Screen Shot 2019-07-30 at 11.43.25.pngor not Te Reo … ?

That be the question.

arrow RH.png

Whether ’tis nobler in the hearts and minds to suffer the machinations of the self-serving PC; or to take arms and by educating expose them? (Why bother …)


must be the most inferiority-complex raddled people on the planet. I state this boldly, being one (and actually proud of it* ).


what light through yonder window breaks? ‘Tis ‘education’ …


Maori language is being resurrected. Taxpayer’s funds are diverted towards this truly noble** end—

“Studies show that students who speak more than one language perform, in a number of ways, at higher levels than those who speak only one.”

Sourced:  CLICK HERE

—so I ask:  Why not invest in teaching them something they can apply outside of school? In my youth the “more than one” of choice was French. These days Chinese might easily be the better bet.


but it would cost me volumes.


I’m off to  see if I can get Saxon or Norman French made compulsory in Britain (and get rid of that silly bastardised doggerel they call modern English).

Here, have a nice resurrected Maori cultural—

Screen Shot 2019-07-30 at 11.42.59.png

—souvenir from the days before postcards became popular. (Tourists took oodles of these home before some Pakeha spoilsports ruined the trade.)



Sometimes you’d never guess …

** Spoken like a native it sounds like nothing so much as swearing—just try saying ‘Whakapapa’ properly without it sounding like …




Screen Shot 2019-05-14 at 10.19.15and now for your quote. Make of it whatever your independent mind/indoctrinations will allow—

Dr Mackereth, an evangelist who now works as an emergency doctor in Shropshire, claims his contract was then terminated over his refusal to use transgendered pronouns. 

He argues that he was dismissed “not because of any realistic concerns over the rights and sensitivities of transgender individuals, but because of my refusal to make an abstract ideological pledge”.

—and this is how The Controllers inveigle their way into power: by harnessing the brute force of the state to serve the ends of power-hungry slime-balls who refuse to allow independence.

It doesn’t really matter a damn (to me) if the ‘independent’ is invoking ridiculous superstitious ‘teachings’—no?

“I care not for what you say, Sir—

But I’ll fight to the death for your Right to say it!”

So. Sure we would … (you and me both, Dude—but we’d be awfully lonely out there).

The quote above in red is from:  CLICK HERE


which is of absolutely no relevance—

  • You control speech—
  • you control behaviour*

No? And so we lose by one nibble at a time. That good doctor (above) may well be a Christian nutter, but Christian nutters also have the right to Free Speech.

So let ’em rave! And …

and let anyone narked by their ravings counter-rave; this is the meaning of  ‘Free Speech’.

chimp rocks

dodododo                                                            dodo

* You just try using only politically correct words & grammar yet still present a cogent argument.



don’t you fwet, now, you just dwy them pore lil’ eyes—

The University of Otago has apologised after asking its law students an exam question about the ethics of representing a terrorist.

The question led some students to break down and cry during the exam last week after it brought back painful memories of the Christchurch mosque attacks on March 15 in which 51 people were killed.

Sourced:   CLICK HERE

—an’ don’t you never fink there may be a real world out dere, just waiting for ‘oo to be given your lovely new parchment and sally forth in shining armour to reshape it …


And don’t you ever consider that you may one day have to deal with unpleasantness. ( I mean, really,  how can you defend in court some nasty person whose doggy left a dunnit on someone’s lawn?) … ooooooohhhh  … YUK~! (Sob, sniff … WAAAAH!)



“—Coming! … Puff puff pant gasp wheeze … Yes, Mr Argus?”

“There’s another wannabe lawyer over here! Collapsed under the strain of resolving her illusions of human nature with human nature…”

“Oh! Smelling salts or bullet, Mr Argus? Bullet would be more merciful—”

“Salts! A wee dose of Reality might help too—go vandalise her car …”

AND the meek shall inherit the Earth*.


Screen Shot 2019-05-05 at 14.26.02

Stand aside, Wimp! REAL gal comin’ through!


* (Six feet of it, cold and damp …)


by opening with a quote—

“You can’t say the Bible is not fit for children. The gospel is for everyone… What I’ve done is little different from religious art you can see in museums around the world.” 


And the challenge is simply to offer your thoughts on whether The Bible is fit for children. Or not …

“But a baby about to be cut in half and human sacrifice, even in Lego, carried too big a risk of causing offence.”

Hah! What on Earth can possibly be offensive about the holy Word Of God? And in the name of gentle Jesus, don’t forget …

Screen Shot 2019-06-01 at 19.48.02.png

“Snip-snip, and there ya go—halfies.  Half each.”

Awww, come on, come on! It’s in The Good Book (and you know it’s all metaphorical anyway).

Wot? Speak up—nudity offensive too? Naaaaaahhhh … honi soit qui mal y pense and all that. Bible is good, especially that Old Testament stuff—God was no wimp in them days!

And if nudity were truly offensive—

Screen Shot 2019-05-05 at 14.26.02

—God wouldn’t have born us all naked. So there.




Screen Shot 2019-04-28 at 09.41.55“…as beauty does” (to paraphrase one Forrest Gump).

And is very much in the eye of the beholder. I have always had an eye for the beautiful and have been able to find it often in the most mundane, plain, and/or even ‘ugly’. So sue me …


aren’t too picky. Not by commonly accepted standards. But here we’re considering the physical ‘beauty’ of the human woman. (So we mean sex-appeal, no?)

No. Certainly SA is a major for many but beauty is as beauty does, and I find the shot below rather …

Screen Shot 2019-04-27 at 23.20.31.png

… beautiful.

Some oaf with a camera got it right, no?

Or is it the /sex appeal’ of the pose, the posture, the wide and almost challenging eyes, the chomp-on-and-swing-from-me lips …

… and the fact—

—that I have a ‘thing’ for long-haired blue-eyed blondes. Racist? Go chew your tail—it’s my very own personal preference but I’ve never limited myself; programmed by circumstance (I’m a human male, after all) my tastes were always rather eclectic (and academic these days—regardless of the Women’s Lip movements I can still dream).


But to be beautiful beyond street appeal there has to be someone home. There has to be something behind the facade … which means a meeting of minds. No?

Minds (in as much as the wide-eyed zealotish robotic gibbering cackling PC will allow anyone these days) have to reveal themselves and be compatible to hold my attention. The wrapper may be appealing but if the candy don’t taste good: yeuch.


is she beautiful, or not? (The let-out for you is that she is a wee bit dead. But the photo was taken before she deceased, so the question is valid.)

I say a superb capture

of a beautiful woman.

As beautiful as a very ardent and (by modern standards) somewhat insane Nazi woman could be. (They had some gorgeous gals, them Nazis …)

Bitch First Class with Hons, I believe; but it’s time now for a wee bit more concentrated fully focussed intense research …





Screen Shot 2018-12-23 at 16.00.26.pngand declare some of my notions.

But first—

(a) if you know something and can prove it, then you KNOW it;


(b) if you know something but cannot prove it, then you merely believe it.


that our present ‘civilisation’ is just one of several in a sequence of rise and fall going back thousands of years. Nothing too hideous in that, huh?

Now insert the word I left out: many. As in “a sequence of rise and fall going back many thousands of years”. Ouch.


with an open mind. Possibly too open and I wasted (literally!) decades venturing up and down blind alleys. Thankfully I now have the wwweb and Mr Google to help me out.


offers facts, fictions, and traps for the wishful. So do your sums, and let no man sunder your conclusions without adequate counter-facts (or a better line).


And this is the biggie—

No man, woman, or undecided who has put in the necessary long hours (dollars, sweat, tears, effort and wild parties) to acquire a university degree is going to sit blissfully by and allow the hard-earned fruits to be ripped out of his feed-bowl without a fight.

So the (current) ‘experts’ dig in.

They have to.

active serviceThey arm and entrench, they hunker down and they fight. They fight in the open with bitter broadsides, they fight from the trenches with terrible tirades, they snipe from atop their ivory towers almost as if ‘knowledge’ itself were a reliable constant; which—

—it ain’t.

‘Knowledge’ is ever changing.

Very few ‘facts’ are eternal.

As I’ve stated before     down there

“Yesterday’s hard-and-fast fact is often tomorrow’s big giggle”.

I shan’t bother to illustrate or defend the above—you’re onboard, or not; and if not then pass along in peace, friend*.  Knowledge isn’t a religion I’m pushing and I have no desire for fame.

Or notoriety—

Far or forgot to me is near; 

Shadow and sunlight are the same; 

The vanished gods to me appear; 

And one to me are shame and fame. 


The strong gods pine for my abode, 

And pine in vain the sacred Seven; 

But thou, meek lover of the good! 

Find me, and turn thy back on heaven. 


Yeah, right.

Moving on—

“Mr Argus! Sir!”

“Yes, Little Ollivia?”

“Attention-span Limit Alert, Sir—”

Oops … more soon …

Do I look worried?

Line, black

* Or challenge …


a recent


leads to yet more cans of worms:

can o' worms.png


“I can’t get my head around it … Did God have conscious intent when He created Himself?”

quoting this old goat:        spins RH copy.GIF      CLICK HERE

—but given that the omnipotent omniscient is (by reputation) a bit clever, I’d have to bemusedly say ‘YES~!”. (No other option.)

Or perhaps, no.

As for the mechanisms involved I dare say that any good priest could cheerfully:

(a) spit you out a spontaneous reply* and

(b) slug you with several hundred “Hail Marys” for blasphemy

So if the answer is yes … then did He form the intent first; or create Himself first and then form the intent to create Himself, and do so? (He can do anything, don’t forget.)

Screen Shot 2018-10-21 at 19.40.28

Pin-head dancers squabbling over chicken v. egg …

* Drilled into him at great length in the Semenary years.

dodo   dodo.gif   dodo.gif   dodo.gif   dodo.gif   dodo.gif   dodo.gif