buitre16              (the traditional query of a flummoxed pig)


wondered. The answer though, is self-obvious. No?

Have a quick squizz at this wee snap copied from an webbie I haven’t even finished reading yet (I like to reveal my ignorance whilst still fresh):


Interestingly enough it ties in with my also still unfinished—thus flabbergasting—copy of Hapgood’s “Maps Of The Ancient Sea Kings”..


is who exactly determined which way is ‘west’ in Antarctica? And why ’tis so, and how the hell does anyone in the field (ok, on the ice) use it?

Stop for a moment and consider a hypothetical case … there you are with your buddies in a wee tent right on the unarguable South Pole, having overnighted. And feeling a desperate need to answer a call of nature, you rug up and bimble out with your wee (ouch) shovel. You slither just a few hundred yards/meters and do your thing, but the unexpected snow flurrying now completely obliterates your tracks. Not good. But never fear, you have your trusty radio and (God be praised~!) it is working. You call your buddies for help, and (God be praised~!) they answer …

“Okay, Argus. Shuddup and simmer down; you went which way to do what—?”

You explain again, as patiently as the every-increasing frostbites will allow, you went north just a few hundred yards—

Okay, Buddy, we goddit—you went north. Here we come …”

So: what do you give your chances now?

In full clear daylight I’d give possibly a score or so chances in three hundred and sixty; and that without relying on the blasted compass. How so?


In the dark, or in ‘inclement’ conditions … you’d have been much better off unrolling a ball of string behind you, or even better, doing what needed be done within the tent and to hell with everyone’s sensitivities. No?


which way is north?


did ‘they’ figure out which is the west and which the east, especially at the pole itself?

I still think that if you are at the south pole, you are facing north; easy peasy.






tell us the truth? pc

Dumb question.

Easy answer: no.


that in war the first casualty always is truth. (Cliché, but true …)


whom do we believe—

  • those typically perfidious Russians
  • the nice duly-elected (ergo God) President of the United Sates*?
  • any of the many truth propaganda outlets …

… all claiming (blatantly or subtly) to be good honest reporting? (Other than me, do any such exist?) (And I have my doubts even about him).


but wait, believe now and you get a Free Pass to eternity, complete with all the wine, women, men, infants (if Islamic) and song you could want for all eternity. (Actually, believe now and you may just get it even sooner … boom boom~!)


disgustipated with the ‘truths’ they are fed sometimes set themselves up as alternate dispensers thereof. It’s all very confusing … a bit like poking through all the various brands and franchises of ‘holy’ books looking for the One True God/s. Pays yer money, take ya chances. Brrrr.


this new (to me) outlet. Got a wee article titled “Houthi’s Destroy 11 Saudi Warships in 6 Months” which for all I know might even be true. I have no way of proving/disproving, so like any ‘news’ outlet we have to either accept on faith or worry and fret.

But if you go there I think you are intended to accept the shattered ship image as being of a Saudi ship so clobbered. To which I respond with a cynical “Oh. Really?”


is not only the First Casualty, Truth is always grabbed, stripped, raped, and tucked away out of sight.

But Truth will eventually out, despite the best efforts of the nice folks you have duly elected to safely run your life for you—

La Verite.png

Truth escaping from the well

Her mirror, there? It’s the Mirror Of Truth. Let’s hope that YOU never have to look into it, but sadly there is no evading it in the long run.

The gamble that our politicians and beloved Leaders always take is purely one of time …


* Who already has kept every single one of his campaign promises and so is utterly  blameless, incorruptible; as pure as the driven snow and even more trustworthy than Santa Claus.

“Mr Argus … Sir?”

“Hic? Oh, Little Virginia; please, not now, Sweetie …”

“Sir—you’re looking awfully green after that asterisk; would you like me to get you a barf-bag?”



for my transaction?* (Decision being:  do I buy online a wee giftie for The Spouse with my card, or should I perhaps join ‘PayPal’?).


of my researches I then happened across this snippet which I quote—

PayPal’s partner MasterCard ceased taking donations to WikiLeaks in 2010, and PayPal also suspended, and later permanently restricted, payments to the website after the U.S. State Department deemed WikiLeaks activities as illegal. Online supporters and activists retaliated by subjecting PayPal and MasterCard, along with other companies, to coordinated cyber attacks.[123]

—which of course led me to that “Eeeeeek~!” reaction I get whenever I spot a blatant  and quite unabashed contradiction.


if you are a product of your upbringing (circumstances & endless propaganda) and you simply can’t see it.

Too few can, I’m afraid, so you aren’t alone there. Just keep on buying them Lotto tickets and guzzling your beloved Soma …


* In the end I opted to use my card. You know something? I’ve often wondered: does anyone ever (r) ever read plough through all the endless screeds, sub-screeds, sub-sub-sub (etc etc ad infinitem) of monotonous unrewarding legalistic self-serving BS jargon? You know the stuff I’m referring to—in the end it can all be summarised simply as “We at (insert name here) declare that we are in no way responsible for anything you do or which is done unto you whilst availing yourself of our services**).

** Which means simply “Just pour your money into our coffers (and Devil Take The Hindmost) (meaning YOU, Bub~!).  Nyah nyah nah nah naaaaaahhhhhh~!



the PM of Oz and the P of the USA; falling out over the issues of so-called Human ‘Rights’.

Mind you—I understand the fleeing of conflicts. And as heartless as I may seem sometimes, I feel for the people involved.

Sympathy, empathy, yes—but open my door to total strangers? Just because I’ve been ordered to, by self-serving politicos?

No. Count me out—

First, the “illegal immigrants” are in fact desperate people fleeing conflict whose status as refugees has in most cases been officially recognized. Second, as refugees, they have the right, under the Geneva Conventions, of which the United States is a signatory, to be treated “without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.”

For source: CLICK HERE

I care nothing for Donald Trump or the Prime Minister of Australia. pc

What I do care is that bods in palatial surroundings thousands of miles away are commanding innocents to accept into their midst folks they know nothing about. On ‘humanitarian’ grounds.

Ordering them to accept “without discrimination“. Brrr.

As an atheist/humanist (if I’m to be typecast) I state that discrimination must be applied, and vigorously.

“Political power comes from the barrel of a gun”* and that’s the only way an authority could get ME to accept strangers into my own home. By force. At gunpoint.


Read the above then consider all possible meanings of the word ‘Freedom‘.

Now consider that contradictions can not exist. (There being no such thing as contradictions—only false premises.)

Finally …

Can a Free nation be commanded to accept strangers— without discrimination?




* And I did after all look up that quote—

Gunny 1.png

—by an infamous realist who got it right (to make it even more right simply delete the word Communist … it then becomes a universal). No?




and today.


So … anything in common? Don’t ask me, I’m just a cynic on the world stage. Go ask your leaders—and here’s a wee quote to help get you started:

Screen Shot 2016-12-08 at 12.44.27.png

it’s from: CLICK HERE

Yes. It IS concerning yesterday’s “rust bucket” post. The late great Santayana (no, dammit, not the Alamo bad guy) muttered words to the effect—

“Those who don’t learn the lessons of history

are condemned to repeat them”


—but the good news is that there’s no limit to how often we are allowed to repeat them (a working definition of infinity, in fact).


it’s always the little guys who take the lessons and the repeats. (Are we just a bit stupid, or what?)


affair—if I were on any of the nearby US carriers, destroyers etc etc etc when Liberty was being pestered by those annoying low-flying aircraft I would never, but never, ever let anyone know. Even the gob in charge of tramping the spud peelings into the buckets ready for emptying must have felt totally sickened and de-masculated by his part, however minor.


“So, what’s all the blasted whimpering about? It was only a bit of scorched paintwork, and that hole in the side was only tiny—

not much more than a dent, really.png

—not much more than a dent, really. Why all the squawking? Didn’t they get lots of lovely medals and citations and things sprinkled all over them—and they weren’t even at war, dammit?”

And they may mention that “the Captain—Liberty’s commanding officer, in fact—was caught unawares loafing about on the bridge casually dressed—


—guzzling what appears to be a coffee.”

Yeah, they might. Anyone without a clue or even one half of one fraction of a brain might. The US government ‘cover up’ team certainly would jump at the chance…


that ‘cute little hole’ again, this time in dry dock …

cute little hole.jpg

—and ponder the skills of a photographer who only tells half the story, huh?

Or the motivations of the ‘cover up’ team who tried so desperately to bury the story (the Captain, from memory, got his medal in a sneaked-in wee ceremony out of sight somewhere (dockside warehouse? Memory fails), instead of in a well deserved blaze of glory at The White House.) (Why?)


I get a wee bit cynical, or outright sarcastic. How else to jolt the complacent*? You’ll note that in my ‘tags’ I added the word ‘Justice’ with a question-mark. Why the query symbol, may we suppose?

If you have to ask: go ponder all possible meanings of the words ‘not good’ and see if they can be applied to the event in question …


* Hey Argus—slow down a bit! That’s voters ya talking about~!




You should.

No, no—don’t hang up, don’t cut me off before you take on board what I’m trying to say here.


a safety valve. Both for the people themselves, and their government. Riot is the folks in a ‘democratic’ government telling their Lords and Masters that “We mean it! Listen to us, if you ignore us after this you’ll be fighting for your lives!”  — that one is indeed a good riot (and they do exist).

In this instance—


the practical form of Democracy. Vox populi writ loud—conventionally the next step up from here is full-on revolution: despots serving as street decorations (in a democracy can it get any better than that?).


what I call antisocial riots. Yobbos, louts, mindless organic robots simply doing their thing; often planned, sometimes spontaneous. Too often a tool for a purpose, using unwitting pawns on a board.



will occur when push meets shove head on. On a larger scale these can be called battles, writ even larger we term them wars. Sometimes too small to be called a riot squabbles can spontaneously combust when the surroundings are immaterial* to the players (or simply ready-use ammunition which someone else paid for) …

… all good clean fun and youthful high spirits find healthy outlets for self-expression (don’t you just love PC babble?).

For source: CLICK HERE


repeating myself yet again, please read and take on board that—







right now on a massive scale: God’s only chosen** people. They have a Supreme Idea to spread (conquer with) and they will not tolerate lightly any infantile ideas to the contrary.

cerberusWe can live with them, for now. Up until the balance of power shifts in their favour—after which western values go under the mallet. Not a good idea to resist or riot at that point …



*  Meaningless to the participants. (Why would that be, do you think?)

** It’s in the unchallengeable ‘holy word of God’ book.



month, year, decade … aaaah, stuff it: millennium.

A UN watchdog has slammed Saudi Arabia for subjecting minors as young as 15 to stoning, flogging, amputation, and even execution, contrary to the children rights convention, but a Saudi official reportedly responded that sharia is “above all laws and treaties.”

Note well that final sentence.

Screen Shot 2016-10-30 at 10.15.15.png

Read and feel just a little … tiny … bit … queasy. But wait, it gets better—

The 18-member committee also strongly criticized Saudi Arabia’s traditional practices of punishing perpetrators with stoning, flogging, and limb amputation, demanding that it “repeal all provisions contained in legislation” authorizing such penalties.

Read more:  CLICK HERE

Screen Shot 2016-10-30 at 10.21.04.pngThe referenced article then drags up boring stuff about human rights, the rights of minors, the rights of girls especially their God-sanctioned right to be married off young* yadda yadda yaada. All good stuff, and possibly helps us understand why Russia was bumped from being on the UN Human Rights Council.

To be replaced on said Council by whom?

Yup. By Saudi Arabia—the very paradigm of human rights in this world. Praises be to Allah~!


before you go all judgemental on me, how about popping over to a nice friendly sharia country for a wee holiday?

Screen Shot 2016-10-30 at 10.20.25.pngVacation in the security, the peace and compassion of Sharia, under the umbrella and all pervading rights of The Most Merciful and Most compassionate paradigm of Justice Himself; one Mr Allah Esq and his merry Profit Mo—

—who would never dream of being not-nice to foreigners dumb enough to visit them.

The joke? Oh, yes—if you can’t see it, then I’ll explain it as a wee bit of irony satirically made visible by the adroit and delicate subtle use of blatant sarcasm. No? Otherwise let me spell it out:

Saudi Arabia on the UN Council for Human Rights

—and you don’t get nothin’ no more hilarious than that. It’s priceless!*

In the meantime, you may now beam me up Scottie … there’s no intelligent life down here.cerberus

“Mr Argus, Sir … ?”

“Yes, my rather worried looking Little Virginia?”

“Sir—wouldn’t you think they’d get their act together?”

“Hush child! Someone might hear you …”

* As ‘young’ as age 6 (six~!) years from birth, but mercifully (praises to Him etc etc) randy goat husbands are not allowed to copulate with them until they reach the mature age of nine years. Coming soon to a western nation near you: Sharia Law. Get used to it …