Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Racist Australia. Keep Out

You may remember that almost last scene in the Arthur Clarke movie 2010 Odyssey Two where Jupiter ignited and a cryptic message was received on the spaceship....


Well I think it is something that US nonebrities should bear in mind about Oz. 

So many lefty and coloured nonebrities from stage, screen and autocue have threatened to leave the USA if the Monolith Trump, the Great Donald, is elected later in the year that several customers in the Tavern are concerned that they might come here. 
Celebs eying the Monolith
So far they have been talking about going to Canada where the little lefty Prince Trudy is preparing attractive taxpayer benfits for them, But there are other places. 

Someone had better tell them that Oz won't suit them. 

It is a hotbed of racism. 

Systemic Racism at that, and as we all know so well that a qualified racism is far worse than a plain and simple one. 

Our politics is nowhere near the sort the Americans experience. Ours is more Medaevel England or even Italy. The Borgia's spring to mind. Or 'Wolf Hall'. We have a contest at the moment between a chap who has knifed two sitiing Prime Ministers in the back on his own way up the greasy pole, and another chap who has only knifed one - the idle bugger.

Two-Knife Bill, currently the 'opposition', is currying favour amongst all his lefty mates by casting Oz in the worst possible light. We are awful people, according to Bill. But he still wants us to vote for him. He has no shame.  

JJ Ray disagrees: not about Bill's shame, but we shall come to him soon after I have pulled a pint or two for him. Let's hear from the grinning loon, 2-knife Bill first.
Bill Shorten: ‘Systemic racism’ still exists in Australia 
as there’s no agreement about how the country was taken from Aboriginal people
OPPOSITION Leader Bill Shorten has declared “systemic racism is still far-too prevalent” and says there isn’t “fundamental agreement about how the country was taken from Aboriginal people”.
Mr Shorten made the comments at a Reconciliation Australia Dinner in Melbourne, after campaigning in Darwin on indigenous affairs issues.  “Systemic racism is still far-too prevalent,” he said.
“The insidious nature of stubborn racism is still a reality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals — regardless of the status and stature they achieve in our society.
“Every generation of Aboriginal athlete, from Doug Nicholls to Nicky Winmar to Michael Long to Adam Goodes has known this.”
Mr Shorten said he knew “racism is not true of most Australians”, and that he was proud of those who stand up to it.
But he also acknowledged there was more to be done as “this sense of discrimination percolates down to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on the street every day”.
Mr Shorten said real equality came from “being truthful”.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Bill would not know Truth if it walked up to him and bit his arse. 
“Right now, there is not fundamental agreement about how the country was taken from Aboriginal people,” he said.
“Or the issues about settlement, and colonisation.
“We need a process to find the common ground, on such matters, for the common good of our nation.”
Mr Shorten went on to say the “disgraceful fiction of the doctrine of terra nullius has been disproved”.
Terra Nullius, for the head-scratchers, is a tern invented by lefties in the 80's and projected backward onto the First Fleet Officers. 
“But without a future framework agreed with Aboriginal people, all the arguments from 1788 onwards will continue to plague us,” he said.
“Our goal should be to agree to a future which gives us all pride and respect.”
The Opposition leader went on to say it was important to acknowledge there was “unfinished business — and there are new pathways to be developed”.
“The reconciliation process has provided a constructive opportunity for our nation to find agreement on these fundamental issues — or at least help us settle them,” he said.
“But the concept of Reconciliation has — for too long — been split by some into a false dichotomy.
“‘Practical’ reconciliation on one hand — and ‘symbolic’ actions like compensation and agreements on the other.
“The truth is we need agreement on both paths.”
The Opposition Leader said the nation could not truly celebrate its achievements in the area of indigenous affairs while was “still a sense of injustice lingering in the hearts and minds of the first Australians”.
Just think how much extra credence Bill's fantasies would have if the racist American nonebrities above came here. But of course, we would send them to Manus Island. 

The Prof took Bill to task.
He falls at the first hurdle.  The country was NOT taken away from Aborigines.  They still live here.  And that others also now live here actually gives them rights and privileges that they never had in their tribal past.
But this racism accusation is deplorable  coming from someone who thinks he can lead the country. 
He calls Australians racist but still wants their vote.   
Does that make him a racist too? 
Hate clearly blinds him.  But Leftists do tend to hate the society they live in so it is not really surprising.
And if there is "systematic" racism, where is it?  Where is the system or systems concerned?   
The only systematic racism I know of is the various affirmative action policies of the Federal and State governments -- which  give privileges to blacks that are not available to whites.  That is certainly systematic racism but Shorten is presumably not condemning that.   
His party is behind much of the racism concerned.
And to call racist a country that has for many decades welcomed immigrants from all over the world is the height of absurdity.  Few countries have been as welcoming to foreigners as Australia.  But Australia has always tried to select migrants in a way that excludes problem people and still insists on that right of selection.   
People who try to sneak in the back door are not sent away because of their race but because of their contempt for reasonable Australian laws.
The sort of contempt that Bill is past-Master at. 
That Aborigines live in a way that most whites deplore is their affair.  If unemployed, they get the same dole money as any other unemployed person and many unemployed people live civilized lives.  I lived on the dole for a couple of years in my youth and I lived quite well.  Nobody would have thought me to be pitied.
There is no doubt that Aborigines envy whites some things but the solution to that is to work for what they want. 
 Australia now has a very large minority of East Asian people who are very prosperous and contribute a great deal to the community.  But many arrived here penniless and unable to speak English. And, like Aborigines, they look different.  That they have nonetheless done so well shows that the opportunity is there for everyone in Australia.  
If Aborigines fail to take advantage of the opportunities available to them, that is their decision and it should be respected.   
Let us not criticize them for being loyal to their own traditions.
Ahhhh, but 'Traditions' are simply weapons to the Lefties.

The Tavern is a fine place which welcomes all. But they must behave. I doubt if those people examples above could manage it for five minutes.  They would be introduced to the Bouncer. Bill too.


Monday, May 30, 2016

Memorial to The Fallen

The religious man will acknowledge that Humanity is 'fallen'. We have to make do with the 'Human Condition' we find ourselves in and that includes WAR. Why? Because there are bad folk in this world where Evil stalks and all the Pollyannas and John Lennons will not change the fact.

Some men and the occasional woman are born to be Warriors: they follow the Profession of Arms. 'Tis a Noble and Honourable profession.  But most wars are fought by farm boys conscripted to the fight. 

And they fall like tears. 
They may be ordered on and around the field by men of skill and knowledge of battle; men who value life. But those in turn are mostly ordered by fatuous men - and women - who sit in comfort  far behind the lines and pontificate, later, at Memorials. Those 'leaders', politicians, say they care, but their words betray not just themselves but the men who died.

So it was that some people gathered. My fine and gracious friend the Southern Gal proudly showed us her family's contribution; they care. 

Meanwhile her President disgraced her abroad. And his memory is as deliberately neglectful as ours is poor.

Southern Gal told me.....
This weekend my husband, son and I went to a local cemetery and placed flags on the graves of those that fought to preserve the freedoms that are so often taken for granted for in this country.  It’s a small gesture to give something in return to those have given everything.
 For those who continue to serve, we pray you come home safe. For those gone, we will never forge t you………..
 “It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.  It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.  It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.  It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.”
-Charles Province

Noble, grateful, honouring, powerful. But she does not wield the destructive power of Presidents, whether they are dropping bombs or words of dishonour.

Many in America reacted with dismay at the words of President Obama when he visited the Memorial at Hiroshima in Japan. You would think a man in his role would think very carefully about speaking gelatinous platitudes in that place. But no. His mind was on golf, in all liklihood. And his forgetfulness was both deliberate and cruel. The 'most intelligent man who ever sat in the Oval Office' cannot have been stupid, shirley.

Ben Shapiro gave him his due.
President Obama Gives One Of The Most Repulsive Speeches In American History In Hiroshima
On Friday, President Obama said America’s use of the A-bomb to end the threat of Japanese fascism sprang from American desire for conquest, suggested that America had ushered in an age of “atomic warfare,” and said that we could achieve a “world without nuclear weapons” if only we clapped for Tinkerbell. 
This came shortly after his visit to Vietnam, where his White House announced that America would start selling weapons to the communist dictatorship.
Yes, our president is a total disgrace.
“Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself,” Obama said. 
This ignored the fact that mankind had in fact nearly destroyed itself over the previous three decades in two world wars, and that the Soviet Union and China would murder well over 100 million people using non-nuclear means. But the point of Obama’s speech was that the technology of atomic weaponry itself was uniquely evil.
Obama continued:
"Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner. Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become."
We have been warned for several millenia that psychopaths in Thrall to evil will use honeyed words to decieve you. Obama is a master of such deceptive rhetoric.  I prefer the sword, m'self. It is honest.
In case you were wondering, at no point did Obama mention Pearl Harbor and the dead there, or the more than 100,000 Americans who lost their lives in the Pacific theater, or the half-million to one million Americans who would have had to sacrifice themselves to storm the island of Japan using conventional means. As Noah Rothman tweets this morning, veterans were overjoyed at the use of the A-bomb, knowing it ended the war and meant they would live to see their children.
Taking Okinawa
Obama noted that war is not unique in human history; he even went full moral relativist with regard to World War II itself: “the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.
This is disgusting. 
If you can’t spot the bad guys and the good guys in World War II, of all conflicts, ..

you’re on the side of a valueless nihilism that allows the possibility of future world wars – after all, you can’t take a strong stand against evil if it doesn’t exist. Japan was wrong. America was right. Germany was wrong. America was right. End of story.
But Obama continued his relativistic reverie:
"How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause. Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill."
Some religions are worse than others. Some ideologies are worse than others. But not according to Obama. 
We’re all equal in sin, according to the President of the United States – and the only solution is to destroy American nationalism, and replace it with some sort of Obama-created philosophy of peace:
Here’s an answer: take pre-emptive action to stop tyrannically fascist states from starting wars and then vowing to fight them to the last man. But Obama forbids that solution expressly:
Obama doesn’t want realism. He wants the remaking of the world in his personal image. He wants humanity itself changed:
"We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose."
Hiroshima was not a “mistake.” 
It was a wartime decision. Pearl Harbor wasn’t a “mistake.” It was an attack driven by an aggressive and imperialistic Japanese policy that also resulted in the invasion of China and the murder of 100,000 civilians there.
But Obama thinks that the way to stop war is to kill ideology altogether, not to support and strengthen proper ideologies. 
This is John Lennon’s 'Imagine' on crack. 
Hiroshima happened because the world slept as fascism rose; Obama wishes to sleep on evil again (or worse, forward it), hoping that national narcolepsy becomes contagious internationally, and we share the same peaceful dreams. 
We don’t. If we go to sleep again, our enemies will use that reverie to rise. But Americans increasingly believe in Obamaism – more Americans now think using the A-bomb was wrong than right. The result will be more Hiroshimas after 70 years of nuclear peace.
There are still some around who think that the Atom Bomb was evil and that America was even more evil to use it.

But what about Japan's Atom Bomb?

What? You have never heard of it?

You heard about Germany's efforts to build an atom bomb. Heck there were even war-adventure-heroism films made about it. But about Japan's efforts..... silence.  Rob Wilcox was in the bar telling us.
The Japanese were trying to make an atomic bomb, too
In all the press about Obama visiting Hiroshima, Japan, where the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on its enemy in 1945, not one word has surfaced about the fact that the Japanese were, at the same time, working on their own atomic bomb, and would have used it on Americans had they been able. 
Nor has anything been said about the fact that they were much closer to making an atomic bomb than most Americans know.
The Japanese had begun a program to develop a “uranium” bomb even before the sneak attacked on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, killing some 2000 Americans and starting war with America. 
They had top scientists working on their atomic bomb, including a future Nobel-prize winner, Hideki Yukawa. Over the course of the war they spent millions on the program, hunting uranium, building crucial separators, designing a workable bomb, and elevating their program to a top priority at the end of the war as they frantically sought “miracle” weapons with which to turn the tide going against them. 
 Had America not used its atomic bombs and instead invaded the Japanese mainland, the Japanese were planning to use atomic weapons on the invasion fleet, which certainly would have been devastating. Kamikazis had been bad enough. Imagine if they had been armed with nuclear weapons.
Of course none of this was mentioned by Barack Obama in his non-apology apology in Japan. 
He may or may not even know about this history, so successful has been the effort by both Japan and the American Left to bury it. 
Both want the Japanese to appear solely as victims of the bomb. 
It keeps Japan’s conscience clear for their part in World War II’s atrocities, and helped, after the war, gain sorely  needed aid. For the Left, it makes attacking America easier if this part of the world’s atomic bomb story remains buried.
But you can’t bury the truth. 
The Japanese were not stupid. Like other countries in the late 1930s, they became aware of the potential for a stupendous weapon in splitting the atom. They started exploring it, as did the Germans and the U.S. As they planned for war with America they did not think they’d need such a weapon. After devastating the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, they planned a short war in which they could grab much of Asia quickly and then sue for peace. But it didn’t happen that way. 
The U.S. fought back doggedly. The war dragged on. The Japanese began to lose their protecting fleet and conversely America and her allies began to win back what the Japanese had conquered. With the tide turning, the Japanese atomic bomb project, diffused amongst its army and navy labs, began to unite and gain steam.
The Japanese scientists knew how to make a bomb. 
Plans discovered in 2002 showed an actual diagram of their bomb.  Their problem was industrial strength and fissionable material. There wasn’t a lot in Japan. They had to import uranium – and other fissionable ores like thorium, which may have figured more into their nuclear plans. One of the main program areas in Tokyo, the Rikken lab, developed separators for isolating isotopes so important in nuclear bomb making. But in early 1945, the lab was destroyed by B-29 bombers. A Rikken separator however was used as a prototype by Sumitomo and multiple separators were moved to Korea, which was relatively free of bombing. There were also Japanese atomic bomb efforts operating in Manchuria and elsewhere in China about which less is known.
A person who dies by atom bomb or bayonet- to him, 'tis a gratuitous distinction.
As the U.S. drew closer to Japan proper, the Japanese war government made development of an atomic bomb a top priority. The army and navy programs began to cooperate with each. Frantic efforts to gather more uranium were launched, including trying to get it from the Germans. The navy spent over 100 million yen alone in Shanghai buying and gathering uranium ores. In May 1945, the last Nazi submarine to leave Kiel, Germany, had on it uranium to be smuggled to Japan. The exact nature of the uranium – whether simply refined or the isotope U235 has never been publicly released. Unfortunately for the Japanese, the sub, rather than make the dangerous voyage to the Pacific, opted to surrender in the Atlantic and full understanding about its cargo has so far been buried in government secrecy.
In Korea, right after the Hiroshima bombing, US intelligence received reports that the Japanese had test fired an atomic device off the coast. Those reports continued well into the Occupation but the Russians, in their first act after declaring war on Japan in the war’s last days, rushed in and to this day have kept that area – North Korea – off limits to western investigators.
The Soviets were the next country to explode a nuclear bomb. The intelligence reports say they took Japanese nuclear scientists and integrated them into their atomic program. How much did the Japanese scientists help? That is another unknown question. 
Intelligence reports also say the Japanese left a system of underground caves and bomb factories in North Korea. We can speculate that the reason a tinhorn country like North Korea can continue to be a thorn in the side of a giant like America with its sabre rattling and threats is that they picked up from where the Japanese left off.
There is still more to be learned about the Japanese atomic bomb program. But we know enough to say with certainty that they were working on an atomic bomb themselves and had they succeeded, Obama, the America-blaming Left, and the rest of the world would have an entirely different perspective. 
As it is, the story of Japan’s effort and intentions continues to be buried – as is the truth.
(Robert K. Wilcox is the author of  Japan's Secret War: Japan's race against time to build its own atomic bomb.)
War is nasty, brutish, violent, cruel. It is what we get when evil runs riot. A surgeon does not make pacific speeches about how cancer and a broken leg are really just the same and we should lament having to cut cancerous cells out with 'Invasive' means. He does not condemn the white corpuscles for attacking the virus in the bloodstream. He does not claim that using asprin is really just the same as shooting up heroin in a back alley. 

(Oh dear. Someone is bound to be offended by 'white' being the name. Obama may even decree it be changed). 

Someone has to stand up to evil regimes. 

It is usually farm boys who do and they die in droves. 

We must give them the honours due. Some were heroes. All played their part.

Warriors, Knights, Captains and Generals may covet the kudos, but the Grunt, the Trooper, the Digger and the Tommy take survival as a gift from those of their colleagues who did not.

Drink up. 


Sunday, May 29, 2016

King's Knights' Porn

Back in my early days when I was a King, my Knights, like farmboys, liked to pore over illuminated manuscripts that would get the heart racing and the juices flowing. Things have not changed.

Nowadays, of course, the Knights have different steeds and weaponry, but lads being lads, no matter how well bred, will still look at  pictures which polite society may not deem fit for the dining table. In the Tavern which is a favourite place for heroes and men of a military bent, porn is still passed around  and huddled around in the darker corner tables.

I thought I might let you look.

Mum taking the chick out.

Some of my personal favourites. Retro. Perhaps 'vintage'. 

Lances were dropped for Javelins.
We liked moving ones too. 

The Americans, so I understand from my mate the Major, try out their junior Knights on this little beast. The Beechcraft Texan 2

Here's one actually doing its stuff.

The British however train their young lads on a rather hotter sort. The Tucano.

Similar, but with cigar !

Now, this one is to drool over.

A Gentleman's residence while on Battle tour.
This for a relaxing afternoon just to keep the hands on the reins.

Enough. I am feeling all hot and bothered.

Back to serving Ale.

OK. One more, with feeling.


As a lady customer of some Standing pointed out that there is 'other' subject matter a lady might get  about, I add her suggestion in here.



Speeding down the slippery slope, faster and faster until the friction overcomes even the slipperiness and causes your pants to burst into flame. Yes, even slippery slopes have 'slipperiness' that only works when going slow. Our society is on such a slope.

Our minds are sliding into the darkness.

In what seems now to be an age that has passed we used to have just a smidgen of hypocricy and a smidgen of dishonesty that acted like oil in the cogs. It allowed us - and others - to overlook some indiscretions, perhaps a lapse in good manners. We could tolerate the eccentrics and those that were  - shall we say - deviant from the normal.  We told 'little white lies' largely to protect others. We could think one thing and maybe, sometimes, fail to act in accordance with our expressed attitudes. People overlooked the lapse. Perhaps we received a disapproving look or a sharp word that stopped us 'going over the top'.  We were all aware that 'over the top' was the start of the slippery slope.

We tolerated quite a lot, but recognised that what we were tolerating - even in ourselves - was wrong. We acknowledged that no-one was perfect. We chastised and took our whacks when it got out of hand.

Over the top and down the slope though we lose that sense of social decorum. Honesty flies ahead and hypocricy becomes weighty. It drags us faster. Whacks become beatings. No deviation from the norm is tolerated. 

But our society has changed the norm.
Or Else.
Those who do the beating take a very 'holier than thou' appraoch that steals an unwarrented high moral ground. It is as though one is Kafka being on Trial. Not for them a 'tut-tut' or a look of disapproval. No. Out comes the cudgels, even for views that are sense itself.

A customer who occasionally drops in - its a long way from Canada -  was telling just how the slope works. Well, some of it. Wendy McElroy has a way of explaining things.

But first we were shown a part of an important 'interrogation. 

A lady says something eminently sensible. She is berated by the Woman with Power. The victim is called a 'BIGOT ! This is just about the worst thing one can be called.

Just who was the bigot there?

Wendy showed us warning signs to watch for.

Beware of Kafkatrapping
The term "kafkatrapping" describes a logical fallacy that is popular within gender feminism, racial politics and other ideologies of victimhood.
And now 'transgenderism', same sex 'marriage' 'asylum seekers' 'refugees', paedophilia and a host of demonic forces waiting in line.. 

It occurs when you are accused of a thought crime such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You respond with an honest denial, which is then used as further confirmation of your guilt. You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility.

The term derives from Franz Kafka's novel The Trial in which a nondescript bank clerk named Josef K. is arrested; no charges are ever revealed to the character or to the reader. Josef is prosecuted by a bizarre and tyrannical court of unknown authority and he is doomed by impenetrable red tape. 

In the end, Josef is abducted by two strange men and inexplicably executed by being stabbed through the heart. 

The Trial is Kafka's comment on totalitarian governments, like the Soviet Union, in which justice is twisted into a bitter, horrifying parody of itself and serves only those in charge.
The 'west' struggled against totalitarian Marxism for a generatiom. It thought it had won. Unfortunately it simply caught the virus. 'Cultural Marxism' has driven a knife through the heart of western institutions and thought just as through Josef K's.

Kafkatrapping twists reason and truth into self-parodies that serve victimhood ideologues who wish to avoid the evidence and reasoned arguments upon which truth rests. 

The term appears to have originated in a 2010 article written by author and open source software advocate Eric S. Raymond. He opens by acknowledging the worth of equality before the law and of treating others with respect. But, he notes,

"good causes sometimes have bad consequences." 

One such consequence is that tactics used to raise consciousness can veer "into the creepy and pathological, borrowing the least sane features of religious evangelism."
Raymond offers various models of how kafkatrapping operates. He calls the two most common ones A and C.
Model A: The accuser states, "Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of (sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…) confirms that you are guilty of (sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…)." 

Harking back to The Trial, Raymond explains how the novel's plot parallels the structure and purpose of the accuser's nonargument. No specific acts are named in the accusation, which makes the claim unfalsifiable. 

The vague charge constitutes a thought crime, which also makes it unfalsifiable. 

As with The Trial, the process seems designed to create guilt and to destroy resistance so that you become malleable. Indeed, 

"the only way out … is … to acquiesce in his own destruction." 

Even if you are innocent, the only path to redemption is for you to plead guilty and accept punishment. 

Ideally, for the accuser, you even come to believe in your own guilt.

Model C is a common variant on the same theme. You may not have done, felt or thought anything wrong but you are still guilty because you benefit from a position of privilege created by others. 

In other words, you are guilty because of your identification with a group such as "male," "white," or "heterosexual." 

The accusation makes you responsible for the actions of strangers whose behavior you cannot control and who may have died long ago. 

Raymond writes, "The aim … is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt … a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator [accuser] to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator's personal, political, or religious goals." 

To be redeemed, you must cease to disagree with your accuser and condemn your entire identity group.
What happens when an accuser confronts someone in the same identity group to which he or she belongs? For example, one woman may question aspects of politically correct feminism being presented by another. 

An entirely different phenomenon occurs. Obviously, the questioner will not be encouraged to condemn herself for being a woman or to excoriate all women. 

Instead, she will be defined out of the group.
This is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It occurs when someone is confronted with an example that disproves a universal claim. The British philosopher Antony Flew described the fallacy, which he also named. One day Hamish McDonald reads an article in the Glasgow Morning Herald which reports on an attack by a sex maniac in England. Hamish declares aloud, "No Scotsman would do such a thing!" The next day, theGlasgow Morning Herald reports on an even worse attack in Scotland. 

Rather than reject his original statement, Hamish exclaims, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing." Thus, conservative women like Sarah Palin are not true women; blacks who question the validity of 'white privilege' cease to be viewed as truly black.
Other techniques are often associated with kafkatrapping. (Note: For a tactic to be true kafkatrapping, it has to involve an unfalsifiable claim.) 

Associated techniques that prove your guilt could include:
Requesting a clear-cut definition of what you are charged with – for example, homophobia;
Pointing out an injustice committed by the accuser's identity group;
Applying a single standard to everyone, e.g., refusing to accept that blacks cannot be racist;
Expressing skepticism about any aspect of the victimhood ideology, including the plausibility of anecdotal evidence;
Being ignorant of or uninterested in the subject;
Arguing against the ideology;
Saying "some of my best friends are X."
Kafkatrapping would seem to be a win-win situation for an accuser. And, in the short term, this may be true but its long-term impact can be devastating.
A movement becomes widespread because its voice is truth – at least, largely so – and its demand for justice is valid: For example, homosexuals have been hideously abused through much of history. 
 Have they? Literature is full of them and they seem to have been perfectly well accepted in the entertainment indusrty for at least 3000 years - and still are. I do not see the 'hideous treatment' but I suppose that makes me guity.

When a movement discards the truth and justice that made it grow and favors abusive attacks instead, it is in decline. 
Family Court Justice.

The abuse also quashes any productive discussion of real issues. Raymond observes, 

"manipulative ways of controlling people tend to hollow out the causes for which they are employed, smothering whatever worthy goals they may have begun with and reducing them to vehicles for the attainment of power and privilege over others."
A separate problem arises if the accuser honestly believes the kafkatrapping. A woman who believes all men are oppressors is unlikely to cooperate with them in a good will attempt to solve social problems. She is more likely to seek a position of dominance over men, which she justifies in the name of self-defense or as a payback that is her due. This heightens tension between the sexes and obstructs sincere attempts to resolve problems. 

A kafkatrapper true believer becomes increasingly isolated from people who are seen as "the enemy" because they disagree; the true believer becomes increasingly unable to even communicate with or have empathy for a broad spectrum of people. 

The kafkatrapper 'wins' the argument but loses a shared humanity.
It becomes attractive to be a victim. Fantasy becomes a gateway to fame, sympathy, compensation. 

And it allows the 'powers that be' (even of the moment) to take advantage. Even the otherwise 'ordinary' can invent , say, a rape accusation. The entire victim industry, through the distorted courts, especially the  Family Court, has become a 'Guilty until you prove yourself Innocent' and Kafkatrapping ensure that the innocent cannot win.

Forwarned is forarmed.



Friday, May 27, 2016

Women and Sport; the Level Playing Field

The western world is descending into farce and in the past week we have seen two prime examples of sheer stupidity in 'women's ' sport. Even the ladies themselves - well, some of the saner ones - are guffawing along with the menfolk. In the Tavern no less than outside.

Why have women's sport at all, one may ask, being as anyone can call themselves female these days. Or male for that matter. Even when clearly they are not. At the stroke of a Presidential pen, and copied by the brainless politicians all over with pens and phones instead of brain cells, men can claim to be women and wander into the ladies' change-rooms and toilets, so why not onto the sportsfield too? 

Some people love to play and to watch football, for instance. Heck, even I have been seen sitting watching a ladies' game of footy or golf from time to time, although it has to be said that I can take only about ten minutes. I can only take ten minutes of a men's game of either too. That's equality for you.

I have no problem with women's sports. The ladies play well, against other ladies. They have fun; they exercise; they are skillful; they compete. And they demand equal pay ! Hah ! They compete Internationally and even in the Olympics. They want to be paid the same as men.  A 'Level Playing Field' they shout. They would, however, baulk at paying the same tax as men. 

We shall come to tax later.

But let's face it, they are just not in the same league as men. In play, pay or tax. It was only earlier in the year that the Matildas, our ladies' team was demanding 'Equal Pay' to the men's teams.

The Premier Oz women's footy team came unstuck this week. Hoist on their own petard, and they are spitting chips. 
Australian women's football team thumped 7-0 by Newcastle under-15 boys team
A former player is questioning how a 7-0 loss to an under-15 boys' team was allowed to happen.
Don't you just love that 'Allowed'? What did they want? Not 'Game-Fixing' shirley? 
The fifth-ranked women's side in the world and quarter finalists at the last three World Cups, the Matildas were beaten 7-0 by the under-15 outfit of A-League team the Newcastle Jets.
The scoreline of the match was confirmed by AAP sports reporter Vince Rugari.
"It's probably not good that the Matildas were beaten 7-0 last night by Newcastle Jets' under-15s," Rugari said on Twitter.
hahahahaha I should say it was 'probably' not good for their egos. 
Played in Parklea, Sydney on Wednesday, the match was a warm-up for the Australian team's two matches against their Kiwi counterparts early next month.
The Matildas and Football Ferns square off in Ballarat on June 4 and three days later play the curtain-raiser to the highly-anticipated Socceroos clash with Greece at Etihad Stadium in Melbourne.
Former Matildas player Joey Peters responded to news of the 7-0 loss by questioning efforts of the team's management to protect the team's "brand integrity" in holding such a fixture.
"Just thought Matildas brand might be a little more protected than being exposed in that manner," Peters said.
Hey, its a level playing field. Isn't that what you asked for.?  But no. The ladies have to 'be protected'. The mind boggles and we all chortled in the P&B.  

We laud the girls playing boys' sports and make such a fuss. The ladies all claim, "we can do whatever the men can, and better.

No you cannot, dearie.
Yes, those ladies can really footle the ball, and look quite fetching while doing their stuff, but even young boys can kick harder and run faster, for longer. And that is what wins the games. It isn't all about showboating skills and neat bums in short shorts, even when showing off in high heels.

Then we had the fiasco of the Muirfield Golf Club being hauled over hot coals for daring to remain a Male Menbership only club. They were told by some wassers that they could not hold an International 'Open' match because ladies were not members.

'Taki' gave a clear outine. 
It’s a place where tradition rules. This isn’t surprising. The Honourable Company dates from 1744, when it was known as “The Gentlemen Golfers” and played on a five-hole course on Leith Links.
It drew up the first rules of golf, and more than a century passed before it handed over responsibility for the rules to the Royal and Ancient at St. Andrews, which, by the way, itself consented to admit lady members only some three years ago.
Men built the club. For men. It is several centuries old. It has generations of Tradition, and because of the furore from the lady-kow-towing mob they discussed the matter over a few pints and drams of single malt and voted, democratically, to remain as established. That brought all the lady journos out smearing red lipstick all over their faces.

Misogynists !!! Women haters !! 

Janet Bloomfield had a few words to say to them, in her very blunt and often forceful way. She does not call herself Judgybitch for nothing. Janet is a 'no holding back' sort of lady with a mouth like a trucker and she has read most historical and current feminist theory. No, she doesn't need a dictionary. 

She was banned from Twitter for creating the hashtag #WomenAgainstFeminism, which continues to flourish without her presence. 

She has an MBA and a rewarding career as a wife to her husband of 15 years and a mother to their three children. She uses her spare time to bake cookies, blog at and she cares passionately about the well-being of women and girls and men and boys around the world.

And here she is in the Tavern with a pint at hand. I have er... ahem.... amended a few words.
Why are feminist women so (Tr)**king pathetic?
Let’s start this post with an enthusiastic round of applause for  Muirfield golf course, which has decided to respond to a pack of whining, c*nty shrews demanding admittance with a nice hearty ‘tr*ck you, this a male safe space’. 
Naturally, the feminist media has pitched a hissy fit over this act of sexism, countering with …  even more sexism.
Le sigh. Look at the headline:
Women. Boys. This is why the men don’t want to play with girls. Because you act like tr*cking toddlers. Let me give you the tl;dr here: the reason women-only spaces exist is to get away from male harassment.
That is what the femitards say.  This is Mistressbate's  excuse for a rationale.
"Many women-only spaces exist for one reason: to avoid male harassment. Most male-only spaces also exist for one reason: male privilege. Or, to put it more simply, both male-only and female-only spaces have developed as a direct result of male privilege."
It’s not because women enjoy the company of other women. Not because they enjoy feminized spaces that reflect their own preferences. Not because they enjoy the feeling that they are special simply because they’re women. 
No, no, no. It’s all because male harassment.
Laura Bates recounts a man she feels was checking out her ass in the pool inappropriately, and instead of confronting this man or engaging the staff to address the issue, she whined and decided her enjoyment had ‘been reduced’. My guess is Laura is too tr*cking lazy to hit the gym every day, and finds it easier to sulk about men ogling her. Quite frankly, I don’t even believe her. ‘He looked at my ass’ sounds an awful lot like ‘I’m hitting the wall hard, but I’m still so hot, men harass me’. File that under ‘shit that didn’t happen’.
You’re tr*cking pathetic, Laura.
Now, just an aside: If Janet's earthy language offends your eye here, she too is a modern woman. And I did warn about the 'truckers'. She could do with a public warning about 'ass' too. The word is Arse.
And the women who recounted the ‘harassment’ they faced at the gym are equally, bafflingly, just as pathetic. You were patronizingly asked to leave the free weights section? The correct response is ‘before you get out of my way, jackass, hand me those 35 lb dumbells for my overhead presses.’ Shut up. Pressing 70 lbs overhead is way beyond what most women can do. It’s hard!
Someone looked at your tits while you were hauling weighted battleropes? Are you wearing tits up and out VSX gym gear? Yes?
Shut the tr*ck up. If you are putting your breasts on display at the gym, you don’t get to pick which men check them out, just as the guys in Under Armor don’t get to pick which women check out their *ahem* assets. Grow the tr*ck up.
Laura whines that women will alter their behaviors and routines to avoid this all pervasive sexual harassment from men, but unless you live in a suburb with lots of new Muslim male refugees, I call bullshit. 
Why is it always middle aged, bitchy looking women who complain about never-ending sexual harassment from men? 
Where are these men? Where do the men who can’t seem to get through their day without openly lusting over women with waning (if not eradicated) fertility reside? 
I’m getting to that age. I’m in a mixed sex gym 5 days a week, and so far, nothing. Not one ass slap.   
I’d like my share of harassment! What am I doing wrong?
Let’s be honest here: women demanding access to Muirhead is really women demanding access to men’s informal power networks. 
It’s an underhanded way of accessing male resources, without contributing one goddamn thing to building those resources. 
Women can’t be arsed {Hooray. She heard me} to go and build their own networks, because trying to build a professional networked that can be leveraged with other women is almost impossible. 
No one will tear a professional women down faster than other women. 
An informal women’s network would consist of backstabbing, spreading slut rumors, undermining other women’s confidence, passive-aggressively calling other women ugly and stupid, mate-poaching and just generally competing to see who can be the biggest c*nt.
That’s what women tend to do.
There’s a reason all-male spaces have endured for hundreds and hundreds of years. They’re functional.
Women want to access men’s resources and networks, but why should men allow the toxicity of femininity into the spaces they have crafted precisely to avoid that kind of poisonous game playing? 
Male spaces are places where men can go to support one another in ways they simply cannot do in the presence of most women. 
Women like Laura Bates imagine that all-male spaces are places were men go to teach each other the finer points of rape, wife-beating and how to demean women,... 
which tells us a whole lot more about Laura’s ugly little mind than the men she describes.
Laura considers men violent, sex-crazed, consumed with hatred and envy, insecure, brutish and prone to every injustice one can possibly conceive of. If you leave men alone in groups, they formalize and solidify this evil, and then use it to oppress everyone around them.
Except it’s not true, is it? 
Men don’t do that. 
Women do.
Witness modern feminism, led by women like Laura Bates. #KillAllMen, rape culture obsessed, oppressed by attractive women in bikinis, free-speech hating fascists. 
They are everything they accuse men of being. And now that men are starting to reach the limits of what they will tolerate from these perpetually aggrieved children, the tantrums are escalating.
Stand firm, lads.
Do not admit these shrieky harpies to your clubs. If you need some bodies to stand guard at the perimeter, call on the growing number of women who hate these feminist bitches as much as you do.
I’ll guard your safe space.
From the outside.
Where I belong.
Lots of love,
Well earned pints were there for her throughout the evening and while we looked at some stuff that Mike Buchanan brought to the tables. Yes, it is that 'Tax' I spoke of.

Feminists are forever going on about the 'Pay Gap'. It isn't just lady Tennis players demanding equal pay while they play 3 sets to men's 5. But when did a feminist ever raise the issue of the Tax gap?
2013/14 – the income tax gender gap increased AGAIN… to £75,400,000,000
Men’s human rights are assaulted by the actions and inactions of the state in many areas, as we outlined in our 2015 general election manifesto. This happens despite men paying the majority of income tax collected in the country. Income tax is the largest single source of government revenues.
In August 2014 we published a piece revealing that in 2010/11, men paid £108 billion in income tax, women only £43.6 billion – 71.2% and 28.8% respectively. 
An income tax gender gap of £64.4 billion.
In June 2015 we published a piece revealing that men paid 72% of the income tax collected in the UK, and women 28%, in 2011/12 and 2012/13. Men paid £68 billion more income tax than women in 2011/12, £69 billion more in 2012/13.
I’ve just checked the latest official data available, which cover the tax year 2013/14. 
– 17.4 million men paid £120 billion, an average of £6,896 each
– 13.0 million women paid £44.6 billion, an average of £3,430, 
a little under half that paid by male taxpayers
So the income tax burden faced by men increased in both absolute and relative terms in 2013/14. Men paid £75.4 billion more income tax than women, and their proportion of the total income tax contributions rose from 72.0% to 72.9%.
The government’s policy direction of driving women into more paid employment, which leads to a great deal of unhappiness among women and children, poorer outcomes for children, and higher unemployment among men has been a failure even in terms of income tax generation. 
And year after year, the income tax gender gap increases.
In the space of just three years – from 2010/11 to 2013/14 – the gender tax gap increased from £64.4 billion to £75.4 billion, an increase of 17.1%.
Mike could have pointed out - except that he was being put to good use handing pints around with his figures -  that the largest expenditures were on 'Welfare' which is paid predominantly to women, many being single mothers; on Health, the budget of which is spent predominantly on woman as they are using GPs at five times the rate that men do and even have specialist hospitals just for 'women; and on Education where over 75% of the 'personnel' budget - far and away the largest budget item - is spent on women teachers.

Men pay: women benefit.

And they still want a Level Playing Field.

Maybe we should give Presidente Obarmy and his (p)sychophantic fellow-travelling politicians a big hand and all we chaps claim we are women. We might get some better bang for our tax bucks and win far more sporting contests.

Drink up.