Labels

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Eating Skippy: Oz Delicious.

My Tavern Chef excelled the other day and I have had the finest Roo dish I have ever tasted. He made sufficient to delight the taste-buds of a dozen or so lucky-country customers so favoured in our gourmet restaurant.

It surprises me not a bit that this delicacy is less common that one might expect, being as we are in a multi-culti nation where every furrin dish is extolled and fine Oz dishes left to congeal on a low back-burner. But too many miss out on a beautiful, 'Game' meat.

As a lady who dined with us said,

 "Australians have an ingrained reluctance to eat their national emblem, but a number of chefs are now championing kangaroo meat as a delicious - and environmentally friendly alternative to beef and pork.
She was quite right, although the mob that sent her around - the BBC - may be better known for being economical with the truth (as they say) and even using wood chips in their news ingredients. More from her later. I think though it is less about any 'ingrained reluctance' and national emblems, and more to do with over-cautious restaurants and desire for trendiness. Australians eat out a lot and are game for almost anything. 

But there are gourmet suppliers where one can find Roo - and wallaby too - and even more exotic fine dish-making ingredients like Crocodile and Emu. Even the major supermarkets are now stocking some of them. Wallaby sausages are on my menu at least once a month.

I will tell you a recipe later but for the moment let us hear from that lady, Fuchsia Dunlop. I have never met a Fushsia before. 
Eating Skippy: 
Why Australia has a problem with kangaroo meat

Like many foreign cooks and food writers visiting Australia, I was dying to try some of the country's unique local ingredients, and none of them more than kangaroo.
On a previous visit to the country I'd been impressed by local chefs' commitment to sourcing the finest produce, and by the way their menus described the provenance of fresh seafood, heritage tomatoes and free-range pork. This time, I wanted to see how they cooked one of their most distinctive native Australian ingredients. And I knew that kangaroo meat had much to recommend it from an environmental point of view.

Kangaroos produce far less of the greenhouse gas methane than the cattle brought over by European settlers, and their jumping feet don't damage the fragile Australian topsoil like the hard hooves of cows and sheep. Although kangaroos are a protected species, there are so many of them that they are widely regarded as pests, and they are hunted by professional shooters according to a strict quota system. 

In an era when chefs all over the world are clamouring to use wild, seasonal and local produce, one might expect kangaroo meat to take pride of place on Australian menus.

Surprisingly, however, most Australians refuse to eat it. 
With respect, madam. Bollox. It is not a matter of 'refuse'. Most Oz people just do not see it on the menu in Chinese, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, Thai, Indian, and whathaveyou restaurants. Those places are operated by cultural interlopers who eschew this country's natural and national offerings and have taken over our high streets and CBDs. Some are quite good ! Some awful.

Kangaroo, Wallaby, Goanna and Crocodile were good enough for the Aboriginals and early Anglo-Saxon arrivals, but not for the others who are far too 'precious' about their cuisines.

On my first days in Adelaide, in South Australia, I scoured restaurant menus in vain for kangaroo dishes. The Greek, Korean, Chinese and Afghan restaurants I visited were testament to the multiculturalism of the Australian diet, but their menus maintained a studious silence on the subject of kangaroo. The only place I found it served was the Red Ochre Grill, a riverside restaurant that specialises in indigenous ingredients. 

There, some friends and I tasted rosy, sweet-cured kangaroo fillet, and a thick tranche of kangaroo steak served medium rare from the grill. But as head chef Nick Filsell admits, many of the restaurant's customers are tourists and other out-of-town visitors. "Kangaroo is a bit of a novelty meat, like crocodile and emu," he says. "Most local people wouldn't have it at home."
I do, and I am a hermit! But, she continued.....
Most Australians I talk to in Adelaide and Sydney say they feel funny about eating kangaroo. "After all," one young woman explains, "it's our national emblem." She confesses that the only kangaroo meat she's ever had in the house was to feed to her kittens. Almost everyone I speak to mentions what they called "the Skippy factor" - a reference to the 1960s TV series, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, which encouraged Australians to see kangaroos as far too adorable to cook for dinner. Eating kangaroo, one chef tells me, feels a bit like eating Bambi, that cute young deer in the Disney cartoon.
Adelaide ! Hah. Sydney ! Hah.  She should get about a bit more.
In the past, kangaroo meat was more widely accepted. It was always eaten by aboriginal Australians, for whom the succulent tail, roasted in a pitful of embers, is a particular delicacy. The early European settlers ate kangaroo out of necessity, and many eventually came to enjoy a red meat that didn't really taste so different from venison, hare or beef. 
According to historian Barbara Santich in her book Bold Palates: Australia's Gastronomic Heritage, kangaroo recipes appeared regularly in cookbooks until the 1930s. Kangaroo soup was highly prized, as was "steamer", a stew made from kangaroo enriched with salt pork. But as more Australians moved to the cities and living standards rose, kangaroo meat and other so-called "bush tucker" fell out of favour.
 A few pioneering chefs, though, are trying to revive interest among the Australian public in eating kangaroo, or at least its smaller, daintier cousin, the wallaby. One of them, Kylie Kwong, is passionately committed to using indigenous ingredients in her Chinese restaurant, Billy Kwong: warrigal greens, saltbush, sea parsley and quandongs or desert peaches all appear on her menu. "I jumped at the chance to use a native meat," she says. "This wallaby comes from the pristine environment of Flinders Island, and the quality is so high you can even serve it raw, like carpaccio. I think our customers are pleasantly surprised by how good it tastes." 
When she welcomes me into her kitchen, Kylie conjures up a plateful of red-braised wallaby tail with native fruits, and another of stir-fried wallaby tenderloin with black bean and chilli. The tail is meltingly delicious, like an Australian oxtail, and the tenderloin as tender as its name suggests, with a delicate gamey flavour that reminds me of pigeon breast.
OK, she redeemed herself, but even then had to refer to an Asian furriner to give it credence. But, 'pioneering' chefs?? 

So, how did my Chef do it? I shall reveal his secret !

Take about 1 kilo of Roo. Marinade it in a little olive oil and red wine and herbs for a few hours. Best put it in a sealed bag. When ready to start, dice it to the size you like and sear in a hot pan for a few minutes, just to lock in the flavour.

Prep your hot pot by putting a sachet of Beef and Red wine sauce (the liquid sort from Masterchef) in the bottom.  Turn the slow-cook hot pot on to 'high'. Put the Roo cubes into the warming-up sauce.


Take two good sized onions and chop them up; four medium mushrooms; half of a good sized red pepper (a capsicum for some) chopped small like the onion. Fry these until soft in a little oil to release the flavours. Put the lot over the Roo in the pot.

He likes a thick sauce so he then adds a packet of Beef and Onion powdered sauce/gravy, (Masterchef again) dissolved in a generous glass of red wine. 

He knows that I like an Australian Tawney port (we make the very best in the world).

This will just about cover the meat. Let it sit for a few minutes while you get and prep some veggies. 

Remember the pot is now warming well so put the lid on.

A carrot, chopped or sliced. A medium sized Sweet Potato. Just wash the potato; don't peel it. The skin is delicious and has many vital minerals and vitamins. Dice that too.  Into the pot they go; lid back on. 

A glass of Tawny too, and a good sprinkle of mixed herbs and cracked pepper over the ingredients so far. A bit of salt too.

Now my chef swears that the best meals are prepared when you drink a glass of wine for every glass you put in the dish.  Who am I to dispute?  But.... keep the one above right at hand for drinking and use the one below left for cooking !

Greens next. He put in four 'baby' broccoli, chopped into small pieces. The stems can be quite firm and will remain so through the cooking. And some green beans, say six, chopped into reasonable lengths.  Also some snow peas. These are kept until last and 'laid' on the top. You may if you wish add half a green capsicum, chopped but not fried. Just raw. 

Add a glash of tawny. Have one yourshelf.

I like beans. Especially 'four bean' mix and Chick peas. The former cook 'soft' while the latter retain a firm, crunchiness. They will pretty well bring your ingredient level to the top of the pot. Add a glaashh of tawney to bring the liquid into sight below the beansh. Have a glash yourself.

Turn the pot down to 'low' and leave it for seven hours. Take the bottle of tawny away and sit down. Have another wee drop of the good Tawny.

The resultant dish, when you wake up seven hours later, will be beautiful. You will awake to an aroma that will draw you to the kitchen with praise already drooling from your lips. The dish will have a thickened sauce but still spoonable. 


The meat will melt in the mouth. There will be enough there to feed six or eight folks, or ten if you put some on a bed of rice. (the Roo+, not the people, on the rice). It is good enough by itself though.

Enjoy.

Have a drink.

Pax










Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Some things Cannot be Digitized



The Tavern has a large library where folk can sit in comfy chairs by a roaring fire and read. A customer mentioned in passing that all of the books on the shelves are on his 'Kindle'. He wondered why I bothered to have a library at all. 

Apparantly, he said, " there are currently 3,461,773 products in the Kindle store. 93,499 of them were published in the last 30 days (over 20,000 per week). 3,327,206 of these are classified as e-books. You can find these numbers on Amazon.com by browsing the Kindle store."

I laughed.


Abbey Library of St Gallen, Switzerland.

There are some things you just cannot digitise.



The Tavern library room is not so grand, but books are the tools of imagination.

And man has imagined so well.
Trinity College, Ireland
Handelingekammer, Netherlands



Biblotheque National de France.

Strahov Monastery, Czech Republic
A 'Private' Library. Jay Walker's, USA
One could go on. But you could simply follow the link and see 56 more.

Not quite the same, is it ?

Sit, surrounded by beauty and comfort and I shall bring you a drink.

Mind you....... 


Pax



Monday, April 24, 2017

Shiver Like My Sista Kate

The Cold War and Irony go hand in hand. The 'west' defeated Communism in Russia but Communism plays a long hand in the west and it continues - and is defeating us. Now we have cold comfort in a pyrrhic victory. Even that old KGB Colonel, Putin, rails against the very Muslim terror that his mob taught to muslims. The 'home front' is in disarray brought about by the most unlikely of troops, our own womenfolk.



Who says women cannot make soldiers. They fight differently but with great effect, and they are adept at turning men to their advantage. It is a new form of international warfare.  They are International soldiers. Their main weapon is The Lie.

It is not as though we could not see it happening before our eyes.  We did nothing about it other than crumble.


My friend Moira - she of the harp and fine, high voice, brought a sister of a Sista in who had a lot to say about the demise we see all around us. Mallory Millett's sister is the infamous Kate.

You will not find Katie on the Tavern walls as a Heroine. Mallory might make it there one day though.

Mallory was there in the early days of feminism, already wounded. She had a ring-side seat watching her sister ruin womanhood. 

Kate  Millett was a psychopath, a manipulator, and emotional abuser. And a leader feted by the media. Of course, she made it onto the cover of Time Magazine.

MARXIST FEMINISM’S RUINED LIVES
The horror I witnessed inside the women’s “liberation” movement.
 "When women go wrong men go right after them.”
-- Mae West
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”  Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.
During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment.  I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you'll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!"
What a giggle we girls had over that. "How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are," we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.
Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me.   
Katie said, 
"Come to New York. We're making revolution! 
Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it."
I hadn't seen her for years.  Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage.  I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.
And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”
Columbia U, of course. No less an Institution of infamy than Mr Putin's Patrice Lamumba U. Both intent on destroying the west, but one in New York and the other in Moscow. 
It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a "consciousness-raising-group," a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. 
We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
"Why are we here today?" she asked.
     "To make revolution," they answered.
"What kind of revolution?" she replied.
      "The Cultural Revolution," they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?" she demanded.
      "By destroying the American family!" they answered.
"How do we destroy the family?" she came back.
      "By destroying the American Patriarch," they cried exuberantly.
"And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
      "By taking away his power!"
"How do we do that?"
       "By destroying monogamy!" they shouted.
"How can we destroy monogamy?"
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears.  Was I on planet earth?  Who were these people?
"By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!" they resounded.
Yes, I recall my Catholic education. Some call it indoctrination and that was exactly what it was. In the original meaning. It taught us Doctrine.

"Who made you?"
"God made me"
"Why did God make you?"
"To Know Him, Love Him and Serve Him"

Quite a different message, don't you think?  Love, Learn, Co-Create.

Kate's Satanic doctine is all about destruction of all that is Good.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women.   
It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. 
The upshot was that the only way to do this was "to invade every American institution.  Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’": The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.
It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.
To me, this sounded silly.  I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses.  I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn't care what anyone thought because they just hadn't seen what I had or been where I had been.  I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.
How could they know?  Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit.  I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists -- I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.
How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable -- clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt -- plot such a thing?  Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. 
How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity?  And why?
I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building.
As did so many others back then. But just look at how successful Kate has been. 
 I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her 
“the Karl Marx of the Women's Movement.”
This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women.  Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat.  The only hope for women's "liberation" (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; "liberation," and much like "collective" – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.”   
Her books captivated the academic classes and soon "Women's Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.
Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there's a class called "Women's Studies." "Hmmm, this could be interesting," says Mom. "Maybe you could get something out of this."
Seems innocuous to her.  
And to millions of women who 'identify' with other women and not with Humanity, let alone God. It is the 'ordinary' woman who is now feeling the heat of all the hatred and destruction that they disregarded over two generations. Not disregarded totally though. They cheered it on the 'empowerment'
How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain?  Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents.  She mustn't follow in her mother's footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, who has mesmerized her with tricks like romantic love.  Never be lured into this chicanery, she will be taught. 
Although men are no damned good, she should use them for her own orgasmic gratification; sleep with as many men as possible in order to keep herself unattached and free. 
There's hardly a seventeen-year-old girl without a grudge from high school against a Jimmy or Jason who broke her heart.  
The personal becomes political. That boys and girls discover themselves and one another with some difficulty, mistakes, immature desire and plain silliness is fodder for blame instead of learning and wisdom. 
Boys are learning, too, and they can be careless during high school, that torment of courting dances for both sexes.
To this old Tavern Keeper who has been around far longer than most, it is more than simply sad to see that today's young men, in the main, have adopted the worst aspects of Kate's catechism. They hate: they eschew marriage: they fall for the promiscuity, eroticism and prostitution - particularly the latter.
By the time Women's Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who's soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant.  And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.
The goal of Women's Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. 
The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little-girl womb. 
She will be taught that she, in order to free herself, must become an outlaw. This is only reasonable because all Western law, since Magna Carta and even before, is a concoction of the evil white man whose true purpose is to press her into slavery.
Be an outlaw! Rebel! Be defiant!  (Think Madonna, Lady Gaga, Lois Lerner, Elizabeth Warren.) “All women are prostitutes,” she will be told.  You're either really smart and use sex by being promiscuous for your own pleasures and development as a full free human being "just like men" or you can be a professional prostitute, a viable business for women, which is "empowering" or you can be duped like your mother and prostitute yourself to one man exclusively whereby you fall under the heavy thumb of "the oppressor."   
All wives are just "one-man whores."
So many times I have heard young men say that. Young that they need shave only once a week and still have the cradle marks on their backsides. They have been indoctrinated in hatred and dismissal of women. 
She is to be heartless in this.  No sentimental stuff about courting. No empathy for either boy or baby.  She has a life to live and no one is to get in her way.  And if the boy or man doesn't "get it" then no sex for him; "making love" becomes "having sex." "I'm not 'having sex' with any jerk who doesn't believe I can kill his son or daughter at my whim.   
He has no say in it because it’s my body!” (Strange logic as who has ever heard of a body with two heads, two hearts, four arms, four feet?)
There's no end to the absurdities your young girl will be convinced to swallow.   
"I plan to leap from guy to guy as much as I please and no one can stop me because I'm liberated!”  
And those that fight against the tide of filth and hatred are dismissed as 'bigots'.

In other words, these people will turn your daughter into a slut with my sister's books as instruction manuals. ("Slut is a good word. Be proud of it!")  She'll be telling you, "I'm probably never getting married and if I do it will be after I've established my career," which nowadays often means never. "I'll keep my own name and I don't really want kids.  They're such a bother and only get in the way."  They'll tell her, “Don't let any guy degrade you by allowing him to open doors for you. To be called ‘a lady’ is an insult. Chivalry is a means of ownership.”
Thus, the females, who are fundamentally the arbiters of society go on to harden their young men with such pillow-talk in the same way they’ve been hardened because, "Wow, man, I've gotta get laid and she won't do it if I don't agree to let her kill the kid if she gets knocked-up!” Oppressed? 
Woman has always had power. Consider the eternal paradigm: only after Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit did mankind fall. I.e., man does anything to make woman happy, even if it's in defiance of God. There’s power for ya! 
Without a decent womankind, mankind is lost. 
As Mae West said, "When women go wrong men go right after them!"
I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they'll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back.  “Where are my children?  Where are my grandchildren?" they cry to me.
"Your sister's books destroyed my sister's life!" 
 I've heard numerous times. "She was happily married with four kids and after she read those books, walked out on a bewildered man and didn't look back."   
The man fell into despairing rack and ruin. The children were stunted, set off their tracks, deeply harmed; the family profoundly dislocated and there was “no putting Humpty-Dumpty together again.”
Throughout the same time these women were “invading” our institutions, the character of the American woman transformed drastically from models portrayed for us by Rosalind Russell, Bette Davis, Deborah Kerr, Eve Arden, Donna Reed, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, Irene Dunn, Greer Garson.  These were outstanding women needing no empowerment lessons and whose own personalities, as well as the characters they interpreted, were strong, resilient and clearly carved.  Their voices were so different you could pick them out by that alone.  We all knew Rita Hayworth's voice.  We all knew Katherine Hepburn's voice.
I dare you to identify the voices of the cookie-cutter post-women's-liberation types from Hollywood today. How did these “liberated” women fall into such an indistinguishable pile of mush?

They all look exactly the same with few individuating characteristics and their voices sound identical, these Julies and Jessicas!  My friend, Father George Rutler, calls them "the chirping fledglings of the new Dark Ages."   
The character of the American woman has been distorted by this pernicious movement. From where did this foul mouthed, tattooed, outlaw creature, who murders her baby without blinking an eye and goes partying without conscience or remorse come?  And, in such a short little phase in history?
Never before have we heard of so many women murdering their children: 
Casey Anthony killing her little Caylee and partying-hearty for weeks; Susan Smith driving her beautiful little boys into a lake, leaving them strapped in the water to die torturous deaths; that woman who drowned her five children in the bathtub?  “Hey, if I can kill my baby at six months of gestation why not six months post-birth, just call it late late-term abortion.”
I insist that woman always has been the arbiter of society and when those women at Lila Karp's table in Greenwich Village set their minds to destroying the American Family by talking young women into being outlaws, perpetrators of infanticide, and haters of Western law, men and marriage, 
they accomplished just what they intended.   
Their desire -- and I witnessed it at subsequent meetings till I got pretty sick of their unbridled hate -- was to tear American society apart along with the family and the "Patriarchal Slave-Master," the American husband.
We're all so busy congratulating each other because Ronald Reagan "won the Cold War without firing a shot" entirely missing the bare truth which is that Mao, with his Little Red Book and the Soviets, won the Cold War without firing a shot by taking over our women, our young and the minds of everyone tutored by Noam Chomsky and the textbooks of Howard Zinn. Post-graduate Junior is Peter Pan trapped in the Never Neverland of Mom's (she's divorced now) basement. 
Christina Hoff Sommers says, "Moms and dads, be afraid for your sons. There's a 'war on men' that started a long time ago in gender studies classes and in women's advocacy groups eager to believe that men are toxic… Many 'educated women' in the U.S. have drunk from the gender feminist Kool Aid.  Girls at Yale, Haverford and Swarthmore see themselves as oppressed.  This is madness."
If you see something traitorous in this, a betrayal of my sister, I have come to identify with such people as Svetlana Stalin or Juanita Castro; coming out to speak plainly about a particularly harmful member of my family.  Loyalty can be highly destructive.  What about Muslims who refuse to speak out right now?   
I was one of the silent but at last I'm "spilling the beans." 
The girls have been up to something for years and it's really not good. It's evil. We should be sick to our souls over it.  I know I am. And so, mass destruction, the inevitable outcome of all socialist/communist experiments, leaves behind its signature trail of wreckage.
So much grace, femininity and beauty lost.
So many ruined lives.
It went quite quiet for a minute of two. I gave the lady a drink.

On today's politics Mallory had this parting shot:
It's completely woven throughout the fabric of The Democratic Party. It's not the Dems of your grandfathers....not by a very long shot! It's been entirely taken over by the radical Marxist Left which is made up of ideals and ideas which could not be more antipathetic to everything for which America stands. Period. 
We've been invaded from within. 
Our largest and deadliest Trojan Horses are the Universities. We did not win the Cold War. We've been snookered by clever operators. They took over our children and our media and that was that.
There are Great Movements in life that overtake entire societies.  They are Super-natural. Christianity for example, created the goodness of the western world. Love one another: forgive trespasses; learn the world; learn of God the Creator: co-create heaven on earth.  

It has the power, if deployed well, to save the whole world.  Its catechism is being sent to the 'remaindered' table.

It has opposition. Satanic force exists too, you see.  The Prince of Lies is real.  Most of its lies are banal and seductive. Its targets are easily taken in no matter how stupid the lie is.

It is fueled by Hatred, Envy, Fear, Anger and Spite. What do you think were the main emotions and feelings, attitudes and expressions around Mallory's sister Kate's table? What do they produce? A catechism of destruction, issued for free even in kindergarten.

It is responsible for Communism which was designed to weaken us, wastefully of resources, and sow seeds for future destruction. It was communism that exported the knowledge of hatred's best tactics to diaparate groups world-wide. 

A bastard child of communism is Feminism. It is beating the coherence and life from our society, like a steak hammer softening us up for the fire. 

And the fire itself? The horror that is coming? 

Satan's own catechist's.

Islam.

Drink deep. Only Grace will quench the fire.


Pax

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Making Combat Pilots

If you can drive a car, you can fly a plane. Mind you, it does depend on the plane and just what you want to do with it.  Have fun? Of course. Easy, if a little expensive. Almost as expensive as a child's pony. Hahaha. That's what I am told. 

But to 'really' fly, at the top of the game - as a Combat Pilot - takes a huge amount of taxpayers' money and a lot of fine men's help to get you there.  My friend the Major knows all about that. But he is busy taking care of SG, so we shall take a look care of someone else - young Destin.

Destin is one of the nicest and smartest men around. He has fun and recently was shown some of the basics. One has to start somewhere. Watch and learn. There will be more soon.  Here Destin flies in a T-38 with the 560th Flying Training Squadron.

Get all that? He coulda been. He is just the sort who could. Young fellows start on a small but so well put together plane like this. Its a sports car with wings. Goes like sh*t off a shovel.



It wants to get into the air,  and take you with it. Such planes  love the air. You have to learn to. But getting it down makes you work very hard. Here an instructor will talk you home. There is a lot to do. It all happens very fast. You have to be alert and do seventeen things at once.  In your head.



 OK, you are getting the idea. Of course sitting here you cannot 'feel' it.  And you do not have the pressure and urgency.



These guys are not just having fun. They have a job to do and it is vital that they get it right. They have to Win. There is no second place medal in what they will be expected to do on your behalf. Take a look at what goes into training at fighter pilot to fly the F-16 during the F-16 "B-Course" or Basic Course at Luke Air Force Base, AZ. Two Luke AFB instructor pilots discuss the training and mindset that are involved with preparing a pilot to fly combat missions in a deployed environment or to perform other aerial combat missions.



And you go into battle along with mates that you need to keep close. Remember Destin's automatic, instinctual imperatives? Keep clear of flying metal? You have to overcome that. Control it. Meticulous flying is essential.



Then, maybe, you might be ready to look for the opposition. They are as smart as you are. 

First though, you have to find them.  Put your hat on.


It isn't like 'Top Gun' where the Director can show you the enemy coming, in close up. Nope. Airplanes are small and not at all easy to see in the great and wide sky.

The aircraft in this video is hard to see because in real air combat, the other aircraft is actually really hard to see especially when you are fighting the effects of 'g' which can cause the world to become monochromatic and narrow your vision - enjoy. See if you can see the 'other' plane here. Remember, he is looking for you too.



And the enemy are not only in the air. They are on the ground too. Watch a ground attack. Here's a few hints. Look at the ground. Look at your HUD - the Head-up Display. 

Height is on the right verticle bar: speed on the left. Look at the tops. Above is a small segment of a compass. 'G' force is shown near the bottom left verticle. Weapons are shown when called. Surface to air missiles too !! You will be 'talked- through' 






And practice. Know where you are going. You need to know your route; where the targets are; what the weather is doing; what the plane is doing. At SPEED.




And now you are ready. Hah !

Better have a drink, but remember the rules: Eight hours between bottle and throttle.

Hahahahaha.

Pax

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Reputations in Ruins

Updated.
It is all so easy to destroy a man these days. A simple accusation, unsubstantiated but pursued by the malicious can take a reputation and a life.  The ease of communication makes it all too common. And it is all too often men, accused by women, rarely the other way around. The more wealthy the better, as far as lawyers are concerned, but even the poor lad starting out cannot escape. 

Indeed, the idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men’s Eye much Wrong:
Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.

So it was that a Dark Subject was discussed and several 'names' were mentioned in the Tavern yesterday. It really does not matter that you have never met them, nor that you may not even have known about them until now, but be assured that they are but a few amongst millions that you do not know but whose names will be thrust at you sometime.

Some names are famous. Celebrities. 'Idols' themselves. Some 'private' folk.

It matters to the ones who are pointed at. One could list a hundred college students, mere boys, here and abroad, who have been rusticated simply on the unsubstantiated accusation of a fellow (female) student.  Kangaroo courts of unqualified people, disregarding 'rules of evidence' and with not the slightest interest in corroboration, testing of detail, or the tried and tested methods of 'court' procedures, routinely dispense the most appalling assaults on Justice, and always with disastrous results - for the assumed guilty party. 


Prejudice Rules. KO?

And not just the student chap. The teacher chap is equally vulnerable. Take this fellow, Mr Kato Harris. By all accounts, up until recently, he was seen as a fine upstanding gentleman.  Simon Murphy and Brendan Carlin told us:
The Crown Persecution Service: 
Judge slams CPS for 'improper' rape charges against an innocent teacher who reveals the case has destroyed his life and how he now lives in a bedsit and is unemployed

Teacher Kato Harris was forced to endure a trial for 'raping' a pupil, ruining his life
Despite police warning the CPS that the case was flimsy the trial went ahead 
A jury took 15 minutes to clear Harris prompting the judge to condemn the CPS
A former senior Scotland Yard figure was hired by the 14-year-old girl's family
Sue Akers ex-deputy assistant commissioner influenced the CPS into acting.
Mr Harris, then head of geography at an £18,000-a-year London girls’ secondary school, was accused of raping the pupil three times. 
The allegations emerged a year after the assault was alleged to have taken place and after the girl moved to a new school.

He was driven by the joy of helping pupils achieve goals they had previously considered beyond them. He was good at it too. Epithets frequently applied to Mr Harris included ‘inspirational’ and ‘brilliant’.
But in December 2014, a troubled, attention-seeking 14-year-old pupil at his previous school – who, according to one of her teachers, was competing with a friend ‘as to who could have the biggest story’ – decided to accuse Mr Harris, a man of impeccable character, of rape. Their game should have ended as soon as it began.
Instead, as Mr Harris, now 38, details today, he endured a 17-month ordeal during which he was publicly named, humiliated and dragged through the courts, an experience, he says, that left him suicidal.
His ordeal finally ended when a jury cleared him after just 15 minutes’ deliberation. Tragically, it was too late. The damage could not be undone.
We do not know the name of the accuser. Of course. We cannot have natural justice, can we?  Any female (and I do not want to be accused of misogyny here as I simply point to the overwhelming nature of the accusers) can accuse any man of a sexual 'crime' and be believed. And protected. It just does not happen the other way around in any extent.

The man is hung out to dry. His life, career, marriage in tatters. You can read more to see just what awful conspiracy (of women, of course) ruined Mr Harris' life.

But, one can hear a voice from the dark corners murmer, "what if he is a sexual pervert?"

Very good question. That is what a Court is for. To determine that. Proof. Evidence. Corroboration. Innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.  Remember those almost archaic principles? 

But, what if he cannot be taken to Court? Dead, perhaps.

Not to worry, in this age of enlightenment. We can destroy him all the more and more easily. He is not around to mount a defence. 

And all of his victims can claim compensation from his estate - should anything be left in that kitty after the lawyers have finished with it. It can drag on for years too.  
Follow the Money.
So our attention was drawn to a report of a report. Yes the money is often that of taxpayers, coerced from his pocket to pay for some 'eminent' person's sinecure. They, of course, can say what they like. Invent too, perhaps. Who is going to contradict them?

The report was about one Jimmy Savile. He was famous on TV for 'fixing' things for kiddies. He did a lot of work with kiddies, many of whom were ill.  And for hosting 'Pop' music programs wherein hundreds of teeny-boppers who should have been in bed and watched over by their parents, were herded into the BBC (yes, that BBC) to gyrate in short skirts to entertain the viewers. 

 I met him once. No, he did not grope me. He came to my Base to have a jolly in a Buccaneer aircraft, organised by some PR hack in MOD. I did not like the man. But my personal likes and dislikes are not relevant when accusations fly. I try not to pre-judge.

The report writer clearly did not let her (yes another female) stop her condemnations, despite the total lack of testable evidence.  Hardeep told us:
'Jimmy Savile raped children as young as nine' while working at BBC, leaked report unveils

Findings of a draft report of Dame Janet Smith's review into Jimmy Savile's misconduct at the BBC have been published by news site Exaro
Jimmy Savile raped and sexually abused victims as young as nine and was caught on camera carrying out his lechery at least once while working for the BBC, according to a leaked draft of a report examining the paedophile’s misconduct at the corporation.
Note the use of the word. Paedophile. They spelt it correctly. No proof that he was one mind you. That question I shall leave to a Jury. Not so the Media or the 'Investigators'. 
Investigative news site Exaro has published findings of Dame Janet Smith’s review into the depraved entertainer and BBC television presenter, who was exposed as a prolific sexual predator and paedophile a year after his death in 2011.
 
The review, which has said it will publish its report in six weeks’ time, said the leaked findings were from an early draft of the report and that “significant changes” had since been made to its “contents and conclusions”.
According to Exaro, the review’s findings highlight multiple rapes and indecent assaults on girls and boys at the hands of Savile and “inappropriate sexual conduct” with teenagers above 16 - all “in some way associated with the BBC”.
“Three of Savile’s victims were only nine-years-old,” it says.
Again, 'alleged' is not a word that is now used about Savile. He is assumed guilty without a sniff at a Trial. 
Exaro reports that Smith criticises the BBC for a “very deferential culture”, with many BBC employees telling the review that they had heard about Savile’s predatory reputation but feared reporting their concerns to managers.
As if !  Have any of these people been charged with failure to report a crime? Hah!
It also warns that “a predatory child abuser could be lurking undiscovered in the BBC even today”.
But Smith accepts a series of denials by senior figures that they were aware of the paedophile’s misconduct, Exaro reports.
In the report, Smith says that most of Savile’s rapes, attempted rapes and more serious sexual offences took place in his flats and caravans.
But the former Court of Appeal judge adds: “However, I heard of incidents that took place in virtually every one of the BBC premises at which he worked.
“These included the BBC Television Theatre (in connection with Jim’ll Fix It), at Television Centre (in particular in connection with Top of the Pops), at Broadcasting House or Egton House (where he worked in connection with BBC Radio 1), Lime Grove studios and various provincial studios, including Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow.
Sexual touching going on. By whom?

 “He would indulge in sexual touching while working on the set (Top of the Pops or Jim’ll Fix It) and, on at least one occasion, he was actually on camera.
“Savile would seize the opportunity for sexual contact even in public places such as corridors, staircases and canteens.”
Exaro said the leaked report reveals that those working at the BBC now fear blowing the whistle more than ever, and criticises the BBC’s management culture, in which celebrities were treated with “kid gloves” and managers drank heavily.
It says: “Several witnesses described the BBC as very deferential.
“My general impression is that most staff (other than those who had been in the higher echelons) felt that the management culture was too deferential and that some executives were ‘above the law’.
“I have the clear impression that most people in the BBC held the talent in some awe and treated them deferentially; they appeared to have the ability to influence their careers and were themselves untouchable. It would be a brave person indeed who would make a complaint against such a person.”
Smith also highlights the fact that the honours committee advised then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher against recommending Savile for a knighthood because of public warning signs about the presenter, even if the BBC failed to see them.
Not that they said he was a somewhat 'common' person, a yobbish man given to extremes of gaudiness. Such ought not be seen in the company of Knights.
On its website, the Dame Janet Smith review said: “The review is disappointed by the decision of Exaro to publish, in breach of confidence, extracts from a leaked copy of an early draft of its report.
“That document is out of date and significant changes have been made to its contents and conclusions.
“The document should not have been made public and cannot be relied upon in any circumstances.
“The review will work with the BBC to arrange publication of its final report as quickly as possible to ensure that accurate and responsible reporting can take place.”
In a statement, Tony Hall, the BBC's Director General, said that “what happened was a dark chapter in the history of the BBC”.

He added: “Dame Janet Smith’s report will be invaluable in helping us understand what happened and to help ensure that we do everything possible to avoid it happening again. 
“The review has said that the copy leaked to the media is an early draft which has changed considerably, so while I am impatient to learn those lessons the responsible thing must be to act on the final report which we have not received.
The amount of time, high-powered  'eminent' people employed and public monies expended, along with all the fawning denials by the BBC hierarchy for the past ten years or more, begs a question.

Was Savile in fact guilty of anything more than simple crassness? 

I do not pretend to know, standing here behind the bar, listening as you do. But some think.......dark thoughts.  Mr Venner Road, for instance. He describes himself as an Independent researcher based in South East London. He also mentioned the landlady of the Raccoon Arms down the road (which is now closed unfortunately).
Was Jimmy Savile Framed?

A skeptical look at the alleged crimes of Jimmy Savile.
To probably the vast majority of the UK population, Jimmy Savile was the most prolific serial groper and occasional rapist these islands have ever produced. 
As is very often the case though, there is a canyon-wide gulf between the public perception and reality. Savile has now been accused of literally hundreds of offences, and it is clear that probably the vast majority can never be either proved or disproved. Having said that, a fair number of them are either clearly false or most likely imaginary.
Let us here take a slightly more critical look than usual at the case against Jimmy Savile. Although the ball didn’t start rolling until the documentary 'The Other Side Of Jimmy Savile', he was the subject of rumours long before his death, and had even been questioned by the police about alleged indecency with underage girls.

The former is by no means uncommon. 
People in the public eye from powerful to not-so-powerful politicians, business people and of course celebrities are often the subjects of the most outrageous rumours. 
The advent of the Internet may have led to a new Renaissance but it has also allowed the 
propagation of lies, libels and scandal directed at all and sundry on an unprecedented scale. 
Jimmy Savile was a more appealing target for such rumours than most for a number of reasons. To begin with he was an eccentric, that is something that can have both a great appeal to people, and just the opposite effect. He was also unmarried, and for many rumour-mongers that can mean only one thing.

The Other Face Of Jimmy Savile was screened October 3, 2012, but was given heavy advance notice. The man behind it was Mark Williams-Thomas, a Surrey Police Officer turned journalist - investigative journalist is probably too much of a loaded phrase. According to the man himself, he launched the investigation into Jonathan King which resulted in the former music pundit serving a seven year sentence. Before we go any further, it is worth taking a closer look at him. 
Williams-Thomas grabbed a headline in the Sunday Mirror on November 25, 2001, shortly after King was sentenced. According to the paper he was “THE policeman who led the Jonathan King sex crimes investigation". He was alluded to as "Ex-Detective Constable Mark Williams-Thomas”, and was said to have been a founder member of the Surrey Police Paedophile Unit. He said of King: “I have no doubt he would have gone on to commit even more serious crimes if he hadn’t been caught.”

Whether or not the latter claim is true, the former is not; a mere detective constable would not have led an investigation of this nature which involved cooperation with the US authorities.
According to the Times of November 22, 2001, the investigation was led by Mervyn McFadden of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; the senior Surrey officer on the case was Detective Inspector Brian Marjoram. There were about a dozen officers working the investigation altogether, although more would have been involved as needed. 
As Williams-Thomas left the force after 11 years, his career was clearly going nowhere; at least one person has an even more uncharitable opinion, and says he left the police “under a cloud”.
Rumours cut both ways !! 
By 2003 he was described as a freelance journalist. The reality is there is no such thing as a freelance journalist in practice; most so-called freelances are employed by specific organisations. Although it is not a closed shop like the police, the profession - if one may call it that - is extremely incestuous. 
And, in 2003, Williams-Thomas may just have been frozen out of the family, because in June that year he stood trial at Chichester Crown Court for blackmail. 
This was a bizarre case indeed involving an undertaking firm, but the fact that he found himself in the dock should have made him more circumspect than the average ex-copper about drawing far-reaching conclusions from dubious evidence.

He has also racked up quite a few entries in the IMDb, and shortly before the Savile documentary, he made one about Jeremy Bamber which claims to have found evidence that points to the innocence of the mass killer. For those not au fait with this case, the judgment in Bamber’s failed second appeal runs to 522 paragraphs. Bamber slaughtered his entire family then staged the crime scene to make it look as though his sister Sheila Caffell had carried out the murders and then committed suicide. He might have got away with it too because the officer in charge of the case appears to have been more interested in winding it up and getting back to the golf course than in carrying out a thorough investigation; it was left to Bamber’s distant relatives to dig up the evidence that would put him behind bars.
Get on with it Venner. 
Initially, Bamber’s lawyers raised one ground of appeal which they proceeded to expand to sixteen. The whole business was extremely weak, but he certainly had his day in court. Although the initial investigation by the police was virtually non-existent, the work done on it subsequently was very impressive, and the soundness of Bamber’s conviction is not a subject for debate by jurists of reason. 
The same cannot be said for the case against Jimmy Savile because all the evidence against him is weak. 
Weak evidence and lies do not make a strong case, however many of the latter there may be.

To be scrupulously fair to Williams-Thomas, he does give some space in Bamber: The New Evidence to the other side, but the same cannot be said of the mainstream media and Jimmy Savile.
The bedrock of “evidence” against Savile concerns Duncroft, a school for wayward girls he was said to have used as his personal harem under the eyes of its staff, if not with their outright connivance. Like other accusers - male and female - of Savile and many others who have been convicted of, prosecuted for, or simply named as the perpetrators of vile crimes, the Duncroft girls sound extremely convincing. 
Sadly, this tells us more about human nature than it does about the demonstrability of historical sex offences.

As might have been expected, the BBC ran a tribute programme for Savile shortly after his death, and caught considerable flak for this because everyone at the Beeb, or at least those higher up were said to have known Savile had been a serial abuser, indeed he was said to have sexually assaulted or even raped underage girls on the premises. 
The investigation into Savile broadened, and a large number of celebrities were arrested on the basis of allegations made years and even decades later
Of the resulting convictions, those of Rolf Harris, Max Clifford and Dave Lee Travis are anything but satisfactory. 
The Travis case required a trial and a retrial to convict him of a solitary offence. 
Only the convictions of Stuart Hall and Chris Denning can be said to be warranted, but even Hall was cleared of the major charges, while the homosexual Denning has a history going back to the 1970s. Gary Glitter has yet to stand trial, but he too has a track record, and is therefore an easy target. All the same, it is difficult to credit he is guilty as charged, but if Rolf Harris OBE can be convicted on the sort of garbage that was used to take him to trial, there is little hope for a man who has served time in Vietnam for molesting young girls.

Returning to Savile, {at last. TK} the plausibility of the Duncroft allegations was seriously undermined by a letter ostensibly from Surrey Police. This claimed that Savile had been on their radar but was not prosecuted solely on account of his age and infirmity. 
This letter turned out to be a fake, which begs the question, how much of the “evidence” against him is genuine?

A number of people including the blogger Anna Raccoon have pooh poohed the Duncroft allegations; the woman behind this blog, Susanne Cameron-Blackie, was actually at Duncroft at one point, and clearly knows what she is talking about. The blog jimcannotfixthis contains a more detailed analysis of the allegations against Savile. It would be tiresome to work through all of them, but here are a few that should give the reader the general feel of these allegations.
Anna was a terrier. A Lawyer herself, she wrote extensively about the case, as she was in the immediate vicinity of where some of Savile's 'sexual assaults' were supposed to have taken place. She researched in depth, pretty well every public and confidential document produced; interviewed dozens of the 'claimants' and detectives, examined reports and findings. She made a huge archive of materials which are ..... where? I do not know. I had read much of it when she published in the Raccoon Arms. But where it all is now, I do not know.

Anna's conclusions were even more skeptical than Venner's.

Update:
From Sackerson's comment.

Anna Raccoon archive on Savile and Duncroft here at:
 http://annaraccoon.co.uk/


A woman claimed to have been indecently assaulted by Savile (or someone who looked like him) in 1954 - NINETEEN FIFTY-FOUR - at Queen Victoria Hospital. 
The reality is that Savile’s rise to fame began in 1963 when he presented the first episode of Top Of The Pops; it was this that led to his championing of the NHS. 
Another allegation dates from 1959 - NINETEEN FIFTY-NINE - at which time the alleged victim was 7-8 years old. She had been admitted to Booth Hall Hospital to have an appendectomy, of that much we can be certain, though she told the police not only that Savile abused her but that this abuse was carried out with the connivance of her own father, who had also abused her. What are we to make of this, seriously? 
Savile’s great-niece Caroline Robinson is one of his accusers; she gave a graphic account of his opportunism in a TV interview, but in October this year it was revealed that her own family had accused her of lying about this incident. She made this claim because...when they say it isn’t about the money, you can be sure it is about the money, in particular Savile’s considerable but rapidly dwindling estate.
According to the same report, “The lawyers who represent claimants will be paid between £11,000 and £16,000 for every claim they process. Under the scheme’s fixed ‘tariff’ of damages and legal fees, this means the lawyers will be paid up to ten times as much as victims.”

In other words, this is a feeding frenzy by the lawyers. 
A recent hearing at the High Court before Mr Justice Sales saw at least four QCs and other lawyers representing no fewer than seven defendants. 

One final case worthy of mention, a former cancer patient who wrote to Savile thanking him for helping save her life has put in a claim for £60,000 damages for a series of alleged sexual assaults. 
Anyone reading about the allegations against Savile need exercise only a little critical faculty to realise that most of what has been written about him since his death is not only unproven but demonstrably false. 
One of the claims made incessantly is that he was so powerful that he was able to bully, intimidate or coerce people into silence. 
Can that really have been the case? 
Let us rephrase that question, if you were involved in the running of a hospital or an institution such as the BBC, would you allow Savile or anyone to carry out sexual assaults under your nose? Would you make yourself complicit in such crimes?

Furthermore, journalists are always on the look out for salacious stories; powerful politicians up to and including the President of the United States have been brought down by lesser scandals - Richard Nixon! Bill Clinton had his personal life dragged through the mud over the Lewinsky affair while in the White House. In this country, Jeffrey Archer ended up behind bars on account of his fraudulent libel win; he was neither the first nor the last politician to be hoist by his own petard. 
Savile had the ear of people in high places, but he was not influential in the sense that he could snap his fingers and these people would jump. 
And what influence he did have was purely benign. Sure, he had a set of keys for Broadmoor, but did that mean he could wander around at will and sexually assault whoever took his fancy?

The only people who insist we should believe “victims” uncritically, be they alleged victims of Savile or of anyone else, are those who have a vested interest in us doing so, 
.....which in the case of at least three law firms is purely financial. 
Ironically, Esther Rantzen has already been smeared by the lunatic fringe as if not a paedophile herself then as a protector of them. Rantzen is the founder of ChildLine and has been credited with the mantra “believe the children”. 
The simple truth is we can’t always believe the children, and if we can’t believe the children, why on Earth should we believe the lawyers?
'Tis a messy business. It is made all the worse by being used to engender anger, hatred, misandry and fear. Againt men in general.

The talk has been long but gives us much to think about.

Time for a refreshing pint.

Remember this.... 


Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

It is hard to do for ourselves but we can at least hold off judgement on people we know little to nothing about.

Pax