Fundamental Questions

The pursuit of Fundamental Questions has engaged Philosophers, Theologians and latterly Scientists since man started to think. Although were you to ask some of my customers there is precious little evidence of thinking to mark most human beings. We do seem to get distracted and carried away with nonsenses.

CERN science reverence to pagan gods.

The first two sorts of chap  (and it has usually been chaps) for most of history have been unpaid or at least not a drain on the taxpayer. The same cannot be said for scientists. They wrench vast amounts of money from the pockets of taxpayers be they wage earners, merchants, manufacturers or tradesmen, all of which show something for their efforts.

Yes its big alright but does it do toast?

But we are assured that they seek the answers to Fundamental Questions, with much the same claim to sincerity and accuracy as feminists to Equality.

But I wonder about their way of questioning and whether they ask the right ones.

I have not ever heard a Physicist or a Cosmologist ask "Whom does the Grail Serve" for instance.

The physics supremos, of whom we count the thousands upon thousands in their lairs, love to break stuff in search of their Grail. They smash matter down to its smallest bits and then smash those bits, searching amid the rubble for the elusive answers to Life, the Universe and, well the Theory of Everything that is left intact. At huge cost.

But maybe they are about to get around to the proper Grail issue, late, like the young Parzival. God is on their agenda. Just.

Which Gummunt says "NO" to a scientist? It is a rarity to have anyone completely deny the action of Dihydrogen Monoxide on Iron, although the less scientific will call it 'rust' rather than Tri-ferric Tetroxide as any decent chemist would. And the study of rust may actually have a practical purpose.

The Theologian has had rather less good fortune or funding and philosphers rarely have any agreement even amongst themselves. Not for either are Billion on Billions of bucks spent nor underground temples built.

Whizz them particles around, chaps, Smash 'em to bits. 
The God particle is bound to be in there somewhere.

God?

A scientist mentioning God?

When they have all the toys in the world to play with and distract their minds? 

The Atheists will be up in arms. Well, most. They argue, vociferously that there is no God, with far more vehemence than any rebel scientist denying the existence of water.

Atheists are counting on the Physicists and the Cosmologists to prove that there is no God. And they are being severely let down. 

It is not a good time to be an Atheist.

Jonathon Van Maren was saying just last night about 'secularists' / atheists and theologians, especially the day-to-day Christian chap such as I, not being able to talk to one another anymore.

Secularists claim to have placed their faith in “reason,” when in reality this is simply another way of saying that they have placed their faith in themselves. They will only believe in what they can understand. 

 https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/atheists-arent-even-trying-any-more...and-why-thats-terrifying

The problem is that the Religion of Reason is a circular feedback loop: Reason cannot in and of itself prove that reason is rational. 

One must have faith that it is. 

The secularist must believe that his brain, supposedly created by chance and programmed over millions of years of natural selection to react instinctively in certain ways, is capable of independent thought. 

A rather ludicrous notion, when you think about it.

He was saying vis a vis wider issues....

Simply put, secularists cannot understand why Christians act the way that they do, because their perception of reality is fundamentally different. For the secularist, there is only the physical. Things are what they are. 

For the Christian, the metaphysical is as real as the physical, and these realms interact on every level.

The theoretical physicist, David Bohm would agree with this, but heck, even his peers dissuaded him from speaking up about it. 

A miracle may strike a Christian with awe, but the Christian possesses a worldview that allows him to understand what a miracle is—the Creator intervening directly in the created order in a visible way. A secularist insists that the miracle could not have happened, pointing out that the natural order does not function that way—in essence, accusing a miracle of being…a miracle.

As I said to one university student in debate: 

“Any god that can fit within the confines of your skull is a god too small for anyone to worship.” 

He was offended by this statement—a true secularist. As Chesterton wrote: “The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” 

It’s important for us to realize that secularists and Christians don’t just believe different things, but see everything differently. In the secularist world, there is no Heaven, no Hell, no angels, no devils, no world unseen—or at least, no world that could not be seen.

Adding to that, of course, this means there is no soul, no good, and no evil. 

This is a fact that no secularist truly wants to confront: I remember my psychology professor calling off our seminar a half hour early after I asked her repeatedly to give me one philosophically coherent reason that rape was wrong in a world that slouched into existence by accident. Besides a few feeble appeals to subjective “social contracts” and the like, she could not. 

For there to be any objective moral law, there has to be a Lawgiver.

The chasm between the world as Christians see it and the world as secularists see it is deep, dark, and wide. That is why the presently raging culture wars so often seem as if the two sides are simply yelling into the abyss—because these battles mean very different things to the opposing armies.

Mind you, cracks are appearing in the certainty of the firmament.   Bob Flanagan piped up......

STEPHEN HAWKING ADMITS INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS ‘HIGHLY PROBABLE’

The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week (last year now) when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe.

Presenting himself before students at the University of Cambridge, the world-famous scientist declared that his years of research on the creation of the cosmos have led him to isolate a strange scientific factor which he says is in many ways contrary to the universal laws of physics.

This strange phenomenon which he names the God factor, would be at the origin of the creation process and would have played a great role in determining the actual form of the Universe.

 http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

I rather think God will be amused and perhaps a little delighted. It took a while for the Prodigal Son to get tired of wasting his talents, after all. 

Stephen has a long way to go but heck he has cracked tough theoretical nuts before, and changed his mind too.

The world renown scientist admits the near death experience of his brother, who was clinically dead for 43 minutes after a heart attack last october, radically changed his view on the nature of human consciousness and the Universe as a whole.

“My brother has always been a role model for me. His rational, cunning and no non-sense mind has shaped my personality into the person I am today and has led me into the study of the fascinating world of physics. But since his accident last October, he has come back a changed man” he recalled.

“He has told me of the existence of a sentient being, of another world we mortals are unaware of, he has told me of God” he told the crowd, visibly surprised at such affirmations.

“Modern science relies on the perception that consciousness lies within the human brain, but what my brother experienced during his clinical death, I cannot explain. Does consciousness lie outside of the human body? Is the human brain just a receptor, capable of receiving the “consciousness wave” as AM/FM radios receive radio waves? These are questions modern science has not yet answered and could redefine our view of the Universe and modern physics completely” he acknowledged.

The change in the 'level' of the questions bodes well. 

Who knows, he or his following professional colleagues may yet formulate the right questions and receive a surprising answer.

It ain't going to be 42.  

And the right answer will not smash but heal.

I shall pour Stephen a drink next time he drops by. Jonathon and Bob are still happily working on theirs.

Pax.

Knights and Single Mothers

There is a great deal one can say about single mothers, especially one's raising boys. Much of what we see and hear does not bode well nor yet make for a sound civil society.

I know a single mother raising a boy. She lives near the Tavern but does not come in. I was watching her the other day remonstrating, over-emotionally as usual with him. It was just short of abuse and the little chap (an occasionally stroppy lad) was responding with a tantrum.

She has no idea how a boy thinks. Or feels.

How could she?

We learn as we go and draw on our own disremembered experience. She was never a boy.

He has no idea how to think and feel either. 

I fear a disaster in the making in a decade.

But is it inevitable?  Will his 'nature' come from his ground? Can a destiny unfold? 

Is there a 'Plan' that we come into this world with?  

Is there a Task?

I have a young Knight-Friend. He is in my history. A pure Knight, some would say a fool.  

Young Parzival was raised by a single mum.

He cured my wound.

Let us not so easily write-off boys nor condemn their mums. 

We must know their story.

(Be)Comes a Knight, Sorely

A Goodly woman of Noble line

Heart’s Sorrow for remembered time.

In the forest deep a home to tend,

A child to love, to keep, to bend.

She loves.

There was a time.....

She loves

A Father, Husband, the Noblest of Men

Keeping silence ‘neath the oak, stone sheet

Far away, in Honoured sleep.

His means to end, a broad two hand

Open as mind, giving in kind.

By his code, abroad revered,

The cost to heart on his soil feared.

He loved.

He loved, too, that child, his mother’s world,

He knew naught else, deep in her wylde,

Her fear, her pain, her heart-swayed mind,

He grew in sense, his heart too pined.

Sinews baked in dapple'sun field

Ax to the wood built muscled arm

His toil at plough’s blade dawn through noon

Her-service tools presage his doom.

He hears his father’s echo sound

In hooves and steel and freedom's ground

Into the soil of her compound.

The Boy, untutored in the masculine, WILL ride forth.
What disasters will be in his wake and revealed at his Wake?

She weeps again.   

Again. Heart’s Sorrow.

Man now, she could not keep and bend

Nor save from his born-to end.

Pressed  ‘pon him as her parting tie,

Her silken slip. beneath his polished steel

To soak his sweat and hold her cry

Close to his heart.

She loved her Men. Heart’s Sorrow.

He follows hooves to the  Kingdom's Hall

The tests, the Quests, the blood, the fall.

The Golden Boy who is us all.

From boy to King, to sleep tomorrow,

A circle binding her Heart’s Sorrow.

The stars wheel in the sky.

Hiding him away and filling him with 'women's rules' worked only while she could bend him.

It took years to straighten his back. 

It is not our past that matters, although it can hold us back. Our Future is ahead, and THAT Matters.

She was a Knight's Lady, Herzeloyde. Heart's Sorrow.

Ask the Fundemental Question: Whom does the Grail, Serve?

Pax.

The Teepee and the Humpy

The Tavern was enlivened by some comparisons last evening. Comparisons between the Native Indians of America and the Native Aboriginals of Oz.  Both nations have their 'indiginous' peoples and both have a quite conflicted and fantasy view of them.  

So some views were raised and thrown around. As the barman keeping order and serving ale, I listened and occasionally muttered under my breath.

Both Indigines lived very different, often nomadic lives. They did not have towns or cities. 

Their ways of life were very different from 'ours' but we tend to lose sight of the plain fact that for much of human existence, most people have lived in poverty. Our civilisation included. 

The first customer up was some anonymous 'person' from the 'Age' newspaper bemoaning and blaming in the usual Age fashion, and commenting on a speech made by a part-aboriginal chap, Stan Grant.

Now it has to be kept in mind that Stan is just as able to call himself a European as he is an Aboriginal. He is both of course. But there is whiner-rights in being aboriginal.  Victim status.

He has done rather well for himself too, being a 'face' and a 'name' in the television Industry, well paid and lauded.  He is a media darling. A Journalist. A lefty of course. But put those aside as he does and focus, as he and the Age do, on him and all aboriginals being victims.

Here he is in the speech referred to. 

The speech itself was so dripping with faux-angst and so replete with mendacity that even dark skins should blush.  Holding up Adam Goodes as a victim was ridiculous. No other aboriginal footy-player was treated to disdain as Goodes was, which says more or less about Australian racism depending which direction you come from than the boos Goodes received for his appalling sportsmanship and uncanny ability to pick on vulnerable children to vent his spleen. 

The Age fellow had this to say before 'The Prof', J.J.Ray, took him to task.

Justice Should be Australia's Dream.

If you are yet to take the 8½ minutes to watch journalist Stan Grant speak on the topic of "racism destroying the Australian dream," make the time. His words are searing, a much-needed jolt to national complacency towards Aboriginal Australia, and a powerful statement of reality, both historical and present day.

 http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/justice-should-be-australias-dream-20160130-gmhmu9.html

But more than words, the accompanying passion – Grant's face and tone deeply imbued with sorrow, anger, hope and regret from personal experience as an Indigenous man – points to the emotional toll of unfinished business on the first people of this country. We must all strive to better acknowledge this suffering, even if it remains a lived experience most people can never truly understand.

What on earth has he had in his experience of an indiginous man that pretty well everyone else has had? Apart from the leg-up the media ladder of course. 

Grant's speech, delivered in October, won prominence last week when released as an online video during a traditional time of introspection, both for the community and in our personal lives.

The new year is often a moment when people choose to take stock of goals, to resolve a fresh beginning, or rededicate themselves to cherished dreams. The symbols of nationhood are put on overt display just as languid summer weeks are about to be swamped by the reality of busy lives. As if to warm up dozing political muscles, we have developed a habit of adorning Australia Day with a ritual debate about changing the flag and becoming a republic.

But Grant's speech challenges the country to do more. Much more. His is a reminder that the personal and national experience is deeply intertwined for Indigenous Australians. The "Invasion Day" protests to mark the anniversary of the arrival of white settlers are illustrative, but cannot alone convey the discrimination felt each and every day in the Indigenous community.

"My people die young in this country," Grant reminds us. "We die 10 years younger than average Australians and we are far from free.

But let us not mention that men die seven years earlier than women, eh. No-one puts that down to the real discrimination that it is. 

We are fewer than 3 per cent of the Australian population and yet we are 25 per cent, a quarter of those Australians locked up in our prisons. If you are a juvenile, it is worse, it is 50 per cent."

Statistics that alone are distressing, but in what stands as a national shame, Grant observes "an Indigenous child is more likely to be locked up in prison than they are to finish high school." What a indictment on the supposed ethos of a fair go.

Throughout, Grant makes absolutely no mention of Character. Bear that in mind.  I was cleaning glasses, serving ale, wiping the bar-tops while he whined. 

Australia can do and must do better. The steep difference in Victoria, where Indigenous children are more than 12 times as likely as non-Indigenous children to be placed in state care is another indicator of woeful disadvantage. We have become far too comfortable with pledges to "close the gap" that the action necessary to make this a reality is rarely a priority.

No mention of Aboriginals closing the gap.  

Complacency also marks our debate about the place of Indigenous culture in our national story. We have become fixated on a slogan, "recognition", too often ignoring the concepts many Aborigines would prefer be debated, such as "self-determination", "sovereignty" and "treaty".

It is not that the proposal to change the constitution to acknowledge Indigenous culture is without merit. But the country must properly decide what such a change is meant to achieve. Megan Davis, a legal professor and member of the Prime Minister's Expert Panel on recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the constitution, has warned the idea has become mired in "bipartisan stage-managed process". We should be aspiring to more than piecemeal reform, but justice.

Like Grant's speech, Davis' essay "Listening but not hearing", published in the latest edition of Griffith Review, is a further reminder the country can grow from a frank, and importantly, inclusive debate about the life of Indigenous Australians. The disadvantage foisted on Indigenous Australians by ignorance or prejudice is holding the nation back. To do better, the voices of the Aboriginal community must be listened to, and heard.

I had to put a glass down at that last whine lest I succumbed to the temptation to throw it.

Disadvantage foisted upon a nomadic people who had a life expectancy of 30 and now, after 'invasion' 70, complaining it isn't 80!!  And somehow this is Australia's 'fault'. ! White Australians' fault. 

J.J took him down.

The self-righteous bleat ..

(above) is an editorial from the Left-leaning Melbourne "Age".  It exhibits all the brains of a flea. 

 It shows no awareness of Aboriginal life or of the unending stream of government efforts that have been made to better the lot of Aborigines.  I would be surprised if the writer had ever set foot in a black's camp. I have.  I grew up with Aborigines around the place.  They were in my Primary school and down the end of the street where I lived.  

So the writer (for the Age) has only his self-righteousness to put forward. He puts forward not a single suggestion about what to do to help Aborigines.  He doesn't know what has happened and has no idea what should happen. 

 He is just a brainless Leftist fool  

The best he can do is end up with an unsubstantiated accusation.  He speaks of "The disadvantage foisted on Indigenous Australians by ignorance or prejudice."  Where is his evidence that the poor situation of Aborigines is due to "ignorance or prejudice".  He has none.   

It's just a verbal fart.

Fine tun of phrase, JJ. I cheered up and continued washing glasses. For the common good.  

There are many ethnic groups in Australia and many of them came here when there was indeed prejudice against them.  My mother's father told her when she was young that he would cut her off if she married an Italian.  So did that hold Italians back?  Hardly.  Not long ago, Australia's most populous State -- NSW -- was run by second generation Italians and Greeks -- the Iemma administration.  And they were put there by the NSW voters.

And note that most Italians who migrated to Australia in the early to mid 20th century were poor peasant people trying to escape poverty.  They were by most criteria very "disadvantaged" people.  But they thrived in Australia, as they did in the USA. In one generation they leapt to prosperity.

Heck, even Stan Grant has no experience of poverty these days. I wonder how much of his huge salary goes to help his fellow aboriginals. 

And look at the Jews.  Can any group ever have been more hated than the Jews?  If you want to talk about prejudice and discrimination, look at the experience of the Jews.  Yet Jews ride high wherever they are.  Israel even prospers despite constant attacks on it by Muslims.

Plainly, there is no systematic disadvantage inflicted on anyone by prejudice and discrimination.  One could more plausibly argue that it spurs people on to a high level of achievement.

So our brainless Lefty editor is plain WRONG in his explanation  of Aboriginal backwardness.   

That leaves Aborigines responsible for themselves.  Self-responsibility?  What a horrible thought to a Leftist!  The State is their solution to everything.  

Over 40,000 years, Aborigines evolved to lead a hunter-gatherer life and they are superbly adapted to that life.  They are NOT however adapted to modern life and nothing will make them that.  There are however some ways that they can be helped.  

Which begs the question. Is modern life or other, older verions of life, the issue at all? What of the Character that peoples develop?  That came up a little later.

I see it in the contrast between elderly Aborigines and young Aborigines.  The older ones are much better adapted to white society.  They lead reasonably clean, orderly and sober lives while the young ones are plagued by every conceivable problem.  Why?   

Because when the older ones were growing up, the Aboriginal settlements were run by missionaries.  And Aborigines are a very spiritual people so religion has a big effect on them.  It gave the missionaries the leverage to teach Aborigines habits that would be to their advantage.

But there is no political will to bring back the missionaries so is there anything else to be done?  Just about everything that could be tried has been tried by successive State and Federal governments of all political stripes so there is really only one possibility left:  Better policing.  

I take issue with that. Policing is certainly needed but it is hardly the only possibility left. Again, Character: its formation and maintenence. Socialist interventions only exacerbate the problems and take away personal responsibility - and Manliness.

The casual violence towards women and children by Aboriginal males is horrific. I have seen it.  But if the women had somewhere to run to in their settlements, many could escape that violence.  Most settlements already have a police presence but it is woefully inadequate.  More cops are what is needed but I am quite sure that would not suit our brainless Leftist editor.  Where would he get a warm glow out of that? 

Billions upon billions of hard-earned Taxpayer dollars have been spent on non-taxpaying aboriginals. Thank goodness they are only 3%. Closing the Gap strategies (albeit ineffective to date) all seem to come from one side of the gap; the white side.  Maybe that is why they are ineffective. We pour money into a deep hole in the sand. 

But let us turn to the nice couple who were sitting quietly. Brett & Kate McKay.

They had a lot to say about American Indians, but of quite a while ago. Not all Indians, mind you, so I did not take it as 'typical'. But I do not know. 

What I do know is the emphasis on 'Character-formation' when I see it.

 And I could see something else too: the similarity of the life of Charles Alexander Eastman, a Stan Grant of his day.  See if you can see it too.

Further, a close reading will show what I would recognise as 'Community' amogst the Indian tribe discussed. Nowadays they have 'socialism' and 'government' interference.  Both Oz indiginese and American have suffered accordingly from this 'creed'.

Lessons from the Sioux in How to Turn a Boy Into a Man

It has sometimes been said that the life of the American Indian has been overly romanticized by those who lack firsthand knowledge of what that life really consisted of, and are merely looking back through the hazy mists of time.

 http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/09/30/lessons-from-the-sioux-in-how-to-turn-a-boy-into-a-man/

Yet one who was not long removed from growing up immersed in Native American culture, remembered it as wistfully as anyone, saying, “The Indian boy enjoyed such a life as almost all boys dream of and would choose for themselves if they were permitted to do so.”

How many of the Stan Grants of Oz would say that? 

The writer of this sentiment was a man known at his death as Charles Alexander Eastman. But that was not his original name. He was born a member of the Eastern Dakota (or Santee) Sioux tribe in 1858 and dubbed Hakadah, or “pitiful last,” for his mother died in giving birth to him. 

The boy’s father, Many Lightnings, was thought to have been killed by whites during the Dakota War of 1862, and he  (the boy) was raised by his grandmother and uncle in the ways of traditional Sioux life; this included being given a new name when he became a young man: Ohiyesa or “always wins.”

Before this boy’s life would take a dramatic and unexpected turn, and Ohiyesa would became Eastman, he would nearly complete the Sioux journey from boy to man. 

The elements of this journey contain much wisdom for young men in the present day, and the grown men who wish to see them raised to honorable manhood.

I am conscious here, before we even look at some of the elements in the Sioux way of manhood, that very little is known or lauded about Oz Aboriginal 'character formation'. It is not as though it was known and has been forgotten. It barely appears on the whiner's radar.  They certainly never mention it.

“From childhood I was consciously trained to be a man; that was, after all, the basic thing; but after this I was trained to be a warrior and a hunter, and not to care for money or possessions, but to be in the broadest sense a public servant. After arriving at a reverent sense of the pervading presence of the Spirit and Giver of Life, and a deep consciousness of the brotherhood of man, the first thing for me to accomplish was to adapt myself perfectly to natural things — in other words, to harmonize myself with nature. To this end I was made to build a body both symmetrical and enduring — a house for the soul to live in — a sturdy house, defying the elements. I must have faith and patience; I must learn self-control and be able to maintain silence. I must do with as little as possible and start with nothing most of the time, because a true Indian always shares whatever he may possess.” –Charles Alexander Eastman

You can see that I am quoting just a little here. I urge you to read further by following the link. There are lessons and perspectives to be learned. 

“No one who is at all acquainted with the Indian in his home can deny that we are a polite people. As a rule, the warrior who inspired the greatest terror in the hearts of his enemies was a man of the most exemplary gentleness, and almost feminine refinement, among his family and friends. A soft, low voice was considered an excellent thing in man, as well as in woman! 

Indeed, the enforced intimacy of tent life would soon become intolerable, were it not for these instinctive reserves and delicacies, this unfailing respect for the established place and possessions of every other member of the family circle, this habitual quiet, order, and decorum.”

How very different from the Aboriginal squalor and theft-culture. No-one can accuse the Oz Aboriginals of being gentle, polite people who respect the possessions of others ! 

Yet.... both are people living in comparative poverty - compared to modern civilisation. So where is the difference?

Character Formation.

“The truly brave man, we contend, yields neither to fear nor anger, desire nor agony; 

he is at all times master of himself; 

his courage rises to the heights of chivalry, patriotism, and real heroism. 

‘Let neither cold, hunger, nor pain, nor the fear of them, neither the bristling teeth of danger nor the very jaws of death itself, prevent you from doing a good deed,’ said an old chief to a scout who was about to seek the buffalo in midwinter for the relief of a starving people.”

I could show you more, but again, I urge you to follow the link. Look at the life described by this man. 

The native American Indian today is in a parlous state, so I am led to understand. Perhaps someone might like to say something about that.

Meanwhile, I will smoke my pipe of peace and drink of good Grace.

Pax

The ADF. Australian Distaff Force

It is usual for a Knight to be quite understanding and complementary about the armed forces, especially of the Australian Defence Force. Oz has a proud tradition of support and high regard for the fighting prowess of the troops that serve our nation.

Few if any could be accused of being Girly-men.

The same cannot be said for its leadership.

It used to be said - albeit a long time ago - that the British Lions were led by Donkeys, and the rather 'larrikin' Australian troops could not be led by anyone. The last exceptional General we had in Oz was Sir John Monash and he was variously ignored or villified by both the politicians and his peers.  He was Jewish, you see. 

A Truwe Knight.

It has not been a notable feature of the ADF to produce well rounded senior ranks, over that of Colonel, and even now that rank and those above and just below are in a parlous state of ignorance  and unsoldierliness. How such people get promoted has been touched upon before in the Tavern. Many are promoted to 'get rid of'.

After Janet had said her piece earlier in the evening we had Jack Cade stand up and say his piece in very clear and devastating terms.  He did not hold back. 

PCGolden Girls Of The ADF

Even Agatha Christie couldn’t come up with this.   

A plot which includes a man who demands to be called a woman; abusive conduct; hush money; Australian Of The Year nominations; anti-Australian Navy Captain; reward for misconduct; Army chief’s hypocrisy and a Defence Minister’s unhinged compliment.

http://morningmail.org/golden-girls-of-the-adf/

In my humble opinion, of the two women hailed as the ADF’s ‘Golden Girls’, many might very well view one of them as a vindictive, abusive pretend-woman and the other an anti-Australian Muslim, both of whom appear epic failures when judged by past military standards.

Malcolm “Call Me Cate” McGregor was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Australian Army when he decided to be known as a woman. 

He didn’t undergo any surgery that would complete the transformation. Oh no, he simply started wearing dresses and demanded that he be recognised as a woman. The warm, fuzzy, tolerant and inclusive PC indoctrinated ADF chiefs fell all over themselves complying with his demands.

Let’s get to the truth about “Call Me Cate”. He admits that he has male chromosomes and says he is not a woman but he feels like a woman trapped in a man’s body so there—a woman is born. 

Now, I have said it before that I do not give a stuff what a chap wears in his off-duty hours. He can come into the Tavern in a frock as long as he doesn't try to show his knickers to the customers. Same goes for the real girls. 

In uniform, on duty, no-one is going to inspect his underwear so he can wear whatever sails his boat there too. It might be a tad embarrassing if he is hit by shrapnel but that blushing would not be noticed with all the blood anyway.

But if he is going to claim he is a woman and wants to be treated as a female, my Bouncer chap will escort him by the arm to the stables and hose him down.

He was one who appeared to be cheering on the sacking of Major Bernard Gaynor by that other ADF PC-driven, David Hurley. McGregor couldn’t leave it at that and launched an extraordinary attack on Bernard Gaynor’s father who McGregor claimed had defective DNA.  Laughable really. 

Here is a bloke who thinks he is a woman criticising someone else’s DNA? Fair dinkum!

It may not have been because of this but after Lieutenant Colonel McGregor was “counselled”, McGregor was transferred to the RAAF and immediately rewarded with a substantial promotion to Group Captain

...and nominated to be Australian Of The Year, while Gaynor Snr was further ridiculed by the ADF command because he refused to see McGregor as a woman. He was offered $25,000 to keep his mouth shut.

The mind boggles. Talk about an insult to the RAAF.  

An insult to real, ordinary, everyday 

born-women too. 

This excuse of a girly-man  was 'off-loaded' from the Army and into the RAAF above far better, more experienced and competent Air Force Officers who had done the time and honed their aviation skills.

Personally I would not have him as a cleaning lady in the airmen's mess.

To understand part two of the ADF Golden Girls saga we take a look at the double standards and gross hypocrisy of retired Army Chief David Morrison as explained by Bernard Gaynor: 

“In other words, the former Chief of Army gained accolades for ‘respecting women’ by reading the words of a person who thinks that men can be just as female as the ladies.  

He then talked tough about ruthlessly ridding the Army of abusers, only to do nothing about the abuser who was standing right next to him – McGregor – who, shortly after writing that speech, decided to abuse my father.”

Now let us look at another egregious insult;  this time to to the Royal Australian Navy. 

Captain Mona Shindy, RAN, Muslim. Mona Shindy for two years had control of an official Twitter account, @NavyIslamic, and during that time abused the privilege by using such account as her personal political pro-Islamic advertising agent.

Looking at the account it appears that Mona Shindy enjoyed complete independence in her role as RAN Islamic advisor and used the account as a personal billboard to broadcast the word of Islam either with the tacit approval of the brass or while they were drunk at the helm.

Imagine WW2 with the Allies having a 'Nazi Advisor' on board who espoused all the political aims of the Nazis.  Imagine that person having a senior rank and the ear of Churchill.

In March 2015 Captain Shindy gave a presentation to the Royal United Services Institute of New South Wales which, when avoiding PC speak translated to:

    The media was to blame for Islamic violence.

    Armed Jihad is justified.

    The Hijab is required by the Quran making it Sharia compliant.

    Islamic women aren’t oppressed despite FGM, stoning etc.

    Islamic extremism is our fault.

    The Western world is responsible for Sunni/Shia conflict.

    It is our fault that Muslim youth can’t get ahead in our society.

    If we thought like Muslims instead of Westerners then violence wouldn’t look like terrorism.

    Charlie Hedbo is our fault.

    Let’s just forget about 9/11 and the World Trade Centre.

    There is no problem with Jihad, the problem is us.

    If we were nicer to Muslims then terrorism would go away.

    We need to talk about terrorism but don’t mention Islamic State.

    The government needs to build more Mosques and employ more Imams to promote Islam

    Muslim’s victim mentality is justified.

Some Business-woman all right. All Wrong.

Furthermore, Captain Shindy used the @NavyIslamic Twitter account to:

    Mock our former PM, Tony Abbott.

    Celebrate Tony Abbott’s knifing.

    Criticise our involvement in the fight against Islamic terrorism.

    Back the Grand Mufti’s flawed response to the Paris Terrorist attack.

   Attacked the ALA political party as being an ill-informed fringe group.

Despite her less than satisfactory conduct and her open anti-Australian political tweets she is to be rewarded by sending her to the Defence Strategic Studies Centre to do a Masters degree in, of all things, politics and policy. Ain’t that a doozy?

It is a scandal. It is ludicrous.  Just whose side is she on? 

Heck, she may be a competent sailor for all I know (no-one seems to know) but she was driving a friggin' Frigate. 

Just like the Malcolm “Call Me Cate” McGregor farce, there is an ‘Add Insult To Injury’ clause. 

Provisional Defence Minister Marise Payne (temporarily on training wheels) says that Captain Shindy is an “outstanding Australian” and that “She has served the country with distinction”.

She has? Let's see the record then. Oh, we can't.  Marise (Who? No-one had heard of this back-room functionary before she suddenly appeared at Malcolm Turnbull's side?.

Payne, who is obviously not an big fan of reality, went on to say that the RAN is to continue developing an “effective and engaging” social media strategy and Defence was committed to increasing cultural diversity among serving members to better reflect Australian society.

Hey, Marise, the Navy is there to Fight and Kill the enemy, not to have an 'effective and engaging social friggin' media strategy.  Get a grip of your knickers woman. Or perhaps ask Gp. Capt. McGregor for them back. 

Government/ADF policy, as confirmed by Marise Payne, is now geared to reward abusive and anti-Australian behaviour with praise for the blatant disregard of regulations while promoting offenders and resorting to bribing complainants to keep their mouth shut.

This means we are to see even more of this politically correct lunacy from the Minister, Defence bureaucrats and the ADF command according to Marise Payne who would be better suited to be Minister of Koolaide Distribution to Politicians.

And all with the full knowledge and consent of (and direction?) of PM Waffler himself.

It is time for the troops to show what they think, I think.

They deserve FAR better officers than they have. 

Pax.

Blunt Knives and Trivia

Hilary's Village spreads like a concrete suburb. The welcome rains do not soak the ground to bring sustenance to the flowers, but floods and washes sense and sensitivity away. And Humanity with it.

Several matters have affected Tasmania in the past week. Fires in remote places damaging pristine wilderness that seemingly only has value when it is destroyed. Greenies lock it up and hand it over to the U.N. but fail to invest in its maintenance. 

"The place is on fire.... let's go to the beach"

So when a fire breaks out no-one can get to them because there are no roads. Then they complain and cry 'disaster', even when 99% is left untouched.

Dullards.  Blunt knives in the drawer. And when someone does try to make a road (woodsmen and loggers usually) we get that dull tool 'Dr' Brown (No-one is holier than Brown) complaining when he 'protests' that he gets arrested.  

Yes, this homosexual man who happily supported laws that would arrest people for protesting about the murder of babies in the womb, complains when he himself is arrested for protesting the cutting down of a tree. 

Dullards lack perspective and ethics.

When he was 'in politics' did he propose a fire-fighting aircraft for Tasmania? We do get fires every year.  The greenies let the fires burn trees so they could complain, but they do nothing to value them, least of all invest in them.

It does not stop them forcing their views on others and having them punished though. And force their views they do. One way or another. No-one is allowed to have a different view.

Janet Albrechtsen was in the P & B last night showing us some examples of dull knives in the drawer.

Neo-puritans strive to find offence — anywhere

With January 2016 ticked off the calendar, it’s worth reflecting how the past month has provided a window into the mindset of a burgeoning class of sanctimonious neo-puritans.

A few weeks back, West Indies cricketer Chris Gayle was just about run out of the country after an interview with a female sports presenter where he said: “Hopefully, we can win this game and have a drink after. Don’t blush baby.” Social media went nuts. 

Here is the 'offending' exchange.

The media, talkback, feminists went equally manic that Gayle would dare to flirt on camera. 

The hypocricy of feminists and their media front-bum-sniffers is astounding.

Not that these same people complain when female reporters flirt with male sporty types, mind you. That is fine, it seems. 

A female TV 'reporter' can chat-up a private person on a beach and make highly personal comments about his body, and no-one complains.
She's a woman, you see.
What is fine for her, is A FINE for a man.

So, where is the outrage at this 'interview' below, or is it a tag-team by two women verbally sexually assaulting a man?

No one sees it as anything more than two women having some risque banter with a chap. Which is what it is. Gayle's remark was not even that.  The treatment however was very different.

The cricketer apologised the very next day. But that made no difference to the remonstrating neo-puritans. The batting legend was ¬labelled a sexist and a creep, his club fined him $10,000, Cricket Australia boss James Sutherland said Gayle’s on-camera flirting was “completely out of line and inappropriate”. “It’s very, very public,” Sutherland said.

A few weeks later, NRL player Mitchell Pearce was caught on a smartphone video behaving like a drunken buffoon at a private party. But privacy made no difference to the censorious neo-puritans. Public lapse in judgment? Private indiscretion? The boundaries keep moving. There but for the grace of God go I has become there but for the grace of an iPhone go all of us. 

Pearce clumsily tried to kiss a woman who quickly rebuffed him. So he stopped. The half-back then simulated a dopey, jokey sex act on a dog. He urinated on a couch. Dumb and dumber.

The man was a fool and a crude one at that. But the furore was far worse. 

But in the minds of the neo-puritans, there is no room for boofheads anymore. Pearce is a villain. End of story. And villains must be publicly shamed. 

So there’s endless talk of fines and penalties, contracts cancelled, careers over, rehab and counselling. Pearce has left the country. I am deeply uncomfortable to find myself on roughly the same side of the argument as Peter FitzSimons.

But here’s where the Red Bandanna and I part ways. The progressive set that FitzSimons surely calls home is to blame for the rise of the holier than thou neo-puritanism that has tried to destroy Pearce. 

Australia’s self-appointed moral guardians are having a heyday doing what they do so often: 

dividing the world into victims and villains. 

It is not as though these moral guardians know what the word 'moral' actually means. 

But can it really be that simple? There is something truly disturbing about the refusal by these self-appointed moralisers to make room for a few boofheads, be they drunk or flirtatious.

To be sure, no one should celebrate stupidity. Pearce behaved badly. He has to account for that. But the obsession to label every misdemeanour or error of judgment as a sure sign of bad character points to a deeper malaise infecting our society. This false dichotomy of victims and villains is creating a sterile, puritanical world where even minor mistakes of judgment are pathologised as serious moral misdeeds.

Witness the weird explosion of academic literature and campus chatter about so-called micro-assaults, micro-aggressions, micro-insults, micro-invalidations and so on and so forth. So you’ve picked up a copy of Hustler magazine and looked at a naked woman? That makes you a perpetrator of “micro-insults” — and a villain. 

Prefer to be colourblind to race so you don’t define people by their colour? That makes you a perpetrator of micro-invalidations — and a villain. 

You’d think that the very mention of “micro” points to how trifling this all is. 

Not in the eyes of the neo-naggers, who can find wrongdoing anywhere they look.

And it’s not hard to trace how we ended up in this realm of the utterly ridiculous. The misguided taxonomy between villains and victims was given a fillip once feelings entered the realm of human rights laws. Once an offending word here or an insulting word there attracted the heavy hand of the law, victimhood became a booming business. And given that victimhood works as a political philosophy only if there are villains, it’s not surprising then that Western modernity is stretching at the seams with newfangled classes of victims and villains.

You’re a Catholic archbishop from Tasmania who produces a pamphlet that defends the traditional definition of marriage that has not only existed for millennia but remains the law of the land? Most would think this is a complete non-story within a healthy democracy where freedom of speech and religion are basic rights. 

What is it with ugly men transforming into ugly (wo)men?

Wrong. Under the hectoring neo-puritanism, the law allows anyone offended by that pamphlet to claim victimhood status and, hey presto, the archbishop and his church are cast as villains by a human rights bureaucracy only too willing to play along. 

We seem to have reached the point where every transgression from the norm now demands either a victim or villain label. There’s no room for plain difference or straight stupidity any more. And the victim/villain dichotomy has reached into absurd places when Gayle and Pearce were cast as villains even where there were no victims.

Neither Gayle nor Pearce broke any law. The police were not called. There was no harm done, as John Stuart Mill would have concluded.

The 19th century English philosopher best explained the no harm principle when he said “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

Mill was addressing the importance of individual liberty in the face of state control. These days, the preachy neo-puritans imagine they are the state, imposing their judgments, wrecking reputations and careers because they have identified a villain even where there is no victim. No harm no longer matters to the neo-puritans. The principles that helped drive liberty have been upended.

Last week, the honchos who hand out Australia Day awards tried to further cement the victims and villains narrative into our national psyche when they picked David Morrison as Australian of the Year.

Morrison, a military man, is not regarded as an extraordinary soldier. So why did he get the gong? 

He gave one famous speech about victims of discrimination (a speech written by his then speechwriter, Cate McGregor, who transitioned from a man to a woman a few years ago).

Again. A 'failed' man who pretends to be a woman, insulting real women along the way, and he/she/whatever gets to write speeches for generals?  She could be Mayor of Hilary's Village. 

You might have thought that upon receiving the award, Morrison would defend this great nation, maybe explaining the importance of being committed to Western values such as individual liberty and so on. 

Wrong again. Morrison’s Australia Day speech was replete with dark talk of victims and villains.

Not surprisingly, those who have fallen for this false dichotomy have bequeathed hero status on Morrison.

The Tavern is for Heroes. Morrison just does not make the cut. His knife is blunt. 

Those of us who see through the victim and villain baloney see a man of mediocre achievement given an award he didn’t deserve. And his paean to progressive causes is a reminder of how far we have fallen as a proud nation.

The lionisation of Morrison and the concomitant destruction of Pearce suggest it’s high time we did more to keep in check the rapacious colonisation of our communities by the neo-puritans. After all, the freedom to be a boofhead is the other side of the liberty coin.

Janet stopped well short of providing us with a long list of fatuous people and fatuous accusations regarding trivia. And far worse. 

We all needed a drink after that. I gave her a rather fine one for her efforts.

I keep my sword sharp.

Meanwhile there are little things not at all trivial. The buiding blocks. The Love and learning that makes little girls fine young women. (Boys too, of course)

Here are three little things, finely built up to cheer us.

Pax