capture12-1Dumb question, no?

Then try this on for size—

“…Warnings that North Korea may soon encounter its worst food shortages in decades raise three interconnected questions for the rest of the world. The first is what those other nations can do to alleviate suffering in North Korea. The second addresses the strategic dimension of assistance, or the degree to which any aid affects, or more specifically undercuts, international efforts to force North Korea to honor its international obligations and quit threatening the peace in Northeast Asia. The third concerns the morality of linking the two — the humanitarian dimension and the security problem. In an authoritarian state like North Korea, is it right to make the public suffer for decisions for which it has no input and when its government seems indifferent to the hardships that it imposes on them and which it does not share?…”

—and tell me whether it is to be believed, disbelieved, and/or or if it is American (sourced) propaganda?


tell me what should be done.


explain why ‘we’ should be doing anything?


that if ‘we’ send any assistance—food, technical, educational or financial …

… it will be ungraciously impounded at the border by arrogant pugnacious thugs who will promptly exchange the labels “Supplied with lots of love and kisses by Uncle Sam” with labels reading “Supplied by your ever-loving Great Leader“. Been done before, I’ve been told (but I don’t believe it—nobody could be that monstrous)* .

The quote was sourced from Japan (CLICK HERE). The source discusses some of the options but overlooks the most important consideration of all—that sometimes folks will bite the hand that feeds them. Not good.

Meanwhile, an old maxim …


—old, but still a goodie.

And apparently those starving folks** can now toss a nuke from home turf right across the Pacific into mainland America. A truly interesting allocation of  ‘scarce’ resources …




*  Not bloody much …

** Guns, two. Butter, nil.        ….         (A ‘win’ by default?)





In spades. With knobs on.

But, you may ask … but why?

Why would such a nice good-looking old dog have it in for the innocent—who after all are simply manipulated mindless organic automatons aimed by very clever programming?


Snowflakes are the tools of powers safely behind the scenes (now you know I’m barking mad, but a little honesty clears the air) (we Conspiracy Theorists are often honest).


more better. The ambitious in WW2 Japan used well programmed mindless automatons too. The saddest thing for those robots was that they looked and acted just like disciplined rational people; and that’s the saddest thing about Snowflakes too (leaving out the ‘disciplined’ bit).

Kamikaze = Snowflake?

Hardly … the kamikaze at least was aware. Sort of. In their final haiku many of the pilots concerned likened themselves to falling cherry blossoms …

Cherry blossom.jpg

—what can our sniffling Snowflakes liken themselves to? Ear muffs? Perhaps. The mind boggles—

Anyone who has followed the free-speech wars in America over recent years will know that by now, basically, nobody can speak anywhere. Especially at centres like that one-time home of free speech, Berkeley, California, you now cannot speak in public if you’re a man or a woman, if you’re gay or straight and if your skin is white or not. Now to the great list of categories of people who should not be allowed to speak in America we can add …

—is this the ‘free speech’ you fought and died for? I just love paradox: you died for their free speech right to shut down free speech … bugger, I just bit my own mouth:





I think it all depends on how you define good and evil, and where you sit in the social equations. But if you are aware—what the hell could you do about it?

Perhaps those sobbing Snowflakes have got something after all … I think that for myself I’d rather be a cherry blossom …









I’ve posted in the past about how once at a meeting a young lady (school teacher type) asked “How can I boost the self esteem of a child?”.  (A bothersome boy, if I remember correctly.)

My own response differed from the majority of the others, which surprisingly in that company were too much like the quote below; but more of my view after you’ve had a wee beak at this driv   lot—


… The US-based National Association of School Psychologists published a much-cited paper on how parents and schools can boost self-esteem in children: ‘Adults must listen carefully to the child without interrupting, and should not tell the child how to feel.’ Meanwhile, the charity Family Lives tells parents ‘not to label, criticise or blame your child, as this would give them negative messages which… can have a detrimental impact on their emotional wellbeing later on in life’ …”

source:  CLICK HERE 

I said then and I say it again now, that the best way to artificially boost anyone’s self-esteem is to set them a really challenging task … and let them overcome the challenge themselves.

TrolletteYour problem is tuning the task to the victi  person. Too easy and you blow it, too tough and you shoot everyone in the foot. Stretch the little bugger and once he, she, or it achieves the solution … oh, wow! Boom boom!


how should we treat our poor little Snowflakes, hmmm? Are we allowed to stretch them? Can they be stretched—or do they drown you in tears?

Don’t ask me, I’m just a dum’ dog … go ask an educator (but I warn you now: you’d better have good control of your gagging reflex).





I OBJECT~!baaabs

First quote—

“Another week, another spate of barmy campus bans and ‘safe space’ shenanigans by a new breed of hyper–sensitive censorious youth. At Oxford University, law students are now officially notified when the content of a lecture might upset them …  It all seems beyond parody.”

to read from source:   CLICK HERE**


why? Simple: the upcoming generation is being programmed.

Programmed, not educated. I believe it was Lenin who coined and initiated ‘Political Correctness’ (and he was very good at it*).


is Power. Hee Hoo controls information rocks the cradle and controls the world.


is teach the young to think. As in ‘use of reason’. Ain’t gonna happen though. So eventually the few will be the whistles that control the dogs that control the sheep.


conspiracy theorist I see the hand of the Hydra in everything—


coming soon, if not already:  enjoy~!

Health-and-safety mania means the young are denied resilience-building freedoms that past generations enjoyed, such as playing outdoors, climbing trees and walking to school unaided. Modern mollycoddling means that pupils have been prevented from engaging in activities such as leapfrog, marbles and conkers … Last week, a headmistress in Dundee suggested changing the colour of her school’s red uniform because ‘some research indicates that it can increase heart and breathing rates’

You couldn’t make this stuff up and sell it as fiction.

Fiction has to make sense.

And this stuff is becoming law—

Anti-bullying policies are a statutory obligation in schools and children are subjected to an endless stream of anti-bullying assemblies, activities, books, dramas and stories of celebrity victims. This propaganda encourages children to examine all their interactions through the prism of bullying …



“Mr Argus … Sir?”

“Yes, little Virginia?”

“I sense a non-PC remark coming?”

“Not at all, beloved sensitive sweet child. Don’t you fret, just pop along to your safety rug on your safety-zone stool in your insulated Safety Room and don’t you worry your purty lil’ head none …”

Now, where were we? Oh yes—


Education (in New Zealand) seems to be becoming more and more the domain of Women. Wimmin. At the risk of being savaged by shrieking harridans, or worse, their subjects …

is this a universal, or limited only to the west?

Are we beginning to reap what we sow? Horrible thought …


*   Look at what happened to Russia when the unthinking masses took Lenin seriously …

** But be warned, not for the squeamish (and consumption may make you unwell)



and here we go, your quote …

“… But as I argue in my new book – I Find That Offensive! – Generation Snowflake believe it’s their right to be protected from anything they might find unpalatable.

This mindset is particularly rife in universities. The examples are beyond parody: a National Union of Students conference banning clapping as it might trigger trauma (‘please use jazz hands’, delegates were told); the Edinburgh University student threatened with expulsion from a meeting after raising her hand in disagreement …”

to read more:  CLICK HERE 

… and you now have my permission to bellow those famous magic words:





—and please try not to offend anyone (bellow silently).

And now my next


The only (R) ONLY approved word for things orb-shaped (i.e. three dimensional circle) in future will be ‘spheres’. This is because some folks are shock-horror-dismayed by the use of the word ‘ball’ (especially in the plural). Dictionaries to be amended …


of hands is offensive then all forms of hands in public (even ‘jazz hands’ as referenced above)—are banned.

This new law may inconvenience those people lacking talk-text phones but the savings in Emergency Room trauma treatments will offset. Hence hands will be kept in pockets at all times, and on the rare occasions when the public use of hands cannot be avoided the preferred action will be by recourse to mittens—traumatisation of citizenry will be averted by mittenry.

“Mr Argus! Sir!”

“Yes little Ollivia?”

“Sir … you’re over the top again!”

“Don’t hand me that, Toots … oops …”

“Sir, to evoke the image is to invoke the beast—”

“I think you’ve put your finger on it, Kid—”

“Don’t try to palm me off, Sir—”

“Hey, we could have a real ball with thi—”


“Oops … we could have a real sphere with this!”

“In all honesty Sir, I didn’t know Snowflakes could be so much fun.”

SF ex Dly M.png

“… Students demand that universities are ‘safe spaces’, free from opinions that will make them feel uncomfortable. There has been a rise in ‘No platforming’ – barring someone with controversial views from speaking at an event at all.

Oxford University has introduced ‘trigger warnings’  …”

I won’t quote further, but it gets better.

It’s also your future … enjoy~!




I forget who said it but it’s as valid today as when he said it—




—and methinks the wee fellow had a point. So now cast your eyes upon these sinners who didn’t obey a direct order—

“… on August 15, Command Task Force made a signal, “Cease Hostilities against Japan.” Gambia was under attack by Japanese aircraft at the time that the ceasefire was announced …. While the cease-fire signal was still flying, Spitfires were overhead engaging a Japanese aircraft. The latter dropped a bomb, which fell into the sea between HMS Indefatigable and Gambia. The enemy aircraft was shot down by the Spitfires, a part of it falling on board Gambia. No further enemy air attacks were made, but several snoopers were shot down by patrolling aircraft out of sight of the fleet, which retired to await events …”

to read more from source: CLICK HERE 

Ooooooh … naughty! We should tell on them? Dammit, they’ll upset the Snowflakes … or was it simply that ol’ survival instinct kicking in? Could shooting down an aircraft in time of peace be a war-crime?


Don’t ask me—I’m just a dum’ dog.

And if the ship in the pic above looks a bit less than glamorous, that could be because the scruffy bucket had recently been busy.

And bear in mind: there’s no ladies in that thing.

AND they had a goodly slug of real rum issued every day, and (eeek) access to beer. Sin~!

As someone pointed out in a kiwi blog recently, sailors used to go to sea in mess-decks. Today it’s cabins. All good clean fun … I wandered through the modern HMNZS Otago not long ago and found it to be most comfy and egalitarian, with officers pitching in to ‘load ship’ and all very matey indeed. Where the ‘old’ navy used to have steel and stuff this was frilly curtains. Nice. Sweet, even.

But then, I’m ‘old navy’—

—I understand they load the guns from the other end these days?*.

Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 21.31.50

Old navy … Yank navy, not ours. How would ours have performed?**

As for the USS Liberty above—a vivid example of what can be accomplished with ‘good order and naval discipline’.

What say you, Snowflakes?




*    But the bang still comes out the same place.

** Yes, it is scruffy. You’d think the skipper would have had a bit more pride …



And your ‘educators’ …


through some old newspaper cuttings this afternoon I happened across an article from the ‘New Zealand Herald’ dated March 1988.

I quote—    finger-pointing-down-animation-gif

“Personal self-esteem is the starting point for a healthy community,” the race relations conciliator, Mr Walter Hirsh, said … 

“The most important thing our schools can give our children is not an A bursary or five A grades in School Certificate, but an A in self-esteem …”


and posit that the most important thing schools can give children is an education. The last thing schools should give a child is a qualification. Qualifications should be earned, not given (such freebies are worth only the price paid).


nobody can ‘give’ self-esteem. Genuine self-esteem is a byproduct of accomplishment, and such self-esteem comes from the overcoming of challenge on an individual level.


I would hate to see (say) mathematics classes lose place to ‘self-esteem’ classes wherein the students sit in circles patting each other, for certificates.

But I suspect that this is what has given birth to the


generation. I could be wrong and await rebuttal.


The term has undergone a curious journey to become the most combustible insult of 2016. It emerged a few years ago on American campuses as a means of criticising the hypersensitivity of a younger generation, where it was tangled up in the debate over safe spaces and no platforming. A much-memed line from Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club expresses a very early version of the sentiment in 1996: “You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same organic and decaying matter as everyone else.”

to read more:  CLICK HERE (and beware of naughty words)


Post Script:

Before posting, I happened across this erudite definition—



—make of it what you may.