solar electricity and stored it in batteries. The house used rainwater that my host informed me was cleaner than Sydney’s tap water. He told me that I was welcome to flush the toilet, but he chose to use water from a bucket he kept in the shower instead.

To say the amenities were basic is an understatement. The shower was cold and the lighting in my room was extremely dim. The experience reminded me of my trip tracking through the mountains of Nepal with its shack-like guesthouses. 

To my host’s credit he was practising what he preached 

....and was living the eco-austerity lifestyle demanded by environmentalism. I suspect most of Australia’s 24 million inhabitants are unwilling to do the same; even those who claim to support environmentalism.

My experience in Sydney contrasted starkly with environmentalism’s propaganda. On YouTube, I follow a British environmental technology channel, Fully Charged. The show’s focus is to test new technologies that allow environmentalists to go off the grid. 

One episode focused on a home that generated solar energy that was stored in Tesla batteries. The stored energy was used both to provide electricity to the home and charge an electric vehicle. While impressive, at no point in the show did it ever focus on the practicality of investing the best part of $100k to achieve what fossil fuels make affordable to even the poorest households.

What’s entirely absent from the policy discussion of environmentalists is any acknowledgement of their class privilege. Much of the cost of environmental policies fall on the poorest households. The poor subsidise the solar panels of the rich through their ever increasing electricity bills. 

When government mandates higher environmental standards it’s the poor who are disproportionately harmed through higher prices. 

It’s the poor who are harmed by the banning of plastic shopping bags being forced to buy expensive ‘green’ bags. 

The rich get to feel virtuous while the poor get higher prices.

Growing up in Queensland one of the most significant benefits of economic growth and globalisation was the increasing affordability of home air conditioning. Despite Willis Carrier inventing the modern air conditioner in 1902, until the 1990s few work class homes enjoyed such a luxury. I still have memories of being stuck in sweltering school classrooms while ceiling fans mockingly blew hot air down on us. Now many homes have air conditioning installed but the poorest homes can’t afford to turn it on due to rapidly increasing electricity prices.

Nowhere is the environmentalist rejection of human progress more apparent than in the case of coal. Carbon emissions can be reduced through improved energy efficiency, replacing old coal power stations with newer less emitting coal-powered technologies, nuclear power and via using renewables strategically to meet peak demand. Instead, the environmentalists demand the replacement of all coal power stations with expensive unreliable renewables.

The obsession with abolishing coal has resulted in increased energy prices, the de-industrialisation of Australia and less reliability in the energy supply. 

The effect of these policies was seen in South Australia after the Playford B power station was mothballed leaving the state at the mercy of wind power. Predictably South Australia experienced blackouts and higher energy prices. The state soon announced a $550 million energy package that included the purchase of the world’s biggest lithium battery farm from Tesla and the building of a new gas power plant. 

One must wonder how much cheaper a more rational attitude towards coal would have been.

One doesn’t have to be an environmentalist to care about the environment or to be concerned about climate change. 

There’s a difference between good policy and ideology 

– one weighs the costs vs the benefits of any policy change; the other is driven by quasi-religious devotion. For too long environmental policy has been driven by ideology and emotion. Australia deserves better than to have its future ruined by green ideologues. Through rational unemotional policy Australia can have a cleaner future without destroying the economy and imposing eco-austerity on the masses.

(Justin works in technology and has degrees in accounting and economics. He lives in Brisbane, Queensland. He is a reformed leftie having previously been a member of the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party. Justin is passion about protecting free markets and a free society. He is interested in free speech advocacy, social liberties and free market economic reform.)

He and Ian were given the finest Ales on the house.

Drink up and Think up.

Pray for Oz.

We need it.

Pax