down finger




—which may (or not) be of interest to anyone with a few hours to spare. I have no idea how true it is or even if the writer is just a wee bit paranoid. (For all I know it could be American counter-counter-propaganda~?)*


A Chinese battlejunk—

Screen Shot 2019-10-27 at 10.39.37.png

And totally unrelated, a wee while ago I came across this sample pic of the latest Chinese battlejunk—

Screen Shot 2019-10-27 at 10.45.53.png

—nearing completion. But do not fret … they will only ever use it in home waters, where it can be of no threat to anyone complying with international law. AND—

—even if it did stay afloat long enough to reach international waters, any crew aboard would all be unwilling conscript paddy farmers, quite unable to see enough through those hooded slitty eyes to reliably land safely anyway—

“Mr Argus!”

(Oops) “Yes, Little Virginia?”

“Mr Argus, Sir! Your racist comments read like racist World War 2 racist propaganda!”

(Bugger …) Do not fret, Pet. I’m sure that any other nice reader out there will divine my drift—?”

  … … (Or maybe not.)

Anyway, I’m off to look up all possible meanings of the word ‘hubris’ … so I shall leave you wondering if this, too, may be relevant?   CLICK HERE

dodo  dodo

* Naaaaahhhh … si vis pacem parabellum



This tonight in an e-mail:

“New gender-neutral guidelines will allow male Navy personnel to wear make-up, false eyelashes

New changes will reflect greater diversity and inclusion in the RNZN. New changes will reflect greater diversity and inclusion in the RNZN.

The New Zealand Defence Force will be updating its grooming and appearance guidelines to reflect a more gender-neutral attitude for the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN), meaning male personnel can wear makeup, nail varnish and false eyelashes.

Newshub received information from a Navy insider last week that the RNZN will implement a more inclusive set of appearance and grooming regulations.

Chief of Navy Rear Admiral David Proctor confirmed the changes in a statement to Newshub on Friday.

“The NZDF can confirm that as of November 1, 2019, guidelines around grooming and appearance for Royal New Zealand Navy personnel will be updated,” said Proctor. “These updates are to reflect that the RNZN make no distinction between male and female members in terms of their personal grooming and appearance.

“These changes reflect that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as an organisation, as are the unique traditions and characteristics of the RNZN.”

Proctor said the RNZN’s grooming standards are based on neatness, cleanliness, safety and military image.

The updated regulations mean as of November 1, all Navy personnel are permitted to wear discreet make-up, clear or pale nail varnish when in uniform, “trimmed, neat and natural” false eyelashes, one pair of “natural coloured” stud or sleeper earrings and perfume or cologne in moderation. Rings may be worn on a maximum of two fingers.

Navy personnel are also allowed to use natural-coloured hair dye or have their hair “lightly tipped”, as long as it’s clean and neatly groomed. Long hair is also permitted in a bun or single plait to ensure safety and tidiness.

The appearance guidelines still prohibit body piercings, “exaggerated hairstyles” (partially shaved heads, mohawks, undercuts and “zigzagging of hair” included) and hair accessories.

“These standards are designed to present an inclusive, professional military image,” said Proctor.

“The RNZN is a modern and professional organisation that embraces individuality and personality.

“However, we are a military organisation and with that comes certain expectations on our personnel in terms of dress and appearance.”

—ye gods~!


Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!

“Hands to Action Stations, hands to Action Stations! Set NBCD State One, condition Zulu etc etc etc”

“Sounds like it’s the real thing, this time.”

“Could well be, Jack. President Trump sounded awfully peeved in his last address—”

“Is my make-up not too blotchy—”

“Fine, Jack—are my seams straight? These panties not too revealing for combat?”

“You’ll be fine, Mike … check me out please, how’s my lipstick?”

“I can’t help you there, I’m no expert—hang on, I’ll get a sailor(F) to check …”

Times change. O tempora, o mores! (I tell you now, the navy went to pot when they started letting civilians join …)

Screen Shot 2019-08-25 at 13.55.38

“They should never have stopped the monthly tobacco issue!”




(bilingual pun and not very good—I nearly got creamed by a blasted Southland driver this afternoon and am still swearing. Thank heavens for reflexes. Spouse wasn’t impressed but that’s the gentle-gender for you …) (speaking of which—)

aroow, down, smart

35 Servicewomen Evacuated From Royal Navy Ships Due to Pregnancy

Aug 02, 2019 04:14 pm 

The figures are only related to those pregnant servicewomen who were evacuated by UK Defence Ministry flights, with female sailors who had to return home on their own not recorded. At least 35 sailors have been airlifted from Royal Navy ships since 2005 after discovering they were pregnant, according to freedom of information documents obtained by the Daily Star. The documents revealed that the servicewomen were “medically evacuated” from operational duty after becoming pregnant and that about 18 warships were involved.

Screen Shot 2019-08-03 at 17.36.06.png

Some of the pregnant sailors were specifically airlifted from the state-of-the-art destroyer HMS DUNCAN, which arrived en route to the Persian Gulf, and the HMS OCEAN. All the servicewomen reportedly became pregnant when on duty or “unknowingly conceived onshore,” the documents claimed. The Daily Star cited an unnamed defence source as admitting that “relationships do occur” and that “providing the intimate side takes place onshore it isn’t usually a problem”. “But if a couple is found to be having a physical relationship while at sea they will probably both be disciplined and removed from

the ship,” the source added They also pointed out that “the welfare of our personnel is of the utmost importance,” and that “to suggest personnel become pregnant while serving on an operation is pure speculation.” The source was referring to the fact that crews of all Royal Navy ships are obliged to stick to a tough no-touching rule which even pertains to married couples serving on the same vessels.

Source: Sputnik


As a grumpy old seadog who saw the beginnings of the transition from war-ready to frills … I right at the beginning suggested that if we had to have ladies afloat surely the decent thing to do would be to give ’em ships of their very own? Perhaps it is different these days; my suggestion that a degree of healthy competition could be engendered if they had ships of their own wasn’t well received either.

After I’d left the service I got chatting with a crusty old army warrant officer who told me (without my leading the witness) that “Wimmin are good for up to four days in the field … after that they turn to shit”. (Note: his words, not mine.)


I am a product of

  • my time, environment, heredity; and
  • my self

But I still hold about the separate ships.


that a lady can be just as ferocious as a man—you know, Boadicea, Amazons; ladies ladling out the hot oil from atop their castles under siege whilst the Old Man is away gallivanting about the Holy Lands—

Screen Shot 2019-08-03 at 18.01.08.png

Russian lady sniper WW2

—but on warships?

(SFX: cue theme here, please …)

images(… make it good~!)

(oh … thanks. I owe ya!)






Concerning warriors.

Specifically, Warriors For God.

(Or gods, godlets, godlings, goddesses, goblins and cute little things with wings and that go squeak when you step on them.)


as a ‘given’ that all warriors go to Valhalla—sword in hand or not; brand, breed, or ethnic derivation of course irrelevant. But~!


the kamikaze?

Is a human guided missile also a candidate for Paradise? Will he get the Islamic allocation of 72 virgins and endless booze, for ever—or does breed/brand really matter?


likewise actually recognise the well intentioned suicides as legitimate busines battle practices?

Or will He wave a finger sadly in their faces and send ’em down below—


“Gimme your kamikaze yearning to die free …”


for being unsporting? Did they have any choice in the matter, all those heroic suicide pilots? I say not, given that a few minutes before each of them was born—or fourteen billion years, by some estimates—God knew exactly when and where He’d be greeting each of them again with a large bunch of flowers, rice cookies, cup of mead saki and a ‘Bravo Zulu!’ scroll; perhaps, even, 72 handmaidens and endless wines.

So, herewith be mine question of the day:


—as a serious query it deserves a serious answer. If you can’t answer it … perhaps you might forward it to some of your favourite religiosi?

There’s real insight into human nature in this U-toobe. And some brilliant naval gunnery—those gunners were motivated. BZ.

This next one you may not want to watch—

—the damned racist bloody announcer calls them “Japs”. (Honestly, some people!)

And now, back to God … how say you, Sir? Do they get in, for being well intentioned; or not?

Screen Shot 2019-04-16 at 10.08.04

“Argus! Don’t ask ME, go ask their gods!”


(Oops … His Royal Godliness sounds a wee bit peeved …)

So: how say YOU?

Do they?


And that’s not just my morals.


selfie—an elderly new naval problem with a modern twist. The twist this time being … aawww, heck … you figure it out—

“Surface ships engaged in shallow water ASW or merely operating in shallow water will likely find themselves in surprise, close range encounters with non-nuclear submarines and a short range, quick reaction ASW weapon could provide the defense needed to survive the encounter.  The small size and weight of the launcher makes it suitable for any ship and allows it to be added almost anywhere that a small deck penetration for the reloads can be accommodated.

To read from source:  CLICK HERE


—AND never forget that the more geniuses you apply to any problem the more remarkable your results*


“Moreover, during the first part of the war, the Japanese tended to set their depth charges too shallow, unaware U.S. submarines could dive below 150 feet (45m). Unfortunately, this deficiency was revealed in a June 1943 press conference held by U.S. Congressman Andrew J. May, and soon enemy depth charges were set to explode as deep as 250 feet (76m). Vice Admiral Charles A. LockwoodCOMSUBPAC, later estimated May’s revelation cost the navy as many as ten submarines and 800 crewmen.[14][15]”

Screen Shot 2019-05-14 at 10.19.15.png

Yep. Pure genius …


* Can you imagine what a Naval Committee revamped hairbrush might look like (and all the accompanying screeds extolling its virtues) after the routine fifteen year investigation and development?


HUBRIS  pc, not

—’twas ever thus.

But (Battle of Savo Island)—

Admiral Turner assessed why his forces were so soundly defeated in the battle:

“The Navy was still obsessed with a strong feeling of technical and mental superiority over the enemy. In spite of ample evidence as to enemy capabilities, most of our officers and men despised the enemy and felt themselves sure victors in all encounters under any circumstances. The net result of all this was a fatal lethargy of mind which induced a confidence without readiness, and a routine acceptance of outworn peacetime standards of conduct. I believe that this psychological factor, as a cause of our defeat, was even more important than the element of surprise”.[1]:123


One has to ask with all due humility—

—has anything changed?

But wait, it gets better—

The report of the inquiry caused the US Navy to make many operational, and structural, changes.

Virtually every US Navy cruiser was retrofitted with emergency diesel electric generators. The fire mains of the ships were changed to a vertical loop design that could be broken many times and still function.

—and still the objective observer may note the same old patterns emerging; until there can be only one question left—




  • Lack of imagination? 
  • Complacency?
  • Hubris?

I blitzed an article in some obscure publication recently—to the effect that about nine years before Pearl Harbour some war games involving the US fleet took place. A mock battle group had to ‘attack’ PH, and dammit—

—it damned well did … Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 22.18.10.png

They left their own battleships behind; a couple of fast carriers snuck in on a Sunday morning to launch a “catch ’em napping” attack. Did a truly lovely job of it, too—quite sorted out the mighty fleet.


—there were Japanese spies in the hills and shrubbery. Interestingly Yamamoto’s merry men followed that exact same American template … this time for real.

And again, just as before, caught ’em all napping.  Sunday, aaaah—the good guys all washed and brushed and at church, the others still abed with their shack-ups. Boom boom!


lost touch with naval anything but I like sometimes to ponder the wotiffs …

In February 1932, Yarnell pioneered carrier tactics in an exercise that later came to be discussed as Fleet Problem XIII. Rear Admiral Yarnell commanded the carriers Lexington and Saratoga in an effort to demonstrate that Hawaii was vulnerable to naval air power … … … The Navy’s war-game umpires declared the attack a total success.


So if I may be so bold … my prediction (Think ‘black swan’) is that people enthusiastically training for the last war will be—always, as always—surprised by the next one. active service

Let Wiki have the last word—

“The umpire’s report did not even mention the stunning success of Yarnell’s exercise. Instead they wrote, “It is doubtful if air attacks can be launched against Oahu in the face of strong defensive aviation without subjecting the attacking carriers to the danger of material damage and consequent great losses in the attack air force.”

Indeed, a valid point—

—YOU take it, History …

1 ac


Ram leftor better yet, build a better


and the world is your oyster. Until some other public benefactor builds a better one …

Want to win a war? Build a better gun. Now China appears to have taken a huge stride ahead of the United States with the first experimental deployment of a new ‘supergun’ aboard a warship.

to read more: CLICK HERE


the Chinese didn’t ‘declare’ war on the west years ago. They just went ahead and did it anyway, but without all the usual fanfare, loud noises, and smelly stuff. And we fell for it—they used us as weapons against ourselves; fiendishly clever and it worked.

It’s an observation that sticks in my craw every time I pop into one of the too many Chinese cheapie emporiums. They sell junk, but serviceable junk at mega-low prices. Win/win all round, no?

Well … no.

Think about it.

We buy their ultra cheap hosepipes, nail clippers, brushes, photo albums; which is good—we get what we want for a fraction the price we’d otherwise have paid for one made in New Zealand, Australia, Britain, USA, The West … mostly cheap junk, adequate (just) but shoddy; yet it does the job. Briefly. And when it claps out, then what? We go back and buy shoddy cheap again.

And in the meantime the more expensive (and much better quality) New Zealand/western products sit forlornly on the shelves …

… do this often enough and the non-Chinese producers go out of business. (One needs sales to make a profit, no? And without profit, why the heck be in business?)


do the Chinese make their profit—they too have to pay for raw materials, skills, labour and shipping; and it all comes out of … … their sales receipts? Oh, really? Or could it be that their friendly government subsidises them … and if so:  why?

Why should the Chinese taxpayer subsidise our New Zealand garden hoses and photo books?

Why should the Chinese taxpayer subsidise putting our own producers out of business … and making us thus entirely dependent on them?

Don’t ask me, dammit. I’m asking you … but here’s a thought, make of it what you will:


Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 17.11.30.png


—and ponder all possible meanings of the phrase:  Oops …

Has subsidising my car wash brushes all these years actually set the scene for artificial islands, rail guns, and conquest? Brrrr~!

Good morning, big.pngMy point? We’re exporting our ‘minor’ manufacturing to China, No?